What's more selfish:

[Deja Q]

A couple who can breed but would rather make their own instead of adopt

or

a person or couple who won't raise children (regardless of reason) but will support taxes and other initiatives to help children?

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. why is the second one selfish?

?

[onebigbadwulf]

2. Hmm

I don't see how not having kids and still paying taxes is selfish.


Clearly having a child even though there are many who need to be adopted is utterly selfish.


It's like breeding your own pets when you know there are hundreds of animals at the shelter all alone who will be killed.

[Demobrat]

5. I'm childfree by choice and always will be

but I certainly don't think that people who have kids are selfish for doing so instead of adopting. Heck, half the time it's an accident anyway. What are they supposed to do, abort theirs and go adopt somebody else's?

[7th_Sephiroth]

3. neither

i admit children up for adoption are in a tough position but people who can breed will, as it is the survival of ones genes, those who wont raise children, its thier choice, i personally do not want children cause they destroy a teenagers life, but i'll pay to make sure orphans eat.

[Cleita]

4. I don't think either option is selfish. These are life's choices.

You can't force people to behave in the way you want them to. I think that parentless children do deserve decent homes, which means our taxes need to provide that, but you can't run around forcing people to adopt children. I don't think these people would provide the best homes for these children if they resent them.

[Alenne]

6. neither