Child birth should be considered immoral

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.” At their core, objectives are comforts and discomforts. You can put pretty colours and flowers all over them, but to get gold at the Olympics, after wanting it, is to fill a hole of great discomfort. “Thrill seekers aren't after comfort. They are after an adrenaline rush, which does not fit the definition of comfort.” C’mon man, you know what I mean by comfort; don’t play word games with me. Thrill seekers aren’t after literal comfort, but that wasn’t in the sense I argued for. The thrill seeker once experienced the adrenaline rush, and now wants it again, but doesn’t have it at the moment. THAT is the discomfort. “Doctors are not after comfort either they know how tough their chosen path will … Ussually having something to do with helping others [2].” They are after comfort after they place the massive burden upon themselves: to become a doctor. Again, you’re not arguing comfort and discomfort in the sense that I am; you’re just playing word games. 2. “Unless you are capable of killing all people in one smooth stroke, then many will suffer until they pass on.” I’m not arguing to kill everyone once people are born; I’m arguing that it’s immoral for people to breed. “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.” Are you saying that allowing people to exist is immoral? Again, I am not arguing that we should kill them once they are born. “Generally a birth in the family is a joyous event. It makes people happy and therefore less uncomfortable.” Freudian slip?-: “less uncomfortable”. It is not that the life is now overall comfortable, rather less uncomfortable since a discomfort has been negated. “It has also been shown that as society becomes more technoligically advanced and interconnected , that life becomes less of a zero sum game[3]” This is absolute nonsense. The zero-sum game results from our psychology, NOT technological advancements. Read my initial argument again, please, because you don’t understand it. 3. “Giving birth to someone is a gift you give ... 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.” But he/she can’t end it until after he/she has lived in overall discomfort, which is almost assured considering the negative-sum game. Again, to impose that upon someone is immoral. “However you have no right to decide for someone if they are born.” Yes, I do not have that right, and nor am I arguing for it. But this is only ONCE they are born, which shouldn’t be happening in the first place. 1. “there are people who can be considered masochists and others active in the BDSM scene…” And again, you talk about discomfort in a different sense to which I am talking. Again, for goodness knows how many times, they are discomfortable in the sense that they are not being whipped or tortured (considering that they want that). This kind of semantics arguing is disrespectful, and should not be done within a debate. 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.” What an incredibly stupid argument. Try not eating for 60 hours, to the point where you are actually starving, and then try telling me that starving isn’t uncomfortable (and I can use uncomfortable in both senses here, so you can’t say that you don’t understand). 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.” Well, I’ll beg to differ, but this point does seem moot. 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.” But having a sexual drive is, and that’s what I said: “sexual drive”. Sexual arousal =/= sexual drive. “Vanity is not uncomfortable in an of itself…” Again, semantics; this isn’t in the sense that I was arguing. 2 “Enough is different for different people. You can be content… It's also possible to lose all ten million and still be content.” I used money just to propose something of value. Clearly, if you don’t value the money, you are going to be content with losing it. You may also become content with losing it if you value it, but only after the initial heart-ache. The reason for pain and pleasure. 1. “Life is not about seeking comfort or avoiding discomfort…” Sure, the fundamental, biological core of life is not about comforts and discomforts, but these two make for my moral argument, which is what we are debating here. Benatar's asymmetry 1. “Not really pain is a signal that aids in man's primary purpose of existence. Without pain survival would be very unlikely.” You missed his point. Would there be anyone in the world, that would sit in agonising pain for the rest of his/her life, and continue to say, “this is good”? Or how about getting your face smashed in, and your pain receptors screaming at you? Yeah, that’s really helpful, even “good” as you like to argue. Once again, you continue to dance around with your intellectually dishonest answers that surmount to dirty semantics games. 2. “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.” Pleasure is the reason you’re doing these “important tasks” in the first place. Besides, it’s not “pleasure Seaking”, it’s simply pleasure. “Value can't be assigned to non existent pleasure but it can be assigned to non existent pain.” The value assigned to non-existent pleasure is neither good nor bad. We’re not mourning the choice of trillions of instances where people choose not to have a baby because no-one is being deprived of it. Conversely, it is good that no-one is suffering as it is bad to suffer. Summary “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?” Because discomfort is, at the very least in an inter-subjective sense, bad. You talk about things with the word “objective,” which implies that you know the meaning to life (as if you have even proven that there is one first. You haven’t, all you have done is argue what is there biologically, which is an appeal to nature). “She supports this premise with only anecdotal evidence.” No, I argued a moral framework and gave examples to demonstrate the framework. “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.” This is the problem with most of your argument: you want to play stupid semantic games. I have explained the sense in which I have used the words and it is consistent with their definitions. Even if those words did not mean the things I suggested they did, you can still argue against the meaning I have used, but you would rather play your word games and waste everyone’s time. Also, none of my analogies have been addressed, and thus they stand uncontested.