5 ms·

I mean that not having children is denying unborn people from the lives that they might have for no better reason that this might be easier for someone else unb

I mean that not having children is denying unborn people from the lives that they might have for no better reason that this might be easier for someone else unborn. This line of thinking leads to a suicide as a logical step which is rather bad extreme.

fulafel 6y ago
Saving potential people from being not-born leads to very bad extremes as well (maximizing reproduction). This is not a useful model of thinking.
- gostsamo 6y ago
  I agree. My point is that having children or not is the wrong argument. Decreasing population growth is much more ethically achievable by decreasing child mortality in developing countries, providing women there with the education to be self-reliant on their own, and providing them with birth control so that they can plan their parenthood.
  - fulafel 6y ago
    Rejecting the issue based on the fact that both logical extremes are failures is case of double headed reductio ad absurdum I think :)
    - gostsamo 6y ago
      The argument itself is reductionist in nature. No man, no problem. I'm not sure if you are arguing because of love for formal proofs or because you want the full treatise why it sucks, but if the latter, just say so.
      - fulafel 6y ago
        I'm not sure what "it" is any more, but I think having modest amount of children is a good idea, and people from rich countries don't get to recuse themselves - we have such big carbon footprints. And appeals on behalf of unborn people sounds suspiciously like some of the dramatic appeals to emotion favoured by christian fundamentalists in the context of birth control.
        gostsamo 6y ago
        I definitely do not ask people to have children for any reason be it moral, ethical, religious, or any other. I'm not asking them to abstain either. Vice versa, my argument is that having children is not analogous to using plastics and should not be considered in one's carbon footprint.

fulafel 6y ago

Saving potential people from being not-born leads to very bad extremes as well (maximizing reproduction). This is not a useful model of thinking.

gostsamo 6y ago
I agree. My point is that having children or not is the wrong argument. Decreasing population growth is much more ethically achievable by decreasing child mortality in developing countries, providing women there with the education to be self-reliant on their own, and providing them with birth control so that they can plan their parenthood.
- fulafel 6y ago
  Rejecting the issue based on the fact that both logical extremes are failures is case of double headed reductio ad absurdum I think :)
  - gostsamo 6y ago
    The argument itself is reductionist in nature. No man, no problem. I'm not sure if you are arguing because of love for formal proofs or because you want the full treatise why it sucks, but if the latter, just say so.
    - fulafel 6y ago
      I'm not sure what "it" is any more, but I think having modest amount of children is a good idea, and people from rich countries don't get to recuse themselves - we have such big carbon footprints. And appeals on behalf of unborn people sounds suspiciously like some of the dramatic appeals to emotion favoured by christian fundamentalists in the context of birth control.
      - gostsamo 6y ago
        I definitely do not ask people to have children for any reason be it moral, ethical, religious, or any other. I'm not asking them to abstain either. Vice versa, my argument is that having children is not analogous to using plastics and should not be considered in one's carbon footprint.