Procreation: Reasons for?

Can anyone proffer any non-selfish reasons for bringing a child into the world?

First: Its all cool if you don't want this to be a religious debate, go easy on the religious people are not independent solid thinkers. Some of the most articulate well thought and spoken people on this site are very religious in varying religions, sects, and denominations.

Second: to answer the OP. A person who isn't can feel neither pain or pleasure.

To make an argument that life is pain and it would be better not even to be brought into it presupposes the necessity of some sort of existence outside this life.

It must have a comparison of some sort.

Existence is not anyone's fault or caused by anyone. Parents in such a scenario do not cause their children to exist, they just come into existence through a functional system that is not under the control of parents, and therefore value judgments cannot be passed upon them.

If there is some existence outside of this life, however, judgment values can be assigned. Am I as a parent bringing a person into existence whose will it is not to be here? I one is then is then is again, or in other words if someone is in several states of being there is comparative value to the various states of being. If one is happy in one state then taking that entity out of that state against its will and placing it in another, is selfish.

Also, which is better? Pain or non-existence?

Existence is a fight. Would one rather climb the mountain or stay at the bottom?

Why bring a child into the world? For life, life is a beautiful gift.

Now this is just plain wrong.

Parents do not cause their children to exist?

They "just come into existence?"

It's not under the control of parents?


Hmmm. Contraceptives?

It is COMPLETELY under the control of parents, should they choose to exercise responsibility. If they choose not to, they cause their children to exist. Fact.

They "just come into existence?" :perplexed: You mean like by stork?

You aren't getting my meaning. If existence is a state that has no pre-existence and no post existence, then the act of bringing one into existence would make one God. So barring that everyone capable of bringing a child into existence is a God then there is a functional system of causal ex-nihlio existence creation of which the parents who themselves were created have no real causal control. This would leave the actual creation of existence to the laws of the universe and any specific birth control measures would be circumvented by that existence being created somewhere/somewhen anyway.

Hello gojo, as to your OP:

What you are saying is accurate to the extent of our not considering the environment of the realm we bring a "new being" into existence in. From your point of view, what ever that is, you have reason to assume as you do. I can't help but recall Quasimodo's lament to the Gargoyle statue as he is tormented over the death of his love, Esmeralda, as he proclaims his loss, "Why was I not made of stone....Like thee". (1939 film adaptation of The Hunchback of Notre Dame.)

In your vision of "non-existence" in that it must be better "than this" to me illustrates your frustration and disgust. I, too, am disgusted with the low regard many have for the lives of others, especially the plight of the child. How so very sad as they are deemed just an object to fill a need or a lump of meat that can be disposed of if we choose prior to it's first breath of air. It can be conceived "they are indeed the 'lucky ones' " as they are spared the torment of this life and the pain of that existence. In the grand scheme of things I feel some truth can be found there but at what price if we have such little regard for life itself and those who do manage to "live"; what will become of them as being nothing more than a "result" of that selfish act that brought them into this world? What a conundrum?

To be made of stone would enable us to cast aside those beautiful emotions we have as we then are not required to "feel" in order to survive, as in our desire to quantify life, it can be said, we lose all quality of it. Yes, gojo there is wisdom in the words you speak. Perhaps we are entering the gates of hell, if not already there and it is that, that will awaken us to our "selfishness ignorance".

I hope your bitterness doesn't turn on you and you find that in yourself is a glimmer of optimism that you can share with another. Believe it or not, there are those out there who have little joy in their life, but what little the do have, they are more than willing to share it with another. Never give up on tomorrow for no one knows what it will bring. It truly is a mystery.

gojo, I have no idea of what life as brought your way, but there are lessens to be learned and the first lessen is what we see in others is a reflection of what we are putting out. It's like a boomerang. When you observe someone without a smile, muster one up of your own and freely give it to them. It will amaze you what that alone will bring. Give it a shot. What have you got to lose? Oh, and by the way, take your television set and put it away until someone fixes it. It is seriously diseased. That goes for anyone reading these words. IMO.

William

you would'nt have been born somewhere else, as in the universal system of creation you don't matter. Creation will happen regardless.

The laws of the universe can scarcely be thwarted by a rubber.

Non-existence, surely? That's a no-brainer!

If you were contactable in the ether, pre-birth (I know, you can't be, but for the purposes of debate, roll with it), and it was laid out for you, "Right, you can be born, and experience constant pain, or you can stay where you are, in oblivion, and not exist", are you saying you'd choose pain? No, you wouldn't, therefore, in answer to that question, non-existence is better.

Yes! Existence IS a fight! And, frankly, sod that! Be born to spend 80 years fighting? NO NO NO!!!

The mountain analogy, by the way, presupposes existence. Staying at the bottom is an option for someone who exists. To not exist is to be unaware of the mountain.

What I'm trying to get at is that I feel that most breeders just think about what THEY want; they don't spare a thought for the person-to-be. If they did, they would take a look at the world and think, "Would I want to be born into this?"

Instead, it seems to me that babies/children have become the ultimate consumer good, the latest and greatest 'must have' accessory. With the word "selfish" in the OP, I was thinking of the continual exclamations of things like, "I want a baby", etc., etc. People are breeding for their own 'good'.

I don't believe a case can be made to prove that procreation is EVER in the interest of the unborn child.

No, but the creation of a sentient, conscious human being can. Easily. And isn't that the point of this thread?

Creation will happen, and that's fine. I argue that as conscious, thinking, rational beings, we have developed the ability to prevent it happening in the case of our (hypothetical) offspring, and, as such, should think about the ramifications for those offspring, and decide against creating them in hte first place.

I do have a partner, don't let the undertone of my posts force you into assuming that I'm some psychotic loner who's incapable of pulling women. Au contraire! I've been happily attached for several years. Indeed, it is the missus who has pushed me towards philosophy in view of my outlook on life.


Also, don't assume that I'm one of these nincompoops that believes everything they read or see on TV, I am not. No, my disgust is not derived from the news, Iraq, recession, etc. (although it is disgustworthy), it is derived instead from the more typical philosophical issue of freedom. The primary reason, among others, is that in the way in which the world is currently organised, unless you are rich, your life is not your own. Born, school, work, die. None of which is asked for or desired. Why bother?

To make an argument that life is pain and it would be better not even to be brought into it presupposes the necessity of some sort of existence outside this life. It must have a comparison of some sort.

If this life is fatalistically bad then it is predetermined to be bad, and everything about it and by extension everything in the universe necessarily must be viewed as fatalistic as well.

One action being caused by a previous by a previous to an ultimate cause. Ultimately if life is necessarily bad we necessarily have no agency, and agency of contraceptives is no exception. A person will have used it or not depending on the causation leading to the choice that isn't a choice. The science of sperm meets egg has no bearing here.

Psychotic loner? nincompoop? A bit defensive, maybe? Hmmm?