Asklemmy

43822 readers

1027 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

which one do you prefer? having kids or no kids? and why?? (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

149 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 months ago (2 children)

No biological kids. In my opinion, there is no reason to produce biological children when there already are millions of parentless, unloved children in foster homes.

That being said, some days I yearn to take care of a child - to know I have given an existing being the opportunity to a better life.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

A couple of years ago, in Portugal, there were more couples looking to adopt than "viable" children up for adoption. While your statement makes total sense, it may be a insensible option on your country. Make due research!

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There are options, you could foster too or adopt.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

Thanks! I never thought of that.