Linus

Yes, you are right: procreation does not necessarily imply a growing number of people. I knew that while writing my post. But I didn't want to go in the details of 2.xxx children per couple, where 2.xxx is the number of children that need to be born so that more than 2 survive to procreate themselves at a ration of 2.xxx kids per couple. The reason I didn't want to go into all that is because it's rather complicated, and I have no idea which number 2.xxx is. Also, you must take divorce and re-mariage, children from parents that do not form an "official" couple, etcetera etcetera into account. Way to much.

But, it is a fact that, on a worldwide scale, numbers are growing. The question is if it is morally acceptable that you and I participate in this growth.

And I do not mean that it is selfish. Of course it is selfish! But that is the way of the gene...

Linus (who doesn't have kids...yet)

chickensoupforthebowl

“It's silly to talk about whether or not people "wanted" to be born. Before someone exists, they can't "want" anything.”

-This misses the point. Obviously, you can’t ask someone what they want prior to them being born, and taking what i say so literally is rather amusing. But, the point is that you can’t know whether or not someone wants to be born, since they obviously don’t exist, so it is, or most likely is, for selfish reasons that you are bringing them into the world.

“In fact, it takes a good many years of living before a human being is even capable of forming the concept of wishing they weren't born.”

-Thanks for the child development lesson that we already knew.

“By then the person has had so much environmental influence, that it's not even comparable to asking some baseline human entity if they want to be born. It's not like there's some version of your child out there in the nothingness that you pull out and put in the world.”

-Again, misses the point.


“Sure having kids can be described as selfish. So can eating. But it's not black and white.”

-It’s rather sad when someone compares eating with having a kid. Might want to rethink the analogy.

“Having a kid because you want a living baby-doll to dress up, or to keep a boyfriend/girlfriend from leaving you is really selfish. Having a kid because you want to create a happy family is somewhat less selfish, I think.”

-There are both equally selfish. You just said it yourself “having a kid because YOU want to create”, etc.”

“And, as I've said tongue-in-cheek before, we don't doom these kids to an eternity of living in this world. None of us is stuck here. If someone wishes they were in the nothingness of non-existence, they have the means at their disposal.

-It’s much easier to say “oh, i can just kill myself”, than to actually go out and do it. Regardless, this misses the point as well. The point is whether or not it’s moral to have children, not whether or not someone should kill themselves after their parents did a moral/immoral act of bringing them into the world. If the people never had the kids for their own selfish reasons, then they (or anyone) wouldn’t have to ever have to kill themselves, since they would never have existed.

Jamie_L

ChickSoup:

I didn't realize my post was so annoying/inflamatory. I think you have misinterpretted my motivations. A few reponses:

"-This misses the point..."

I don't think it does. Obviously the child cannot be involved in the decision. That's the nature of the thing. My point is that it seems irrelevant and distracting to talk about whether or not someone wants to be born, since the desire or lack of it is a non-existent thing.

"-Thanks for the child development lesson that we already knew."

Thanks for the unnecessary snide comment.

"-Again, misses the point."

Maybe a little, but I'm really trying to show the absurdity of even including that point in the discussion.

"-It's rather sad when someone compares eating with having a kid. Might want to rethink the analogy."

Man. I must have really struck a nerve. I'm not suggesting moral equivalency for eating and having children. I'm pointing out what I think is a problem with applying a universal equivalent selfishness to all actions that provide us with some benefit. Previous arguements implied basically that any act from which you benefit is purely, 100% selfish. I'm just saying I think that oversimplifies the discussion, and I'm using an absurd exaggeration to make the point. Sheesh. Calm down.

"-There are both equally selfish. You just said it yourself; having a kid because YOU want to create"

Okay, this is something I've taken issue with in another thread. I absolutely believe there is a spectrum of selfishness. If you can't see that from my previous example, then we'll have to agree to disagree, because I don't think I can make it any more clear.

Furthermore, selfish does not necessarily mean immoral. I own and do all sorts of things just because I want to. I.E. this is selfish behavior. But my writing a story and trying to get it published because I want to see my stories in print is not an immoral act, even if it is selfish.

"-It's much easier to say 'oh, i can just kill myself,' than to actually go out and do it."

Again, an absurd exaggeration on my part made more as a joke than an actual argument.

"The point is whether or not it's moral to have children,"

Agreed. But many fatalist birth=immoral arguments do revolve around the idea of being stranded in some hell on earth. The arguement goes: 1) Life sucks. 2) Creating a child results in a new person experiencing life. 3) By 1 and 2, creating a child = forcing a sucky life on someone. This arguement seems to hinge on two things: the premise that life sucks, and the fact that the new child is stuck with their life. I believe neither is necessarily true. My life doesn't suck. Based on my knowledge of my current state of affairs, I have reason to believe I can create a life for my kids that doesn't suck. When I can no longer provide for my kids, I have reason to believe they will have some power to keep their lives from sucking in the same way I have.

In some ways it just seems odd to talk about the morality of having kids in general. Would it be more moral for no one to have kids and let the human race die off?

Jamie

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]</p>

ChurchOfBruce

We had kids--we have two--because we wanted them. Pure and simple. That's it. Now, this is an "eyes wide open" desire, we weren't deluded, we know what kids entail--but it was still just desire, albeit knowing, enlightened desire.

Selfish? Sure. Immoral? Hmmmm....think of some other reasons people have kids:

--The bible said 'be fruitful and multiply'
--I'm Mormon/Catholic/etc and the bible *and* my relgious leaders said be really fruitful and really multiply
--Everybody has kids
--My husband/wife wanted them. I really didn't, but I gave in
--Birth control? What's that? Oops!
--Birth control? What's that? Oops! Abortion? No, my religion says I can't.
--Birth control? What's that? Oops! Abortion? No, I'm fifteen, and my parents won't let me, and I live in a state where I'd need their permission
--Well, we weren't really *trying* to have a kid, but we weren't trying to *prevent* one either, whatever, you know?
--I'm lonely and needed someone to love me

Quite honestly, I think it would be a better world if people *only* had kids because they wanted them, as long as they know what they're getting into. Too many people have kids for far worse reasons. Raising kids isn't a job for the fainthearted--and it ain't a job to get yourself into unless you have your heart and soul into it.

--Frank