3 ms·

A couple of things: 1. It's your life, live it in a way that you will be satisfied with on your death bed. I brought up this POV, because I see lots of people

A couple of things: 1. It's your life, live it in a way that you will be satisfied with on your death bed. I brought up this POV, because I see lots of people making the decision to have (or not have) children based on how it affects them. To my mind, though, the more important consideration is the fact that not having children denies life to other humans. Your own children, no less. I understand that this is a stark way to view things, by it's also, you know, the truth. And I think people should walk into major life decisions with both eyes wide open. 2. My point is not really about survival of the species. It's more about the moral issue of denying life to other humans.

pavel_lishin 10y ago
> not having children denies life to other humans. Your own children, no less. Who don't exist. You can't take rights away from those who don't exist. And it's an argument that can easily be extended forever. How many children do you have? Oh, N? Why not N+1? How dare you deny life to that child?
- toasterlovin 10y ago
  > Who don't exist. You can't take rights away from those who don't exist. See my reply to Broken_Hippo's sibling comment. > And it's an argument that can easily be extended forever. How many children do you have? Oh, N? Why not N+1? How dare you deny life to that child? Yeah, I know. Like all matters related to raising children, you simply do your best.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    > See my reply to Broken_Hippo's sibling comment. The fork one? They still don't exist. > Like all matters related to raising children, you simply do your best. That doesn't address my problem with your argument at all. Are you trying your best? Are you pregnant right now? If not, why not? If you're a male, why are you not in a polyamorous relationship? Etc., etc.
    - toasterlovin 10y ago
      > The fork one? They still don't exist. I am hardly the first person to make decisions about my actions based on the welfare of people who do not yet exist. Many reasonable people agree that we owe it to future humans (people who do not exist), to leave the Earth more or less habitable for them. > Are you trying your best? Are you pregnant right now? I am literally typing this reply while holding my 8 day old son. He is my third child. I'm sure some could quibble with the level of my effort, but we plan to have more and, well, 3 is greater than 0. By the way, this N+1 argument is not a refutation of my argument. If there are a bunch of people drowning after a boat capsizes, do you choose not to rescue any of them just because you cannot rescue all of them? No, you get in there and rescue as many as you can. Afterwards, you agonize about whether or not you could have saved more if you had done this or that differently. Eventually, you come to terms with how things worked out and your inadequacy as a human being. > If you're a male, why are you not in a polyamorous relationship? It generally takes two people to make a baby. The female's willingness to make a baby is usually inversely correlated with her belief that the male has relationships with other females. So either the guy really lucks out, or (more commonly) polygamy involves a level of coercion or deception that conflicts with basic decency.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
"not having children denies life to other humans. Your own children, no less". I fail to see how this is true in any sense without having some sort of moral fabric, religion, or something to base this off of. I can't possibly see how not having children is denying life to anyone. I can't deny life to something that doesn't exist, after all. Could you explain how you come to the conclusion that a person not having children denies life to other humans - both your own children (who don't exist!) and folks that aren't?
- toasterlovin 10y ago
  My reasoning is simple (and I am open to it being wrong): there are two possible futures. One in which you have children and one in which you don't. The future in which you have children has people in it that do not (and can not) exist in the other future. Which of these two futures happens is solely at your discretion. Thus, my thinking goes, if you choose not to have children, you are denying them the life they would otherwise have. This is not a legal argument. Unborn people do not have rights. Nor do I think choosing not to have children is equivalent to murder or anything like that. Nonetheless, this is a moral issue I think is worth considering. Furthermore, though my view may seem outlandish, I think most reasonable people engage in similar reasoning about the wellbeing of unborn people. For instance: Do you think it's important to leave the Earth a decent place for future generations of humans? If so, why? After all, those future humans don't exist yet.
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    Thanks muchly for the reply - it was exactly the sort I was looking for, thank you. Always (Usually?) fun to understand other points of view.

pavel_lishin 10y ago

> not having children denies life to other humans. Your own children, no less. Who don't exist. You can't take rights away from those who don't exist. And it's an argument that can easily be extended forever. How many children do you have? Oh, N? Why not N+1? How dare you deny life to that child?

toasterlovin 10y ago
> Who don't exist. You can't take rights away from those who don't exist. See my reply to Broken_Hippo's sibling comment. > And it's an argument that can easily be extended forever. How many children do you have? Oh, N? Why not N+1? How dare you deny life to that child? Yeah, I know. Like all matters related to raising children, you simply do your best.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  > See my reply to Broken_Hippo's sibling comment. The fork one? They still don't exist. > Like all matters related to raising children, you simply do your best. That doesn't address my problem with your argument at all. Are you trying your best? Are you pregnant right now? If not, why not? If you're a male, why are you not in a polyamorous relationship? Etc., etc.
  - toasterlovin 10y ago
    > The fork one? They still don't exist. I am hardly the first person to make decisions about my actions based on the welfare of people who do not yet exist. Many reasonable people agree that we owe it to future humans (people who do not exist), to leave the Earth more or less habitable for them. > Are you trying your best? Are you pregnant right now? I am literally typing this reply while holding my 8 day old son. He is my third child. I'm sure some could quibble with the level of my effort, but we plan to have more and, well, 3 is greater than 0. By the way, this N+1 argument is not a refutation of my argument. If there are a bunch of people drowning after a boat capsizes, do you choose not to rescue any of them just because you cannot rescue all of them? No, you get in there and rescue as many as you can. Afterwards, you agonize about whether or not you could have saved more if you had done this or that differently. Eventually, you come to terms with how things worked out and your inadequacy as a human being. > If you're a male, why are you not in a polyamorous relationship? It generally takes two people to make a baby. The female's willingness to make a baby is usually inversely correlated with her belief that the male has relationships with other females. So either the guy really lucks out, or (more commonly) polygamy involves a level of coercion or deception that conflicts with basic decency.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

"not having children denies life to other humans. Your own children, no less". I fail to see how this is true in any sense without having some sort of moral fabric, religion, or something to base this off of. I can't possibly see how not having children is denying life to anyone. I can't deny life to something that doesn't exist, after all. Could you explain how you come to the conclusion that a person not having children denies life to other humans - both your own children (who don't exist!) and folks that aren't?

toasterlovin 10y ago
My reasoning is simple (and I am open to it being wrong): there are two possible futures. One in which you have children and one in which you don't. The future in which you have children has people in it that do not (and can not) exist in the other future. Which of these two futures happens is solely at your discretion. Thus, my thinking goes, if you choose not to have children, you are denying them the life they would otherwise have. This is not a legal argument. Unborn people do not have rights. Nor do I think choosing not to have children is equivalent to murder or anything like that. Nonetheless, this is a moral issue I think is worth considering. Furthermore, though my view may seem outlandish, I think most reasonable people engage in similar reasoning about the wellbeing of unborn people. For instance: Do you think it's important to leave the Earth a decent place for future generations of humans? If so, why? After all, those future humans don't exist yet.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  Thanks muchly for the reply - it was exactly the sort I was looking for, thank you. Always (Usually?) fun to understand other points of view.