Resolved: On Balance, Human Childbirth is Immoral

I. There are two perspectives on this that I would like to take, the first is assessing the impact that bringing into new life has on society and on life in Earth as a whole. The second actually argues that bringing in new life is inherently immoral towards the being you are bringing into life in the first place. And without further ado, I wish us both a good debate! II. Impact on Society: This first contention is one I think most will be able to easily relate to. A human child has needs, and impacts society when it is brought into it. You cannot myopically look at childbirth as just the state of bringing in a child, you are bringing in a living breathing being that will exist in Earth for roughly 80 years given current lifespans. During those 80 years that human will consume resources, and leave a footprint of many sorts on the Earth's biosphere. For example the average human in a developed country such as the UK will produce 7.9 metric tonnes of CO2 waste per year, or roughly 80x that over the course of a lifetime, which is an enormously disproportionate amount of environmental impact that no other sentient life will have. A human will go through roughly dozens of trees, many of which are sources from rainforest area causes indescribable suffering and damage to the sentient beings that once lived there. [1] Perhaps most striking are the sheer number if animals that must die for just one human to be sustained. The average human goes through over a thousand chickens, even when just considering the sheer number eggs consumed (over 10,000) by even those regarded as vegetarians. The amount of beef, lamb, etc also total up to quantities exceeding several tonnes, which obviously means several livestock. These animals are kept in confined conditions, especially chickens and are in significant states of discomfort. [1] Also consider the environmental impact of the areas we use for our activities, the area that must be cleared for farmland, for sewers, for towns and cities etc. These were almost certainly once used for a vast array of life forms which are steadily being disproportionately eradicated for our own selfish human benefits. Every human born makes a substantial contribution to the damage on the biosphere, and makes a contribution to the suffering of to other sentient beings we coinhabit the Earth with. Therefore bringing in any additional human life will amplify this, and hence be immoral. III. Impact on Sentient Being Itself: This contention is very much antinatalist in it's portrayal, that life is inherently a state that would be preferable not to have ever attained in the first place so I will attack this first: IIIA. Life is a permanent state of discomfort This is going to be one of the most important, and most sensitive contentions. As humans, our entire notion of comfort/discomfort are a means to an end, which principally is to further the propagation of our genes from evolution. That being the case, we are intrinsically wired up to respond to negative influences. Hunger, pain, sexual deprivation, thirst etc. All of these such states are states of discomfort that our body perceives that it must respond to, lest it die out. With that in mind, what of all the pleasurable things in life? Such a good meal? Or scratching your nose? Or an exhilarating bout of sexual intercourse? Well the answer to that is very, straightforward, all these things, and the likes are merely just temporary reprieves from the states of discomfort that drove us to accomplish them. A meal is a pleasurable activity because it ends the discomfort that comes from being hungry, sexual intercourse is a pleasurable activity because it relieves the discomfort caused by our sexual drive. Therefore, the maximal possible comfort state one can ever achieve is nothing but us fulfilling every single area in which we are experiencing discomfort (I. e. Zero), or a deprivation of some sort. There is no way to go 'above zero' in these cases since the very act of moving from one state to another is nothing but moving from a great state of discomfort to a lesser state of discomfort, you are *always* in discomfort. The scratch doesn't feel "really good" unless the itch was there in the first place, it's that interlude that is experienced. So what happens after you eat a meal, do you continue to feel those pleasurable sensations from that juicy steak? Of course not, once the meal is over you no longer experience that continuing course of comfort. However virtually all states of discomfort occur over significantly longer periods than the states of comfort, therefore life, as a whole, is a state of discomfort. Does a rock experience discomfort? Does a rock experience hunger, thirst, pain? Of course not. The rock is never in a state of discomfort, that is principally a state that only sentient beings will experience. Therefore we can construct a very crude argument against life: P1. It is preferable to be a state of less discomfort P2. Being a rock is a state of less discomfort than life C. Being a rock is preferable to life This argument might seem laughable, but in am dead serious in the conclusion. I have defended the premises, and therefore the conclusion is inescapable if the argument is valid and sound. It simply follows that death is preferable to life, since death is a state of no discomfort. IIIB. Bringing in new life is done without the consent of the sentient being and is selfish It is rather straightforward, you are bringing in new life into a state of discomfort without permission from the being itself. It is akin to somebody putting out cigarettes on your neck without your permission. Anything which causes discomfort and suffering to the individual without their permission or even consultation is inherently immoral. The being never asked to be born, and neither was consulted on the circumstances or environment they would inhabit. In fact childbirth is generally done for rather selfish reasons on the parent's behalf. Usually for reasons of family, 'happiness', but also for even more sinister reasons, such as having someone to look after them when they age, to continue on a bloodline legacy, inheritance, family honor, etc. In fact it is impossible to have a child for anything other than selfish reasons, since those reasons cannot be for the child's values, as they simply do not yet exist. The child is entirely born for the sake of the adult. Any and all of these reasons are cases of providing comfort to the states of discomfort the parents are currently in, which would be resolvable by the parent's deaths anyway. To summarise this part of the argument you can structure it as follows: P1) Any action that provides comfort to yourself, at the expense of another, without the other's permission is immoral P2) Childbirth, at the expense of the child, provides comfort to yourself without the child's permission C) Childbirth is immoral Premise 1 is also synonymous with 'any selfish action is immoral', which I don't think Con will argue against either. Similar to how stealing someone's dinner might provide comfort to yourself, but it does so at the expense of the other person, and without their permission, and is regarded as immoral. IIIC. Law of Diminishing Returns & Futility of life This more to reenforce my previous points, if comfort was in fact a positive state, we would expect that having more of something would invariably lead to further still increasing states of 'happiness' or comfort. But in reality the opposite is true. Millionaires with enough money to sustain themselves for life are no happier than the average family when studied (such as with national lottery winners), and in fact happiness is found only to increase to the point where a family can sustain their basic needs. [3] This is exactly what the antinatalist argument would predict, as the scale 'tops out' at zero. You can only ever feel so 'happy'. You can be sexually fulfilled, but after enough of it you do not get any happier, it is a law of diminishing returns. Eating another steak after the first one doesn't give the same feelings and sensations as the first one. This is very easy to explain from an antinatalist perspective, as you have already satisfied your state if discomfort. But contradicts explanations that depict true 'goods', or positive states of comfort. The opposite also heavily supports antinatalism, which sets no lower floor on the level of discomfort one can achieve, you can always experience more pain. And this largely is true, we can always experience greater levels of torture, pain, and need. By prolonging the starvation, or increasing the pain stimuli, there simply isn't an apparent upper limit of discomfort. IV. Life's 'Intrinsic' Value This is a point that may be raised in defence of childbirth, that life is inherently or intrinsically good to have, or be. However the default position for this claim (and any other of huge likes) is to disbelieve/reject until provided evidence to believe. The burden of proof for this defence will be on Con. Until then it is reasonable to accept that life has no intrinsic value, as it is an extraneous claim? V. Conclusion: I have stated my case in two fronts for the immorality of childbirth. So for now I will leave you with a couple of quotes from Arthur Schopenhauer. "Satisfaction consists in freedom from pain, which is the positive element of life. " "There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome/to be got over. " Over to Con! VI. References: 1. . http://www.greencontributor.com... 2. Arguments are adapted from . http://www.vhemt.org... and . http://www.debate.org... 3. . http://www.nottingham.ac.uk...