PDA

View Full Version : Is it right to bring children into this world?



abe12345
08-06-2010, 01:32 PM
Seems to me it is wrong to bring children into this world.

1.They are not given a choice about it.
2.The parents cannot guarantee that the child will not have a bad life. The child might be born with a genetic defect. There is disease. Accidents. Crimes. Homework. Wars. None of which the child consented to.

vegankitty
08-06-2010, 01:43 PM
Oh no. You do realize this thread is highly offensive to patents, right? What would you like, a world where nothing is alive? It seems like your solution to suffering is for there to be no life.

And are you really equating homework with accidents, crimes and war? You're kidding, right?

grog
08-06-2010, 01:43 PM
I like how you slipped homework into that list of issues.

quagga
08-06-2010, 01:52 PM
Abe, you may want to check out Peter Singer's blog piece in the NYT, which I posted in the Peter Singer thread.


Just thought I'd share this--I didn't see it as a 'should I have kids?' topic but more as a strictly theoretical line of thought.
...
Should this be the last generation?
by Peter Singer
NYT Blogs
June 6, 2010
LINK (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/should-this-be-the-last-generation/)

abe12345
08-06-2010, 02:28 PM
Abe, you may want to check out Peter Singer's blog piece in the NYT, which I posted in the Peter Singer thread.

Thanks. I skimmed through it. Apparently he considers these factors:

1.The amount of good the child will experience.
2. The impact on humanity.

He doesn't seem to consider the issue of consent.

Seems to me the child is basically a slave. Brought into the world without consent, and expected to behave a certain way. The child is never allowed to take away his own life. No humans are allowed this option in the US at least. He is basically not owner of himself. Often children are brought up with the view that their life is a gift and they should be indebted to their parents.

The impact on humanity is the factor which I like to discuss further. Is it justified, in a lesser of evils sense, to bring children into the world in order to save our race from destruction?

Hopefully in the near future humans will find a way to prolong life indefinitely. That according to a documentary I saw, is quite attainable. Living longer or forever will improve society tremendously and reduce the need for new life. Also, too much humans makes life worth less. There would be more competition for limited resources, and less attention given to the individual.

Regardless, I hope parents at least understand the issue discussed here and treat their children better.

abe12345
08-06-2010, 02:35 PM
Oh no. You do realize this thread is highly offensive to patents, right? What would you like, a world where nothing is alive? It seems like your solution to suffering is for there to be no life.

And are you really equating homework with accidents, crimes and war? You're kidding, right?

I'm only bringing to light some issue that are rarely discussed, and I believe are relevant to society. Personally, I do not wish to have kids for the reasons I mentioned. At the very least I hope parents or prospective parents are aware of these issues.

I'm not equating homework and the education system with accidents and wars. But it is high on the list of wrongs. Although the public education system is not legally a crime, it is very wrong.

gladcow
08-06-2010, 02:42 PM
Thanks. I skimmed through it. Apparently he considers these factors:

1.The amount of good the child will experience.
2. The impact on humanity.

He doesn't seem to consider the issue of consent.

Seems to me the child is basically a slave. Brought into the world without consent, and expected to behave a certain way. The child is never allowed to take away his own life. No humans are allowed this option in the US at least.

actually, assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, which is in the US.


He is basically not owner of himself. Often children are brought up with the view that their life is a gift and they should be indebted to their parents.

The impact on humanity is the factor which I like to discuss further. Is it justified, in a lesser of evils sense, to bring children into the world in order to save our race from destruction?

Hopefully in the near future humans will find a way to prolong life indefinitely. That according to a documentary I saw, is quite attainable. Living longer or forever will improve society tremendously and reduce the need for new life. Also, too much humans makes life worth less. There would be more competition for limited resources, and less attention given to the individual.

Regardless, I hope parents at least understand the issue discussed here and treat their children better.


I am a parent. How would you like me to treat my children better?

shananigans
08-06-2010, 02:43 PM
Can we somehow employ nanobots to guarantee this population of humans with indefinite lifespans is sterile?

abe12345
08-06-2010, 03:06 PM
actually, assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, which is in the US.

Only if you are terminally ill. Generally in the US people are not allowed to end their lives humanely, and certainly not when they are not terminally ill. Essentially this means they don't own themselves. You can for example destroy your computer and your belonging. Yet you are not allowed to destroy yourself.



I am a parent. How would you like me to treat my children better?

I want you to realize that you brought this child into the world without its consent. That the child does not owe you anything for the life you gave it. It was wrong to bring it to life. You should treat it with respect.

squirrel
08-06-2010, 03:11 PM
I'm troubled by your use of the word "it."

VegeTexan
08-06-2010, 03:13 PM
... Although the public education system is not legally a crime, it is very wrong.



hmmmm
:thinking:

gladcow
08-06-2010, 03:13 PM
I want you to realize that you brought this child into the world without its consent. That the child does not owe you anything for the life you gave it. It was wrong to bring it to life. You should treat it with respect.
Do you have reason to believe that I don't do this already? With the exemption that I was wrong to bring my children life (which, I believe, would upset them if I said or meant such a thing) I freely admit all of this to my children.

And, now, I'll be done discussing this. The right of the unborn to be born or not isn't really something I like to debate. It's just too gray.

abe12345
08-06-2010, 03:25 PM
Do you have reason to believe that I don't do this already?

Most likely you are a very good parent because you are a vegan and very ethics conscious.

vegankitty
08-06-2010, 03:59 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by people not owning themselves because they don't have the right to end their own lives. If I wanted to I could go and kill myself and yes, painlessly if I want. If I fail I will end up inns hospital but not jail. And if you sucked well there isn't anything anyone can do to you.

bekah-chan
08-06-2010, 04:04 PM
yeah, sometimes i wish my parents would have asked me if i wanted to be born. because if i would have known about homework, i woulda said no thnx guyz :no:

abe12345
08-06-2010, 04:05 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by people not owning themselves because they don't have the right to end their own lives. If I wanted to I could go and kill myself and yes, painlessly if I want. If I fail I will end up inns hospital but not jail.

Generally when you own something you have the right to destroy it. Legally you are not allowed to destroy yourself. If you fail and get caught you might end up in a mental institution.

vegankitty
08-06-2010, 05:15 PM
I think my typo is funny. If you sucked it should have been if you succeed. I spelled it with one C and it auto corrected to sucked.
Ending up in a mental institution is medical. And I glad of it. I'm glad when I tried it I ended up in a hospital. Attempting suicide is usually a sign something is very wrong.

TressaLou
08-06-2010, 10:16 PM
Abe, I'm not sure why you think it is wrong to bring children into the world. In fact, I'm not sure I understand your definition of "wrong" at all. No, children do not consent to be born because it is impossible for them to do so. However, they do have the ability to take away their own lives if they so choose, and they are hardly slaves. Yes, parents expect their kids to follow certain rules to ensure their safety and well-being as well as that of those with whom they interact. This is a far cry from slavery. Most parents do not think that their children owe them anything, and take their responsibility as parents very seriously. In fact, many moms with whom I've interacted often feel guilty because they do not perceive themselves as doing enough for their kids, when in reality they do so much for their children to make sure they are happy and healthy. You seem grossly out of touch with reality in my opinion, given that you wish to bend nature to your will and prevent humans from reproducing. I kind of feel sorry for you.

abe12345
08-07-2010, 10:35 AM
Abe, I'm not sure why you think it is wrong to bring children into the world. In fact, I'm not sure I understand your definition of "wrong" at all.

Wrong is perspective dependent. I don't view that as a definition but a fact.



No, children do not consent to be born because it is impossible for them to do so. However, they do have the ability to take away their own lives if they so choose, and they are hardly slaves.

It is against the rules to take away your own life. Seems to me if people were brought into this world without a choice, they should have a legal and humane way to end their lives.


Yes, parents expect their kids to follow certain rules to ensure their safety and well-being as well as that of those with whom they interact. This is a far cry from slavery.

It is not the same as slaves brought over from Africa. But it is a high degree of enslavement.


Most parents do not think that their children owe them anything, and take their responsibility as parents very seriously.

You have a study to back up your assertion? What is your seriously standard? Are you only talking about US parents?

Regardless, what they think and what they do are different. The parents' actions are often the kind one would exercise over someone who is indebted or enslaved. And here I'm only talking about the relatively good parents.


In fact, many moms with whom I've interacted often feel guilty because they do not perceive themselves as doing enough for their kids, when in reality they do so much for their children to make sure they are happy and healthy.

Children are brought into this world with almost no consideration about the genes they will inherit. The child could be born obese, or have some other genetic defect. Often they are born into a life of poverty, great dangers, and to very bad parents. Even in developed countries it is likely they will suffer from disease and die, often experiencing excruciating pain.


I kind of feel sorry for you.

Don't feel bad for me.

Kat
08-07-2010, 11:57 AM
So from your perspective, would you say we need to get rid of every situation that is wrong?

abe12345
08-07-2010, 12:08 PM
So from your perspective, would you say we need to get rid of every situation that is wrong?

I think it is right that no wrong exists.

Kat
08-07-2010, 12:11 PM
And since right and wrong are perspective dependent, we have to get rid of everyone's version of wrong?

abe12345
08-07-2010, 12:41 PM
And since right and wrong are perspective dependent, we have to get rid of everyone's version of wrong?

As long as your version of wrong doesn't infringe the rights of others.

Chijou_no_seiza
08-07-2010, 12:55 PM
Abe, I'm not sure why you think it is wrong to bring children into the world.

It sounds like Abe has childhood issues otherwise he wouldn't view childhood so harshly. Also, it sounds like abe has never taken a philosophy or ethics class before, which contributes to his lack of coherent argument.

TressaLou
08-07-2010, 03:23 PM
You have a study to back up your assertion?

Often they are born into a life of poverty, great dangers, and to very bad parents. Even in developed countries it is likely they will suffer from disease and die, often experiencing excruciating pain.



Do you have any studies to back up any of your assertions? I have a background in counseling and have interacted with numerous children and parents in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Most of those families care deeply about their children and would do anything for them.

If you want me to start quoting studies, I will be happy to do so. You need to do likewise, however.

LesMiserablesLove
08-07-2010, 05:54 PM
This debate seems to center on the issue of whether we should live at all, knowing that life will inevitably bring us some physical and emotional pain. Most people would agree that life is worth the pain because there is much good to be experienced in life. I don't mean to diminish the suffering of others; in fact, I wish humans could find (or acknowledge) solutions to reduce suffering. But I believe that almost everyone who continues to live does so knowing that they risk suffering from pain at any point.

nauthiz
08-07-2010, 07:24 PM
Realistically, one's chance of suffering from disease and dying is just about 100% regardless of socioeconomic background. I suspect that people who are deeply troubled by this simple truth and people who are not are unlikely to ever see eye to eye on the subject.

vegankitty
08-07-2010, 09:38 PM
I was going to point out that everyone was going to die eventually. But nauthiz beat me to it. :)

beforewisdom
08-08-2010, 12:19 AM
Seems to me it is wrong to bring children into this world.

1.They are not given a choice about it.
2.The parents cannot guarantee that the child will not have a bad life. The child might be born with a genetic defect. There is disease. Accidents. Crimes. Homework. Wars. None of which the child consented to.

I think a better reason to ask whether it is right or wrong to bring children into the world is the human overpopulation issue.

The population of the planet is 7 billion people. I can remember when it was 4 billion which was not that long ago. Projections have it going to 11 billion in a few decades.

Population is not just about space and numbers. It is about resources, pollution, quality of life and the quality of the world people live in.

In threads about population it has usually been my experience that parents automatically and sometimes unjustifiably become defensive. People who don't have children, along the same lines feel more comfortable talking about it. However, many of this second group take it as an opportunity to feel superior. Not a surprise when you are dealing with vegans and when you are dealing with people on the internet.

The bottom line is that the World Replacement rate is 2.33 children per woman. People who do not have families need to stop at giving birth to 2 children max. People who already have families need to put their defensiveness aside and teach their children about these issues.

The great irony is that people who do not want to face this issue hurt their own descendants the most, by dodging this issue. They are helping to create a further overpopulated, polluted world and then putting their own descendants into it.

abe12345
08-08-2010, 08:56 AM
I think a better reason to ask whether it is right or wrong to bring children into the world is the human overpopulation issue.

The population of the planet is 7 billion people. I can remember when it was 4 billion which was not that long ago. Projections have it going to 11 billion in a few decades.

Population is not just about space and numbers. It is about resources, pollution, quality of life and the quality of the world people live in.

In threads about population it has usually been my experience that parents automatically and sometimes unjustifiably become defensive. People who don't have children, along the same lines feel more comfortable talking about it. However, many of this second group take it as an opportunity to feel superior. Not a surprise when you are dealing with vegans and when you are dealing with people on the internet.

The bottom line is that the World Replacement rate is 2.33 children per woman. People who do not have families need to stop at giving birth to 2 children max. People who already have families need to put their defensiveness aside and teach their children about these issues.

The great irony is that people who do not want to face this issue hurt their own descendants the most, by dodging this issue. They are helping to create a further overpopulated, polluted world and then putting their own descendants into it.

Good point. Overpopulation is a major problem and I agree that it should be remedied. Like you said, resources, pollution, quality of life and the quality of the world people live in. Like any commodity, the more of, the less the value.

Ariann
08-08-2010, 12:08 PM
Do we not already have a thread on this topic?

nauthiz
08-08-2010, 03:20 PM
3 or 4 probably. But it's best to leave them in their resting places.

Emiloid
08-10-2010, 01:50 AM
abe12345, you might enjoy reading the opinions and info at www.vhemt.org. That's the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement's website. I know that extinction wasn't your point, but some of the perspectives on the site might be interesting for you.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense to argue that people shouldn't be brought into the world because they couldn't consent. It's equally impossible to give consent or to not give it at that point. However, there are other reasons to not reproduce, and I think that VHEMT lays out some pretty interesting arguments.

THE.FNG
08-10-2010, 03:05 AM
I think a better reason to ask whether it is right or wrong to bring children into the world is the human overpopulation issue.

I actually seen somewhere (I will try to find it) they were talking about how we are hardly using up livable land. Not to say we should cut down all the rain forrests for places to live but being from the mid-west I see plenty of land being wasted just sitting there waiting for cattle to eat the grass.

It's just seems overpopulated because we think of it in a sense of highly populated areas where the only way to make room is to go up.

As far as this thread is concerned, should two dogs in an alley mate and create a puppy that then will be a stray? The puppy will be scared and likely lead a bad life from there on out right? Should we defy a natural urge to reproduce?

VegeTexan
08-10-2010, 04:37 AM
The answer is no.
This from an old and wise man.
Unless you need some childrens to help run the family farm, pick the corn, slaughter the pigs, etc. Then I guess it's ok.

vegankitty
08-10-2010, 05:18 AM
I actually seen somewhere (I will try to find it) they were talking about how we are hardly using up livable land. Not to say we should cut down all the rain forrests for places to live but being from the mid-west I see plenty of land being wasted just sitting there waiting for cattle to eat the grass.

It's just seems overpopulated because we think of it in a sense of highly populated areas where the only way to make room is to go up.

I don't know if you are serious but overpopulation isn't just about living space. It's also about the natural resources needed to serve that population and pollution created by that population.

THE.FNG
08-10-2010, 05:41 AM
good point vegankitty,

I was just thinking how myself I use my bike most to get around and try to live healthy which in turn without focus is good for the environment. that being said I do like my electricity and not sure why I hadn't considered more then just space as an issue for overpopulation before opening my mouth. I mean I'm aware of it but it didn't click before I posted and didn't intend to come off so ignorant lol.

VeganFromHell
08-16-2010, 06:40 PM
Imo, no, it's not right, because it equals more humans using planets resources. More humans abusing animals. More humans to be twits. And well, even if I wanted kids, I wouldn't want to put a child into this shitty world. This world sucks enough as it is, I wouldn't wish it on anyone apart from my worst enemies tbh.

abe12345
08-17-2010, 12:36 PM
abe12345, you might enjoy reading the opinions and info at www.vhemt.org. That's the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement's website. I know that extinction wasn't your point, but some of the perspectives on the site might be interesting for you.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense to argue that people shouldn't be brought into the world because they couldn't consent. It's equally impossible to give consent or to not give it at that point. However, there are other reasons to not reproduce, and I think that VHEMT lays out some pretty interesting arguments.

For me it was a personal decision not one made as a member of the human race. I did not consider the impact it might have on the human race if everyone chooses to not have children for this reason. I thought it would be unfair to my child to give it life without consent, in a bad world, and I am still holding this belief.

Regarding the issue of consent, it is rude to bring a child into an imperfect world without giving the child a choice. Then the child is expected to conform to the wishes of the parents and the rules of society. Even if it is impossible to get the child's consent, that doesn't excuse the bad act. Although it still doesn't amount to full consent, it would be better if the child was brought into a world that allows all humans the right to end theirs lives legally and humanely (physician assisted suicide).

Chijou_no_seiza
08-20-2010, 06:30 PM
For me it was a personal decision not one made as a member of the human race. I did not consider the impact it might have on the human race if everyone chooses to not have children for this reason. I thought it would be unfair to my child to give it life without consent, in a bad world, and I am still holding this belief.

Regarding the issue of consent, it is rude to bring a child into an imperfect world without giving the child a choice. Then the child is expected to conform to the wishes of the parents and the rules of society. Even if it is impossible to get the child's consent, that doesn't excuse the bad act. Although it still doesn't amount to full consent, it would be better if the child was brought into a world that allows all humans the right to end theirs lives legally and humanely (physician assisted suicide).

The world can never be perfect.

gladcow
08-20-2010, 06:49 PM
and the child can never have a choice of existing prior to existing

Provoked
08-21-2010, 12:50 AM
I think the problem isn't so much with having too many humans on the planet so much as how we expect to support life on it. I think the Earth would be plenty big enough for our population and much more if we didn't insist on a meat based diet. For example there are more pigs in North Carolina than there are people. This just isn't sustainable. We will overburden the Earth's carrying capacity if we continue to use water, land and crop resources on "food" animals.

IF we converted to a plant based diet... And IF we had systems in place that insured only financially and emotionally responsible people had children I don't think "overpopulation" would be an issue at all.

Life is beautiful... Babies and new beings are the hope of the future. Yes, some things are pretty rotten now, but it doesn't necessarily mean they will stay this way. If we educate... And teach the values of simplicity and moderation when it entails using parts of the planet, hopefully people will be content with smaller (carefully planned) families. Unlike the couple (http://www.duggarfamily.com/) that want to have 1 more child after #19. :brood:

But then humans are considered "commodities" by governments. The population, even if burdensome on resources is also an asset to future "productivity". That's why even China that once restricted families to one child are now encouraging "more" children. For governments and economies it represents growth and profit. Every nation depends on future consumers and (drone) workers in order to grow. Unfortunately, the planet and the stuff we take from it is finite. Unless we get control over this "mass" production/ consumption mentality - We need not ask whether it's right to have children or not - Those decisions will be out of everyone's hands. "Poof" no more... Just like bacteria on a petri dish we will eat ourselves out of existence.

Because it is impossible to ask a child if he/she wishes to be born I think there is no "moral wrong" in not doing so... But I do agree with you abe12345 that if someone wishes to end their life after reaching an age of maturity to make that decision it should be "legal" to do so. As it stands suicide is still against the law in some US states and is "illegal" in most countries... This reflects the idea that your body is not yours but is owned by the state. All citizens are "property" and represents GNP... just like cattle. :(

Miso Vegan
08-21-2010, 01:47 AM
I think the urge to procreate - the drive to produce offspring - by every species on earth, makes the question moot. The only reason we can have this conversation is because humans have learned to have some control over reproduction. But given how strong the drive is - given how often our attempts to control and limit procreation completely fail - I think it's inane to make this about human morality (right vs wrong; choice or no choice). The urge to fuck and make babies is beyond humankind.

nauthiz
08-21-2010, 08:29 AM
I disagree. There are all sorts of ways humans can choose to go against their instincts for the sake of a moral position, and were made capable of doing so because of technological developments. This very web forum is devoted to a shining example of it.

Miso Vegan
08-21-2010, 10:26 AM
I'm not saying we can't go against instincts. I'm saying that it seems to me that it's a drive so crucial that it's akin to breathing - it's almost more than an instinct - and as such, is on a different plane.
I'm also not saying we shouldn't try to slow/stop the population growth, or that humans haven't done an incredible amount of damage by giving in to our urges.
I am suggesting that Life's desire to continue in the form of new generations is what makes procreating more than an instinct, and makes the question of giving a choice to a child never born moot because from my perspective, new life always wants to be born.

abe12345
08-21-2010, 11:49 AM
The world can never be perfect.

I'm not sure if that is true. What do you offer to support your conclusion?

abe12345
08-21-2010, 12:49 PM
and the child can never have a choice of existing prior to existing

True. But technically it's wrong to bring a child into an imperfect world. Only if the world is perfect can a child be brought into it ethically, because in a perfect world the child could never complain because the basis of all complaint is the occurrence of a wrong. In other words, the child could never formulate a complaint because there is no wrong. In this case the issue of consent becomes moot.


Because it is impossible to ask a child if he/she wishes to be born I think there is no "moral wrong" in not doing so...

The moral wrong is when you bring a child into a bad world.


But I do agree with you abe12345 that if someone wishes to end their life after reaching an age of maturity to make that decision it should be "legal" to do so.

It should be legal to do so even before the age of maturity.


I think the urge to procreate - the drive to produce offspring - by every species on earth, makes the question moot. The only reason we can have this conversation is because humans have learned to have some control over reproduction. But given how strong the drive is - given how often our attempts to control and limit procreation completely fail - I think it's inane to make this about human morality (right vs wrong; choice or no choice). The urge to fuck and make babies is beyond humankind.

Morality should be considered in all choices. A choice is ultimately about what is right or better. How can right or better not include the impact it will have on conscious things? Because the urge to fuck and make babies is beyond humankind? That is predatory talk. An addict has a strong urge for drugs. Does that make it right to do drugs? A serial killer might have an equally strong urge to cause suffering? Does that make it right to cause suffering? Should morality be removed from such choices because of a strong urge? The drug addict and serial killer might argue so in order to get their satisfaction. So might the mother who is in denial.

Miso Vegan
08-21-2010, 01:33 PM
WTF is "predatory talk?"
Drug addictions, serial killers, and other psychoses are not anything close to what I'm suggesting.

VeganFromHell
08-21-2010, 01:40 PM
I think the urge to procreate - the drive to produce offspring - by every species on earth, makes the question moot. The only reason we can have this conversation is because humans have learned to have some control over reproduction. But given how strong the drive is - given how often our attempts to control and limit procreation completely fail - I think it's inane to make this about human morality (right vs wrong; choice or no choice). The urge to fuck and make babies is beyond humankind.

Some species induce abortions or eat/kill their babies if the situation isn't suitable for raising young.

We're not the only ones who can control our reproduction.

abe12345
08-21-2010, 02:16 PM
WTF is "predatory talk?"
Drug addictions, serial killers, and other psychoses are not anything close to what I'm suggesting.

Although their actions are different, the reasoning they might offer to justify their actions or remove morality from their decision making process is the same as yours: a strong urge.

abe12345
08-21-2010, 02:45 PM
I want to make it clear that I'm not saying people who had children should feel bad or be punished. Or that they should let their kids disrespect them. The choice these parents had was as meaningful as being offered a choice between door A and B without a proper understanding about what lies behind each door. In other words, they didn't have informed choice. The parents were victims too. Make the best of the situation.

Miso Vegan
08-21-2010, 03:53 PM
:laugh: Now you're saying we're poor misinformed parents who couldn't possibly have understood what we were choosing! Pity the parents, for they know not what they have done. :laugh:

Miso Vegan
08-21-2010, 03:54 PM
Some species induce abortions or eat/kill their babies if the situation isn't suitable for raising young.

We're not the only ones who can control our reproduction.

Yes, but other species don't hand-wring over the morality of it, like we're doing in this thread. You're kinda making my point for me: it's not really about the morality of bringing a new life into existence.

nauthiz
08-21-2010, 04:06 PM
I'm not saying we can't go against instincts. I'm saying that it seems to me that it's a drive so crucial that it's akin to breathing - it's almost more than an instinct - and as such, is on a different plane.
I'm also not saying we shouldn't try to slow/stop the population growth, or that humans haven't done an incredible amount of damage by giving in to our urges.
I am suggesting that Life's desire to continue in the form of new generations is what makes procreating more than an instinct, and makes the question of giving a choice to a child never born moot because from my perspective, new life always wants to be born.

Sure. All I'm saying is, just because we really really really want to do something doesn't mean that it's inane to consider the subject from an ethical perspective.

epski
08-21-2010, 04:26 PM
This thread boggles the mind. It's wrong to bring children into the world because they can't consent to said act?

Look, I went through some angsty adolescent years, too. I resented my parents for bringing me into the world (and I resented the world for being the way it is), but I got over it. Do I blame them now for bringing me into the world? Do I feel wronged by them? Do I feel like a freaking slave? No. Does that make me an unknowing victim? Hell, no. If I wasn't here, I wouldn't be part of the animal rights movement, and I wouldn't have experienced all the life that I have from my own little POV in the universe.

Speaking of the universe, this is all rather meaningless in the scheme of universal objectivity. We're all part of the same ever-expanding cosmos, made of the same stuff. We live, we die, but the universe doesn't care. All the more reason why I can't see anything morally wrong with bringing another human life into the world, at least in the sense that it's a wrong to spawn that new human. The universe doesn't care. The unborn child doesn't care. And, frankly, the number of humans who grow up into adults still feeling wronged by their parents for being brought into the world is likely very small and, I'd suspect, they are not all that well-adjusted (not that being well-adjusted is any sure sign of sanity in an insane world).

Anyway, saying that bringing children into the world is wrong because the child could not consent to being born is an absurdity on the face of it. The most I think we can chalk this up to is sour grapes.

abe12345
08-21-2010, 06:45 PM
This thread boggles the mind. It's wrong to bring children into the world because they can't consent to said act?

Legally and culturally certain actions are excused if they were consented. If you consent to give me all your money and make me your leader it would be legal. But if I take your money by force and make you my subject it would be illegal. But ultimately it should be about what is right. Consent shouldn't be the deciding factor because even if someone gives you consent to do something wrong to them you shouldn't do it. So let's look at this issue through what is right.


Look, I went through some angsty adolescent years, too. I resented my parents for bringing me into the world (and I resented the world for being the way it is), but I got over it. Do I blame them now for bringing me into the world? Do I feel wronged by them? Do I feel like a freaking slave? No. Does that make me an unknowing victim? Hell, no. If I wasn't here, I wouldn't be part of the animal rights movement, and I wouldn't have experienced all the life that I have from my own little POV in the universe.

You seem to have lower standards about what is right.


Speaking of the universe, this is all rather meaningless in the scheme of universal objectivity. We're all part of the same ever-expanding cosmos, made of the same stuff. We live, we die, but the universe doesn't care. All the more reason why I can't see anything morally wrong with bringing another human life into the world, at least in the sense that it's a wrong to spawn that new human. The universe doesn't care.

How is "the universe doesn't care" all the more reason why you can't see anything morally wrong with it? So as long as the universe let's you do something it is OK to do?


The unborn child doesn't care. And, frankly, the number of humans who grow up into adults still feeling wronged by their parents for being brought into the world is likely very small and, I'd suspect, they are not all that well-adjusted (not that being well-adjusted is any sure sign of sanity in an insane world).

Anyway, saying that bringing children into the world is wrong because the child could not consent to being born is an absurdity on the face of it. The most I think we can chalk this up to is sour grapes.

I simply think it is wrong to bring a child into the world where it will suffer from disease, might have bad genes, might suffer from accidents, wars, and all the other things that make this world bad. Eventually it will die from something unless they find a cure to aging. What gives you the right to do this to someone else? The universe? Nobody has a right to do wrong.

vegankitty
08-21-2010, 07:26 PM
The fact you refer to a child as "it" speaks volumes.

nauthiz
08-21-2010, 08:13 PM
I'm not sure I see how this line of reasoning can avoid the terminal conclusion that the most compassionate thing a person could do is to bring about a global cataclysm that sterilizes the planet. After all, while you'd cause some harm in the short term, the ultimate end would be very good in that it would prevent the suffering of the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. of all those beings. In the long view, the total reduction in suffering would be infinite.

Kat
08-21-2010, 08:21 PM
I think someone had that idea in another thread :silly:

abe12345
08-21-2010, 09:34 PM
I'm not sure I see how this line of reasoning can avoid the terminal conclusion that the most compassionate thing a person could do is to bring about a global cataclysm that sterilizes the planet. After all, while you'd cause some harm in the short term, the ultimate end would be very good in that it would prevent the suffering of the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. of all those beings. In the long view, the total reduction in suffering would be infinite.

It would be an extreme move and so would require lots of research, debate, and thought. If it was up to me I would certainly devote resources to consider the options. But off the top of my head I would say we need to at the very least legalize suicide.

In the not too distant future we may see a cure to aging. If people live forever there would be less need for humanity to reproduce in order to survive. Children might become less valuable in such a world because they have to be taught from scratch, and so reproduction might decrease. A person who is hundreds of years old but still has a sharp mind and body would be immensely more valuable to society than a child I would imagine, unless there is something valuable about a child that is not replicated with the cure to aging. After all, children have a unique insight because they are recently born. But either way, for me it is a personal decision, not one made as a member of the human race. I'm not sure what is so special about the survival of the human race. Only issue I can see with the human race going extinct might be that we lose whatever control we currently have and might have to relive this mess again from scratch. Perhaps by surviving long enough we will take full control of the situation.

epski
08-21-2010, 10:49 PM
This thread boggles the mind. It's wrong to bring children into the world because they can't consent to said act?
Legally and culturally certain actions are excused if they were consented. If you consent to give me all your money and make me your leader it would be legal. But if I take your money by force and make you my subject it would be illegal. But ultimately it should be about what is right. Consent shouldn't be the deciding factor because even if someone gives you consent to do something wrong to them you shouldn't do it. So let's look at this issue through what is right.
I don't need you, of all people, attempting to explain what consent is all about, or what is right. You don't seem to be making it clear what is wrong or right, actually. First bringing children into the world is wrong because it's non-consensual, but now it's not about consent. Bringing children into the world is wrong because it's not right? That's useful. :laugh:



Look, I went through some angsty adolescent years, too. I resented my parents for bringing me into the world (and I resented the world for being the way it is), but I got over it. Do I blame them now for bringing me into the world? Do I feel wronged by them? Do I feel like a freaking slave? No. Does that make me an unknowing victim? Hell, no. If I wasn't here, I wouldn't be part of the animal rights movement, and I wouldn't have experienced all the life that I have from my own little POV in the universe.
You seem to have lower standards about what is right.
You seem very judgmental and you seem unable to distinguish between your opinion and genuine matters of right and wrong. I could go further into what you seem like, but I'll refrain from insulting you in kind.



Speaking of the universe, this is all rather meaningless in the scheme of universal objectivity. We're all part of the same ever-expanding cosmos, made of the same stuff. We live, we die, but the universe doesn't care. All the more reason why I can't see anything morally wrong with bringing another human life into the world, at least in the sense that it's a wrong to spawn that new human. The universe doesn't care.
How is "the universe doesn't care" all the more reason why you can't see anything morally wrong with it? So as long as the universe let's you do something it is OK to do?
For the first question, my response is simply that the life of one more being is, from an extremely dispassionate perspective, meaningless in the overall scheme of the universe. From that particular being's point of view, nothing is more important than that being's life, from thence we derive our view of morality. That being, who is basically conscious of existing, has an interest in continuing to exist. Sentience is simply a means to the end of staying alive. Before existing, the being has *no* interests. Once brought into being, that being's most fundamental interest is continuing to live. No wrong is done by bringing something from "nothing", at least not to that being.



The unborn child doesn't care. And, frankly, the number of humans who grow up into adults still feeling wronged by their parents for being brought into the world is likely very small and, I'd suspect, they are not all that well-adjusted (not that being well-adjusted is any sure sign of sanity in an insane world).

Anyway, saying that bringing children into the world is wrong because the child could not consent to being born is an absurdity on the face of it. The most I think we can chalk this up to is sour grapes.I simply think it is wrong to bring a child into the world where it will suffer from disease, might have bad genes, might suffer from accidents, wars, and all the other things that make this world bad. Eventually it will die from something unless they find a cure to aging. What gives you the right to do this to someone else? The universe? Nobody has a right to do wrong.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion here, but that is all that is. Don't misunderstand that. You have not developed a case at all. Not that I've seen.

You are assuming from the outset at least 2 things: 1) The world is bad qua bad, and 2) that exposing a being to the potential negative aspects of being alive is a wrong. I do not see a case made for either of those.

Yes, certainly, instances may (will) occur in the course of a being's life that cause that being's life to fare worse (and circumstances may well cause that being's life to fare better), but calling the world "bad" is ridiculous. Yes, shit happens, but judging it as "bad" is your judgment. It is not objective in the least. Accidents, disease, unhelpfully mutated genes (volcanoes, hurricanes, etc.)... those are just things that happen. They are not bad in and of themselves, they just are. They have no agency. (We can agree that war is bad, because to undertake it moral agents choose to cause verifiable harm to others, but using the fact that war exists is not an indictment of parents for bringing children into existence; it's an indictment of war and the powers that bring bring it about.)

You're basically saying that being alive is bad, which is merely your opinion (this all sentient life on earth ferocious remonstrates every day). Please stop pretending as if your opinion is a fact. If you can build an ethical case--a valid moral claim--that it is a wrong to humans to give birth to them, go ahead. However, as you can see you're not getting much support from actual humans in this thread. But, that's right: We're all ignorant victims. :rolleyes:

Why don't you just admit that you are bitter and pessimistic for whatever reasons (and I'm really sorry that you hate your life so much that you think it would have been better had your parents never given birth to you; I really am), and that this has shaped a view of childbirth that makes you feel morally superior, but which ultimately is entirely subjective?

JasperKat
08-22-2010, 06:27 AM
Oy. I can not believe that I'm sticking my toe in the muddy waters of this thread, but it's early and I'm slap happy (and bored at work) so I'll ask: how can suicide be illegal? I know assisting isn't legal, but how can killing yourself be illegal? What's the consequence?

-JK

abe12345
08-22-2010, 06:43 AM
I could go further into what you seem like, but I'll refrain from insulting you in kind.

It's not insulting to tell the truth.


From that particular being's point of view, nothing is more important than that being's life, from thence we derive our view of morality. That being, who is basically conscious of existing, has an interest in continuing to exist. Sentience is simply a means to the end of staying alive. Before existing, the being has *no* interests. Once brought into being, that being's most fundamental interest is continuing to live.

I'm not sure that's true. What about quality of life. If you are under immense pain or torture would you care about your life as much? Or would quality of life take precedent? Seems to me quality of life can be more important than life. You say nothing is more important to a being that its life, yet you would choose to bring that being into a world where it will likely suffer and die?


No wrong is done by bringing something from "nothing", at least not to that being.

The wrong is subjecting that being to a bad life. Seems like your standards of what is wrong is quite low.


You are assuming from the outset at least 2 things: 1) The world is bad qua bad,

No. The world is not bad by virtue of being. In other world, existence is not bad because it is existence. The world is bad because it is bad. Is meaning present tense.


and 2) that exposing a being to the potential negative aspects of being alive is a wrong. I do not see a case made for either of those.

Potential for bad is bad. Don't people try to reduce as much potential for bad? Isn't that why there are safety mechanisms to reduce the chances of bad occurring? But there are not only potential negative aspects. There are negative aspects: Death, disease, suffering.


Yes, certainly, instances may (will) occur in the course of a being's life that cause that being's life to fare worse (and circumstances may well cause that being's life to fare better), but calling the world "bad" is ridiculous.

So you are saying the world isn't bad? Or are you assuming I mean the world is bad qua bad? Bad by virtue of being?


Yes, shit happens, but judging it as "bad" is your judgment. It is not objective in the least. Accidents, disease, unhelpfully mutated genes (volcanoes, hurricanes, etc.)... those are just things that happen. They are not bad in and of themselves, they just are.

If they are the source of suffering then they are bad. But if accidents, disease, unhelpfully mutated genes, volcanoes, hurricanes, shit as you say, etc. can happen without causing unhappiness then sure, they are not bad.


They have no agency. (We can agree that war is bad, because to undertake it moral agents choose to cause verifiable harm to others, but using the fact that war exists is not an indictment of parents for bringing children into existence; it's an indictment of war and the powers that bring bring it about.)

Seems like you are assuming that bad requires bad intent. Seems to me bad is an experience. A feeling. Intent is irrelevant. The world is bad because it feels bad.


You're basically saying that being alive is bad, which is merely your opinion (this all sentient life on earth ferocious remonstrates every day).

It is not just my feeling but the feeling of anyone who is feeling bad. And anyone who has ever felt bad can safely say that the world was bad.

abe12345
08-22-2010, 06:49 AM
Oy. I can not believe that I'm sticking my toe in the muddy waters of this thread, but it's early and I'm slap happy (and bored at work) so I'll ask: how can suicide be illegal? I know assisting isn't legal, but how can killing yourself be illegal? What's the consequence?

-JK

It is actually illegal. Sure, you could kill yourself. But the consequences to you might be that you will not do a good job of it and suffer instead of die. Or if you get caught you might be put in a mental hospital. If it were legal it could be done more humanely by a doctor.

JasperKat
08-22-2010, 07:06 AM
It is actually illegal. Sure, you could kill yourself. But the consequences to you might be that you will not do a good job of it and suffer instead of die. Or if you get caught you might be put in a mental hospital. If it were legal it could be done more humanely by a doctor.

The consequence of suffering instead of dying (if you injure instead of kill yourself) isn't something imposed by the law, though. If you attempt to kill yourself and are put into a mental hospital, that's not being punished for commiting suicide. Know what I mean?

I mean, I get it that there's a law (is there a law? I don't even know) that says suicide is illegal, but if you do it (not try to do it), what could the consequence possibly be? If it's illegal it is illegal in name only.

-JK

epski
08-22-2010, 08:24 AM
removed

vegankitty
08-22-2010, 11:31 AM
I find it odd that you both think death is a negative outcome of being born and that being legally able to kill yourself s a good thing.

Even if you have bad experiences and at the time think the world is bad that doesn't mean it is. That is your viewpoint. It is also likely to change. I have been suicidal. I have attempted suicide and ended up hospitalized. Since I have bipolar disorder it is likely I will be suicidal again. That doesn't mean I wish I had succeeded when I attempted suicide. Along with all the possibilities for suffering are possibilities for happiness.

I wonder Abe if you find life so full of suffering and the world so bad why you haven't chosen suicide. I hope you can find some joy in this world. I also hope you aren't contemplating suicide. I also really hope you stop trivializing suicide by talking about how it should be legally permissible. I find it really insensitive. Legal or not people kill themselves and harping on whether or not it is legal is completely beside the point.

What you said to epski was very rude. Your belief is not a fact. If he has managed to find peace with his childhood and is happy saying it is because his standards are lower than yours is condescending. It is not as you stated, a fact but your opinion.

abe12345
08-22-2010, 11:46 AM
The consequence of suffering instead of dying (if you injure instead of kill yourself) isn't something imposed by the law, though. If you attempt to kill yourself and are put into a mental hospital, that's not being punished for commiting suicide. Know what I mean?

I mean, I get it that there's a law (is there a law? I don't even know) that says suicide is illegal, but if you do it (not try to do it), what could the consequence possibly be? If it's illegal it is illegal in name only.

-JK

The problem is also that the current laws make it difficult to achieve a humane suicide. Even if you succeed in killing yourself you might have suffered unnecessarily. But if it was legal then a doctor could help you do it humanely. It would be like going to sleep and dying a peaceful death I imagine.

For the average person, how would they kill themselves? Shooting themselves. If they can get a gun. And even that doesn't guarantee you will be successful, and it would be scary, hurt a bit perhaps, and someone has to clean up the mess or witness the gruesome scene. Cutting your wrist. Similar. Lots of people in this case might have a change of mind after cutting their wrist and call 911 and be put in a mental hospital. Jumping off a building. Gruesome. Scary. Someone else might get hurt. Hanging. Inhumane. Taking a bunch of pills. Similar to cutting your wrist. So seems to me for the average person it would not be easy, a chance they might fail, suffer, and end up disabled, and for society there would be unnecessary consequences, like witnessing the gruesome scene or cleaning up the mess. Seems like there is no specific law in the US for attempting suicide. But one might be charged with disturbing the peace or some other law and put in a mental hospital.

http://www.gurl.com/findout/fastfacts/articles/0,,708524,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods

Miso Vegan
08-22-2010, 12:03 PM
Bad experiences are often, in hindsight, the best moments of our lives. Being fired, for example, can feel terrible at the time - unfair, painful - but it can lead to opportunities you would never have had if you'd stayed at the job.
The end of a relationship also feels awful, but prepares you for a better relationship next time.

If a person is hell-bent on suicide, do you (abe) think they care if it's "gruesome" or leaves a mess?

abe12345
08-22-2010, 12:39 PM
Even if you have bad experiences and at the time think the world is bad that doesn't mean it is. That is your viewpoint.

As I explained to epski, bad is an experience. A feeling. So how can you have had a bad experience without it not having been bad? It's impossible. Any person or animal who is feeling and experiencing the world can make a judgement about it. If they are feeling unsatisfied in any way then it would be accurate for them to say the world is bad. Is meaning is in the present tense. Doesn't mean the world will not be good in the future. Doesn't mean a world cannot exist without it being bad, or life cannot exist without it being bad. It simply means the world is currently bad because I am not feeling good.


I wonder Abe if you find life so full of suffering and the world so bad why you haven't chosen suicide. I hope you can find some joy in this world. I also hope you aren't contemplating suicide.

I certainly am not contemplating suicide. If I was going to contemplate suicide it seems like there are some serious risks to consider:

1. Failing, being disabled, getting caught and sent to a mental hospital. Makes it difficult or impossible to get certain jobs. Will taint your record.
2. Even if you succeed, what if there is life after death? Or what if you have to relive this life again from scratch? What if you have to start all over from bacteria to fish to monkey etc. all over again? What if you get enslaved more than you currently are? As long as there is something worth living for it might not be worth the risk to kill yourself.


I also really hope you stop trivializing suicide by talking about how it should be legally permissible. I find it really insensitive. Legal or not people kill themselves and harping on whether or not it is legal is completely beside the point.

Suicide is not a trivial matter. The right to suicide is about the right to own oneself. Some people don't like to be told what to do with their lives. It's their life after all, not anyone else's. Who are we to stop them? It comes down to the right to self ownership.

abe12345
08-22-2010, 01:04 PM
Bad experiences are often, in hindsight, the best moments of our lives.

A bad experience is simply bad. I do not want to bring a child into a world where it can have any bad experience.


If a person is hell-bent on suicide, do you (abe) think they care if it's "gruesome" or leaves a mess?


I guess it depends on the person. My point was that it would be better to have legal suicide because then society would not have to deal with the mess or shock from the gruesome scene, for example if a child witnessed their parents' suicide. Legalized suicide would be more orderly. They could make necessary preparations, say goodbye to their families and friends, give 2 weeks notice to their job, and make other preparations to make their departure from this world less burdensome.

Ariann
08-22-2010, 01:23 PM
Just a point of clarification - making suicide "legal" is a completely separate issue from making it legal for a medical professional to assist in someone else's suicide. It seems to me the primary reason that physician-assisted suicide is generally illegal is that there is a danger of the doctor substituting hir own judgment of when life stops being worth living over that of the patient's, murdering them instead of assisting in a request for suicide.

People already have plenty of ways to kill themselves and unfortunately, many try and "succeed." It's a testament to our innate desire to live (a desire we could perhaps attribute even to zygotes), even under miserable conditions, that the majority of people don't try. If the perception of life being bad had an actual relationship to a person's desire to stop living, we would expect to see a much higher suicide or attempted-suicide rate in the developing world and among the bottom billion. Or, more specifically, it doesn't seem like living in objectively bad conditions seems to translate into perceiving that life in itself is bad. In fact, we usually label a belief that life itself is bad as mental illness.

I happen to think that life is amazing and wonderful and full of opportunities for happiness, love, and meaning. Does that mean I should have as many kids as possible in order to expose them to all this wonderfulness?

JasperKat
08-22-2010, 03:24 PM
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Ariann.


give 2 weeks notice to their job,

This rings the troll alarm for me, and so I'm out.

-JK

nauthiz
08-22-2010, 05:20 PM
Mod note: Let's keep this at least a bit below the level of naked hostility. ok?

Furthermore, let me suggest to all parties involved that this is a touchy subject and it can be very easy to carelessly touch on things that are deeply painful to others. I implore everyone to slow down and think about that before clicking the Post button. Yes, that request very much includes the OP as well.