Question Given the presence of a large (and increasing) number of orphans and a human populace that is driven (evolutionarily or otherwise) to rear children is it more ethical to adopt orphans instead of giving birth and raising one's own? Indeed, given that only a certain number of people are 'fit' to raise children, is there a categorical imperative (for the ethically aware) to explore adoption before giving birth to one's own children?

Accepted:
April 1, 2009

Comments

I really like this question because I have often wondered the same thing! What follows is merely an answer-in-progress.

There are several related concerns touching this question. One is to consider resources at the macro level. According to Prof. Singer's book One World, the average American burns more than 5 tons of carbon a year while the average Japanese burns about 1.6 tons. The average Indian burns .3 tons a year. Assuming that burning carbon hurts our atmosphere, the planet, and thus all living creatures, the last thing the world needs is more Americans - be they adopted or biological children! Therefore, American movie stars who adopt African children are not doing the planet any favors, given the resources those Americanized children will likely consume as they grow up. But this resources analysis seems rather heartless, no? I think it is heartless because it prioritizes something abstract - important, but abstract - over the needs of particularly helpless children.

Another, related controversy is the reproductive technology versus adoption debate. A couple might spend thousands of dollars using technology for the woman to become impregnated with an embryo that will be the biological child of its parents. Meanwhile, there are thousands of children languishing in orphanages and foster homes, waiting to be adopted. Therefore, reproductive technology should be banned because the parents who use it are satisfying vain preferences at the expense of other children's welfare. But this analysis also seem off, no? It seems off because it unfairly puts the burden on infertile couples to save the world.

Finally, we get to the heart of the matter: is sexual reproduction wrong, for anyone in anyplace, as long as there are children in need of homes? I guess I don't want to go that far for a very practical reason: the urge to have biological children is terribly strong for many. If the evolutionary biologists are to be believed (a big ‘if,’ mind you) the urge to have children is something that morality can’t drum out of us, even if we wanted it to. However, I offer you some social conditions that would greatly ameliorate things by both making adoption a more popular option and reducing the number of displaced children:

· Eliminate adoption stigma

· Eliminate the pro-natalist messages that are so harmful to so many

· Make adoption affordable

· Give everyone of reproductive age sexual education and access to affordable and reliable birth control

· Give parents or soon-to-be parents social and material support