Well, considering I have multiple medical conditions that I was born with, you would think I would be pro choice on wheather or not kids should be brought into this world. But, I kind of agree with you. I don't think it's immoral, or selfish. I think it's more carelessness of the future parent than anything else. They're simply not thinking how hard it will be to raise a child in this violent, constantly hostile environment, especially when the child is born not like everyone else. People do not like anything that is different. They go crazy. So, at least if the child is born 'normal' they have a fighting chance. But, every abnormality that they are born with or gain throughout the years makes them weaker. This whole idea that something tragic makes you stronger is BS, at least in my opinion. It makes you more distant, closed off, etc and people confuse that with strength. That's what I think happens in actuality. But, at the end of the day kids are wonderful, both 'normal' and 'different' kids. So, when a person is really bad in my presence I think of them as kids. At one point they were good, pure, honest, raw, They weren't always like this. Something bad happened along the way, because something bad always happens. It's life. Not the kids. Not the people they grow up to be. It's life. I even think this way when I'm being bad. I was a kid once, and I was good, like any other kid. Kids are good. They show us good things. Because they are good. Anyways, I don't think we should go on a genocide and murder all kids that have some sort of illness. I don't think we should restrict pregnancy. I don't think we should castrate anyone. I think we need to educate people. Educate people about this horrible life, and how to make it a good one for everyone. We need to look at kids, to remind ourselves of our humanity. I'm so tired of people saying, "Well, that's life", at the presence of a tragic event. No, it's not. It shouldn't have to be. Everyone deserves a right to live, and live a good life.
what is immoral is to be inconsiderate of the kind of world everyone has to live in. today we live in one in which our bloated human population pushes the boundaries of available resources and nature's means of renewing those it can. only the universe might be infinite, and what is beyond the physical, but nothing physical on our planet is.
My husband was born with a major uro/genital birth defect. His twin died shortly after birth. He has endured 2 dozen related surgeries during his life. He didn't attend public school until he was 14 years old. He still has a urine collection bag attached to his abdomen that needs weekly replacement. If anybody thinks that he, his birth family, or his new family with me, has any regrets about his presence, you'd be very mistaken.
If you're already alive, of course you're gonna make the most of a permanent decision that you had no part in making. So you not regretting it is meaningless. And why do people continue to use the word "perfect?" Am I perfect?? I didn't say life isn't worth living. I said life isn't worth starting.
When nobody starts their own life what's the difference? What is the significance of this statement? What are you saying with it?
The worth of something and the morality of something are two different things. As for the morality, no is not immoral to procreate. It is instinctual. YFM touched upon this in her above post - it is immoral to raise a child to be a consumer and a destroyer of the planet. Morality only comes into play once the child is born and parents are faced with the choice of raising someone who makes the world a better place or raising a little shit.
I think because you are connecting the worthiness of living (or getting born) to the amount of suffering in the world.
If you have lots of genetic diseases in your family, and are likely to pass something on, it's probably a good idea to consider adoption, but whatever works best for the parents, I guess.
I think Meliai said it perfectly. There are people who don't impact this world at all, I'm hoping to be that, but so far I have impacted it for the worse. There are people who impact this world for the better. And then there are people who impact it for the worse. I think all kids, with those very rare occasions do want to impact this world, and want to impact this world for the better. But, everything else... life changes that. It's kind of tragic, really.
I'm saying once you're alive, your purpose is to try to enjoy it and make the most of your parents' self-absorbed decision.
Ok, if the focus lies on trying to enjoy it and make the most of the fact you're born I get it (although not that it was your initial point) but if it is on the decision of the parents and that it is self absorbed (or selfish) by default I don't see how that is more than an opinion. I only have to look at my own parents to conclude something different. I'm sure there are people getting kids mostly for selfish reasons but that depends on their motives, situation etc. As always: the broader the statement, the more exceptions there are
Humans have evolved very uniquely amongst other species of the world in a few various ways. 1 - humans are unique in their ability to sit around and contemplate morality. Of course rape is immoral. We know it is immoral because we have evolved and our brains are more complex than our primitive ancestors. 2 - humans have evolved also in the fact that both men and women can derive pleasure from sex, thus rendering rape unneccessary for procreation.
How do you know this? Rape leaves no genetic marker. How primitive are you talking about? Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or older? I wouldn't think rape would be a very successful strategy in small primitive close knit groups as the raper would be known and avoided or punished and the woman may refuse the child. This isn't to say there may not have been an alpha male who had a harem of females, but they would be willing mates as he is the alpha male. What is your source for the idea that rape was the primary means of procreation?