In order to suffer or cause suffering, one must first exist. To exist, one must first be born. As a result, all suffering is a consequence of birth.
And since one cannot consent to experiencing their own existence before being endowed with it, the most immoral thing one can ever do is impose the burden of existence onto another.
Having a baby is literally the worst thing you could ever do. Prove me wrong.
Generally a thing is right or wrong depending on the reaction of the victim or person acted against. If a person goes on to enjoy their life and be thankful for it then there's no harm, no foul. If they curse the day they were born and wish to die, then their birth was immoral. It is unknowable if it is right or wrong in the moment, it's just a dice roll with someone's life, their well being.
I think murder would be the worst thing a person could do. That has a much higher probability of being immoral.
The baby did not choose to invade your womb....
The nigger who got shot did.
Jesus christ, is there anyone on this entire planet that's just having a chill time and enjoying life like me? Or is literally everyone a whiney bitch?
Babies exist only outside the womb.
Nothing inside a womb is a baby.
Your claim is dependent on the assumptions that
1) Suffering is bad
2) People don't deserve to suffer
Suffering may feel bad, it may be necessary. "I don't want to suffer" is a self-righteous claim.
Therefore, having a baby is not immoral, despite how you feel about it.
Entropy, dude. 2nd law of thermodynamics. The universe is literally trying to destroy you all the fucking time. It's tough to be chill in that situation. But I applaud you if you can do it.
While I don't agree with this cringe take, I do believe that people shouldn't just procreate for the sake of it. Just because you can doesn't mean that you should.
Necessary for what? This presupposes that life has some inherent purpose
>Generally a thing is right or wrong depending on the reaction of the victim or person acted against.
I know you just said, "Generally," but the way I see it, the ethics of one's actions aren't quite as reliant on the reactions of those they've transgressed.
>If a person goes on to enjoy their life and be thankful for it then there's no harm, no foul.
Not necessarily. True, a person may live the best life in the history of lives but that doesn't change the ethics of their parents' actions. In essence, your parents gambled with your entire existence. They can't control for a life full of joy and free of suffering, but they thrust you into existence anyway, not really knowing what would happen. That's immoral, even if you aren't angry about it. Even if the results were, for you, worth it.
It's kinda like how molesting a child isn't only immoral if the child is traumatized, it's immoral regardless of whether it ruins the child's life or somehow enhances it. Some victims of CSA actively look back on their experience fondly, with no emotional trauma or negativity associated with it whatsoever. But that's beside the point.
It may be necessary to suffer. There's no guarantee that not being born will stop you from suffering.
thats retarded logic everything has to exist for anything to happen rather be suffering than to have nothing
>1) Suffering is bad
It is.
>2) People don't deserve to suffer
I'll get into this in a second.
>Suffering may feel bad, it may be necessary. "I don't want to suffer" is a self-righteous claim.
"May be." It "may be" necessary. Sure, suffering can, at times, be "necessary" for the acquirement of strength, but this isn't always the case. I'd argue that it rarely is, actually. Sometimes damage is just damage. Not good damage, or necessary damage. It's just...damage.
Either way, one can't evaluate the pros and cons of whether they even care to experience this 'necessary suffering' before they actually do, so this point is moot.
Suffering is subjective, after all
>Therefore, having a baby is not immoral, despite how you feel about it.
Well, morality is almost entirely baseless and boils down to feeling, and reality is fully subjective anyway. I feel that having children is immoral, that's why it is. I have yet to see anyone convince me otherwise.
Also, to get back to your second point, the idea of people "deserving to suffer" really calls back to whether or not they exist and the things they do once they're here. The only people who 'deserve to suffer' are those who've warranted suffering somehow. You can't have done that if you literally don't exist. Being brought into existence for the sole purpose of suffering makes no sense.
not according to science
Women are useless. And old women? I don't even know what they are.
>everything has to exist for anything to happen
Yes, that's literally what I just said. The thing is, you can't consent to that existence. You must experience it and then choose to stay or leave. Putting someone in that position, even if they never suffer, is fundamentally unethical.
>The only people who 'deserve to suffer' are those who've warranted suffering somehow.
>warranted suffering
Who decides whether suffering is warranted? What are their qualifications? My answer is that there is no human entity which is qualified to decide who deserves suffering.
It is much more accurate to say that everybody deserves to suffer.
Literally nobody is going to listen to what you're saying here. You're just wasting your time with bullshit.
This is the most retarded take I've ever seen. If you can suffer without being born, then you could possibly have other experiences as well. And that would undercut the entire definition of what "life" is.
I wouldn't considered molestation to be immoral if the outcome was positive. The ends justify the means.
>There's no guarantee that not being born will stop you from suffering.
There's no reason to believe that, though, as there's no evidence for it. But that's where the conversation divulges into larger existentialism and spirituality. My approach is as follows: pics or it didn't happen. Walk by sight, not by faith. Otherwise the burden of proof means nothing and, logically, you MUST believe everything that is told to you if you can't disprove it.
But, of course, you can't prove a negative. Which is why the burden of proof exists.
So, he who doesn't yet exist to me, doesn't exist. There's no reason for me to think there's an infinite number of unattached souls, banging on the glass so to speak, begging to be born because the acquisition of physical matter is an oasis from the hell that is existence outside the body. We don't even have evidence that existence outside the body is even real in the first place.
If we assume pre-bodily existence is true, that would mean having children is the ONLY moral thing one could ever do, because any other action would require you actively stifle children from being created. This train of thought would negate the entire purpose of morality to begin with; to ensure that the existence of Man is peaceful. Not to ensure that Man exists peacefully. Those are two different things.
So logically, it is safest to assume those who aren't born aren't suffering because they aren't experiencing anything, because they don't exist yet.