Abstract
Several philosophers have defended the view that prospective parents have a pro tanto duty to adopt rather than procreate as a means of fulfilling their interest in parenting. The most prominent argument for this view is the rescue-based argument, which derives an individual duty to adopt rather than procreate from a more general duty to rescue or assist those in need. In this paper, I critically examine this argument and explain why it fails. First, I argue we do not necessarily have a duty to rescue in cases that resemble the global orphan crisis, where one's intervention is merely sufficient to prevent serious harm to a potential victim. Second, I argue that even if we had such a duty, it would not necessarily generate a duty to adopt rather than procreate given the significant financial, emotional, and agency-related costs of adoption, particularly in current, non-ideal conditions.
