Your objection to adoption is so far outside the left or right wing view I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around the logic behind it. If someone doesn’t want to take care of there child and another person does how is that at all cuckholding? Your going to have to break that down.
Look the numbers of a hypothetical medical problem doesn’t matter and I have no idea why your bringing in terrorism in the discussion that has no basis in this discussion. Over all the vast majority of abortions are elective which means there was no problems with the pregnancy. It’s being used as an escape of responsibility but there are plenty of fathers that would take the child or grandparents or even aunts or uncles and if all that fails adoption is another good option. The tiny sliver of abortions that happen because of a medical issues or incest or even rape arent going to be effected even in more red states. Using those excuses is a smokescreen for the more vile and vast majority of abortions.
Ever heard of
natural selection?
Well, human mating is part of it.
Two people perform coitus because they are naturally inclined to desire reproduction, not on an intellectual level, but on a more base, instinctual level, since we are not evolved enough to intrinsicly understand the need of some such behaviors, we do realize some of this stuff subconsciously, though, since research on adoptees shows that the adoptive parents actually invest less resources in them than in their natural children, and there is also the purely animal instinct to mate and feel good from sexual stimulation and fluid exchange.
When they breed successfully, they pass on their genes to the next generation.
When they adopt both their genes are lost, when the female partner cheats in some way, the male partner's genes might not get passed down.
If the male cheats he might get a 2-for-1, if the female cheats after producing at least one legitimate offspring then she gets a 2-for-1 since she mingles her genes with those of more partners.
Adoption is a no brainer from a purely evolutionary standpoint unless it is done in the shape of kin selection.
I think he is arguing around a basis for materialism. There is no god so the only purpose of life is to spread your genes. Under this logic if you can have kids of your own it makes no sense to adopt because you’d be giving resources to care for someone else’s genetic legacy instead of using those resources to further your own. It’s logical if you are an atheist Genghis Khan won at life after all.
All humans on earth can be traced to a single Genetic Eve, and the majority of western Europeans can be geneticly traced to 3-4 ancestors.
It wasn't just Genghis, although the theory that he specifically is the forefather of about 1/3 of Asia's population was kinda-sorta shot down IIRC, there was another, older ancestor that was even better at "sowing seeds".
God and Religion, in my opinion, and in the opinions of researchers, came about out of the worship of nature and shared ancestors.
I am just being super-conservative by returning to what was the basis of the Old Gods.
A natural cycle, the harshness of the seasons and the state of nature, and the importance of one's extended clan/tribe, which is kin selection.
