If you can't get pregnant through natural means you should not have biological children, amirite?

If adoption is so good, and wanting your "own" biological kids is bad, why limit this to infertile couples? Why shouldn't everyone be forced to adopt?

by Anonymous 2 days ago

I never said that only infertile couples should be able to adopt? And i never said that wanting your own biological kids is bad. Im saying that people who struggle to have their own biological kids should be open to the idea of adoption instead of going through multiple rounds of ivf or having miscarriage after miscarriage

by No_Rate 2 days ago

If you have extra information about adoption for me I'm happy to listen. I'm sure many people would agree though that the adoption process should be easier and simpler for those who want it, which is how i feel

by No_Rate 2 days ago

I think that adoption should be made cheaper and more accessible to the average couple or parent who wants it. You do bring up a good point that there may be undiagnosed issues but that's a bit of a grey area imo

by No_Rate 2 days ago

This is very insensitive toward anyone who is going through infertility. There are situations in which you can successfully have a pregnancy with IVF using the mother's egg and the father's sperm (no donors) when a pregnancy would not have resulted via sex no matter how long they tried. Having a surrogate carry the pregnancy, if the issue is the mother's inability to do so herself, is another avenue to having biological children. Do you really want to deprive couples who yearn for a biological child the ability to have one? Adoption is not the same, and you know it. Adoption should be encouraged when people don't want to add more people to this planet, or when they absolutely cannot have biological children of their own. Having children via IVF or surrogacy IS becoming parents for the sake of being parents and raising children. If you don't want people to "spread their DNA" around, then why are you okay with people having biological children if they can do so via natural means?

by Anonymous 2 days ago

"If you are naturally dying that means that you should die instead of receiving medical treatment. There are a lot of people anyways"

by beaulahgaylord 2 days ago

Definitely unpopular

by Anonymous 2 days ago

The whole adoption industry is very problematic. Agencies really prey on vulnerable women to convince them to give up their babies and often use shady tactics like moving them to Utah temporarily because unmarried father's have little to no rights there (although that has improved slightly in recent years). There is adoption from foster care, but that also has it's issues. Families who take in a child they expect to be able to adopt can become (even unconsciously, but sometimes deliberately) hostile to parents regaining custody or to extended family taking permanent guardianship. Having a child stay with family members is always better for the child when there are safe family members available. Foster parents negative feelings about the child being around family members can affect how they report on visits or the child can pick up on those feelings and it can affect how the child feels about visits. There was one high-profile situation where the family member was supposed to have visits getting to know the child but the foster family kept limiting the time she could go or changing things at the last minute. The foster parents drug the case through years of legal battles before setting up a big public display for the transfer to family, while making a big deal about how little time she had spent with them (when they are the ones who prevented them from spending time together).

by jessie32 2 days ago

Why won't everyone adopt until there are no family-less children in the world regardless of ability to naturally procreate?

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Well for starters it took 2.5 years and $60k for me to adopt. Not everyone has the time and funds.

by Superb_Hamster1274 2 days ago

People have alot of time on their hands if the can be in and out of IVF and doctor appointments. I kinda forgot how much IVF costs but it's what? A couple thousand for each round? Probably more though. If they can afford that, they can afford to save that money towards adoption.

by Elliot11 2 days ago

A couple thousand for each round? If they can afford that, they can afford to save that money towards adoption. We didnt look at IVF so I can't speak to the numbers, but by your own math adoption is 30x a round of IVF.

by Superb_Hamster1274 2 days ago

It's like $20-30k each round. Some might get a portion covered under insurance. Not sure how much adoption costs but there's pros and cons to it too.

by Ok_Armadillo4048 2 days ago

They can definitely afford adoption financially if they can afford that. Omg.

by Elliot11 2 days ago

Info: what about same sex couples?

by BeginningElevator 2 days ago

OP would likely suggest adoption given his argument for straight couples.

by Superb_Hamster1274 2 days ago

Hetro couples are more likely to waste more on IVF though.

by Elliot11 2 days ago

Adoption is NOT the solution to fertility issues. (Especially with adoption the way it is)

by Anonymous 2 days ago

I live in Australia. If I could adopt, I would. Adoption is extremely difficult to qualify for here. If you're over 40, ineligible. If you're not an established couple for over 10 years, ineligible. Rent and don't own your home, you guessed it. And if the kid has any living genetic relative anywhere on the planet then they aren't able to be adopted. A country of over 25 million people averages around 200 adoptions a year while their foster system is bursting at the seams. If ultra rich celebrities like Nicole Kidman and Hughe Jackman had to move to the USA because they couldn't qualify to adopt children in Australia then what hope do average Joes have? And it's illegal to pay a surrogate, sperm donor, or egg donor. People can donate, but it's illegal to pay for it. If you can't biologically make a baby then you can't have a baby here. Your unpopular opinion is very regionally specific mate.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Unfortunately in many countries adopting is an obstacle race with many more limits compared to in vitro fertilization and other medical helps.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

"Just adopt" lmao like it's simple

by metzole 2 days ago

This is a rough one

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Your argument kinda gets blown into a million pieces by biological reality. People like yourself who, if they want to be a parent role, have no affinity for the child being their own blood... Tend not to pass on their genes. People who want their children to be their biological children... Tend to have biological children. We're the children's children's children's X1000 children of people who reproduced. So you can feel how you do, and someone else can feel how they do, and they can have children, and you can not. And we'll see where it ends up.

by Berthagreen 2 days ago

Sounds like you could benefit from learning more about this issue. Listening more than speaking is a good place to start—I'm sure you can find endless testimonials from people who have experienced this.

by oreillylonnie 2 days ago

How does this not apply to anyone wanting their own direct offspring? Why isn't your unpopular opinion that everyone should try and adopt first if they simply want a kid.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

Because OP says "Like at that point, why not adopt?" as if that is an easy solution for everyone. Spoiler alert: It's not. For anyone involved.

by jessie32 2 days ago

"Like at that point, why not adopt?"

by Superb_Hamster1274 2 days ago

I agree with the title but not with the reasoning. I think if nature opposes a couple to have a children together, it has good reasons for that. Either at least one of the couple is not healthy enough, or the combination of their genes is somehow odd. I think in these cases, aggressive treatment should be avoided for the sake of the child.

by Anonymous 2 days ago