# People thinking of having children, can you consider the following points? **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [September 7, 2017, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766 "2017-09-07T23:11:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/21 "2017-09-08T01:01:42Z")
We had this thread recently. I won’t go in circles on this because my odds of changing your point of view is somewhere between 0% and 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%. Being alive for most people is a net positive. The vast majority of people who are alive prefer to be alive. The vast majority of people who are alive do not wish they had never existed. This is true even for people who are critically ill and in pain. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/22 "2017-09-08T01:12:47Z")
> [@Marcus\_Flavius](#): > > Most of us believe that it is wrong to impose harm, death, and suffering on an innocent being. Most of us believe the being has to exist first. Most of us do not believe it is wrong to impose harm, death, and suffering on beings that don’t already exist. ---
**Author:** ![Marcus\_Flavius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a4c791/32.png) [@Marcus\_Flavius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marcus_Flavius)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/23 "2017-09-08T01:20:05Z")
> [@BeepKillBeep](#): > > We had this thread recently. I won’t go in circles on this because my odds of changing your point of view is somewhere between 0% and 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%. > > Being alive for most people is a net positive. The vast majority of people who are alive prefer to be alive. The vast majority of people who are alive do not wish they had never existed. This is true even for people who are critically ill and in pain. The vast majority of heroin addicts are also prefer to keep using heroin than to not use heroin. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/24 "2017-09-08T01:32:02Z")
So why would you deny your hypothetical children the pleasure of shooting up heroin? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/25 "2017-09-08T01:35:02Z")
> [@Marcus\_Flavius](#): > > -The nonexistent cannot be deprived of these things since they have no desire for them. Nor can they be harmed against their will since they have no will. Talking about harming the nonexistent is gibberish. When you say, > [@](#): > > Would it not be better to leave that being in a place where they cannot possibly experience death, pain, suffering, misery, etc etc? That’s even worse gibberish, since the nonexistent are the textbook opposite of “beings”, and there is no place in which they exist, since they don’t exist. As near as I can tell, your argument circles back inevitably to these self-defeating assumptions–if “nonexistent beings” is necessarily oxymoronic, then any discussion of harming them is gibberish. We can only talk of harm done to existent beings. And the best way to judge whether something done to existent beings is harmful is to ask them. Which brings us back to the foolish heroin addict analogy. We know that a person addicted to heroin can have a better existence, and so we help them reach that even if they might resist at some point. But you’re trying to argue that existing beings are better off not existing, and again, that’s oxymoronic gibberish: nonexistence precludes the use of variants of the verb “to be” and its use to link to any adjectives. > [@](#): > > - Pain and suffering are always more morally significant than pleasure and good feelings. You say that, but [I prefer Kahlil Gibran on this topic](http://www.katsandogz.com/onjoy.html): > [@The Prophet](#): > > Your joy is your sorrow unmasked. > And the selfsame well from which your laughter rises was oftentimes filled with your tears. > And how else can it be? > The deeper that sorrow carves into your being, the more joy you can contain. > Is not the cup that holds your wine the very cup that was burned in the potter’s oven? > And is not the lute that soothes your spirit, the very wood that was hollowed with knives? > When you are joyous, look deep into your heart and you shall find it is only that which has given you sorrow that is giving you joy. > When you are sorrowful look again in your heart, and you shall see that in truth you are weeping for that which has been your delight. > > Some of you say, “Joy is greater thar sorrow,” and others say, “Nay, sorrow is the greater.” > But I say unto you, they are inseparable. > Together they come, and when one sits, alone with you at your board, remember that the other is asleep upon your bed. > > Verily you are suspended like scales between your sorrow and your joy. > Only when you are empty are you at standstill and balanced. > When the treasure-keeper lifts you to weigh his gold and his silver, needs must your joy or your sorrow rise or fall. ---
**Author:** ![Marcus\_Flavius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a4c791/32.png) [@Marcus\_Flavius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marcus_Flavius)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/26 "2017-09-08T01:36:55Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Most of us believe the being has to exist first. Most of us do not believe it is wrong to impose harm, death, and suffering on beings that don’t already exist. This is a silly semantic game. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/27 "2017-09-08T01:41:00Z")
> [@Marcus\_Flavius](#): > > This is a silly semantic game. Not remotely. Your entire thesis revolves around the idea that a move from nonexistence to existence harms the entity who exists, but that’s a nonsensical idea. It may be that you don’t understand the difference between zero and null. You seem to want to weight pleasure/pain on a positive/negative scale, and you believe that existence necessarily moves the scale into the negative zone. But that doesn’t work, since the scale doesn’t start at zero; the scale is nonexistent prior to existence, so there’s no move initiated by the moment of existence. As long as you confuse zero and null, your argument is going to sound totally convincing to you and totally ridiculous to anyone who understands this difference. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/28 "2017-09-08T01:46:14Z")
> [@Marcus\_Flavius](#): > > This is a silly semantic game. irony! ---
**Author:** ![Marcus\_Flavius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a4c791/32.png) [@Marcus\_Flavius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marcus_Flavius)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/29 "2017-09-08T01:48:03Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Nor can they be harmed against their will since they have no will. Talking about harming the nonexistent is gibberish. When you say, > That’s even worse gibberish, since the nonexistent are the textbook opposite of “beings”, and there is no place in which they exist, since they don’t exist. > > As near as I can tell, your argument circles back inevitably to these self-defeating assumptions–if “nonexistent beings” is necessarily oxymoronic, then any discussion of harming them is gibberish. > > We can only talk of harm done to existent beings. And the best way to judge whether something done to existent beings is harmful is to ask them. > > Which brings us back to the foolish heroin addict analogy. We know that a person addicted to heroin can have a better existence, and so we help them reach that even if they might resist at some point. But you’re trying to argue that existing beings are better off not existing, and again, that’s oxymoronic gibberish: nonexistence precludes the use of variants of the verb “to be” and its use to link to any adjectives. > > You say that, but [I prefer Kahlil Gibran on this topic](http://www.katsandogz.com/onjoy.html): Again, silly semantic games. By this logic, any moral discussion on something that may happen in the future is automatically invalid, since the future and future beings "don’t exist. " I used the heroin addict analogy to show that just because someone is attatched to a thing does not make that thing good. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/30 "2017-09-08T01:50:23Z")
> [@Marcus\_Flavius](#): > > Again, silly semantic games. By this logic, any moral discussion on something that may happen in the future is automatically invalid, since the future and future beings "don’t exist. " People who currently exist become people who will exist. Changing the quality of their existence from good (currently) to bad (future), or from good (future) to bad (farther future), or even from possibly good (one possible future) to possibly bad (another possible future) involves a sensible discussion of existence. Yours is gibberish, because a being that doesn’t exist **necessarily** cannot have its existence worsened by existing. > [@](#): > > I used the heroin addict analogy to show that just because someone is attatched to a thing does not make that thing good. Yes, and I refuted it to show why it’s a shitty analogy. I think we’re both clear on what the other person is doing. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/31 "2017-09-08T01:51:09Z")
> [@Marcus\_Flavius](#): > > The vast majority of heroin addicts are also prefer to keep using heroin than to not use heroin. Oh are we already at the building silly non-equivalences? That was quick. If you stub your toe, it would best if you never had a foot at all because the joy of being able to walk is not worth the risk of stubbing your toe. ---
**Author:** ![Marcus\_Flavius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a4c791/32.png) [@Marcus\_Flavius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marcus_Flavius)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/32 "2017-09-08T02:03:03Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > People who currently exist become people who will exist. Changing the quality of their existence from good (currently) to bad (future), or from good (future) to bad (farther future), or even from possibly good (one possible future) to possibly bad (another possible future) involves a sensible discussion of existence. > > Yours is gibberish, because a being that doesn’t exist **necessarily** cannot have its existence worsened by existing. > > Yes, and I refuted it to show why it’s a shitty analogy. I think we’re both clear on what the other person is doing. Future people do not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/33 "2017-09-08T02:11:08Z")
> [@Marcus\_Flavius](#): > > Future people do not exist. Yes\*, but by definition they will, and we can therefore apply some of the analysis I already discussed and you quoted: > [@me](#): > > Changing the quality of their existence . . . from good (future) to bad (farther future), or even from possibly good (one possible future) to possibly bad (another possible future) involves a sensible discussion of existence. Those future people who WILL not exist are by definition not future people. Again, you’re confused about what “null” means. Once you fix this misapprehension and apply it to your argument, you’ll see it crumble; until then, you’ll misunderstand every objection made to your argument. - Note that your term “future people” is ambiguous. I’m taking it to mean “people who do not exist now but will exist in the future,” not simply “people who will exist in the future.” With the latter meaning, your statement would be false. ---
**Author:** ![Marcus\_Flavius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a4c791/32.png) [@Marcus\_Flavius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marcus_Flavius)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/34 "2017-09-08T02:19:59Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Yes\*, but by definition they will, and we can therefore apply some of the analysis I already discussed and you quoted: > > Those future people who WILL not exist are by definition not future people. > > Again, you’re confused about what “null” means. Once you fix this misapprehension and apply it to your argument, you’ll see it crumble; until then, you’ll misunderstand every objection made to your argument. > > - Note that your term “future people” is ambiguous. I’m taking it to mean “people who do not exist now but will exist in the future,” not simply “people who will exist in the future.” With the latter meaning, your statement would be false. Are you telling me you would not be opposed to two people trying to conceive a child in the midst of a genocidal war and apocalyptic famine/plague? If you would be opposed, why? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/35 "2017-09-08T02:32:08Z")
> [@Marcus\_Flavius](#): > > Are you telling me you would not be opposed to two people trying to conceive a child in the midst of a genocidal war and apocalyptic famine/plague? > > If you would be opposed, why? I’m happy to address this question–it’s an entirely different argument from the foolish one about how nonexistence is better than existence. What I won’t do is to hop back and forth as though they’re the same. So: do you concede that your previous argument, the one I was addressing earlier, is foolish? If you do, and if you’ll stop making it, I’ll move on. Otherwise, let’s stick to one subject at a time, please. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/36 "2017-09-08T02:43:40Z")
I like existing, even though I’ve experienced pain and suffering. That my existence will probably eventually end doesn’t mean I’d rather not exist. And most of the people I’ve talked to about this feel similarly. Thus I’m fine with creating more people to exist when the resources exist to make sure they’re able to have a good chance at an enjoyable existence. ---
**Author:** ![nightshadea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ba0ec/32.png) [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/37 "2017-09-08T02:52:00Z")
is this guy machinas sock? because the posting style is the same… ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/38 "2017-09-08T02:54:26Z")
Your future child may have the answer to end the suffering of all humanity. Or just some. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/39 "2017-09-08T03:20:32Z")
> [@Marcus\_Flavius](#): > > No, we are not Wrong! If we are biologically programmed for anything, it is to breed. If your parents didn’t have any children, odds are you won’t either. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2017, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766/40 "2017-09-08T03:25:47Z")
> [@Marcus\_Flavius](#): > > Why are you planning to impose certain death and suffering, and all the deprivations that come with the disgraceful slavery of biological existence, onto an innocent being? Would it not be better to leave that being in a place where they cannot possibly experience death, pain, suffering, misery, etc etc? Well, I didn’t impose life on 99.99999% of my sperm, and my wife didn’t on some smaller but still large percentage of her eggs. And they never write. Humph. The two we did impose life are pretty damn happy about it. The older happy enough to create a new life also. Who is young, but still pretty happy. We impose some suffering on others all the time - surgery, shots, excessive physical activity. It is for the greater good. And I’m sorry for you. Your life must be so miserable that you want to withhold pleasure from others. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-thinking-of-having-children-can-you-consider-the-following-points/795766.md?page=3)