Because it's not about "doing something useful".

And that's okay.

The adoption process is very very difficult unless your willing to pay $30k+. It's much easier to just be pregnant for 9 months. It took my parents 6 years.

Having watched a friend do it a few times, I think only someone who has never adopted would ask the question "why wouldn't you _just_ adopt?"

I am close to two sets of families who each adopted multiple kids. One family adopted 2 kids from Russia and the other adopted 2 from China. The first family also had multiple children biologically.

Honestly, the 4 adoptions seemed much easier to me than the biological process which I've also seen many times. This probably sounds terrible, but you can also return the adopted ones if there are any major problems (and I've seen that happen too.)

"Honestly, the 4 adoptions seemed much easier to me than the biological process which I've also seen many times."

I can't even begin to understand how that would be possible.

My friend who has adopted from overseas spent several years and thousands of dollars (something like $45,000 if I recall correctly) making it happen.

I had sex a couple of months ago and now I'm 8 1/2 weeks pregnant.

Let's just say I know which route I found easier.

> I think it's incredibly selfish to bring new kids into the world when there are so many that nobody wants.

Having a child is a selfish thing to do regardless. That's not really much of an accusation.

> Having a child is a selfish thing to do regardless.

Ridiculous. As stated elsewhere, having kids is giving a part of your self to create a new independent self. It will teach you the hard way compassion, love to the other, etc. It is exactly the opposite of selfishness.

How the hell can you hold such a paradoxical statement?

editadd: There is a very strong anti-child line of thought in the US, I felt it in many occasions (on Lifehacker, for instance), and I think it is very strange, and dangerous. Is it because of a fashionable thinking that humans are too many? Is it a consequence of utilitarian morals? Honest question here: I think it is a subject of tremendous importance. Hidden behind this apparently innocuous sentence and pushing its logic to its limits, one may find the death of humanism and the end of civilisation.

> How the hell can you hold such a paradoxical statement?

I think in this case, the paradox unravels if you realize that I precisely chose the words "having a child" instead of "raising a child."

The decision to mate is usually selfish, and the decision to spawn offspring is also selfish (except where it's careless). People don't have sex because it's their duty. People don't try to conceive a child because they feel responsible to anyone but themselves. They decide they want the experience of raising a child, and so they do it for themselves. The experience itself is, obviously, a mixture of selflessness and selfishness.

Also, the word "selfish" has slightly more negative connotations than I would prefer, but I can't think of any suitable words that wouldn't require a whole paragraph to qualify.