"Is it selfish for infertile couples not to adopt?"

[Lenona]

(I realize no one comes here anymore.)

I've tried a few searches.

Most people seem to say no, it's not selfish, but it's not clear if they're religious or not.

So I suppose what I'm asking is: With all the accusations of selfishness hurled at FERTILE people who refuse to reproduce, why do you pretty much never hear of anyone's accusing an infertile, childless couple of being "selfish"?

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <426598c8-00fd-4184...@googlegroups.com>,

Lenona <leno...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>(I realize no one comes here anymore.)

I still read this group. So, there are at least two of us.

Well, it's pretty obvious. If you're childless through no fault of your
own (b/c you are infertile), then you can't blamed or called "selfish".

--
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out from demanding more
flag burning laws, more abortion laws, more drug laws, more obscenity
laws, and more police authority to make warrantless arrests to remind
us that we need to "get the government off our backs".

[Lenona]

On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 5:34:02 PM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:

> >So I suppose what I'm asking is: With all the accusations of selfishness
> >hurled at FERTILE people who refuse to reproduce, why do you pretty much
> >never hear of anyone's accusing an infertile, childless couple of being
> >"selfish"?
> Well, it's pretty obvious. If you're childless through no fault of your
> own (b/c you are infertile), then you can't blamed or called "selfish".

Yes, well, as I made clear, since adoption exists, why do infertile married heterosexual couples who refuse to consider adoption NOT get called "selfish"?

After all, they have just as much carefree time as any young childfree couple.

I'd love to know just what the conservative rationale is.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <f2d75b3a-960b-4dd0...@googlegroups.com>,
Lenona <leno...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Here's an answer:

Consider categorizing the population into 3 groups:

1) "normal people". N.B. I'm using "normal" in the statistical sense,
not in any sort of value-judgement sense. "normal" people are those
who marry, have children, grandchildren, etc.

2) Couple who could have children (and thus be "normal"), but who
choose not to. I.e., childfree.

3) Couple who are unable to have children - the childless, not
childfree. (But who share, in general, the pro-natalist views of the
group 1s)

Now, what we're concerned about here is how people in group 1 view those in
the other two groups. In the case of group 2, they (group 1s) are incensed.
They realize they made a bad choice (for a whole host of reasons), and it
pisses them off that group 2s exist and that they know that they (group 1s)
screwed up and they know that they know (and so on). Therefore, group 1s
react by calling group2 all sorts of names (such as "selfish", etc).

But group 3s are different. Here, the group 1s can act superior to, and
can be pitying towards them. So, no need to call them names. And, no need
to get upset about them not adopting. I mean, yes, I get that, in theory,
they should be upset about it, but really, there's no need to as long as
they (group 1s) can feel superior to them.

Conclusion: As with most things, it's all about ego protection.

--
Adderall, pseudoephed, teleprompter

[Lenona]

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 1:09:03 PM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:

> Here's an answer:
>
> Consider categorizing the population into 3 groups:
>
> 1) "normal people". N.B. I'm using "normal" in the statistical sense,
> not in any sort of value-judgement sense. "normal" people are those
> who marry, have children, grandchildren, etc.
>
> 2) Couple who could have children (and thus be "normal"), but who
> choose not to. I.e., childfree.
>
> 3) Couple who are unable to have children - the childless, not
> childfree. (But who share, in general, the pro-natalist views of the
> group 1s)
>
> Now, what we're concerned about here is how people in group 1 view those in
> the other two groups. In the case of group 2, they (group 1s) are incensed.
> They realize they made a bad choice (for a whole host of reasons), and it
> pisses them off that group 2s exist and that they know that they (group 1s)
> screwed up and they know that they know (and so on). Therefore, group 1s
> react by calling group2 all sorts of names (such as "selfish", etc).
>
> But group 3s are different. Here, the group 1s can act superior to, and
> can be pitying towards them. So, no need to call them names. And, no need
> to get upset about them not adopting. I mean, yes, I get that, in theory,
> they should be upset about it, but really, there's no need to as long as
> they (group 1s) can feel superior to them.
>
> Conclusion: As with most things, it's all about ego protection.
>

Pretty good. I suppose that makes sense. After all, it's all too common
for people to start families "by accident." (Note: scientifically speaking,
it's NOT an accident if you didn't read and follow the contraceptive instructions
properly.) But adoption takes far more work, thought, and planning - and
after they've spent a lot of money, too many things can still go wrong and
the couple may still not have a child. So, one could easily argue that
criticizing them for not adopting would be like kicking them when they're down.

[Lenona]

Oh, and even if an infertile couple DOESN'T adopt,
any parent who is secretly jealous of the couple's freedom
quietly assumes that the couple, deep down, Isn't Happy.
Even when there's no evidence of that.

Another form of ego protection.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <088cb21b-f569-40c5...@googlegroups.com>,

Yep. In fact, convincing yourself that other people (particularly couples)
aren't happy (even though they are - by all outward appearances) is an
entirely too common form of it ("it" being ego protection).

--
In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue.
-- Barack Obama --

[Lenona]

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 2:04:12 PM UTC-4, Lenona wrote:

> Pretty good. I suppose that makes sense. After all, it's all too common
> for people to start families "by accident." (Note: scientifically speaking,
> it's NOT an accident if you didn't read and follow the contraceptive instructions
> properly.) But adoption takes far more work, thought, and planning - and
> after they've spent a lot of money, too many things can still go wrong and
> the couple may still not have a child. So, one could easily argue that
> criticizing them for not adopting would be like kicking them when they're down.

Aaand...the same is true for those infertile couples who refuse to gamble thousands of dollars at a fertility clinic.

As many have noted, "gamble" is another word for "lose." (Whether the gambling is at a fertility clinic or not.)

My point is that I don't remember ever hearing of THOSE couples accused of being selfish, either.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <1f3fe3b5-141f-4edc...@googlegroups.com>,
Lenona <leno...@yahoo.com> wrote:

One of the rules of living in our celebrity- (and money-) obsessed culture
is that you never criticize the rich or well-known. You never call them
"selfish" or any other similar word. (*)

Even though they deserve it more than anyone else.

(*) My point being that people able to waste big money on things like
infertility treatments obviously have money to burn. And thus are immune
from criticism.

Sad, but true.

--
The book "1984" used to be a cautionary tale;
Now it is a "how-to" manual.

[Allen]

I agree with Kenny. For the childless and childfree, further social responsibility is for multi millionaires only. It starts at 2 million dollars net worth and goes from 0% to 100% at that time. but weather contributing time or money, contraception and abortion remains a far more ethical, unselfish recipient than adoption or foster care. So what is selfish is failure to donate anything you own over 2 million to fund abortions and/or contraception/sterilization. Up to 2 million, we should save for our own retirement knowing we childfree/childless get no discounts, preferably by investing in companies that fund employee abortion travel.
Selfishness starts at $2 million and not before. Though infrugal lifestyles like wearing unholed clothes are selfish.
It is selfish to leave home looking or smelling obviously not homeless, though you can do so with a 1.9 million dollar portfolio. Public nose breathing is similarly selfish too.
Frugality and poverty look the same, so looking rich is more selfish than having 2 million.
It is also not selfish not to adopt if you are homeless.

[Lenona]

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:04:57 AM UTC-4, Allen wrote:

> Frugality and poverty look the same,

Um, no. People who are frugal don't want strangers to mistake them for homeless people, as a rule. So they figure out how to blend in with the well-fed middle class, at least. (Goodwill stores have far better clothes than they did half a century ago - one just has to be patient and keep searching, sometimes.)

What's more, a financial planner once said of her wealthiest clients: "You couldn't pick most of them out of a crowd."

That is, they GOT wealthy by saving as much as possible - but not to the point of looking homeless, of course. They also spent their money wisely, on necessities. Not on whims or short-term luxuries that they would forget after a week or two.

I.e., you can look rich or be rich, but seldom both.

[Lenona]

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:10:43 PM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:

> One of the rules of living in our celebrity- (and money-) obsessed culture
> is that you never criticize the rich or well-known. You never call them
> "selfish" or any other similar word. (*)
>
> Even though they deserve it more than anyone else.
>
> (*) My point being that people able to waste big money on things like
> infertility treatments obviously have money to burn. And thus are immune
> from criticism.

Maybe you spoke too soon?

"People are mad that Taylor Swift still doesn't have a child and is unmarried"

https://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/comments/163lbuq/people_are_mad_that_taylor_swift_still_doesnt/

OK, so I didn't see the word "selfish" anywhere - but I'm not about to go digging in Instagram.

Besides, from what I can tell, she (wisely) hasn't said very much about her motives, so no one can accuse her of anything - just yet.

Anyway, another not-so-original theory I have is that many people believe that whenever something is common and difficult to prevent, that makes it...God's will. (Take death in childhood, in Victorian times, which became somewhat glamorized, back then.) That goes for both pregnancy and infertility.

(Greedy relatives are especially likely to be thinking "why won't they spend more money on ME and my kids, instead? They're never going to have a baby! How selfish of them!")

So anyone who spends a lot of money and effort to THWART God's will, MUST be an awful person. As I said elsewhere, there WAS religious condemnation of umbrellas in England, about three centuries ago, believe it or not. After all, heavenly rain clearly meant that God wanted people to get wet or stay home.

Also, look up the social reactions to vaccines and lightning rods, centuries ago. Obviously, it took a lot of time, work and money to invent those.