Child birth should be considered immoral

I’ll start with counter-arguments first. Suffering Is Bad My opponent has conceded that suffering is bad. Whether pleasure or whatnot is good, is irrelevant to this particular section (respectively, both suffering and pleasure can be bad and good at the same time). Happiness And Pleasure Are Good The problem with reciprocating my argument with a reversal of terms is that suffering always occurs first and it is not always alleviated. For example, being happy about receiving a job means that there was a time in which you suffered by not having a job. Furthermore, people are not always given jobs in their lives, or even jobs that they feel satisfied with. There is an unemployment rate for every country in the world, meaning that there are instances where people are suffering without a job (even if that means everyone is satisfied with the jobs they have). In regards to work, not everyone is satisfied and this ‘parallel’ idea does not hold. The concept I have argued here could be applied to a vast majority of things, such as sport and romantic relationships, were it is impossible for everyone to succeed or even be content. Life Is Discomfort “Pro mentions situations where people have to go through terrible… doesn't mean it is the case most of the time.” Yes, but the fact that this kind of horrible misery can happen is a serious problem. It is like drink-driving (which we, ironically, have laws against). You are unlikely to cause an accident whilst you are driving drunk, but there is still a risk that you could cause irreversible, excessive harm to yourself and/or others. Similarly, giving birth to a child can cause some seriously horrific things to happen (albeit a lot are unlikely), and some are even likely (such as experiencing a loved one’s death). “I am happy engaging … (most people don't either, or else they would all kill themselves instead of going to work).” This isn’t about only you, sorry. One person’s contentment with existence doesn’t excuse the poverty, hardship, disease, war and all other terrible things. Your parents hadn’t a clue that your life would have turned out the way it has. You could have developed some crippling disease. You could have been raped as a child. It is through mere fortune that none of these disastrous things happened to you (and this is to ignore all the burdens of ‘day-to-day’ life). “Just sitting on my bed doing nothing as long as it means that I am not suffering or dying seems to be good to some extent.” 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 will concede that there are discomforts in life. I don't think anyone denies that. Pro simply hasn't proven that there is enough of it, in general, to warrant acceptance of the resolution.” Nonsense -- barring hyper-specific context: getting out of bed in the morning on a cold day is uncomfortable. A neighbour having a barking dog is uncomfortable. Feeling the need to go to the toilet is uncomfortable. Having an itch is uncomfortable. Stubbing your toe is comfortable. Getting sworn at is uncomfortable. Not having a seat on the beat is uncomfortable. Burning yourself with hot microwave-food is uncomfortable. Realising that you’re struggling to get to sleep is uncomfortable. Thinking about being uncomfortable is uncomfortable. How many must I list before you say that “there is enough of it”? Do honestly doubt that there isn’t any more? You might also laugh at the triviality of these, but none of these are positive things and are relatively common. Your Life Is Far Worse Than You Probably Recognise “If someone bakes some cookies and burns them, then throws a hissy fit because they are ruined, and someone says "calm down, nobody said life would be perfect"; that seems like a perfectly reasonable response, and not a tool for self-delusion at all.” The fact that you have to say that “life isn’t perfect,” is another cop-out phrase used to justify shortcoming. Is it good that the cookies are burnt? No. You are trying to suggest that this isn’t too bad, but you have already conceded the argument if that is your line of reasoning: that life isn’t ‘too bad’. It’s like saying that, ‘getting punched in the face once is better than getting punched in the face twice,’ as if you have to get punched in the face. “…However, most of the day I am perfectly fine.” No, it’s that you’ve been trained to ignore or cope with the suffering that life almost ensures. It’s a relativity scheme in which you convince yourself that you’re fine. You might say things like, “I was bullied at school and that really sucked. I don’t have that anymore – life is great,” but you’re only saying that your life is great because it’s better than what you had previously. It would be like someone on a slave-wage getting double the amount. Whilst the amount is not passable as a liveable wage, the person would feel ecstatic because the wage earned now is far better than it was. However, in reality, it’s a negative-sum game in which the person is in a less-bad position than he/she was in before, rather than a truly positive one. “If life is so bad, then why is the suicide rate so low compared to the amount of people that want to live?” Because there are many other pressures that influence a person’s decision to kill themselves, let alone having the internal courage and reasoning to do so; anti-life reasoning isn’t exactly taught in school (i.e. not socially conditioned) because suicide can be very detrimental on other people’s lives (i.e. the ones not wanting to kill themselves). People understand the great suffering killing themselves will bring to their loved ones, let alone the humiliation of self in ‘being weak’ or ‘giving up’. Besides, I am not advocating for suicide, I am merely arguing that life is generally bad. “The fact my opponent hasn't killed herself presupposes that her life is good and worth living.” Ad Hominem, address only my arguments, please. Life Isn't Always Worth Living I made this point to break the barrier of, ‘life is always worth living’, which you seem to have conceded that it is not. That is all. NEW ARGUMENT: By bringing someone into existence, you are gambling with someone else’s welfare without his/her consent Would it be considered moral for you to go into a casino with someone else’s life-savings, and for you to gamble with it all? The fact is that you could potentially gain a great amount of money for the person, but it is also plausible that you could ruin his/her life. However, consider if you were to gamble with his/her money without his/her consent. Would anyone consider this moral? Similarly, by bringing a child into existence, you are gambling with his/her welfare without his/her consent. His/her life doesn’t have to be miserable for this to be immoral. Furthermore, let’s consider some specific scenarios. Would it be immoral for a 3rd World person to bring a human into existence knowing that poverty and slavery are almost assured? Let’s take the best case scenario, wherein someone is born into riches, a loving family and a perfect state of health. Is this person more likely to be happy than the one born into poverty and slavery? Yes. Are they assured happiness, joy etc.? No. The fact is that even when the conditions are reasonably the best, they can still result in great suffering. Conclusion Life is generally bad for most people, and in the event that it isn't, it is still immoral to gamble with someone else's welfare by bringing him/her into existence without his/her consent.