You should probably spend more time recognizing the good things people do for you (especially your parents) and show some gratitude. Then, you’ll understand.
Every little bit of life is a gamble, every moment of every day. And no one escapes the pain of bone aching loss, in their lifetime.
Cower if you must, I’m gonna ride the ride, come what may!
This is an easy point of view for people that normally see themselves as victims. If that’s how you see your existence…sucks to be you.
I choose to not be a victim. I am responsible for myself, my actions, and my consequences.
My wife and I rescued a beagle from the pound. Had we not adopted her, she would have been (humanely) euthanized. However, because we took her out of the pound, she now runs the risk, albeit minimal because of fences, leashes and the doors in my home, of being hit by a car and dying a painful death. By the OP’s standard, does that mean I’m being immoral by putting her in that risk, and that I would have been more moral to allow the SPCA to euthanize her?
I’m not sure that I can get over THAT way of thinking? So, to answer the OP’s questions, I would have to say that parents are not being immoral. In fact, it would be extremely irrational to even ask that question. I’m surprised this question gotten to 124 posts.
I partially agree with the OP. Life is a weird, painful and bizarre struggle, occasionally interrupted by happier moments. I wouldn’t inflict life on anyone. I can’t imagine what my normally rational parents were thinking. I imagine that they were not thinking, but I was one of the two out three planned children. I don’t think they were evil for their decision, but I truly don’t understand it.
Don’t you guys read the thread title? 
Awesome post, Hamster King. You refuted the OP’s bleak POV with grace eloquence and compassion, and avoided the scolding hectoring pile on all too common on this board.
Jeez, lots of judgment and haranguing going on in this thread. I think the OP’s concerns are completely legitimate, even if it possible to “enjoy the ride” and “play with the hand you’re dealt.” I agree that at some point you might have to get over it, but it doesn’t make having concerns about it illegitimate. It’s valid to talk about the idea, and not dive straight into the practical implications of how to manage one’s disappointment.
As a response to the Buddhism comments earlier: The central tenet of Buddhism is that “Life is Suffering.” Assuming that suffering is not a good thing, then we can draw the conclusion that causing the suffering of others is also not a good thing. Within this context, can we not say that introducing new life is creating new suffering? Shouldn’t someone who believes that “life is suffering” NOT have children, and acknowledge that doing so is an act of selfishness?
I don’t know. What’s the purpose of this kind of discussion? Lots of people have concluded that having children is a selfish act. So, some consider it “evil” or “immoral” too. What follows then? Should we imprison people who breed? Discourage procreation? What? All we can do if try to ease suffering where we can. There’s no reason to be pissed at our parents.
That’s a pretty anemic assessment of the practice. Buddhism has four tenets, and the other three speak to how to relieve one’s suffering, none of which include forgoing love and family or wallowing in one’s own existential angst.
I think there’s a decent metaphor here to the big circumcision debate. Some men are genuinely pissed off that someone did something to them without their permission. Some people would say to them, “get over it, millions of kids get circumcised and go on to lead normal lives.” But then, does that make the discussion irrelevant? Someone feels that their genitals were deliberately damaged through no choice of their own, and the practice continues unabated, often unquestioned entirely by people who have it done to others.
In your book, the only outcome of a discussion would be legal in nature or involving social stigmatization. But the question to me is not about what kind of measures we’re supposed to put into place (laws, social judgment, etc) but about creating an awareness and legitimizing the discussion, which in and of itself can help people make informed choices.
From Wikipedia:
The central theme of all 4 tenets is “suffering.” The very first one, paraphrased, is “life is suffering” (it is implicit and central in this statement that suffering is endemic to all life). After the first tenet, it’s all pain management strategies used to negate the initial suffering caused by being alive in the first place. I don’t think it’s facile to pose the idea that introducing life is introducing pain that wasn’t there before, especially if you believe these tenets. Sure, you can manage it by loving people and having families, but that’s just trying to undo the damage. And, I might add, that the person who has to undo the damage is the person who was brought into the world through no choice of their own.
You’re going to have to dig a bit deeper. Merely being alive isn’t suffering; many people lead entire lives of good fortune and good health. The cause of suffering isn’t merely being alive; it’s our attachment to others, self, and material things that leads to suffering. Blaming others for causing your pain goes against everything Buddhism teaches.
I don’t see how you can deny this most basic Buddhist tenet. The fact that “the truth of suffering” is described as a “truth” implies universality. Even those who live in good fortune and good health experience pain at some point.
Blaming someone for your pain is one thing, but what about understanding your own role in creating pain? Is there no room for that?
Buddhism isn’t Christianity; as written it doesn’t allow for interpretation or revision to suit one’s own agenda. It’s a philosophy written for the individual to take responsibility for improving his own existence via introspection and right action.
You can try to make this fit your complaint about circumcision and the fact of your birth, but you’ll still find that finding a way to move past the hurts and complaints is a requirement.
Or, if you want to reduce it to the lowest common denominator, if you deny a child’s passage into this world by refraining from reproducing, you have denied him or her the chance to work towards nirvana.
How can you live with preventing a child from reaching nirvana, man?
Says who? What authority do we owe this obligation to? Are lions under this obligation? Zebras? Dolphins? Is this a universal obligation? Doesn’t this preclude, by definition, ever eating meat or using any animal product?
Are boxers both violating some sort of moral law? What about surgeons? To carry this further into the realm of the hypothetical, if a guy is really feeling horny, should someone step in and give him a blowjob to stave off the mental anguish of sexual frustration? What about you, could you live with yourself if someone were to stand before you, suffering from sexual frustration and, by your action of refusing to give a blowjob, you contributed to their anguish?
No, I’m afraid your line in the sand of is too broad to be a useful moral guideline for life as we know it. I was having this discussion with my eight year old just this past weekend because we like to wrestle and he has gotten to the age where he’s big enough and strong enough(and smart enough) to go for the weak points when wrestling with a larger and stronger opponent. We started out as a pillow fight and he started jumping on my back and pushing on my head, pretending to break my neck. I tad a talk with him about the difference between pain and harm and how play fights don’t need to be pain free, but they need to be free of intentional harm. So things like hitting below the belt, biting, eye gouging, etc. are all out of bounds.
As each of my kids has grown up I’ve had to have this discussion with them. It’s a normal part of life. As they grew and gained in strength, mental acuity, and the ability to determine right from wrong they had to learn the difference between causing harm intentionally and creating conditions where unintended harm could come about. The first they should steer clear of, but the latter is pretty much an unavoidable fact of life. c.f. The Law of Unintended Consequences.
Enjoy,
Steven
Don’t think she is coming back, guys.
Your chances of achieving enlightenment are best as a human. Being reborn as a cockroach is not a better deal.
Well, it’s generally considered difficult to achieve enlightenment as a family guy and a householder. Layman Pang and his wife and daughter are notable exceptions. Most of the time one needs to do a Milarepaand live off in a cave someplace, free of possessions and attachments. YMMV.
In Buddhism, being alive is suffering. Since every pleasing thing is transitory and passes away, everything that you enjoy will be gone, causing suffering and want.
Depends on her karma.
Both of you are attempting to reduce the entire practice to a couple of precepts and you’re doing a disservice to the OP by cherry picking from the philosophy in order to support her premise. Life for a follower of the teachings of the Buddhist isn’t an austere, miserable existence. Attachment to material things, to others, and holding fast to one’s identity causes suffering. Recognizing the temporary nature of pain, physical suffering and emotional anguish relieves that suffering. Meditating and consciously working to release those attachments and performing right actions relieves suffering.
Just because some monks with few earthly attachments are in a convenient position to reach a higher state of enlightenment doesn’t mean that followers with families, material wealth and other earthly attachments can’t also find joy and peace by learning to let go of attachment.