It is morally irresponsible to procreate in lieu of adoption.

When you say "The child abuse example in your argument is no different from seeing a child living in conditions not suited for a child's well-being", you are comparing a response (calling child services) to an antecedent (seeing a child in deplorable conditions). They can not be compared in a meaningful way. If what you mean to compare is the two proposed responses (calling child services for child abuse vs adopting a child) then they are absolutely different. What you are doing is failing to realize that there is a real difference in the cost to undertake each of these actions. Calling child services cost you 25 cents for a one minute phone call and 10 minutes of your life to look up the number and make the call. Adopting a child as a substitute for having a biological child is a life-long and irreversible commitment. You might say that a biological child is also a life-long irreversible commitment, but there are real physical and psychological differences between the two. You mention "If a child is starving in the street and a passerby had food that could be given to said child, but chose not to and allowed the child to starve, that would certainly be viewed as "wrong" by the community". I can not speak for the community in the absence of any formal data, but I can appreciate that this is probably true; however, your original argument is that we should not only feed the child in passing by but we should also take him into our home and give up our ability to procreate. Its just not the same thing. You postulate that people have "the moral responsibility to [adopt] lest they be branded a heartless villain ruled by his greed to keep his money, time, resources, etc. to himself". If you accept this is as true then you must also accept that every single person in the civilized world who has had a child, including your own parents, assuming they had the capability to adopt, has been branded as heartless villains by society. If we actually polled society with the question "Do you believe all biological parents in the civilized world are heartless villains?", do you really think the data would support this hypothesis? You say that "Even if the the majority of the world supported the idea of slavery, slavery would and should still be viewed as wrong since it violates human rights." This is a contradictory statement, as you could define "wrong" (in a moral context) as something not supported by the majority of the population. So by definition, if most people supported slavery, it would not be viewed as wrong. You might ask then why did slavery exist if we see slavery as wrong in society. The answer is that morality is a construct of man which can change over time and is only a product of learning. In pre-civil war America, slavery was abundant because it was not considered morally wrong at that time. You feel that "there is nothing stopping people from choosing more than one way." This is true. In fact, if you so choose, you could send every dime you earn to starving children and devote 100% of your time to ridding the world of famine. By anyone's standards, these actions would be considered well above and beyond any definition of moral responsibility. There must be a line somewhere between moral responsibility and altruism. You are suggesting that there is no distinguishable difference between the two. You believe "[adoption] is literally the same thing as having a biological child aside from the method of acquisition." No, it is literally not the same thing. In any measure of comparison, be it biological, psychological, sociological or any other "ogical". It would be ignorant not to acknowledge these differences. You then go on to say that "this novelty of having a small copy of oneself does not justify ignoring the needs of already-existing children." As I have already stated, the desire to procreate is far from a "novelty". Most reasonable people would consider having a genetic descendant a relevant and significant factor. I agree that certain behaviors which were evolved in a completely different world are no longer beneficial to individuals or the human race. We have to resist our biological nature using learned methods of self-control. Your hypothesis may, in the the future, become true as our moral code continues to move further away from our evolutionary origins, just as our culture continues to change; however, at this specific point in time, I do not believe adoption of starving children falls under the moral code in any nation. Your arguments support the fact that adoption over procreation is no doubt worthy of approval, however you have not supported that procreating would violate our moral code under society's current standards.