3 ms·

Okay, starting from the beginning, because we’ve gotten sidetracked here. This is your original comment: > Doesn't that mean that having children is basically

Okay, starting from the beginning, because we’ve gotten sidetracked here. This is your original comment: > Doesn't that mean that having children is basically selfish? You were not originally making the point that having your own children was selfish compared to adopting. You were stating that it was selfish, in and of itself. Basically selfish. I still maintain that it is not, and I don’t believe you have actually argued successfully that it is. The main argument you seem to be making is that, because having your own children is more selfish than adopting, that makes it selfish in a general sense, since those are the only two options. But another option when it comes to reproducing is not having any children at all. And I can’t really see how you can argue that having your own children is more selfish than not having any children at all, since having children involves giving another person the chance to be alive at great personal cost and not having children involves no personal sacrifice and no other person getting the chance to be alive. So the only viable position that remains is to say that having your own children is more selfish than adopting. If that’s your position, then we are in agreement.

sershe 6y ago
That might have been a poor choice of words. I said across 2 posts separated by the response "Couldn't one adopt and have the same experience?" ... "Doesn't that mean that having children is basically selfish?". In context, by "is basically selfish", I meant (I guess it's not 100% clear) "given adoption is possible, on top of/instead of is ...".
- toasterlovin 6y ago
  But what you’re trying to argue is that something becomes selfish as long as there is any alternative action which is less selfish. Which is a ridiculous position to hold. By that reasoning, if you wanted to donate money to support your child’s school, it would be selfish because you didn’t donate it to some random school instead. Or if you spent most of your volunteer time helping elderly members of your own faith congregation, it would be selfish because you could have been helping random elderly people.
  - sershe 6y ago
    Sure, if you donate to your church so that it could put in cushier pillows on the benches or host a seminar about the bible, instead of donating to some effective cause that say saves lives, it's selfish to a significant degree. My main point though is that pro-natalists should really stop pressing the "it's selfless"/"not having children is selfish" angle, because in the 1st world it's the opposite, and if selflessness played any part in the decision adopting would be a logical step. In your analogy, if you donate a bunch to a church led by a pastor whose brother is your boss at work, as opposed to some other church, the donation is "less selfish" than not donating, but it makes your entire motivation credibly suspect.
    - toasterlovin 6y ago
      > In your analogy, if you donate a bunch to a church led by a pastor whose brother is your boss at work, No. This is not my analogy. This is further stipulation that you've added to my analogy that changes the moral calculus completely. My analogy is just volunteering your time to help old people at your church. By your reasoning, this would be considered selfish because you are choosing to patronize members of your own church with your good works, rather than random people. > My main point though is that pro-natalists should really stop pressing the "it's selfless"/"not having children is selfish" FWIW, there are plenty of people making the argument that having children is selfish (our exchange here being a good example of such). What do you expect people to do when you call the single most important endeavor of their life, which entails massive amounts of personal sacrifice, basically selfish? And, truly, to call having children selfish shows that you have essentially no conception of what parenting entails. If you want to argue that it's irresponsible because children have an environmental impact, then I still think you're wrong, but you're not preposterously wrong. Just subtly wrong (IMO).

sershe 6y ago

That might have been a poor choice of words. I said across 2 posts separated by the response "Couldn't one adopt and have the same experience?" ... "Doesn't that mean that having children is basically selfish?". In context, by "is basically selfish", I meant (I guess it's not 100% clear) "given adoption is possible, on top of/instead of is ...".

toasterlovin 6y ago
But what you’re trying to argue is that something becomes selfish as long as there is any alternative action which is less selfish. Which is a ridiculous position to hold. By that reasoning, if you wanted to donate money to support your child’s school, it would be selfish because you didn’t donate it to some random school instead. Or if you spent most of your volunteer time helping elderly members of your own faith congregation, it would be selfish because you could have been helping random elderly people.
- sershe 6y ago
  Sure, if you donate to your church so that it could put in cushier pillows on the benches or host a seminar about the bible, instead of donating to some effective cause that say saves lives, it's selfish to a significant degree. My main point though is that pro-natalists should really stop pressing the "it's selfless"/"not having children is selfish" angle, because in the 1st world it's the opposite, and if selflessness played any part in the decision adopting would be a logical step. In your analogy, if you donate a bunch to a church led by a pastor whose brother is your boss at work, as opposed to some other church, the donation is "less selfish" than not donating, but it makes your entire motivation credibly suspect.
  - toasterlovin 6y ago
    > In your analogy, if you donate a bunch to a church led by a pastor whose brother is your boss at work, No. This is not my analogy. This is further stipulation that you've added to my analogy that changes the moral calculus completely. My analogy is just volunteering your time to help old people at your church. By your reasoning, this would be considered selfish because you are choosing to patronize members of your own church with your good works, rather than random people. > My main point though is that pro-natalists should really stop pressing the "it's selfless"/"not having children is selfish" FWIW, there are plenty of people making the argument that having children is selfish (our exchange here being a good example of such). What do you expect people to do when you call the single most important endeavor of their life, which entails massive amounts of personal sacrifice, basically selfish? And, truly, to call having children selfish shows that you have essentially no conception of what parenting entails. If you want to argue that it's irresponsible because children have an environmental impact, then I still think you're wrong, but you're not preposterously wrong. Just subtly wrong (IMO).