|
Gods and Generals (2003)
IMDB rating: 6.00
Plot: Gods and Generals follows the rise and fall of legendary war hero “Stonewall Jackson”. The prequel to the 1993 hit Gettysburg.
|
Directors: Maxwell Ronald F.
Actors: Daniels Jeff,Aldrich Mark,Lang Stephen,Allen George,Duvall Robert,Allison Keith,Applegate Royce D.,Conway Kevin,Howell C. Thomas,Letscher Matt,Butler Mac,Faison Frankie,Byrd Robert,Jeremy London,Action,Drama,History,War,
Which option do YOU believe to be the least selfish?
It doesn’t matter which faith you belong to or whether you do at all, so just your general opinions would be great. Saying that, I’ll be approaching the topic from a Christian view point.
Which is the least selfish option:
To have a child of your own
Or to adopt?
I always assumed I’d have my own kids, but recently a lot of people have been saying that we should stop because of over population, and because there are too many kids who need homes already without bringing more into the world.
From a religious perspective, my achievements in this life are insignificant, and it’s teh next life that really matters. As long as I’ve been a good person, that’s all that counts when you die. So I was thinking that perhaps adoption would be better, because you can give a child a good life and help the population problem subside by playing your part. but, saying that, God gave us reproductive organs for a reason, so we should not attempt to not get pregnant on purpose.
What’s your opinion?
What’s wrong with both?
Why not have a child naturally of your own as an expression of your love for each other and a blessing from God and then adopt a child so that both children have someone to play with and grow up with.
If you have only one natural child you are still propagating your own genes but still reducing the overall population, and by adopting a child you’re still giving love and a home and a family to someone who needs one.
Personally I think the policy have one adopt one is the best policy as it allows you to have the best of both worlds.
Paul | Feb 05, 2010
They are equally selfish. People only have children, whichever way, because they want them.
MaidinKent | Feb 05, 2010
"God gave us reproductive organs for a reason, so we should not attempt to not get pregnant on purpose."
There is no god. There is only evolution. You have a brain (I’m assuming) and your brain is supposed to be in charge of your reproductive organs.
LHOOQ | Feb 05, 2010
Good question.
I don’t think either are selfish options in nature. Then again one could say that it is selfish to have a child of your own when there are parentless children out there which need a home. You could also say that it’s selfish to adopt a child (or more specifically, a baby) because they will grow up and perhaps knowing they were adopted will negatively effect them, but either way they are still without family (in most cases.) So thinking of this i’ll go with B – adopting a child is the least selfish.
M ? | Feb 05, 2010
you are unsure of what you want, I personally think you want to have your own kids but you want some one to gratify it. but the truth is adopted children have a lot of problems so think before you do anything
Wally West | Feb 05, 2010
Neither are selfish really.
If a girlfriend of mine was pregnant (my child obviously) I would be happy and content with being a father. But if I had a choice, I would adopt.
Mr. Popingo is A-T & G-C | Feb 05, 2010
Adoption is the least selfish. It’s more altruistic than saying "This is MY kid" or "I’m having MY baby."
But I suppose one could solve the dilemma (if it exists) by adopting one and having another of one’s own.
Jesus-is-the-answer | Feb 05, 2010
Adoption is, indeed, a wonderful thing IF and only if you approach it from the ’selfish’ perspective that you want a child to love. Adopting because of some notion of saving the world or being noble and not selfish IS actually selfish because it’s about you and not about the child. A child in need wants a Mommy/Daddy, not a savior. That’s my opinion.
zero | Feb 05, 2010
It’s true that it’s getting increasingly difficult to sustain our world population, and it’s true that many children are in desperate need of a loving home… but…
I think the idea of not having children for practical or selfless reasons would have a terrible impact on the world. Our personalities and behaviors are strongly influenced by our genetics. So think about it… all the selfless and practical people in the world stop having children and instead raise the children of the stupid and selfish ones… and continue this cycle for a few generations and what do you get? You get a world full of people genetically predisposed to being worthless.
So I’d conclude ~ go for it, have your own children.
verite | Feb 05, 2010
From an Islamic perspective God is the One who Sustains for His creatures and Who blesses whom He pleases.
That being said; remember that there are couples who try for years to have children, and couples who are told they are barren yet end up with children, and couples who have many children perhaps despite all methods of contraception.
As for over population, remember that this is God’s wide earth and He created it with balance.
Adoption is encouraged in Islam, yet with limits. You cannot claim the child to be your own, but rather do it as to look after them and to protect them and their properties.
No reason why you can’t do both.
Um Huda | Feb 05, 2010
Either option can be selfish or selfless. There is not one simple answer. Here are a few illustrations:
1. A woman gets pregnant to keep a man in her life (selfish)
2. A couple gets married to try to save their marriage (selfish)
3. A couple adopts a baby because it heightens their own social status (selfish)
4. A celebrity adopts a baby because it gets them media attention (selfish)
5. A couple adopts because they feel abortion is wrong and want to act on that belief (both)
6. A couple wants a baby, so they have one (both)
7. A woman gets pregnant and keeps the baby because it’s the right thing to do (selfless)
8. A couple adopts because they want to help orphaned children (selfless)
9. A couple has a baby to addt to their family (neither)
10. A couple just happens to get pregnant (netiher)
Christina | Feb 05, 2010
People are lying to you about population.
Do some real impartial research, look to Europe, in Spain kids are being born at 1.1 times the number of women or at less than half of the replacement rate of 2.3 children per woman that it takes to maintain the population. The rest of Europe is similar, but not as bad as Spain. Imagine the social problems to come when this generation retires and there is not enough in the next to support or care for the elderly? Euthanasia anyone?
Here in the US we are right at the replacement rate and declining.
Think about that and don’t buy the over-population koolaid that the abortion activist are pushing.
As far as adoption or having your own, when you get married if you can’t have kids, go for adoption, (just my suggestion).
There is already a long list of people wanting to adopt in the US and not enough children, you might not have adoption as a choice unless you go to China or another foreign country.
With the STD rate in the us jumping, the number of Sterile women are increasing at a huge rate. With abortion as an alternative, the chances of the childless couples being able to actually adopt are going to get smaller all the time.
C | Feb 05, 2010
I personally think that when you raise a child, either of your own genes or someone else’s, you are being selfless. They become the focus of your life. I personally don’t think its wrong to try to not have children, they can be really expensive these days.
Leon J | Feb 05, 2010
I think most people do want to have their own natural children. There is nothing selfish about that. Usually it would mean you believe genetically, you will pass health and intelligence to your offspring, by the Grace of God.
To adopt a disadvantaged child is a blessed thing to do, especially if it is an older child with little hope of a family. If you are financially able, do both!
June smiles | Feb 05, 2010
I’d say adopt but do so with caution.
babies and the trade in ‘orphans’ is yet another way in which the rich exploit the poor (see Haiti recently)
going without children is also a very valid option. as long as you involve yourself in your community that is.
and this is coming from an Atheist P.O.V since you stated your bias.
good question by the way
old gods new gods all the same | Feb 05, 2010
While that’s true, from a familial and evolutionary point of view, I’d prefer not to just end my bloodline on the account of adopting a child.
However, I think that the least selfish thing to do would then be to have a child of your own AND adopt someone. But that’s someone else’s choice, not mine.
Watev | Feb 05, 2010
There are two types of good. Honest good and fake good. If you adopt someone because you WANT to then I guess its ok. But if you do it because you want to be called generous like Angelina Jolie, then I suggest dont suggest mutiny on these poor children.
I’m totally not against adoption, infact I think its a good thing for people who want children but cannot reproduce ( due to sickness), and other than that I dont think you really should adopt.
Alya | Feb 05, 2010
adoption, there are so many kids out there that need homes its ridiculous that adoption can be so difficult,
Hedwig St. George | Feb 05, 2010
If you follow the Christian tradition, you are obviously skewed toward that belief and make decisions based on that belief system. However, we have all been given , by whatever power, the gifts of choice and reason. Again, how you use these gifts depends on your belief system. Since the disaster in Haiti we have seen the generosity of people from around the world and the US in particular as to the willingness to adopt parent-less children. On the other hand we have enough children in our own country that need adoption and homes and I ask why, we as a society, have not addressed this point? Whether you support choice or are against abortion has little to do with the actual problem of helping these children, because they are still there regardless the argument. Choice and reason come into play when you decide which path you wish to choose regarding having your own child or adopting, and there is no right or wrong choice.
chefowen21 | Feb 05, 2010
I think that any deity that knows that you are trying to second guess the things to do on Earth so you can get into their better afterlife is not going to let you in there.
But any deity that judges you on how you behave, but does not clearly communicate to you their expectations is a bit of a prick anyway.
Simon T | Feb 05, 2010
To be least sefish do not be a reason for over population. But to have one or two children per married couple just maintains the population balance and at the same time fulfils natural urge of the parents. There are so many other ways to help needy and poor, including adoption of child by the couple who can not have children of their own due to medical reasons. If every body follows the norm, there will be less number of children needing help from people other than their own parents.
Mangal B | Feb 05, 2010
Selfish is a relative term, sweet Sarah. Ask yourself this, "What is the intent of the heart?" in either or both cases and that will determine whether or not they be selfish. It is not in the act itself where selfishness is derived, it is in the intent behind the act.
Do that which serves your heart in the name of Truth and Love.
Blessings
Rob P | Feb 05, 2010
