Is one child more worthy of love, the opportunity to learn to read, a polio vaccination, or enough to eat than another child? Those who answer “no,” should consider that when one makes the decision to conceive a child instead of adopting an already existing child, one is saying that simply by virtue of its blood relation, a yet-to-exist child who has no needs is more worthy of one’s time, love, energy and money than an existing orphan who has great need. But if all children are equally worthy of love and resources, one must give these things based on who needs them the most as opposed to any morally irrelevant characteristic such as race, sex, birthplace, or potential biological relation to oneself, and already existing orphans desperately need these things while yet-to-exist children do not need them at all. If one truly believes that all children are equally worthy of love, education and material necessities, then one must act on the duty to adopt instead of conceiving biological children.
Recommended CitationEgan '04, Katharine (2005) "Equal Worth and the Duty to Adopt," Res Publica - Journal of Undergraduate Research: Vol. 10
Available at: https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/respublica/vol10/iss1/9