IpAncA Posted January 28, 2007 Posted January 28, 2007 Would you consider this selflish if a person was considering not having children other then through adoption? Even if the person was completely healthy and capable of doing it naturally but felt they could stop some things from being passed on. and/or worse, that person fearing that something could happen to them and felt the child wasn't worth it. Even if they were told it was unlikely it's still possible.
Pyro Posted January 28, 2007 Posted January 28, 2007 Would you consider this selflish if a person was considering not having children other then through adoption? Even if the person was completely healthy and capable of doing it naturally but felt they could stop some things from being passed on. and/or worse, that person fearing that something could happen to them and felt the child wasn't worth it. Even if they were told it was unlikely it's still possible. Not selfish at all to me.
Author IpAncA Posted January 28, 2007 Author Posted January 28, 2007 Thanks you guys for the replys. I appreciate it.
stillafool Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 I think it is one of the most "unselfish" things you can do. I admire people who adopt kids rather than have their own.
quankanne Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 bottom line? to me adoption is about love, plain and simple. Whether or not you have babies isn't the question, but being able to give that child love is ... I know people razz celebrities about the trend of going abroad to adopt babies instead of having their own, but I think it's sweet that they realize they have the kind of love needed to share with a child – biological or not – and act on it.
Recommended Posts