(August 5, 2015 at 3:37 pm)Catholic_Lady 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.
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.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
