Child birth should be considered immoral

Happiness And Pleasure Are Good “…She did absolutely nothing to support this. Giving one example…” Try to understand the general principle, as it is more important than the examples. You must feel the need to itch first in order to want to scratch. You must feel a grumble in your stomach first in order to satisfy your hunger. This constant wishing for things, which leads to happiness when the wish comes true, comes only through not having things, and that is uncomfortable. If you weren’t suffering, then you would feel no need to do it, as this ‘neutral state’ would not be convincing enough. Have you ever heard someone say, ‘I don’t care either way, therefore I must do this’? Thus, pleasure is the result of overcoming discomfort/suffering/deprivation. “Pro also claims that people are not always given jobs in their lives, or even jobs that they feel satisfied with. This is obviously true, but trivial. People would rather be homeless than not have life. If this wasn't true, then more bums would commit suicide.” This is an appeal to popularity. Slavery was once accepted by most, does that make it right? A rational person would not choose to suffer if he/she understood the burden of existing, and was not preoccupied with the superficial instincts to survive. It is in no sense trivial that people do not enjoy their jobs. They are clearly suffering as a result, which, as we know, is bad. Sure, it is not a convincing reason to end your life, rather part of a cumulative negative conglomeration that is far more persuading. It is the state of existing as a sentient entity that is the problem, and this is just one of the many negatives that result. “Nobody ever said life was easy, but it doesn't follow from the fact that life is hard, that life isn't worth living to the point where giving birth is immoral.” I argued that life brings about much suffering, not that it was ‘hard’. Seeing that suffering is bad, and that there is more suffering than pleasure in the world, people should not be brought into it. “… It doesn't matter how many terrible things my opponent lists, she must show that these things make life not worth living...” Are these instances of suffering not important? Does it not matter that human psychology produces more suffering than pleasure due to its nature? It is the suffering that results which should not be ignored and brushed off in the way of my opponent. Life Is Discomfort “How come the world isn't engaged in mass suicide, and the population keeps growing if life is so bad?” I’ll try rephrasing: because people have a natural state of wanting to live, regardless of the circumstances. It is a biological result of evolution (i.e. the humans that survived in the past were the ones not killing themselves), perpetuated through media and government encouraging people not to kill themselves. It is also reinforced through loved one’s pressure (‘I will become sad if you kill yourself; please don’t do it’). It is also scary to kill yourself, especially if you don’t know what will happen afterwards. “Also, her "driving while drunk" example is a bad one. One can still cause an accident even if they are not drunk ... This doesn't mean that diving is bad.” You have missed the point entirely. Yes, you can still cause an accident if you’re not drunk, but it is wrong to drive drunk because it significantly increases the risks of an accident. Similarly, by having a child, even though the risk of the child being born into an incredibly horrific state is low, it’s still a risk that you taking for someone else without his/her consent. “…For the most part, there is less suffering than non-suffering. I have a head ache now, but I don't most of the time.” But if you didn’t have a headache, you could have countless other things – you are creating a false-dichotomy. “These instances of suffering are never usually enough to warrant life not worth living.” These things happen frequently, it’s just such a ‘part of life’ that you don’t look closely at them and say, ‘hey, these things are bad’. Yes, they’re not all catastrophic, but there is still an overall accumulation of suffering over pleasure. “I didn't say "all day", that is a straw-man. My point was that most of the time, suffering is not occurring.” You were so vague that I couldn’t pin-point what you were saying. Besides, even if it’s not occurring all the time, suffering amount exceeds positive things because it occurs first. “Waking up next to a beautiful woman is comfortable, eating a tasty hot breakfast is comfortable…” Those things you have listed as comfortable are only so because you had the discomfort to begin with. You can only appreciate a beautiful woman because you are not with one constantly with a deprivation state of sexuality (i.e. you need to be sexually attracted to women before you can be attracted to them). Eating a tasty, hot breakfast can only be comfortable should you be without good food constantly, or hungry for food (i.e. you have a deprivation state that requires satisfaction). It is by existing in a state of being able to be satisfied by food that makes you suffer beforehand when you are not satisfied. Your Life Is Far Worse Than You Probably Recognise “It is not good that the cookies are burnt ... If someone thinks life isn't worth living over cookies burning; they may have some serious mental issues.” Clearly, we were talking metaphorically. “Life is something to precious to people, that the suffering is worth it…” I would argue that the decision is not a rational one, predicated upon, ‘it will be sad if you die’ or something similar. Besides, if you want to live as a quadriplegic with agonising cancer, then that decision is ultimately yours, but you have no right to impose the risk of that upon someone else by creating him/her without consent. “As far as the suicide part is concerned… She claims that some people don't have the courage to end their lives, but who needs courage to end something so bad? If life is so terrible, then it actually takes courage not to kill yourself and face that pain.” It’s not necessarily always “so bad”, it’s that it’s usually more bad than good. Again, people are influenced by a numerous of non-rational influences; do people always make rational decisions? “The very fact that those people would be negatively effected by the loss of that person's life, presupposes that person's life was good!” I am arguing against the procreation of people. If people weren’t born in the first place, we wouldn’t have this problem. Furthermore, by advocating procreation, you have the problem of people having to suffer through the loss of others. The life was only good in the sense that it fills the deprivation of the loved ones (e.g. need for comfort/love), but if neither existed in the first place, then there wouldn’t be a problem. “Pro hasn't shown that it applies to what we are speaking about, because the subject is inherently personal.” You should not be refuting my arguments by attacking my character. The fact that I haven’t killed myself should not be used to discredit my argument, because it is not relevant to the resolution. Even if after finishing this debate, I went out and had hundreds of babies, this does not refute my argument. Pro's New Argument “Pro backs up the argument with a gambling example. However, people lose most of the time at the Casino.” Depends on which game you are playing, but this is beside the point. The point is that if you go gambling (procreating) with another person’s life inheritance (state of being), without his/her consent, that is immoral. “If my arm randomly hits someone, I caused suffering, but I couldn't control it, so it wasn't immoral.” Sex isn’t random. You don’t have to have sex in the first place, especially when these risks are involved. “Many people in third world countries don't have birth control or … that wouldn't necessarily make the mother immoral.” Again, you don’t have to have sex in the first place. 8k chars.