(August 5, 2015 at 4:04 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 3:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Wait, what is morally problematic? Having kids, or choosing not to abort them?

(sorry, just making sure I understand)

I meant the decision to have children.  I made no comment on the morality of abortion.

When you decide to have a child, presumably, you are hoping that the child's life will be more good than bad, right?  But, of course, you cannot know in advance that that will be the case.  Maybe it will be, maybe it won't.  The thing is, you are taking a chance not with your life, but with someone else's life (your child's life).  It might be that it works out okay, but you are gambling with someone else's future when you make your decision.  That gambling with someone else's future is morally problematic.

To make the idea more clear to you, suppose I were to do something that potentially affected your future happiness, such that you could be very happy, or very unhappy, or anything in between.  And imagine I do this without your consent.  Would you regard my action as morally okay?  

The thing is, that is EXACTLY what one is doing when one decides to have a child.  One is gambling with the future of someone else, without their consent.

Can't it be simply because people have reproductive instincts regardless of how happy they want their future children to be? Since a fetus is not a life, it's pretty much irrational to talk about this. I'll say this though - It is possible, considering where you live and your income, etc, to know if your children will have a good life or not. It's not certain, but reasonably predictable. Of course you can't know anything for sure, but you can always rely on reasonable available evidence to decide how many kids to have.

As I said before, my country has a lack of newborns since 30 years ago because back in the day people used to have about 7-15 kids per couple which created an excess of elderly people who are not a burden on the economy (it is incorrect to say this but it is the truth) because there aren't enough youngsters working. Considering this, it is actually moral to have kids and my government has been trying (poorly) to implement pro-birth policies.

(August 5, 2015 at 4:17 pm)Javaman Wrote: So, CL, you agree with your church that masturbation and IVF are immoral?

Yes.

(August 5, 2015 at 4:07 pm)robvalue Wrote: This is such an unpopular position, one people get really arsey about with me if it happens to come up in some bizarre conversation.

If people were totally comfortable with their position I don't know why they need to lash out defensively at me because of it (as some people have done before).

Weirdly enough, one of my brothers feels exactly the same way (independently so).

Don't worry, I'm not going to go around playing V-goalie! It's not my decision to make what anyone else does with regards to having kids. And as long as I don't know your address, your kids will probably be fine

I think what gets me is the implied "You're missing out/a deficient person because you don't want kids" attitude that permeates everything.  The idea that simply having a child is a net good in and of itself, which is weird.

(August 5, 2015 at 4:21 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 4:17 pm)Javaman Wrote: So, CL, you agree with your church that masturbation and IVF are immoral?

Yes.

Wait, how is IVF immoral?

(August 5, 2015 at 4:17 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: I do not see IVF as any worse than the usual method.  To me, IVF or not is irrelevant, and so my guess is that Javaman is less perturbed with me than with those who are prejudiced against that method of conception (though obviously, Javaman may speak for himself).  I do not regard Javaman's family as a lesser family from families that have produced children the usual way.  (Also, obviously, "less perturbed" does not mean "not perturbed.")

And if you are good at searching threads, you can find that some have expressed disagreement with me on my position, even if they do not bother to in this thread (though there is plenty of time for people to do that in the future, if they wish).  I recognize the fact that most people disagree with me.  If that were to influence me to change my mind, I would be committing a fallacy known as argumentum ad populum.

I do personally know someone who has a child who now regrets the decision, now thinking that the world is not a proper place to bring children into.  Of course, he does not say that to his child, as it is done and cannot be undone.  And he dearly loves his child.  Frankly, he seems to be a very good father (not that it matters for the discussion).

It appears we are on the same page.

P.S. I am not the least bit perturbed by you, even if CL thinks I should be.

(August 5, 2015 at 4:17 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 3:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: See, and that's the strange part to me. You get angry at people who think IVF is not moral, but Pyrrho (and others here) just straight up said they think having kids is immoral and that they look down on people who have kids. No outrage there?

 I do not regard Javaman's family as a lesser family from families that have produced children the usual way.  (Also, obviously, "less perturbed" does not mean "not perturbed.")

Oh, I don't either. And neither should anyone else.

(August 5, 2015 at 4:22 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 4:17 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:  I do not regard Javaman's family as a lesser family from families that have produced children the usual way.  (Also, obviously, "less perturbed" does not mean "not perturbed.")

Oh, I don't either. And neither should anyone else.

Except of course, for the Catholic Church who, as a matter of doctrine, has already decided that my family is lesser because of some nonsense about the unitive and procreative aspects of fucking.

But yeah, I should be outraged at Pyrrho.

I have a 17-year-old son. Took him out today to teach him to drive a stick-shift, and he did pretty well.

(August 5, 2015 at 3:49 pm)robvalue Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 3:35 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: My objection is to there being a "default type of thinking" on the question at all.  The simple fact is, one cannot know in advance if a child's life will be more good than bad.  What one is doing is taking a chance and, presumably, hoping for the best.  The thing is, one is taking a chance on someone else's life, not one's own.  And that is why it is morally problematic.

You're one of the few people who is on my wavelength with this! I am baffled by the fact that most people don't seem to consider it a moral issue at all. When I say most people, I'm not accusing anyone in particular on the forum.

To me it certainly is a moral issue, but of course not one I would ever meddle with regarding someone else's choice. I'd only ever voice my opinion and encourage thought and discussion.

I expect that we will always be in the minority on this.  Many people seem to have difficulty understanding what the issue is.

(August 5, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Javaman Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 4:22 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Oh, I don't either. And neither should anyone else.

Except of course, for  the Catholic Church who, as a matter of doctrine, has already decided that my family is lesser because of some nonsense about the unitive and procreative aspects of fucking.

This is incorrect.

Yes, we believe IVF is not a moral means of reproduction, but that does not mean the Church teaches that families are lesser or that kids are lesser if they came from IVF. If any Catholic holds that position, it is their own personal position, and not a teaching of the Church.