Child birth should be considered immoral

Suffering Is BadYes, in general (besides isolated instances), suffering is bad. I do not think anything more needs to be said in this regard. Happiness And Pleasure Are GoodMy opponent says that the problem with this section from me is that suffering always occurs first and it is not always alleviated. She did absolutely nothing to support this. Giving an example of one instance where suffering occurred first and was not alleviated, wouldn't show that suffering always occurs first and is not always alleviated. Also, pertaining to my opponent's example, one can be in a neutral zone (not suffering, or feeling pleasure), with getting a Job causing the switch from a neutral state to having pleasure. There is nothing which necessitates that one has to be suffering prior to feeling pleasure or happiness. Since the support for her contention was not sufficient; we are left with no valid reason accept my opponent's proposition that suffering always occurs first and it is not always alleviated.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. I am not satisfied with my job (I think it sucks). However, I would rather have that and survive than not have life, as would most rational people. 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. That is a radical position that no list of horrible things in life can support. It doesn't matter how many terrible things my opponent lists, she must show that these things make life not worth living. This has not been accomplished. Life Is Discomfort"Yes, but the fact that this kind of horrible misery can happen is a serious problem." The real issue is that Pro has not demonstrated that it is a big enough problem to deem non-life > life (remember, Pro has the burden of proof in this debate; not me). Life is full of discomfort. I mean, I have a pretty bad head ache right now, but even if we take all these things collectively; it still doesn't mean that it is uncomfortable to the point where non-life is the best option. How come the world isn't engaged in mass suicide, and the population keeps growing if life is so bad? Also, her "driving while drunk" example is a bad one. One can still cause an accident even if they are not drunk. My best friend died in 2007 in a car accident and the driver did not have a drink. This doesn't mean that diving is bad. "One person’s contentment with existence doesn’t excuse the poverty, hardship, disease, war and all other terrible things" Yes there is poverty, hardship, disease, war and many other terrible things. There is also wealth, comfort, good health, peace, and many other wonderful things. My opponent is only looking at one side of the coin here. 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. When I stub my toe it hurts, but not most of the time. These instances of suffering are never usually enough to warrant life not worth living. As I said, about 1,000,000 people commit suicide each year, but that is nothing compared to the world population. Most people clearly agree that life is worth living regardless of all the hardship. There are children starving in Africa that are not killing themselves. There is no good reason to think that all this suffering deems life not worth living. "I would argue that boredom will eventually overcome you, which is suffering in itself, but your argument seems to be missing the point (i.e. would everyone sit on a bed all day and be content with life?"I didn't say "all day", that is a straw-man. My point was that most of the time, suffering is not occurring. Thus, it appears as if the suffering that does occur doesn't make life not worth living overall. "Nonsense -- barring hyper-specific context: getting out of bed in the morning on a cold day is uncomfortable..." My opponent just lists uncomfortable things. However, I can name comfortable things. Waking up next to a beautiful woman is comfortable, eating a tasty hot breakfast is comfortable, watching a funny television show is comfortable, drinking a beer is comfortable, being with family and friends is comfortable. All my opponent is doing is listing uncomfortable things. Well, I can list comfortable things. My opponent must show that these discomforts warrant the conclusion. So far, it seems as if she just wants us to take it on faith. Your Life Is Far Worse Than You Probably RecogniseIt is not good that the cookies are burnt. That doesn't mean that life isn't worth living. If someone thinks life isn't worth living over cookies burning; they may have some serious mental issues. I have been punched in the face many times, as have many people. People rarely deem non-life > life over getting in a few fights. My opponent says that I'm just trying to convince myself that I am fine when I say that I am fine most of the time. However, I can just say my opponent is just trying to convince herself that he is not fine. I do not have the burden of proof in this debate; she does. It is her who must prove that most of the time, most people are not fine. Even with people who suffer most of their lives don't deem non-life > life! You don't see mass suicides in Africa, they all want to stay alive till their last dying breath. Life is something to precious to people, that the suffering is worth it. Until my opponent can prove that false; she has no case. As far as the suicide part is concerned, her answers are unconvincing. 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. This means, my opponent's courage argument fails. It would actually take more courage to stay alive if life is as bad as my opponent makes it out to be. Additionally, the reason anti-life reasoning isn't taught in school is that it is flawed reasoning (as I have demonstrated). Also, it is true that people may not want to kill themselves because it may hurt loved ones. However, if life is so bad, then their loved ones should be happy that person is gone. 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!My opponent accuses me of an Ad Hominem, but that is an informal fallacy. Pro hasn't shown that it applies to what we are speaking about, because the subject is inherently personal. When the subject is personal, making arguments based on personal aspects is sometimes the only sound way to argue. Therefore, in this case, at the very least, Pro would have to show I committed the fallacy; and not just bare-assert it. Life Isn't Always Worth LivingThis point is trivial, as it does nothing to establish the resolution (not even in a cumulative case).Pro's New Argument"By bringing someone into existence, you are gambling with someone else’s welfare without his/her consent" Pro backs up the argument with a gambling example. However, people lose most of the time at the Casino. Pro hasn't showed that in general, people lose enough in life to not make it a safe bet. Also, even though suffering is bad, that doesn't mean that a person who causes it is doing something immoral. If my arm randomly hits someone, I caused suffering, but I couldn't control it, so it wasn't immoral. Many people in third world countries don't have birth control or access to abortion clinics (with men who aggressively desire sex which makes it hard for females to say no). Thus, even if one causes mass harm on a child by giving birth in a world of suffering, that wouldn't necessarily make the mother immoral. Pro simply hasn't established the resolution.