Reproduction is not a rational choice

Thanks again to con for a genuinely interesting response! Before I address con's points, let me make a brief closing statement. You'll recall that the resolution is "Reproduction is not a rational choice." I'd invite readers to keep in mind that I have not said or even implied that reproduction is the ONLY irrational choice, just that it is one irrational choice among many. You'll also recall that I used a dipartite argument, namely that parents cannot know anything about the experience of parenthood ahead of time and that we necessarily cannot know anything about the child we bring into the world ahead of time. Argument 1 is fairly weak (as it is intended to be), and con rightly points out that not having experience applies to many choices we make. But I have argued that parenthood is unlike many of these decisions because it a wholly unique, inherently unprecedented, irreversible decision. Con has tried to use some deductive arguments that make use of things like "some decision" or "A decision D," but the very point of this argument is that parenthood is NOT like any other decision. It is unique. Therefore I think his attempt to categorize parenthood with other decisions is misleading, but I'll get to that in a minute. Argument 2, the 'suffering' argument, stronger, and con has not focused very much on this argument. He has ultimately failed to address the argument, it seems. I'd like to reiterate that argument. Here are, roughly, the options for non-existence: No pain: good No pleasure: not bad (since pleasure adds a positive to an otherwise neutral or negative state) For existence: Pain: bad Pleasure: good It is clear that we have no way of knowing whether our lives will be filled with pain or pleasure (con tries to make a case that we can, and I'll address that in a moment). Therefore reproduction is inherently a gamble with another person's life at stake - each person having roughly equal probability of living an overall good versus overall bad life. So if we reproduce and the person we bring into existence has a bad life, we've inflicted a real harm on that person. If we do not reproduce, the potential life never comes into fruition and thus cannot suffer a harm of any kind. Now I'll get to con's remarks. Similar decisions: There is a significant difference between the options con named and the choice to reproduce. He mentioned: getting a job, moving into a new place, and going to college. But all of these decisions are reversible. If you don't like your job, you can quit. If you don't like your new home, you can move. If you don't like college, you can drop out or transfer. But parenthood is not like that in the slightest. If you dislike being a parent, you are AT BEST stuck with that decision for 18 years, but realistically for the rest of your life. For con's argument to work, the job, college, or new home would have to be permanent and you would have to make the decision fairly blindly: you may be able to turn to friends or family who have done these things and ask how they are, but it's not something you yourself can experience prior to doing it. Therefore this comparison fails. We can know about our parental decision ahead of time: Con says that we can know, roughly - based on our economic status, social status, and so on - what kind of parents we will be and what our children's lives will be like. But this doesn't seem to be the case at all. I grant con that it may be more irrational for someone who lives in desolate poverty to reproduce than someone who does not, but it's obvious that economic and social status are not indicators of what a child's life will be like. The child may be born with a deformity or a painful disorder. He may be stricken with a terminal or debilitating disease. He may be depressed. (In fact, wealthy children tend to be depressed at higher rates than poorer ones, but this is a triviality.) He may be heartbroken by the love of his life. He may get into a car accident and become a paraplegic. The fact is that we can really have no idea what will happen over the course of someone's life regardless of our status as parents. Thus, we fall back into my real harm argument, and it is clear that the more rational choice would have been not to reproduce. Irrational decisions that affect only me: I have to say I don't fully understand the relevance of this argument. I have not claimed that it is only decisions that affect other people that are irrational. In fact, part of my original argument is that reproduction is partly irrational because of the effect it may have on the parents (namely not liking parenthood, etc.). I claimed that since reproducing directly affects someone else's life AND since we cannot know anything about what their life will be like ahead of time it is irrational to reproduce, NOT that anytime we make decisions in regards to others it is irrational. Argument from criteria: I think, given what I have already said, we have good reason to deny premise 2 of con's argument, namely that there are motivating prudent reasons for reproduction for some people. People certainly have motivating reasons for reproducing, but my entire point thus far has been that these motivations cannot be prudent, because we cannot show thoughtfulness or care for the future (the child). Therefore we may reject premise 2, and the argument does not hold up. Con's criteria: I have not precluded the rationality of long-term decisions at all. I have precluded the rationality of long-term, IRREVERSIBLE decisions, the nature of which we cannot know anything about a priori. This is key to my argument, and I hope it is clear now why this criteria is not too broad. If con can name other long-term, irreversible, unknowable decisions, all he will succeed in doing is showing that these are also irrational decisions (tu quoque), not that reproduction is therefore rational. Conclusion: I hope I have made it clear that reproduction is wholly and uniquely unknowable, irreversible, and non-self contained (that is, it affects other people as well as oneself). Therefore con's attempts to compare reproduction to things like college, owning a house, etc. have, in my view, fallen short of showing my criteria to be too broad. Additionally, con largely failed to address the real harm argument, which I feel carries more weight than the first nature-of-parenthood argument. As a result, I think my initial claim still stands: reproduction is, by its nature, an irrational decision. It is one of many, but this does not preclude it from irrationality. On a final note, I have to say I really enjoyed this debate. I usually don't waste time on empty formalities, but I really enjoyed con's arguments and I found this exchange genuinely interesting. Thanks for a good debate, con.