Childbirth is a Necessary Part in a Woman's Lifetime

Asked by: Alexander_G
  • Questions similar to this are getting tedious but...

    Each question seems to focus on a different aspect than the last, so I'll still comment on it anyway.

    Anyway, I don't know about the physical aspect. I don't know anything about biology, so I'm not going to make things up and embarrass myself. However, I will argue from a moral aspect that it is a necessary part.

    I will present my argument as follows:

    P1) Morally, it is necessary for all people to have children.
    P2) To have children, it is necessary for women to experience childbirth.
    C) Morally, childbirth is a necessary part in a woman's life.

    P1) holds because having children is necessary for passing down the values, customs, ideals, etc. of the ancestors to later generations, which is an important part of filial piety. 'There are three things which are unfilial, and to have no posterity is the greatest of them.' (Mencius 7.26)

    P2) holds under the assumption that adoption, IVF, etc. do not count as having children. I will attempt to show that it holds for all women who are capable of childbirth here. Adoption is clearly inferior to having biological children since adopted children cannot inherit the blood of their ancestors. Thus if a woman is a capable of childbirth, adoption is not a morally correct alternative to having biological children. As for IVF, since it does not come from the mother's womb, it cannot be said to be a perfect substitute of childbirth; there are elements inside the baby that don't come from the blood of the ancestors' parents. Thus it is still inferior to having biological children, and women who are capable of having biological children cannot morally use IVF as an alternative of childbirth.

    /end me trying to philosophise

  • A woman's not really mature and her life is not complete until her first birth!

    I know this topic is controversial as it may piss off a lot of lurking feminists, so let's just focus on the physical level without mentioning how emotionally, economically, socially and psychologically a childbirth may affect a woman's life. During a pregnancy, a woman's body goes through some dramatic changes. Although having a baby before marriage is socially inconvenient, but in the long term, it definitely improves the mother's health. Physically - just physically, a woman's life can be marked by these five milestones: Birth, First Period, Childbirth, Last Period, Death. Please note that the third one is CHILDBIRTH, not sex. It is supposed to be a long process that lasts almost a year from the moment of fertilization to the baby's firth breath, and with an extent to end of lactation, so protected sex, masturbation, miscarriage, abortion and all the other reproductive activities that don't result in a live birth do NOT count. I think every woman should experience it, even if it means she has to leave the baby at somebody's doorstep immediately after birth.

  • The physical level is more shallow than that

    Since you're going to disregard emotional, economical, social, and psychological aspects , women mature as they age and their lives are complete when they die.
    I think it's going to be a shallow debate if you're ignoring the aspects that differentiate humans from animals.
    Pregnancy is obviously necessary for the continuation of the human race, but on an individual level, a woman's life won't be negatively impacted if she doesn't have a child. Besides, some women are incapable of bearing children. Thus, it isn't necessary for all women to have a child. The problem of overpopulation will worsen if every woman has a child.
    It isn't definite that childbirth improves a mother's health (I'm not ignoring the fact pregnancy brings health benefits). There are people that will risk their lives if they want to birth a child because of medical conditions (and obviously there are women who have died from doing so).
    Besides, children aren't waste products. The reason women choose to get pregnant is because they want to bear children, not because they want experience the process of getting pregnant. Biologically, the parents must care for the child so it survives to pass on it's genes.

  • This is getting stupid.

    I can understand arguments against things like abortion; I don't agree with them, as I am pro-choice, but at least I understand them. But this is just stupid. If you say yes to this, you are completely disregarding the emotional, physical and psychological stress a woman is put under during pregnancy, not to mention her right over her own body. You can actually DIE during childbirth. Besides, our world is already overpopulated enough (this is a PROVEN FACT, and any comments challenging this will be ingnored), and every woman having a child would just result in too many lives for our world to support. In the long term, women being forced to have children would result in serious economical damage, a severe shortage of basic living necessities, and millions of angry women.

    Please stop this madness. This question is by far the dumbest thing I've ever seen on this site.

  • Necessary is too strong of a word.

    I think that it's an extremely important part of a woman's life, however it is not "necessary". It is not the same as eating or breathing. Yes I would agree that giving birth is generally a positive thing and that if possible all women should get to experience that feeling but it is not always possible. In many cases having a baby can lead to a downwards slope, this is without even mentioning not all women are right in the head. So it's just asking for trouble if we expect every woman to have a baby.

    I have no argument against "even if it means she has to leave the baby at somebody's doorstep". You are completely disregarding the child now. Long story, short. Yes it's important but it shouldn't be mandatory and it isn't always the best thing.

  • No, not required

    It's not required. It's extremely sexist to believe every woman most go through the agony and suffering of bearing a child. Some gals just aren't maternal in nature either. I am pro-life, but the the world is so overpopulated that people should start having fewer children. Besides, so many children are abandoned and unloved from around the world, so adoption is a much better option.

  • It is the choice of the woman.

    What if she doesn't want children?!!!!!
    I bet nearly every single sexist git who voted 'yes' was old and male. What if a woman can not have children? What if she is poor and does not feel that she can bring the child up to a proper standard with what she has? What if she wants to adopt? And if a woman accidentally gets pregnant there is nothing wrong with abortion at all. It is not a baby at that stage, just a tiny growth inside the womb. It is HER body.

  • Necessary equals Mandatory.

    The way the question is worded it sounds like even if a woman doesn't want to give birth to a child she has to anyways. If a woman doesn't want a child or wants to adopt that's her and her partner's choice. You really just threw away the economic, social, psychological parts of childbirth and raising that child. There is more to a woman's life than marriage and children.

  • It's not necessary, but it's important to some.

    If what you meant by necessary is "required" or "mandatory" then NO. Giving birth to a child is probably the norm, but that doesn't mean it's necessary. If a woman doesn't want to have children, then they shouldn't be forced to have one. Women should decide for themselves whether something is necessary for them or not.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.