Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → Anti-Natalism

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Gaza assault
by zeca
Yesterday at 07:13 PM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Anti-Natalism

 (Read 10182 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #60 - May 17, 2012, 11:59 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on May 17, 2012, 11:59 PM
    It's not (generally) unethical to make suggestions to people.

    Really? Because if someone suggested to me not to have sex with another guy, I would punch them in the face. A "suggestion" can hold a whole bag of bigotry.
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #61 - May 17, 2012, 11:59 PM
    Quote from: Stardust on May 17, 2012, 11:55 PM
    Well, if we take the whole reason of our existence is down to survival of our genes/evolution etc etc, then the right for each individual to have children should never be taken away. It's the core reason of our existence, although we create different reasons etc, meaning to life to 'fill in gaps' which is just fine but reality of it is we are simply machines carrying genetic code and trying to preserve that.

    Ok, why should any of that imply a right?
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #62 - May 18, 2012, 12:01 AM
    Quote from: Stardust on May 17, 2012, 11:55 PM
    Well, if we take the whole reason of our existence is down to survival of our genes/evolution etc etc, then the right for each individual to have children should never be taken away. It's the core reason of our existence, although we create different reasons etc, meaning to life to 'fill in gaps' which is just fine but reality of it is we are simply machines carrying genetic code and trying to preserve that.


    That's really just holding the right of genes over consideration for people, then. I could give a flying fuck about the genetic code propagating, my sympathy lies with people and the quality of their experience.
    Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #63 - May 18, 2012, 12:01 AM
    Quote from: Abood on May 17, 2012, 11:59 PM
    Really? Because if someone suggested to me not to have sex with another guy, I would punch them in the face.

    Then you'd be arrested for assault. To turn it the other way, what if someone punched you in the face for suggesting they might enjoy sex with someone of the same sex?
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #64 - May 18, 2012, 12:02 AM
    Quote from: osmanthus on May 17, 2012, 11:59 PM
    Ok, why should any of that imply a right?


    Because having kids involves an individuals (a pair) body...The choice for someone to do what they wish with their body (to reproduce) should imply a fundamental right? If we're in a free society.
    "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor E. Frankl

    'Life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #65 - May 18, 2012, 12:03 AM
    Except that I'm not telling poor people they should reproduce more.
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #66 - May 18, 2012, 12:04 AM
    Quote from: Stardust on May 18, 2012, 12:02 AM
    Because having kids involves an individuals (a pair) body...The choice for someone to do what they wish with their body (to reproduce) should imply a fundamental right? If we're in a free society.

    But you were using the argument that evolution is what it's all about. In that case, you should admit that what evolution is really all about is propagating your genes at the expense of other genes. That's going to lead into all sorts of interesting territory, if you regard it as a right.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #67 - May 18, 2012, 12:04 AM
    Quote from: Abood on May 17, 2012, 11:55 PM
    I'm not. Telling people not to reproduce if they can't afford to places responsibility on them for being poor.

    I'm not saying they should reproduce. What I'm saying is that it's up to them. Neither you nor I nor any government has the right to tell them what to do.


    Alright, I think the source of the clash is that you see a right to reproduce as being something fundamental. Whereas, I'm not even comfortable calling such a thing a right.
    Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #68 - May 18, 2012, 12:05 AM
    Quote from: Abood on May 18, 2012, 12:03 AM
    Except that I'm not telling poor people they should reproduce more.

    I know. I was just pointing out your low standards of behaviour re excuses for physical violence. Smiley
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #69 - May 18, 2012, 12:07 AM
    Quote from: Abood on May 17, 2012, 11:59 PM
    Really? Because if someone suggested to me not to have sex with another guy, I would punch them in the face. A "suggestion" can hold a whole bag of bigotry.


    Holy shit, you're bringing out all the fallacies now, aren't you?  Cheesy

    Sex is not equal to Reproduction
    Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #70 - May 18, 2012, 12:07 AM
    People have a right to control their bodies. It's not only classist, but also sexist to tell people they shouldn't reproduce.
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #71 - May 18, 2012, 12:08 AM
    Quote from: asbie on May 18, 2012, 12:07 AM
    Holy shit, you're bringing out all the fallacies now, aren't you?  Cheesy

    Sex is not equal to Reproduction

    What? I'm talking about suggestions here. Just because something is construed as a suggestion doesn't make it ethical, or give people the right to say it. A suggestion can be oppressive.
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #72 - May 18, 2012, 12:10 AM
    Quote from: asbie on May 18, 2012, 12:04 AM
    Alright, I think the source of the clash is that you see a right to reproduce as being something fundamental. Whereas, I'm not even comfortable calling such a thing a right.

     wacko

    Quote from: Abood on May 17, 2012, 11:41 PM
    How about instead of telling poor people to stop reproducing, we tell privileged people to stop controlling all the wealth, eh?

  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #73 - May 18, 2012, 12:13 AM
    Quote from: Abood on May 18, 2012, 12:07 AM
    People have a right to control their bodies. It's not only classist, but also sexist to tell people they shouldn't reproduce.


    In a free society I'm perfectly capable of telling them whatever the fuck I think. But honestly, I'm not bothered with trying to get the government to coerce people to do such a thing. I think this is a personal ethical/moral choice. On the same token though, I'm not particularly enthralled with having this whole idea of responsible reproduction shouted down with threats and physical intimidation either.

    Also, please let me know how you can construe this idea to be sexist. I'm genuinely curious.  Huh?
    Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #74 - May 18, 2012, 12:15 AM
    Quote from: osmanthus on May 18, 2012, 12:04 AM
    But you were using the argument that evolution is what it's all about. In that case, you should admit that what evolution is really all about is propagating your genes at the expense of other genes. That's going to lead into all sorts of interesting territory, if you regard it as a right.


    Yes.

    Personally, I want to have kids some day, and I won't let any one stop me from doing so. If that's considered selfish, then I'm selfish, but of course I would only have children if I could see a good future for them, provide for them etc. I would consider my own children more important than others...(if I adopted children, then I would see them as important than other people's children still...) that's because you form a bond with them you don't with others. That bond forming I think is evolutionary down to preserving ones genetic code.

    Do you consider having children is some sort of 'luxury'?
    "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor E. Frankl

    'Life is just the extreme expression of complex chemistry' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #75 - May 18, 2012, 12:19 AM
    Quote from: asbie on May 18, 2012, 12:13 AM
    Also, please let me know how you can construe this idea to be sexist. I'm genuinely curious.  Huh?

    A woman has the right to control her body. The only other person who gets to have any say in whether she reproduces or not is her partner. And if she doesn't agree with her partner, she has the right to leave the relationship.

    The idea that you or I or anyone else has the right to tell a woman whether or not she should have something growing in her uterus is incredibly sexist.
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #76 - May 18, 2012, 12:20 AM
    Quote from: Stardust on May 18, 2012, 12:15 AM
    Do you consider having children is some sort of 'luxury'?

    In some senses, yes. In others, no.

    A certain amount of reproduction is necessary if you want the species to survive. Anything past that is arguably not only a luxury, but a bad thing.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #77 - May 18, 2012, 12:21 AM
    Quote from: Abood on May 18, 2012, 12:19 AM
    A woman has the right to control her body. The only other person who gets to have any say in whether she reproduces or not is her partner. And if she doesn't agree with her partner, she has the right to leave the relationship.

    The idea that you or I or anyone else has the right to tell a woman whether or not she should have something growing in her uterus is incredibly sexist.

    So would you agree that any family planning advisor who suggests fewer pregnancies is sexist and unethical?
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #78 - May 18, 2012, 12:23 AM
    Don't be silly. People go to a family planning adviser to seek their expert advice. They have the right to decide whether they want to follow it or not. But unsolicited advice can be unethical.
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #79 - May 18, 2012, 12:56 AM
    Yes, can be is some specific circumstances. That's why I said that generally it isn't.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #80 - May 18, 2012, 01:38 AM
    Quote from: Abood on May 18, 2012, 12:19 AM
    A woman has the right to control her body. The only other person who gets to have any say in whether she reproduces or not is her partner. And if she doesn't agree with her partner, she has the right to leave the relationship.

    The idea that you or I or anyone else has the right to tell a woman whether or not she should have something growing in her uterus is incredibly sexist.


    I don't think this sort of suggestion is unethical or even sexist. Sure, I don't deny that women can do as they like with their bodies. That's why I've constantly mentioned (which you've somehow managed to ignore), that for me this should be an individual, personal ethical question. Still doesn't mean that a suggestion can't be made as to how people should use their bodies, especially in such a way that so blatantly impacts the public good. A woman's right to her body doesn't exist in a vacuum, and certainly women are capable of making their own personal decisions about the impacts of their reproductive choices.
    Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #81 - May 18, 2012, 01:39 AM
    Also, looking over the kinds of issues that have been brought up, I have to wonder Abood, did you even watch the videos I posted, or did you just come in here to stir shit up?  grin12
    Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #82 - May 18, 2012, 01:45 AM
    Quote from: Abood on May 18, 2012, 12:08 AM
    A suggestion can be oppressive.


    It certainly can be depending on the context. In which context are you viewing the suggestion being posited as oppressive? Internet websites and call in talk shows going too far for you?  wacko
    Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Re: Anti-Natalism
     Reply #83 - May 18, 2012, 01:21 PM
    Quote from: Stardust on May 17, 2012, 11:39 PM
    Thing is having the right to have children is one of the most fundamental biological right a person has.


    Quote from: Abood on May 17, 2012, 11:55 PM
    I'm not. Telling people not to reproduce if they can't afford to places responsibility on them for being poor.

    I'm not saying they should reproduce. What I'm saying is that it's up to them. Neither you nor I nor any government has the right to tell them what to do.


    I agree with you. The government does not have the right to tell people whether or not they can reproduce. However when someone has a child that they cannot afford to raise by themselves and are recieving state subsidies to raise that child. And then they go and have a second child, and a third, and a forth, etc. At some point the government has the right to withhold paying subsidies to that family for each additional child. Because everyone else is having to foot the bill for their irresponsibilities. And if withholding subsidies to that family means that the family will not be able to take care of the child properly, that is the point where the government can and should take that child away to live with another family.
  • Previous page 1 2 3« Previous thread | Next thread »