Child birth should be considered immoral

Discomfort is bad I'm not sure why this argument is included. Its an obvious point. Comfort is better then discomfort when no other factors exist or are taken into account. Life is ( almost certainly) more discomfort then comfort. Pro argues life is a 'negative-sum game'. Her premise for this statement is there is more discomfort then comfort in a persons life. I disagree, but let's look at why even if her unfalsifiable lone premise is correct, the conclusion drawn from it is not. 1. Life is the one game where you get to choose your objective. You can't narrow these objectives down to comfort and discomfort either. Thrill seekers aren't after comfort. They are after an adrenaline rush, which does not fit the definition of comfort.[1] Doctors are not after comfort either they know how tough their chosen path will be( how uncomfortable ). They do it anyway and for a multitude of reasons. Ussually having something to do with helping others [2]. 2.Unless you are capable of killing all people in one smooth stroke, then many will suffer until they pass on. If people didn't exist already then it would be wrong for any sentient being to be allowed to exist to start with. Given how people exist your argument falls apart. Why? Generally a birth in the family is a joyous event. It makes people happy and therefore less uncomfortable. It has also been shown that as society becomes more technoligically advanced and interconnected , that life becomes less of a zero sum game[3] If you have good genetics and parenting skills then not bringing a child into the world would be a selfish immoral decision. Would you really make the tens of thousands of people suffer for the sake of one? 3. Giving birth to someone is a gift you give. Nobody can grant their self life[4]. If that person decides that they don't appreciate the gift they can always decide to end it, and all the suffering associated with it. However you have no right to decide for someone if they are born. You have no right to deny them the decision you were allowed to make. They should be allowed to decide for themselves if the discomfort is worth it. Arguments that show the premise for the conclusion " child birth is immoral" is flawed. 1. Pro argues that being happy you must have no lingering serious discomforts. Some people are happy with serious discomforts though. Out of respect I won't provide a link or go into detail, but there are people who can be considered masochists and others active in the BDSM scene that would disagree with you. 2. Pro argues starving is uncomfortable. There is no reason the signals that go to your brain to inform you that it's time to eat, have to be uncomfortable. These signals are in place to help you avoid discomfort. 3. Pro argues that to feel pride in your kid they must have overcome something, that you were hoping they overcome to begin with. This is absurd. Some people feel pride for their kid for absolutely no reason. For people that have reasons they can have pride for a multitude of reasons besides a previous hope. If my kid gives CPR to their teacher after they suffered a traumatic injury, and saved the woman's life, then I would be proud without a previous hope for them to overcome this scenario. As a matter of fact I can feel pride for them while also being angry because, a hero mentality is dangerous. Permanent state of discomfort 1." A woman's nails need to be coloured" " It is only through the combination of a sexual drive and vanity that 'this broken chair' seems to need fixing." Sexual arousal is not uncomfortable. It feels good. So does the sex act and so does the release. Not in all cases but in general. Just because one feeling ends and a new one begins doesn't make the previous act uncomfortable. Vanity is not uncomfortable in an of itself. Lots of times vanity serves as a tool because you are seeking pleasure with it. Mostly through compliments. This is not pleasure derived from a negative self esteem either, but instead it serves to confirm what you already believe about yourself. 2."It will never be enough" Enough is different for different people. You can be content with a million dollars. The person content with a million can accept 9 million more and still be content. His current contentment with more is no indicator that he was not content when he had less. It's also possible to lose all ten million and still be content. Sometimes people change their mind about what they want to do. If a person gains enough money to retire and does so and then takes up gardening, didn't neccesarily do so because they were uncomfortable with their life. A person can suddenly refocus their attention on something else. This redirection of focus need not be mistaken for a previous period of being uncomfortable. A lot of people are are happy with the process of something such as making money. The results of such action doesn't indicate being unhappy of their financial situation but instead on their happiness of the pursuit. The reason for pain and pleasure. 1. Life is not about seeking comfort or avoiding discomfort. The primary function of life is self preservation[5]. These urges pro defines as uncomfortable, are merely tools to aid in the process. hunger is a signal to eat. Vanity is about acceptance within the tribe that protects you. Politeness is so your not cast out. Sexual urges are there to insure survival of your genes. Benatar's asymmetry 1. Pain is bad for people that exist. Not really pain is a signal that aids in man's primary purpose of existence. Without pain survival would be very unlikely. 2.pleasure is good for people that exist. Yes and no pleasure Seaking can lead to drug overdoses, distract you from important tasks and make you more unlikely to notice underlying problems creeping up. 3. What is non existent can't suffer.( this non existent pain is a good thing) 4. What does not exist cant be deprived of pleasure ( there for non existing pleasure is not a bad thing ) Value can't be assigned to non existent pleasure but it can be assigned to non existent pain. This is very hypocritical. Either things that don't exist have value or they don't. It's ridiculous to assign value to non existent things that support your argument but assign no value to non existent things that hurt your argument. Summary Pro's conclusion- Child birth should be considered immoral. Pro's premise-Pro comes to this conclusion by asserting that life is a negative sum game. She never explains what the objective of this game is. One is left to derive from the arguments supporting this statement, that the objective is to obtain more comfort then discomfort in life. Why is this life's objective? Why should everyone share this objective if they choose not to? For pro to prove her conclusion these answers are needed. Premise to support life as a negative sum game- pro's entire argument is based on the assertion that there is more discomfort then comfort in life. She supports this premise with only anecdotal evidence. Every piece of anecdotal evidence has been easily dismissed with common sense alternative explanations. Pro has one argument consisting entirely on anecdotes.. This is not enough to meet any burden of proof. Another problem is Pro's redefinition of the words comfort and discomfort. Which simply mean ease and unease[6][1]. Pro's uses the words in whatever way is useful to her argument, but not in a way that the words are meant to be used. At one point even calling sexual arousal uncomfortable. Sources [1] http://www.google.com... define [2] http://www.kevinmd.com... [3] http://www.nytimes.com... [4] http://www.cyh.com... [5] http://www.simplypsychology.org... [6] http://www.merriam-webster.com...