Viewing last 25 versions of comment by Foreground_Pony on image #1662508

**Motherhood isn't restricted to having children of your own**, and in many cases, some mothers _*can't_* have their own babies.


 
Crystalis has a good point, even if only for the _*most_* part, and even if it's only from personal experience, because most people don't actually decide to have children - rather, they simply have them, whether they wanted them or not. This almost always allows the failure to account for a quality upbringing of a child, which is a very expensive and difficult thing to do, when done _*right_*. Don't get me started on when it is done wrong, which is, sadly enough, far more prevalent in the world than could be morally acceptable; but it continues, and at alarming rates, because ignorance causes suffering.


 
More than 50% of the world live in poverty and conditions in which you cannot ensure a good life for anyone. That is over 3 billion people, deficit to how many are having children, the number of which I don't know but is still hundreds of millions of people. Most people simply aren't prepared, and a human being has to pay for this. How is that right?


 
This cannot be called generosity. It's logically flawed. Read up about Kant's practical imperative.


 
I should stress, however, that many of those who identify as antinatalists do not represent what it truly means. It's an intellectual moral stance championed by the likes of David Benatar, Zapffe that states that bringing someone into existence cannot be good for them, both morally and logically. It can only cause a net deficit of bad for them.


 
Take that as you may. I take no stance on the matter but I'd much rather adopt than have my own kids. If not having kids is the most selfish thing you can do, adopting is the least.


 
Cirrus, don't attack the person, attack the argument.

*Motherhood isn't restricted to having children of your own*, and in many cases, some mothers _can't_ have their own babies.

Crystalis has a good point, even if only for the _most_ part, and even if it's only from personal experience, because most people don't actually decide to have children - rather, they simply have them, whether they wanted them or not. This almost always allows the failure to account for a quality upbringing of a child, which is a very expensive and difficult thing to do, when done _right_. Don't get me started on when it is done wrong, which is, sadly enough, far more prevalent in the world than could be morally acceptable; but it continues, and at alarming rates, because ignorance causes suffering.

More than 50% of the world live in poverty and conditions in which you cannot ensure a good life for anyone. That is over 3 billion people, deficit to how many are having children, the number of which I don't know but is still hundreds of millions of people. Most people simply aren't prepared, and a human being has to pay for this. How is that right?

This cannot be called generosity. It's logically flawed. Read up about Kant's practical imperative.

I should stress, however, that many of those who identify as antinatalists do not represent what it truly means. It's an intellectual moral stance championed by the likes of David Benatar, Zapffe that states that bringing someone into existence cannot be good for them, both morally and logically. It can only cause a net deficit of bad for them.

Take that as you may. I take no stance on the matter but I'd much rather adopt than have my own kids. If not having kids is the most selfish thing you can do, adopting is the least.

Cirus, don't attack the person, attack the argument.

*Motherhood isn't restricted to having children of your own*, and in many cases, some mothers _can't_ have their own babies.

Crystalis has a good point, even if only for the _most_ part, and even if it's only from personal experience, because most people don't actually decide to have children - rather, they simply have them, whether they wanted them or not. This almost always allows the failure to account for a quality upbringing of a child, which is a very expensive and difficult thing to do, when done _right_. Don't get me started on when it is done wrong, which is, sadly enough, far more prevalent in the world than could be morally acceptable; but it continues, and at alarming rates, because ignorance causes suffering.

More than 50% of the world live in poverty and conditions in which you cannot ensure a good life for anyone. That is over 3 billion people, deficit to how many are having children, the number of which I don't know but is still hundreds of millions of people. Most people simply aren't prepared, and a human being has to pay for this. How is that right?

This cannot be called generosity. It's logically flawed. Read up about Kant's practical imperative.

I should stress, however, that many of those who identify as antinatalists do not represent what it truly means. It's an intellectual moral stance championed by the likes of David Benatar, Zapffe that states that bringing someone into existence cannot be good for them, both morally and logically. It can only cause a net deficit of bad for them.

Take that as you may. I take no stance on the matter but I'd much rather adopt than have my own kids. If not having kids is the most selfish thing you can do, adopting is the least.