Reproduction is not a rational choice

Objections to PRO’s criteria for rationality PRO first made use of induction as a defining characteristic for rationality. I argued that there is at least some inductive justification for having children, namely that the situation of the parents’ generally establishes the situation of the child. If the parents’ have a good life, it is likely the child will as well, in general. PRO then makes use of the unpredictability of reproduction; the fact that we cannot know how the child’s life will end up. This is what PRO calls the “suffering” argument. I offered decisions which are extremely similar: marriage, career changes, and moving. PRO objects that these things are reversible. I will agree that you can decide to change from married to single, from mechanic to lawyer, and from apartment renter to home owner. However, this is a moot point. The effects of the decision are not reversible. My choice to be a mechanic will forever impact my life, even if I become a lawyer. You can change your mind in each of these scenarios. However, the decision was made, and it had its impact. Those impacts are not erased by changing ones’ mind. Such decisions are called “life-altering” with good reason. Even if I do decide to divorce my wife, it is still the case that at one time we were married, and had the interactions we had and learned the things we learned. Motivating Prudent Reasons Review my definition of this term. “Factors external to oneself which encourage one alternative over another” I offered a few examples of MPRs in Round 3. When there are two possible courses of action (paying a cell phone bill and going rock climbing), there are reasons which encourage paying the cell phone bill over going rock climbing. That is what I mean by “Motivating prudent reasons”. In regards to children. For those couples of which those factors are true, the decision to have kids is encouraged over the decision not to have kids. As such, the decision to have kids is rational. PRO claims we cannot show care or thought for the future. No argument is provided for this. As such, I respond, firstly, “Yes, we can” and secondly, this same mode of reasoning applies to each of the decisions I mentioned, especially the decision to marry and the decision to move. I do not know, for example, how my girlfriends’ family will be impacted by our decision to marry. It could cause them immense emotional discomfort. I could divorce, sure; however, I still got married. This is the point of my argument in this regard. If the criteria for rationality is, as PRO has argued, that we can know the impact it will have on others in the future, then any long-term decision is irrational, because we cannot know how that decision will affect others in the future. PRO is taking special considerations for reproduction without any justification for doing so. Simply because we can make a secondary decision which counteracts the initial long-term decision doesn’t make it somehow more rational to make these decision. It could even be said, using the same logic PRO has been using, that it is irrational to make a decision to reverse the initial decision, because we cannot know the effect the decision will have on others in the future, and we can’t know anything about the lives of all of the individuals who will be affected. Suffering and Happiness I discussed this argument very briefly in Round 2, along with other points regarding gambling. I don’t see how taking risks equates to being irrational. I argued that “gambling” was not inherently irrational, and PRO stated that “gambling” was not the thing to which he was objecting. Simply because there is risk involved in some decision doesn’t make it therefore irrational to make that decision. Re-Cap A1. A decision d is rational if and only if there are motivating prudent reasons for d. P1. Reproduction is rational if and only if there are motivating prudent reasons for it. P2. There are motivating reasons for reproduction for some people Ergo, Reproduction is rational for some people. If P2 holds up, the conclusion follows, and the resolution is negated. I have provided reason to think P2 is true. I also pointed out that the arguments PRO offers don’t serve change the fact that at least some people have MPR’s for reproducing. CONCLUSION The burden of proof was on PRO to affirm the resolution, that “Reproduction is not a rational choice”. PRO has argued that because we cannot know ahead of time how the child will be affected, and we cannot reverse the decision, it is irrational to reproduce. I argued that there are other decisions which have these same characteristics which are still rational. I further argued that there are some motivating prudent reasons for reproduction, namely economic, emotional, and interpersonal factors and the desire for children. There are risks involved in having children, but there are risks involved in majority of our decisions. PRO has not shown risk to be of any particular relevance to the rationality of reproduction. The arguments PRO has provided so far fail to affirm the resolution. I have also offered some arguments which, if sound, serve to negate the resolution, also offering reasons to believe those arguments are sound. I urge the audience to take these things into consideration.