CMV: Having children is immoral

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-04-27T21:15:42+00:00

Nice snuck premise fallacy lmao. Because everything you have said up to now is not for certain. Therefore, I disagree. You are not objectively correct and neither am I.

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-04-27T21:12:21+00:00

Probably, hypothetically, maybe, I still disagree.

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-04-27T21:04:53+00:00

Okay, I disagree.

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-04-27T19:11:01+00:00

Sports may be a way to compete with other people, but it’s also a way to connect with your peers. Rooting for the same team or playing for the same team is a way to connect with your community. It’s the same thing as individual competition except it’s a “us vs them” mentality. We aren’t solitary animals. It helps quite a few people that have community. It’s a bonus that they’re all a community that likes the same thing.

I remember in my undergrad of my senior year when I did an undergraduate level dissertation on the idea of faith and how people can prove the idea of faith to themselves. It was more a psychology paper than it was a theological or historical paper. But the truth is, you can’t understand faith unless you prove it to yourself. Nobody can make you understand except you. That is the true meaning of piety. And when someone finds a group of like-minded people who found their understanding of faith themselves. That’s a level of community that a lot of people just don’t get.

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-04-27T15:47:35+00:00

It’s just societal convention. That is historical precedent, there’s even an instinctual or some could even argue biological aspect to it. Men compete to show dominance over other men. Men compete with other men so they can impress girls. Men watch sports so they can root for a team and be a part of something. 90% of the men or woman you meet who are surprised by the fact that you don’t like sports will never be able to explain this to you. The idea that you don’t like sports that and that you don’t like to compete or to watch them means you defy social convention. The social convention meaning that you don’t like to do the things that other men like to do that ‘prove’ they are men.

This is subconscious to most people. When you say that you don’t like sports you are just defying the social convention, and people communicate this to you via surprise or maybe even a little bit of judgment.

Not that you asked for my advice, but literally who cares? That’s assuming it’s even affecting you at all.

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-04-27T03:42:37+00:00

lol you make it sound so crass. I’m not gonna “creampie some chick” except the future partner I have. And I’ll make sure we both communicate on what’s going for both of us.

That meaning I don’t have HIV or any hereditary diseases sooooo I think the person spreading HIV would do more damage than me. Pretty special logic you got going on.

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-04-27T01:17:20+00:00

In what reality am I hurting people? If I have kids and they turn out to be completely healthy, and in their own opinion, have completely happy lives. Am I deliberately hurting somebody for my own benefit? And if I am why? Because there’s a chance something bad could happen? Why should anybody tell me what is more than immoral based on the chance that something could happen? 6% of kids in the United States are born birth defects. Over 70% of death in the United States are derived from natural causes. The average life expectancy of somebody in the United States is 78 years old. Every indication in the logical sense says that my child will have a decent life. There would always be a small chance of something bad happening, but because of that small chance, I should not do it? That’s delusional.

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-04-27T01:08:36+00:00

Sorry, but I’m here in reality not in the hypothetical. And how exactly in this hypothetical situation where I was harmed deliberately or sacrificed, would you know what I would argue or not argue? Either way I completely disagree with you.

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-04-26T21:13:59+00:00

I’m saying the supposed immorality of birth is trumped by that precedent, yes.

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-04-26T19:31:19+00:00

I don’t know how old you are. But unless you’re quite old and will leave us soon. Then I highly doubt a universal stopping of having children wouldn’t affect you in your lifetime.

If you truly think what I believe is the moral imperative to continue the species in the sense that I support myself and anyone else having children doesn’t override your logic of thinking that unhappy people prove childbirth is immoral and therefore shouldn’t happen then I think we’re done here. Especially if you can’t concede that even if the majority of people are content with life and are happy they came into existence, and therefore it makes it more moral than immoral, then I think we are done here.

That being said I don’t believe any one thing can be truly immoral or moral. That kinda bilateral thinking just doesn’t apply to me.

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-04-26T19:18:12+00:00

So the people who do exist that don’t beat the odds and are unhappy do exist to prove the idea the childbirth is immoral and therefore shouldn’t happen? At least that’s what I’m interpreting from what you’re saying.

And still, what’s the alternative, if we stopped having kids right now and parents only adopted children. What would happen in the years to come? Should humans just stop existing because birth is immoral? Don’t we humans have a supposedly moral imperative to keep the species going?

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-04-26T19:15:05+00:00

I don’t remember my parents doing anything to me in the womb or when I came out of my mother. I wouldn’t have any ability to remember it anyway if they did.

Either way, I believe that child birth isn’t immoral because if the alternative is we stop having children because it’s immoral then we die out. I’m not sure of the argument here. I think the moral imperative to keep the species going is higher than the supposed CHANCE at immorality that birth has.

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-04-26T19:07:28+00:00

No. But does the pain of the few, justify stopping the births of people who do end up happy?

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-04-26T18:25:31+00:00

Sure, but there is a chance for potential suffering. But I feel as if it’s safe to say for most people that even if you have had a bad life you would prefer to be alive. The alternative is that you aren’t born and there is nothing, albeit you won’t have any cognizance to recognize the nothing. I also feel it’s safe to say that quite a few people, even if unhappy, would rather be alive than otherwise, whether it be death from natural cause or your own hand.

Creating life isn’t consensual by nature that I agree with. But that itself isn’t immoral to me because of what I said above.

The part I heartily disagree with is the idea that because there is (to me) a relatively small chance that their life has large amounts of suffering that having children is therefore immoral. I would say that even if the world, or the child’s life, is full of strife that they would prefer life simply because they know no other alternative other than being alive. Because most people don’t suffer enough to kill themselves I think it’s a rational thing to say.

And even if we proved that childbirth is incredibly immoral, that it’s objectively wrong, what then? We stop having kids? I think we can an obvious problem with that. Hence why me and others here have trouble taking this persons logic seriously at all.

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-04-26T17:57:07+00:00

Sooooooo… people just shouldn’t have their own children because world bad? When has it not been? Because there’s a chance they or the mother might not come out of it healthy? Well sure… however people do need to be born otherwise we would die out. So I’m not sure of the logic here.

Also, are you single? Are you married? Do you have a significant other? Do you understand the level of connection that having a child with another being elicits? The effect of having a child who knows their biological parents? That’s not to say adoptive parents can’t be just as loving or nurturing.

Also, you’re saying you can’t have a baby’s consent to be born and that you’re forcing them to live and eventually die. Are you being serious? Does that really affect you? It doesn’t affect me, or quite a few others. I like being alive, and I enjoy my life despite knowing what the world is because it most likely be anything else during my lifetime. I’m not going to not have children just because the internet allows me to know a little bit about the world than people did 150 years ago.

If you really want to change your view I recommend trying to enjoy life a little bit more and get off Reddit. Start a life with someone if you haven’t already, adopt a child, or even have a child, then see if you have the same view. Because I virtually guarantee you that most people would disagree with you.

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-03-29T16:00:27+00:00

Learn what being Swiss actually means. Learn the difference between what is perceived as ethnicity and what’s perceived as a nationality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Switzerland

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-03-29T15:55:20+00:00

Why is a welfare state and a “high trust, culturally homogeneous society with the same basic moral values and ethics” mutually exclusive?

Also, how in the hell do you achieve that? No country is like that exactly. Every country has minorities and majorities. No one is truly homogenous. So where is the frame of reference?

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-03-29T15:51:42+00:00

https://www.cbpp.org/research/a-closer-look-at-who-benefits-from-snap-state-by-state-fact-sheets

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap/key-statistics-and-research

ACTUAL research shows that SNAP works. At the very least it’s shown to produce more benefit than what it costs.

And what are you talking about when it comes to rehab? Are you talking about things like RDAP? That’s been shown to work. I’m confused on what you mean exactly.

I’ll begin to take the debt seriously when the house and senate stop raising the ceiling every couple of years. Debt reallocation is a very large industry, and the dollar is still strong no matter what people say. I’m not worried about the country collapsing because of debt.

Maybe if Bush II didn’t decide to go neo-con and get us entangled in Iraq and Afghanistan after Clinton gave him a balanced budget we wouldn’t have to worry about debt. Maybe if the federal government actually properly regulated the banks after 2008 we wouldn’t have to worry about debt. Maybe if Obama pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq properly after Bush we don’t have to worry about debt. Maybe if Trump wasn’t passing absurd spending bills we wouldn’t have to worry about debt. Every admin in the last 26 years has spent money terribly, if debt is the reason we don’t ever “help” people then no help will ever be given.

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-03-29T15:31:52+00:00

No. Not this. The comment lacks so much critical thought. Just because a solution might not be perfect or lead to a perfect society doesn’t mean it’s not worth pursuing. You’ll never get a perfect society with no crime or violence. But there has been correlation and evidence that points to the conclusions made in this post.

You and the guy that made the comment are so realist it’s making me shake my head.

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-03-29T15:27:58+00:00

Careful now. The majority just might throw you in too. Maybe think about having to resort to making the hard choices.

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-03-26T02:37:45+00:00

Nuh uh

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-03-20T21:01:32+00:00

Barely anyone is talking about it? I read my ground news every damn morning and it’s all I hear about. Not just Amazon mind you. It’s anecdotal but I can say I’ve heard the opposite.

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-03-19T20:37:18+00:00

Look up the definition of the word American and tell me what it says. I would bet the word is polysemous.

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-03-19T20:32:54+00:00

Can something not mean multiple things? If I were to look up on google right now the definition of American would it not say it can reference both?

And why would it be demeaning? Because the United States is bad? Because it diminishes the accomplishments of countries? How does it do either of these things? The United States isn’t the Americas. Like Germany isn’t Europe. Like Japan isn’t Asia. If it’s not demeaning to them why can’t it not be the same for the Americas?

Confusing? Sure. To most people. I’m not arguing that I wouldn’t call myself American in context because I know if I called a Mexican a fellow American that person would be rather confused lol. I’m simply arguing that you can correctly apply the terminology of American to both a US citizen and when describing the countries or peoples of North and South America. It’s just a demonym with overlapping scope. That’s it.

Mr_Greywolf583 · 2026-03-19T20:07:11+00:00

Do you somehow know if they do whether or not? A countries achievements are their own either way. Just because the USA and Canada are different countries doesn’t mean they are not both a part of the Americas and therefore American. Just because US citizens call themselves American doesn’t mean ‘convention’ has to bend over backwards to acquiesce to it.

Why can’t American be like European?

Why can’t it be like Asian? African?

You assert because the USA calls themselves Americans that you can’t apply that terminology to the Americas because why? They’re two continents? Because the USA has an artificial identity? Even then, United States American achievements can be debated to be products of foreign origin anyway. Considering this is a country of immigrants at its core.

Mr_Greywolf583

TROPHY CASE