Adoption vs Bearing One’s Own Young

I don’t understand why everyone doesn’t adopt. It seems both a medically and ethically better choice than having a baby oneself.

I understand that women have a strong hormonal desire to pass a baby through their body. So there’s that. But I’m trying to look at it from a less partial perspective (and as a dude that lacks those hormones).

So, financially, I’m not sure which is better. It seems adopting can cost up to $30k or $40k. That’s a lot. Though I’m not sure what the various hospital bills are for bearing your own. Nor how much of various health plans cover what in both cases. Regardless, I assume the up-front cost is dwarfed by the lifetime cost of a child, so this might not be an interesting point.

But medically, obviously, it’s safer to adopt. There are substantial risks with bearing a child, both physically and emotionally. So that’s a win. You also don’t have to be carrying around a child for 9 months. Just the next 18 years. 🙂

Now the ethics of it are what interest me. I figure

  1. The world is already overpopulated. Adding +1 to the count is being part of the problem, not the solution. It further strains our collective resources.
  2. There are children currently waiting to be adopted. Presumably you believe that they would be better off in your care (else you would put your kid up for adoption as soon as it is born). So there is a chance here to improve the welfare of an existing child by a great deal.

Ethically, bearing a child is both a net harm to the world as well as deliberately ignoring an opportunity to make some kid’s life amazingly better. There’s just the small matter of hormones and the desire to perpetuate your own stellar genes.

But if you can keep your hormones in check, you can adopt an 18-year-old and you don’t have to deal with any of that pesky childrearing. Just be sure to adopt someone that wants to be a doctor or a lawyer and you’re set for life.

One thought on “Adoption vs Bearing One’s Own Young”

Comments are closed.