Is Human Reproduction Un-Ethical?

[KUSA]

But reproducing is so much fun.

[Esquilax]

Hear me out.

1. If no God or after-life exists;
   
2. There is no other point to being, than what we make of our lives here; 
   
3. And, if some children will find in this life great fulfillment, while others find incredible pain and suffering- which we cannot possibly foreknow; 
   
4. To wager that a child will enjoy life, to a degree greater than the sum of the pain and suffering;
   
5. Which is to wager with somebody elses life, potentially exposing another human being to immense grief and pain;
   
6. Which is needless, considering the fact that their is no reason for us to be, or to continue to exist;
   
7. And, that the, act of having children is not necessary for any purpose other than our own gratification; 
   
8. Thus, having children is a selfish, greedy act which can impose great pain on another human being;
   
9. Having children is thus un-ehtical and immoral. 
   

What do you think? 

You could plug literally anything into that argument to replace reproduction and get to the outcome unchanged. It makes the argument effectively worthless.

Besides, one could easily argue that it is the contributing factors that cause pain and suffering that are immoral, not the act of reproduction; after all, as you've already established, being born can either lead to happiness or suffering, dependent on outside factors. Is it not then the fault of those additional factors? After all, if they were removed, then the child would have no chance to suffer, and his birth would be a moral act.

[AFTT47]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's immoral but I would agree it is less than moral in our current situation. Not for the reasons you mentioned but for those Yeauxleaux pointed out - overpopulation of the planet.

[Brometheus]

Hear me out.

1. If no God or after-life exists;
   
2. There is no other point to being, than what we make of our lives here; 
   
3. And, if some children will find in this life great fulfillment, while others find incredible pain and suffering- which we cannot possibly foreknow; 
   
4. To wager that a child will enjoy life, to a degree greater than the sum of the pain and suffering;
   
5. Which is to wager with somebody elses life, potentially exposing another human being to immense grief and pain;
   
6. Which is needless, considering the fact that their is no reason for us to be, or to continue to exist;
   
7. And, that the, act of having children is not necessary for any purpose other than our own gratification; 
   
8. Thus, having children is a selfish, greedy act which can impose great pain on another human being;
   
9. Having children is thus un-ehtical and immoral. 
   

What do you think? 

You could plug literally anything into that argument to replace reproduction and get to the outcome unchanged. It makes the argument effectively worthless.

Besides, one could easily argue that it is the contributing factors that cause pain and suffering that are immoral, not the act of reproduction; after all, as you've already established, being born can either lead to happiness or suffering, dependent on outside factors. Is it not then the fault of those additional factors? After all, if they were removed, then the child would have no chance to suffer, and his birth would be a moral act.

But what is the point of continuing the human-species? Their contributions, if any, benefit only to themselves, but they themselves do not need to exist for anything. Nobody would miss us if we were all extinct. If we arose by chance and are here for nothing, this is the total sum of all that any of us can contribute, in the large scheme of things.

This is what bothers me most.

[Pyrrho]

But reproducing is so much fun.

No it isn't.  It is sex that is fun, not the reproduction part.  With modern birth control, these can be separated in practice as well as being different concepts.

With good birth control, one can have all the sex one wants, with no reproduction.

[watchamadoodle]

Most pain humans are put through in this world is inflicted by other humans or themselves. The only exception to this is disease (which there is now some control over), death and assosiated grief, natural disasters and the occasional accident or animal attack. None of those things are everyday occurrances in any one particular person's life. Pretty much everything else "painful" is the result of other people (either deliberately or through negligence) or self-inflicted. Poverty, some illnesses, malnutrition or obesity, violence, petty crimes, oppression, these are all human constructed things brought about deliberately or neglectfully through human activity.

Therefore the issue isn't "is it fair to have kids?" it is "how do we make society as fit as possible for raising a child?"

This is more unrelated, but I think given the context of the modern world - where we have 7 billion people, scrambling for resources that are nowhere near abundant enough to support that number - it is not ecological (I won't say "immoral") to be pumping out 10 kids each. We should be encouraging people to have less children, I daresay the future of humanity depends on it.

^ kudos

[Whateverist]

Yeah, me too. Kudos to YeauxLeaux.

For me it isn't even a question of whether or not the planet can be engineered to provide for all our needs. For me it is an aesthetic question. Monopolizing such a large chunk of the biosphere is an ugly choice to make.

[robvalue]

My opinion is that this world is a fucked up place filled with not just the opportunity but near certainty of suffering. I don't feel I have the right to judge that the positive may outweigh this, and to take such a hefty risk on behalf of an entity which doesn't currently even exist or have anything to worry about. Personally, I would prefer I had never been born.

I second this with the fact that the world is already chock full of children in desperate need of homes, so if I were to "have kids" it would always be through adoption. Just like I only get pets from rescues and not breeders.

Also, I think humans are a blight to this planet and just about everything except us would be better off without us. So I feel no need to keep the species going either.

My opinion only. I'm not telling anyone else what to do!

[bennyboy]

But what is the point of continuing the human-species? Their contributions, if any, benefit only to themselves, but they themselves do not need to exist for anything. Nobody would miss us if we were all extinct. If we arose by chance and are here for nothing, this is the total sum of all that any of us can contribute, in the large scheme of things.

This is what bothers me most.

The point of evolved behaviors is only that they exist.  It is in the nature of most humans to reproduce.  We like doing it, and it feels like it matters.  So we do it.

Any ethical system has to be based on what it's like to live as a human being, since there's no other measure of morality that means more to us.  So, in recognizing that reproduction (and other pursuits of happiness) matter to us (humans, I mean, not you and me necessarily), then the right to reproduce must be considered ethical.

---

But reproducing is so much fun.

No it isn't.  It is sex that is fun, not the reproduction part.  With modern birth control, these can be separated in practice as well as being different concepts.

With good birth control, one can have all the sex one wants, with no reproduction.

With all due respect, anyone who hasn't reproduced is missing out on a large part of what it's like to be a human organism.

[robvalue]

I'm really glad I'm missing out on it, because I hate little kids! Even a kid the other side of the street can piss me off for the 5 seconds I have to listen to it.

Little bastards!