Child birth should not be considered morally wrong

I thank Cooldudebro for the opportunity to debate this topic. Comfort/Discomfort definitions: In this debate, when using these terms, I will not necessarily mean the literal version of either words. An example of the literal kind of ‘discomfort’ would be to sit on something sharp. The kind of discomfort I will argue pertains to a lacking, a deprivation if you will. It’s a tension, a feeling of not having. Discomfort is bad In a world where there is only discomfort and comfort (i.e. no context), no rational sentient animal would choose discomfort over comfort. It is only with context that discomfort could ever be considered preferable, such as a deal that if you were to be uncomfortable now, you would be comfortable for twice the amount of time afterwards. Therefore, it has been determined not by me, but by every sentient creature that this is an inter-subjective truth. Life is (almost certainly) more discomfort than comfort I will now argue that life is essentially a ‘negative-sum game’, in which there are states of comfort that all fall below the ‘0’, rather than anything that is truly positive. In other words, positives and negatives experienced are not opposites, rather, states of overall discomfort. Anything that is positive is, overall, a result of overcoming a negative. To feel happy, you must have no lingering, serious discomforts. To feel healthy, your body cannot be burdened with ailment. You cannot feel relief from scratching if you had no itch to begin with. It is not sufficient a counter-argument to say that for every negative there is an equal positive always met, because discomfort requires only the existence of a sentient psychology; whereas, elimination of discomfort is not necessarily assured. For example, you cannot be sure that you will be hired for a certain job, yet you can far more easily wish that you could. Certain actions can produce more positive than negative, but only within themselves. For example, going to the fridge to eat whilst starving, would be an enormously positive trade (the discomfort of having to go the fridge and select food to eat etc. , versus the elimination of starvation). However, given context, it would be apparent that you were unable to satisfy discomforts to begin with, hence the starving state that you found yourself in. Overall, the sum can never reach a true positive, as you have, in reality, only experienced great relief by suffering greatly beforehand. Conclusively, it would be virtually impossible to reach the ‘0’, as every possible discomfort would have to be accounted for. Therefore, in the event that you cannot eliminate every discomfort, you will have an overall negative sum, meaning that your life is more discomfort than comfort. Permanent state of discomfort Through our perception, our mind gives us tasks. Production of these tasks is like the ‘building of broken chairs’, in that there exists no problem in reality outside of our perception. For example, a woman’s nails need not be coloured or manicured; it is only through a combination of a sexual drive and vanity does this ‘broken chair’ seem to need fixing. In other words, if you were without the filter of sentient psychology, you would be able to see that these ‘problems’, in reality, do not exist. Furthermore, the illusion that these broken chairs need to be fixed, need not exist. Does it really achieve anything to say ‘thank you’ after someone has done something nice for you, other than satisfy ego and other products of sentient psychology? Is there some greater purpose for this psychology that ordains its existence? Why must the psychology exist if it is designed to produce these broken chairs that need not exist in reality, yet only serve as motivation to eliminate discomfort? It will never be enough to acquire one million dollars as you could have ten million dollars, and for all the brilliance of earning such a large amount, as soon as the psychology becomes accustomed to it, more will be required. If you are able to resist the natural urge for more, then it will be another field of desire that will strike your attention, such as the growing of a simple garden, or the gathering of family. Either way, your sentient psychology will always want more of or ‘one more time’ of anything. And such, it is apparent that a permanent state of discomfort rules whenever a sentient psychology exists, and that any comforts are loaned for but a mere instance or two, then the fabric of comfort is picked-at until morsels of the fabric remain. A discomfort is temporary, fine, but the production of discomforts is permanent. Relativity scheme There is no objective determinant in which humans decide value, rather valuing comes through comparison. For example, a soft arm-chair has, in reality, no real value. It has value, when viewed through human perception, because it serves the purpose of something to rest upon. It is more valuable than a pile of sticks or simply the ground, in this regard, as the chair will likely be far more comfortable than either. However, if a person has never sat on a chair in his/her life, and has only sat on sticks, won’t then sticks be considered to be the most comfortable for the person? Won’t then the sticks be the measure for what is most comfortable? Similarly, when a human comes to valuing her life, it is not done via an objective table of values; rather it is done by comparison: ‘it could be worse’, ‘one in the hand is better than two in the bush’ etc. If a person has lived in the bush her entire life, would she consider the ground to be comfortable? Probably, don’t you think? Why? She doesn’t know of any better, and the other things to sit on are, comparatively, not as comfortable as the sticks. Since human value is not necessarily grounded in reality, rather it can be, at best, somewhat accurate in reflecting comparative value, would it then be silly to say that all human judgements are based in reality? Quite clearly, the best a human could do is decide what is better, rather than what is best. So, if we understand ALL the possibilities of what can be done with a life, then it should be apparent that not all judgements are based upon reality; just because someone has determined their life as valuable, this doesn’t mean that the value judgements that comprise this decision were done in accordance to any real value. Surprise investment analogy If you go investing (procreating) with another person’s life savings (state of being), without his/her consent, that is immoral. You do not own the person’s life savings, so you should not have the final word in how it is used. Even if the likelihood of you being able to increase the savings via using the savings is high (the child will likely have good health/a good life etc.), it would still be immoral to risk it without permission, much as it is immoral to sign contracts for people without their permissions. Even if you were brilliant in determining investment opportunities, you are still risking the money as you do not have 100% control over outcome of the investment. Sure, I think it would be incredibly fantastic to come home to a 50% increase in my life’s savings, yet I would think that I was violated in not being told that someone was essentially gambling with my money. But what if I came home to a 50% decrease and an apology that amounted to ‘well, that’s just life’? I would feel absolutely mortified and violated, wouldn’t you? Drink-driving analogy Many societies have rules against ‘drink-driving’. This is because drink-driving causes unnecessary risk. Let’s assume that it is necessary to drive a car. It is not necessary to drink-drive in order to drive. Similarly, it is not required of your life to procreate in order for you to live/ experience pleasure. The risks of causing harm increase substantially in drunk-driving (procreating), and even if the risks are low, the ramifications that result could entail catastrophe (serious disabilities, a truly nasty experience in life etc.).