atheism and children

[Dystopia]

The idea of bringing someone to existence without consent is ridiculous when the beginning of the process usually occurs trough regular intercourse and consequent fertilization/conception, etc - Minors, children, newborns, you name it - Are incapable of consent, so talking about consent related to people who can't consent is ridiculous.

[Catholic_Lady]

It's not semantics at all.

We believe that IVF is immoral.

We still believe that all children are sacred and precious, and that a family is a sacred thing, regardless of how the children were conceived. So no, the Church does not teach that children conceived of IVF are "lesser" or that families consisting of children conceived form IVF are "lesser," as you claimed. I am sure you have a beautiful family.

But if you can't see the difference between the 2, then there's not much else I can say to you.

Then why all the fuss over the method? What's with the nonsense over the unbreakable connection between the unitive and procreative aspects of fucking?

You say the process by which my children were conceived is irrelevant. Your church says otherwise. Whose word should I take on the the matter....

It is irrelevant to a person's value as a human being. And again, no, the Church does not say otherwise. The Church teaches that every human life is sacred and worth the same. Period. Likewise, rape is a million times more immoral than IVF, but children who were brought into the world through rape are still precious beings who deserve all the same rights and is worth just as much as everyone else.

[Clueless Morgan]

We believe reproduction is a very sacred act.

If "reproduction" is an "act" then who or what is the "agent" performing the action?

And as all things sacred, we believe it should be guarded and protected and kept in the purity of its natural form.

Why do you consider reproduction through the means of a sex-act the only "pure" form of reproduction? "Pure" in what way?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I don't think they're saying having kids is an immoral injustice to them.  They're challenging the idea that every person is grateful for their existence.  Until I had kids, I loathed my being alive and truly wished I had never been born.  Now that I've found some slight semblance of happiness, I'm torn about whether or not my existence has been worth it.

That is something to take into consideration when a person chooses to have children.

No, they also said that it is immoral because you are bringing someone into existence without their consent.

I would argue that if we're going to consider this a moral question, we should be considering both the (in)direct impact of more humans on our environment and societies as well as the potential struggles a child growing up in the next century will face. As I mentioned in the other thread, standards of living for many (in the west least) are going down and not up, meaning generations being born today are likely to find life more 'difficult' than their parents for the first time in recent history.

[Clueless Morgan]

We also believe all life is sacred, but that human life is more so.

And it is because of this sort of thinking that I am very pessimistic about humans ever "solving" the overpopulation problem on Earth.

[Javaman]

Then why all the fuss over the method? What's with the nonsense over the unbreakable connection between the unitive and procreative aspects of fucking?

You say the process by which my children were conceived is irrelevant. Your church says otherwise. Whose word should I take on the the matter....

It is irrelevant to a person's value as a human being. And again, no, the Church does not say otherwise. The Church teaches that every human life is sacred and worth the same. Period. Likewise, rape is a million times more immoral than IVF, but children who were brought into the world through rape are still precious beings who deserve all the same rights and is worth just as much as everyone else.

If rape is a million times more immoral than IVF, does that mean rapists will suffer a million times more than me in hell? If not, does that mean my crime of ejaculating into a test tube was as heinous as a man who raped a woman?

Why exactly is IVF immoral again? What is it about IVF that angers your god so much?

P.S. I wasn't commenting on the church's stance on the value of individual human beings. I was commenting on the process of IVF. Nice try at deflecting again though.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

We also believe all life is sacred, but that human life is more so.

And it is because of this sort of thinking that I am very pessimistic about humans ever "solving" the overpopulation problem on Earth.

The egotism of such a position will be our undoing.

[Pyrrho]

An instinctual desire to have sex is not the same as an instinctual desire to have children.  I am inclined to accept that the former is an instinctual desire, but I have seen no evidence that the latter is an instinctual desire.  It seems more related to socialization than instinct.

Yes, but isn't it true that most species with some exceptions have tendency to reproduce and search for compatible mates with said goal?

There is no reason to believe that animals have such goals.  You seem to be imagining that animals believe that sex is related to procreation, and we have absolutely no reason to believe that they make such a connection.  That they desire sex is clear enough, but what they intend to result from it is another matter entirely.

Also, something being an instinctual desire does not mean that it has no connection to morality.  For the example of sex, consider rape and cheating on someone when one has promised to be faithful.  Having an instinctual desire does not excuse all actions based on that desire.

I agree. But your argument depends what you consider as moral and becomes subjective.

Everyone who regards morality as subjective is going to take my comments about morality as being subjective.  For them to take it any other way, it would first be necessary to change their minds regarding the nature of morality.

However, the argument is based upon a principle that many people do accept.  The idea is that one ought not gamble with someone's life without their consent, unless it is not possible to avoid doing so.  Do you accept that principle or not?  If you say "no," how would you feel about someone making a decision affecting your life, without your consent?

In every era, time and culture I can find reasons to not have children. Ultimately people have children because they want to and because of societal pressure. As I said, my girlfriend wants to have 4 children and I accept the idea though I'd like to reduce the number down to 2 - It's probably her biggest dream since she was 6, she wants to be a mother - I like the idea of passing down my genes and generating offspring, it fascinates me. It is possible to be raised by a rich family and lack psychological and affectionate support, specially when parents spend too much time working, and it happens to some folks to be raised with a poor/very poor family that still works hard, day and night, to provide them with all that's necessary even if it means the parents lacking basic fulfillment.

The argument of "we don't know how life will be" is dependent on randomness and says nothing - It could be awesome, mild or horrible, we simply don't know - My life tomorrow could be all of those things, I could be hit by a truck, win the lottery or get an amazing job offer, I don't know, but I still wake up and live my day comfortably and rationally. 

That one does not know how the person's life will be means that one is gambling with someone's life when one creates the life in the first place.

That is irrelevant.  The decision is about whether or not to create a life, and the moral question is whether it is right to create a life or not.

I think it is morally neutral. Taking a life is immoral for many reasons. Creating one seems just neutral because it can happen for many reasons.

Just seeming neutral to you is no argument.

[Catholic_Lady]

It is irrelevant to a person's value as a human being. And again, no, the Church does not say otherwise. The Church teaches that every human life is sacred and worth the same. Period. Likewise, rape is a million times more immoral than IVF, but children who were brought into the world through rape are still precious beings who deserve all the same rights and is worth just as much as everyone else.

If rape is a million times more immoral than IVF, does that mean rapists will suffer a million times more than me in hell? If not, does that mean my crime of ejaculating into a test tube was as heinous as a man who raped a woman?

Why exactly is IVF immoral again? What is it about IVF that angers your god so much?

It is not my job to speculate on whether or not you or anyone else will go to Hell.

[Pyrrho]

The idea of bringing someone to existence without consent is ridiculous when the beginning of the process usually occurs trough regular intercourse and consequent fertilization/conception, etc - Minors, children, newborns, you name it - Are incapable of consent, so talking about consent related to people who can't consent is ridiculous.

It is logically impossible to get consent from someone who does not exist.  I think you will likely agree with me on that point.  (If not, go ahead and express whatever disagreement you have with it.)

From that, it follows that it is impossible to create someone with their consent.  They could only give their consent once they exist, and so any possible consent could only follow the action of creation, and not precede it.

Consequently, every time someone is created, they are created without their consent.


Before someone is created, it is impossible to know whether their life will be good, bad, or in between.  One would have to see the future to know how their life will turn out, and one cannot do that.

Consequently, in creating someone, one is taking a chance on what their life will be like, or, as I have previously expressed it in this thread, one is gambling with their life.


Now, the moral principle I have suggested is that it is wrong to gamble with someone's life without their consent.  One can, of course, disagree with this, and given the preliminary comments leading up to this, I rather expect people to do so as they do not like the conclusion that follows from applying this principle to the present instance.  However, the consequences of rejecting it means that it would be okay for me to gamble with your life without your consent.  Or for anyone to gamble with your life without your consent.  Do you think that is okay?