The Instigator
Cooldudebro
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Caploxion
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Child birth should not be considered morally wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Caploxion
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,085 times Debate No: 43829
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

Cooldudebro

Pro

First round is for acceptance. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Cooldudebro

Pro

Thank you for accepting.

Case 1: We need it for reproduction!

Child birth is essential for the survival of the species. Even in vitro, they have to have a woman to carry it. (1) the species would die because no reproduction.

Case 2: New Life

Bring a new life in the world is joy for not only the baby, but the world. The baby has so much to do. For example:

Fall in love
Reproduce
Make an impact on the world
Impact people
Make a difference
Ban the Kardashians! (This is optional :P)

This is why child birth should be considered moral. Thank you ladies and gentleman! (sorry it was short!)

1. http://health.howstuffworks.com...
Caploxion

Con

I thank Cooldudebro for the opportunity to debate this topic.


Comfort/Discomfort definitions:

In this debate, when using these terms, I will not necessarily mean the literal version of either words. An example of the literal kind of ‘discomfort’ would be to sit on something sharp. The kind of discomfort I will argue pertains to a lacking, a deprivation if you will. It’s a tension, a feeling of not having.

Discomfort is bad

In a world where there is only discomfort and comfort (i.e. no context), no rational sentient animal would choose discomfort over comfort. It is only with context that discomfort could ever be considered preferable, such as a deal that if you were to be uncomfortable now, you would be comfortable for twice the amount of time afterwards. Therefore, it has been determined not by me, but by every sentient creature that this is an inter-subjective truth.

Life is (almost certainly) more discomfort than comfort

I will now argue that life is essentially a ‘negative-sum game’, in which there are states of comfort that all fall below the ‘0’, rather than anything that is truly positive. In other words, positives and negatives experienced are not opposites, rather, states of overall discomfort.

Anything that is positive is, overall, a result of overcoming a negative. To feel happy, you must have no lingering, serious discomforts. To feel healthy, your body cannot be burdened with ailment. You cannot feel relief from scratching if you had no itch to begin with. It is not sufficient a counter-argument to say that for every negative there is an equal positive always met, because discomfort requires only the existence of a sentient psychology; whereas, elimination of discomfort is not necessarily assured. For example, you cannot be sure that you will be hired for a certain job, yet you can far more easily wish that you could.

Certain actions can produce more positive than negative, but only within themselves. For example, going to the fridge to eat whilst starving, would be an enormously positive trade (the discomfort of having to go the fridge and select food to eat etc. , versus the elimination of starvation). However, given context, it would be apparent that you were unable to satisfy discomforts to begin with, hence the starving state that you found yourself in. Overall, the sum can never reach a true positive, as you have, in reality, only experienced great relief by suffering greatly beforehand.

Conclusively, it would be virtually impossible to reach the ‘0’, as every possible discomfort would have to be accounted for. Therefore, in the event that you cannot eliminate every discomfort, you will have an overall negative sum, meaning that your life is more discomfort than comfort.

Permanent state of discomfort

Through our perception, our mind gives us tasks. Production of these tasks is like the ‘building of broken chairs’, in that there exists no problem in reality outside of our perception. For example, a woman’s nails need not be coloured or manicured; it is only through a combination of a sexual drive and vanity does this ‘broken chair’ seem to need fixing. In other words, if you were without the filter of sentient psychology, you would be able to see that these ‘problems’, in reality, do not exist. Furthermore, the illusion that these broken chairs need to be fixed, need not exist. Does it really achieve anything to say ‘thank you’ after someone has done something nice for you, other than satisfy ego and other products of sentient psychology? Is there some greater purpose for this psychology that ordains its existence? Why must the psychology exist if it is designed to produce these broken chairs that need not exist in reality, yet only serve as motivation to eliminate discomfort?

It will never be enough to acquire one million dollars as you could have ten million dollars, and for all the brilliance of earning such a large amount, as soon as the psychology becomes accustomed to it, more will be required. If you are able to resist the natural urge for more, then it will be another field of desire that will strike your attention, such as the growing of a simple garden, or the gathering of family. Either way, your sentient psychology will always want more of or ‘one more time’ of anything. And such, it is apparent that a permanent state of discomfort rules whenever a sentient psychology exists, and that any comforts are loaned for but a mere instance or two, then the fabric of comfort is picked-at until morsels of the fabric remain. A discomfort is temporary, fine, but the production of discomforts is permanent.

Relativity scheme

There is no objective determinant in which humans decide value, rather valuing comes through comparison. For example, a soft arm-chair has, in reality, no real value. It has value, when viewed through human perception, because it serves the purpose of something to rest upon. It is more valuable than a pile of sticks or simply the ground, in this regard, as the chair will likely be far more comfortable than either. However, if a person has never sat on a chair in his/her life, and has only sat on sticks, won’t then sticks be considered to be the most comfortable for the person? Won’t then the sticks be the measure for what is most comfortable?

Similarly, when a human comes to valuing her life, it is not done via an objective table of values; rather it is done by comparison: ‘it could be worse’, ‘one in the hand is better than two in the bush’ etc. If a person has lived in the bush her entire life, would she consider the ground to be comfortable? Probably, don’t you think? Why? She doesn’t know of any better, and the other things to sit on are, comparatively, not as comfortable as the sticks.

Since human value is not necessarily grounded in reality, rather it can be, at best, somewhat accurate in reflecting comparative value, would it then be silly to say that all human judgements are based in reality? Quite clearly, the best a human could do is decide what is better, rather than what is best. So, if we understand ALL the possibilities of what can be done with a life, then it should be apparent that not all judgements are based upon reality; just because someone has determined their life as valuable, this doesn’t mean that the value judgements that comprise this decision were done in accordance to any real value.

Surprise investment analogy

If you go investing (procreating) with another person’s life savings (state of being), without his/her consent, that is immoral. You do not own the person’s life savings, so you should not have the final word in how it is used. Even if the likelihood of you being able to increase the savings via using the savings is high (the child will likely have good health/a good life etc.), it would still be immoral to risk it without permission, much as it is immoral to sign contracts for people without their permissions.

Even if you were brilliant in determining investment opportunities, you are still risking the money as you do not have 100% control over outcome of the investment. Sure, I think it would be incredibly fantastic to come home to a 50% increase in my life’s savings, yet I would think that I was violated in not being told that someone was essentially gambling with my money. But what if I came home to a 50% decrease and an apology that amounted to ‘well, that’s just life’? I would feel absolutely mortified and violated, wouldn’t you?

Drink-driving analogy

Many societies have rules against ‘drink-driving’. This is because drink-driving causes unnecessary risk. Let’s assume that it is necessary to drive a car. It is not necessary to drink-drive in order to drive. Similarly, it is not required of your life to procreate in order for you to live/ experience pleasure. The risks of causing harm increase substantially in drunk-driving (procreating), and even if the risks are low, the ramifications that result could entail catastrophe (serious disabilities, a truly nasty experience in life etc.).

Debate Round No. 2
Cooldudebro

Pro

Cooldudebro forfeited this round.
Caploxion

Con

Quick rebuttals


Case 1: We need it for reproduction!

Child birth is essential for the survival of the species. Even in vitro, they have to have a woman to carry it. (1) the species would die because no reproduction.

Why is the survival of our species necessary? I've argued that because life is always more negative than positive, the perpetuation of our species would by extention, be immoral.

Case 2: New Life

Bring a new life in the world is joy for not only the baby, but the world. The baby has so much to do. For example:

Fall in love
Reproduce
Make an impact on the world
Impact people
Make a difference
Ban the Kardashians! (This is optional :P)

New life doesn’t bring about an overall positive thing. Sure, there are positive aspects, but the overall meme of life is one of deprivation and discomfort.

I was going to write-up other arguments, but I simply don’t have the time, and it appears that my opponent has no intention of addressing my original argument (he forfeited his round, yet was online for at least 2 of the 3 days.

Debate Round No. 3
Cooldudebro

Pro

Cooldudebro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Caploxion 3 years ago
Caploxion
Yeah, grounded away from your computer, which is probably in your house. Sure, I'll believe that...
Posted by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
Cooldudebro
Sry I was grounded
Posted by Caploxion 3 years ago
Caploxion
Next time you want to insult me and/or my arguments, cooldudebro, have the spine to defend your accusations. You've just humiliated yourself by forfeiting every round and everyone has lost a noticeable amount of respect for you. You're a disgrace; I'm sure God is shaking his head in shame.
Posted by zrg4848 3 years ago
zrg4848
Let me make up some more popcorn.
Posted by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
Cooldudebro
lol
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Fight! Fight! Fight!

(Sort of...)
Posted by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
Cooldudebro
who's ready for a debate @$$ whoopin?
Posted by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
Cooldudebro
I am ready. I am going to put you in your place.
Posted by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
Cooldudebro
okay. bring it
Posted by Caploxion 3 years ago
Caploxion
Haha, you coward.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
CooldudebroCaploxionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: A nigh-clean-sweep for Con. Conduct for the forfeits. S&G because what Pro did post had problems, while Con participated in more rounds and seemed to have fewer errors. Arguments for the utterly unrebutted case presented by Con. The only one to provide sources was Pro, but I didn't think it warranted sourcing points. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by TheLastMan 3 years ago
TheLastMan
CooldudebroCaploxionTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
CooldudebroCaploxionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, that's annoying. He even started this debate. Too bad, Cap, too bad.
Vote Placed by PeriodicPatriot 3 years ago
PeriodicPatriot
CooldudebroCaploxionTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF