This question is ridiculous, EVERYBODY will inevitably endure suffering during their lives, through emotional loss or physical loss. I was suffering a little while ago because I had to break up with my boyfriend, but I still want to be alive. This question is WAY too general. I think it is morally right to have children. (Because if we didn't have children how could the human race endure?)
Since your being vague, I'll assume you'll mean suffer because everyone inevitably suffers, as opposed to "suffer" meaning they would be born without an advantage in this world, because of income, race, or gender. It is morally right to bring them to life, although the phrasing you use brings a deeper question : How can someone consent to existing. The reason it's morally right is because pleasure cannot exist without pain, be it physical, mental, or emotional. Life is pleasure, and the pain is only their to make the pleasure possible.
Life is not only suffereing. So must we restrict unborn souls from experiencing the joys of life? IF so then we should just kill babies perhaps? The meaning of life is to reproduce. Contrastingly, there will no be meaning at all if life were to ristrict new generations from being born. In a larger sense it would be pointless to live in the first place. Nihilsm would accompany us all if that were the case.
Children exist because they exist because they exist.
They have no way of "Consenting" which parents that they are born to.
Suffering happens to all people- it's not really something we can change.
But denying their birth into a world of suffering doesn't really do them any good.
They would not ever be alive to experience life's joys either.
This duality/polarity makes it neutral in my opinion.
What the question SHOULD be asking is should people exploit other adults to the point where they cannot bear children with successful futures? I.E. Wall street bankers with 17 jet planes, at the cost of a large portion of the country not even having cars.
1st) Morality is decided by yourself in your own mind . . .
2nd) From a religious standpoint "God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”" ~ Genesis 1-28 y
3rd) Scientific, Evolutionary view . . . The purpose of life is to further life we are here to make more life POINT BLANK
Most fundamental moral would say it is fundamentally wrong to deny someone's right to life. Even if it done in some twisted sense of mercy, that doesn't justify it. In this case, which is obviously referring to abortion, it cannot be justified because you are playing God. You see yourself as all-knowing and wise enough to know just when and where one's life can be terminated. The importance of one's life is not determined by age, but by the simple fact that they are alive. Life is and always shall be sacred. In this case, you are denying the basic right of others, their right to life, thus most conventional morals can and will not support this claim.
Probably you'll wonder why did I answer with a question. Well, because it's not a yes or no question. So it's neither yes nor no, but I would rather say ok, yes or sth like that.
How could you exist to ask that question on a website created by people brought by other people who themselves are brought by other people... If human stopped having children because it's morally wrong ^^. The answer to your question can variate in two general cases, believing in god or not. That's a long story and it would take hours and hours, hundreds and even thousands of lines. But briefly, you can see it as mores of life, simply because it's everywhere around us. Plants give birth to new plants everyday, animals, insects, cells and more...
This contradicts the Human Right that is being propagated that everyone is born free and equal. What if the baby or animal has a birth defect? And what if the parent knows about it way before the baby is to be born via scan? Would it be still right to bring that baby into existence? I do not think so. I am talking about a serious birth defect, like the utter lack of the mental capacity to think and talk, or perhaps walk even. There is such a thing called euthanasia. That seems like the better and more humane way to go... But babies have no capability to consent. Thus, there a law needs to be sanctioned stating that a certified doctor has approved to this act. Morally right NOT to bring a baby into existence, I'd say.
It is not morally right to do anything to anyone without their consent. I personally didn't ever want to be born. If I could go back in time, I would tell my parents to.. You know..
It's not about suffering. Injecting someone with dope makes them happy, but it's illegal. Euthanasia makes people who have painful illnesses suffer relatively less, yet it is illegal in many states.
Having babies should be illegal because it is clearly a violation of human rights. We don't just have the right to life, we have the right to NO LIFE.
It is my opinion that until a parent can feasibly support a child, and give ample care and nurturing to a child, it is unethical to bear the child. It can also be argued that the parent's ability to support the child will be further diminished after being made responsible of another human being.
With the gifting of life comes both enjoyment and suffering. Is it right to bring someone into existence without being able to take into account their opinion first, seeing as they are not yet born? I liken this dilemma to a game where the players are both physically punished and rewarded. I believe that it is reasonable for some possible players to prefer opting out over joining the game considering that the former is less stressful than the latter. When the fact that we all eventually return to nonexistent (death) is also considered it seems logical to me that the possible opinions of those who don't want to take the risk of suffering for a short period of enjoyment out weigh the possible opinions of those who would be willing to take the risk.
A couple who loves each other causes immense pain and suffering to another being out of pure selfishness, the parents should not have the right to raise a child if they don't earn enough and are not educated enough
Divorce should require the children's consent as well for they didn't choose to be born under parents who weren't ready to commit their lives to the family
Parents should be allowed no more than two children of which at least one has to be adopted
It is inherently immoral to bring a child into existence because the creators of the child are essentially gambling with a life - either the child will view its existence positively (even despite inevitable suffering) and be thankful that it is alive, or it will hold the opinion that existence is, overall, a negative experience, and consequently wish that it had never been conceived (especially when one considers that a return to nothingness is inevitable - I hold this opinion, even though my life has been comparatively good). Because you cannot guarantee the former, procreating is, by definition, immoral.
In this world of ours, where all the great achievements have already (seemingly) been achieved, it can be very difficult indeed for people to find the existential anchor necessary to keep going on with life. Suffering in and of itself need not be a game-changer (though any type of suffering of sufficient magnitude WOULD give cause to thoughts about suicide, etc...). However, suffering WITHOUT a purpose would seem meaningless, devoid and empty - and hence would make life unbearable for those undergoing the sufferings of life.
It is clear that people will continue to have children no matter how hard we protest that they should not (thereby perpetuating the suffering of future generations by conceiving them). Thus, a reasonable option might be to have a Population control policy Globally which would lead to the most ideal Demographic curves/changes needed to ensure a long term sustainable social, economic model.
I oftimes find myself (as Bertrand Russell may have) wondering about the horrors and dire situation which would be faced by the "last generation". With no future blood to reinvigorate society and enable society to continued its social and economic functions, these last human beings would live on an environmentally degraded, climate-change-ridden rock until their old age. Finally, their old age would make it impossible for them to maintain their survival (even if technological infrastructure remained intact), and they would likely die unpleasant deaths.
After two world wars, and God knows how many other military conflicts, we should be grown-up enough to have, at least, an approximation to a "population dieoff" policy (just like a "population control" policy) which, through population control, quotas out how many children people should have to maintain a civilisation of a given prescribed level of complexity (this is, in fact, what a Population control policy inevitably does over the long term). As it stands, the "last generation" will have nothing but political, economic and social uncertainty to cater with. Luckily, hopefully, all this will happen long after I am dead. However, society should be mature enough to realise that, BECAUSE we were not asked our permission before we were born, we ought to have a right to a humane death when we have suffered to our limits.
Would helping an old lady who didn't exist cross the street be mutually correct? No. Would giving life to an unconsenting person be morally correct if that person didn't exist? No. U cant apply the laws of morals unless it is to someone or something that exists. And since a baby does not exist before u make the choice to conceive (assuming the choice was even made) then it is not morally right or wrong.
Two points i want to add though are that if u think that overpopulation is morally wrong, then yes, bringing another baby into the world whether they consented or not could be considered morally wrong.
The second point is that if you believe the baby had some sort of existence before it was conceived then it could be considered morally wrong to prevent them from being born which raises a whole other list of questions (i.E. Is a mother who eats potato chips or doesn't exercise during pregnancy or even BEFORE ever being pregnant potentially exposing her inexistent unborn child to harm?)
Whoever lives will one day die. By causing their life, parents also cause their children's death. Intentional, unnecessary homicide is wrong...So procreation is wrong.
It's also true that, prior to death, many humans suffer terribly. They are abused, terrified, ill, injured and in pain. All of this suffering is unnecessary. It's only experienced by the living, those whose parents brought them into this world
Millions of people live their entire life paralized in bed suffering with diseases wishing they were never born but they don't have the courage to kill themselves. Over one million suicides occur every year...[google it for yourself] ...And it's wrong they were born to suffer in the first place. About one third of the world population including priests and nuns have no kids and want no kids because they realize reproduction and suffering is morally wrong. Ever since the world began the number of severely suffering people and suicides keeps multiplying larger every year and it can only get worse.
Psychologists say religious and atheist pro-lifers are insane for reproducing forcing innocent children into this world of suffering. Pro-lifers also legally violate the childs human rights because the child did not ask to be born. Jesus never reproduced and he never advised any one to reproduce. If everyone would voulintarily stop reproducing tommorrow...Jesus would not have to return to earth again in the future because there would be no people left on earth to suffer. Reproduction and life is not necessary or moral regardless if god, alliens or evolution stared life on earth. Pro-lifers reproduce just to entertain themselves.
Most people are born from teenage mothers who later realize they made a mistake by reproducing because public schools and their parents never taught them about all these facts and statistics before they reached reproduction age. It is now time to bring public awareness lawsuits to force the irresponsible pro-life government to teach these facts in schools and make reproduction illegal the same way lawsuits forced god and prayers out of schools and abortion became legalized in most countries. If you do not believe in the abortion pill get a Tubal ligation or do not have sex. Over 40 million abortions occur every year. In china reproduction is illegal and the government forces abortions on pregnant women in handcuffs if the mother dose not voulintarily abort the child.
The next massive asteroid or virus pandemic could leave millions of survivors permanately suffering. Pro-lifers are simply too dumb, mentally retarded or just do not care and they will never stop reproducing until they are forced to stop. How many more future billions of people have to be born to suffer before man brings war against the insane pro-lifers to end all life on earth ...Because not all countries will be able to enforce anti-reproduction laws.
The bible, ancient egyptians, myans, nostradamus and NASA say this world will end soon by wars,natural disasters or both... Atomic bombs and natural gas wells detonated deep under the earth surface would cause super volcanic explosions killing everone on earth immediately and painlessly ....THE END!!!...The sooner the better for the benefit of all humanity. After earth is gone the pro-lifers will never suffer or realize anything anyway. The big question is how to accomplish such an attack without it geting sabotaged by the evil pro-lifers...Maybe a public debate can find answers for that question?
No because for every human that is born millions of others have to die and how can you morally defend sacrificing millions so one can live?
And if you're life is partly joy and partly suffering than I understand you are defending bringing more children into this world but the child can just as easily suffer practically his/her entire life. I never wanted this life. I love my parents very much, they are the reason why I haven't ended it but making me was the biggest mistake of their life. I'm another human who will destroy and murder his entire life and as a misanthropic animal friend I will never be happy in this antropocentric society. I'm furious 24/7. I'm angry all the time because I'm sick and tired that humans always have to come first and I can no longer stand it that all the rest is being sacrificed for such an inferior animal species. So I agree with bullish, if I could go back in time I would break my parents up before they ever get the chance to make me. Of course even if we could travel in time this would be impossible since if my parents don't make me I can't go back in time to stop them. But that's another discussion.