looksee wrote: » Surely the most basic 'want' is to procreate. It is the only reason for our existence. Some people do consider whether they should or should not have a child, but for many it is just something that happens. Morality doesn't come into it.
Skunkle wrote: » As conscious beings shouldn't we make decisions based on reason and not primitive wants or urges ?
I understand your point that for many it just happens and people dont really think too deeply about it as its the natural thing for every life-form to reproduce. But humans dont just reproduce, they create intelligent beings, conscious minds. To create a being that is aware of itself and surroundings to me is a monumental decision, one that should not be taken so lightly by so many people.
Thats where morality comes into it. To choose to bring a being into existence for selfish reasons or without being able to guarantee a decent standard of living for them is in my view immoral. As conscious beings we cannot use primitive urges and wants to justify immoral behaviour. To do so brings us straight back to our primitive state and makes consciousness itself redundant.
Boroimhe wrote: » The end result of this conversation (if agreed with the op) that people on low incomes shouldn't have kids is population control. The majority of people on the planet (the huge majority) are in the lower income bracket. A huge majority of them live beneath the poverty line. So to say that those who are broke shouldn't have kids is to say that only the rich should have kids and that is bias, discriminative and just plain wrong. Not to mention the fact that the "lower class" procreate at a much faster rate than the rich and truth be told if the poor could not have kids we would find it hard to populate the world which at this stage is required to sustain our development, foods, metals, manufacturing and so on all require a world wide system at this stage.
18AD wrote: » No. Sex is great. And not because it's reasonable.
It's not the urges that are the problem, it's how people act on them. If anything it's the use of reason surrounding the urges that are the problem. People use reason in achieving the most disturbing of ends.
It is a huge decision. Unfortunately some people make bad decisions. Is it not already a moral issue that if kids are in such poor conditions that they a removed from them for their own good?
Also, are you saying that these people should not have been born?
What of people who have children who wish a better future for them then they had? There are no guarantees with hope. There are no guarantess with life in general. Accidents happen etc...
I think it is somewhat nasty to bring someone into existence for completely selfish reasons but it is not immoral. To actively treat them harmfully may be immoral.
Boroimhe wrote: » You refered to it as immoral. At the end of the day noone can gaurentee a high standard of living or a good life but a lot of people can gaurantee love, safety, a nurturing environment, which is equaly important to wealth in all its forms (probably more so). I wouldn't think that a declining birth rate is in anyway good for our race, most if not all negative aspects of human existence can be explained by poor managment or thoughtless behaviour (wars, intentionall polution to cut costs, indiferent corporate greed that takes the production power away from locals, economic manipulation e.t.c.). I stand by my point of this aiming at population contro (not to say that this is your aim but rather a result of you opinion) becuase if the "unchecked" procreation of the masses began to be seen as immoral then there could (its happened and still is in some places) be some sort of push to engage laws or such to curtail the growing population. Just to add, we as "conscious beings" know and appreciate the fact that we have primal urges (its what makes us.... well us) to deny that is deny self. As someone said it is the very point of it all. On a side not you shouldn't put your opinions out there if you get insulted so easily but I do apolagise if I offended you, that was not my intent. Hugs
Skunkle wrote: » No I'm not insulted by your comments I just wished to make the point that I'm not talking about population control or low income people not having kids. Just about a persons reason to have a child.
Skunkle wrote: » I'd like to think though that its the way we control those urges that make us human. Every living creature has urges and for non conscious creatures its those urges that control them. But because human beings can control those urges we have choice, free will. We are not obliged to adhere to the set of instructions that all other life on earth operates by. We can use our free will to make decisions that go against those instructions to our benefit.
Skunkle wrote: » I would argue that the second we became aware of ourselves the reason for existing (reproducing) changed. Sure the reason we exist now is because our species needed to reproduce and further reproduction is necessary for the future of humankind. But each individual is no longer bound by nature to reproduce. It is no longer our objective in life, and I think people should realise that bringing a being into existence is a huge huge thing and not to be done lightly.
Skunkle wrote: » Of course it is reasonable. Two consenting adults having intercourse to experience the pleasure that it gives them.
Of course its an issue and those kids should be removed for their own good but it does not always bring those kids into better conditions. And even if it does allot of those kids will have emotional and sometimes psychological problems as a result of a troubled childhood.
Thats a hard question to answer. I dont really appreciate being asked it either as it implies that I would want to cease the life of a child rather than the bad decisions of their parents which led to them being born.
You cant feed a child with hope and you shouldnt gamble with a childs existence in the off chance that things work out for them.
18AD wrote: » No. This is an afterthought. People don't have sex because it's reasonable. This isn't really at issue though :rolleyes:
So there is such a small chance of improving their circumstances that it is best to have never been born at all?
What are the precise conditions that would warrant not having a child? Are we talking about poverty or just avoiding selfish motives? If it's just the selfish motives then what do you propose as a solution?
Skunkle wrote: » Once again you making absurd statements. I'm not questioning any persons right to exist. I'm questioning the reasons and motives that their parents had for conceiving them. most people are born because their parents are reckless in the act of intercourse and have no intention of conceiving a child at all. It just so happens that if those parents didnt make bad decisions that those children would not have been born. But to say that a person "Should not" have been born is an insult to their existence. I know for a fact that I the same as many many other people was an unplanned child. If my parents could have avoided my conception they would have. Doesnt mean I "shouldnt" have been born. Just means that if my parents planned better and were aware of contraception at the time I wouldnt have been born.
I'm questioning whether it is right for a person to have a child simply because they want a child.
18AD wrote: » Yes, you are. If you say that it is immoral to have a child for poor reasons you are saying that it shouldn't have happened. If you're not saying it shouldn't have happened then you're not making a moral judgement at all. If you're not saying it shouldn't happen then you're saying it should happen.
I understand that. I think it is all that is needed.
I was just wondering, that if you think it isn't all that's needed, would you suggest a way of dealing with it? Because if you think it's wrong and don't care to solve it then I think you are acting immorally.
Skunkle wrote: » So all that matters is what a person wants. Conscious beings should be brought into existence and live whatever lives they find themselves in on the whims of someone who wants a child?
I think that is an absolutely outrageous thing to say. I'm acting immorally because I dont tell other people what reason they need to have a child ? People can have different opinions on things and have different reasons for doing things. I didnt start this thread to tell anyone what they should be doing or how they should live their lives. I started it to get peoples opinions on the reasons for having a child and whether those reasons were considered or not. If your not gonna bother trying to understand what I'm talking about dont bother replying.
18AD wrote: » Yes, it is up to the parents if they want a child or not.
You're just talking about subjective morality? In which case, yes, I think it is morally wrong to have kids for bad reasons.
Skunkle wrote: » I am confused about your stance. In one statement you say nothing matters but the wants of the parents but then later in the same post you say its wrong to have a child for the wrong reasons. If you think it wrong then you have to think that the wants of the parents are not all that matter. If you think that the wants of the parents matter more than the conditions the child will be born into then you cannot possibly think it wrong in the first place.
Boroimhe wrote: » Most children are born from accident, that is to say a lack of effort not to have a child (not using protection) and most of the rest are born from a need to feel completed. That is to say that is the thing to do, there are also religious reasons to consider. We cannot say that a belief in religion is a bad thing as it can lead to people living by religious teachings and hence raise thier kids well. People are born to reproduce and we have an inbuilt need/desire to reproduce, you can't get around that by saying we should'nt allow our impulses to run our lives because they do. They always have and always will aslong as we are at our current level of development. Just to clarify whats a bad reason to have a child? Is wanting to have a child a bad reason to have one? I ask because with the amount of children born into people that didn't want them surely kids being born to wanting and loving parents is a great thing?
Skunkle wrote: » Oh I agree that thats the way things are. I'm just questioning if thats the way it should be or should we be looking at it differently as intelligent beings. By wanting to have a child I mean the notion that people have kids, its what people do, I'll have a kid. And not actually thinking about the fact that they are bringing a conscious being into the world. I'm not really concerned with the majority of people, the status quo will do as they do regardless of logic or reason. I'm just talking about whatever individual reads this. What is your view on having a child yourself. Do you see it as just reproducing ? Do you see any moral issues with having a child in unsure economic circumstances. I wasnt born into poverty but I havent had it easy and personally I dont think I can justify putting a child through the same just because I'm expected to.
Boroimhe wrote: » I've been sitting here for ages now (I mean ages) thinking about this to ensure I fully understood the question because I seemed to be a little confused and I was wondering why when it is such a simple question. The reason I think is the application of the word moral, I think it is out of place. Is it incorrect for people who are broke (to keep it short) to have kids? Yes. That is to say incorrect, they should get in a better situation and then have kids if they see fit. But I don't think I see a moral being broken or betrayed. Forgive my nit picking but it had me stumped, I think the word moral brings with it a stronger view than I could commit to if you know what I mean.
