excalipoor said:
Biosophilogical said:
I think my biggest problem is that people view children as part of their own relationships or development, like some form of milestone. To be blunt, that seem wildly irresponsible. I mean sure, you should want them in the first place, but the fact remains that you would be bringing another life into this world, one that is wholly dependent on you for a large portion of time, and their well-being should be the priority, not "What do I want from my life".
Irresponsible? Most of the positive responses seem to be saying yes, but only once they're ready financially and mentally, or have achieved this and that in their lives.
What other reason is there to have a child, other than wanting to raise one? I doubt anyone here thinks they're just getting a doll to play with.
That's kind of my point. It isn't a doll, or a toy, or a pet, or property, it is an entirely new human being. 'Wanting' a child is similar to the toy response; it's about
you wanting something, using the child as something selfishly beneficial (like a new T.V., or a pet, or a better paying job). Deciding that having a child is the best course of action it different, it is saying "I can put my time to better use raising a child than any alternative that would prevent me from doing so[footnote]An alternative that doesn't prevent you from raising the child would be silly, because you could just do both.[/footnote]", which for one seems somewhat counter-intuitive; you can achieve a similar benefit with adoption, the difference being that while having a child would potentially do good, adopting would also prevent or reduce a host of negatives.
Even with adoption, you could be a foster parent instead, and try to benefit a large number of children, or maybe assist an organisation aimed at increasing contraception (to help prevent unwanted children from being brought into the world, thereby slowing the number of children being put into the foster system, such that the children that are already there have a better chance of being adopted/ placed in a good foster home (which would additionally reduce the financial cost to the foster system)).
And that's just some ideas regarding actions involving children. You could also do a bunch of things that have little to do with raising children, like charity work, helping community support groups, working towards non-discrimination in political institutions, aiding local junior sporting clubs, etc.
But then you get back to why someone wants children in the first place. If you ignore the 'Best course of action" route, it comes down to one's desires. Why a child? Does their relationship need a child, and if so, why is that? If there is something lacking in the relationship, then the problem would appear to be the sustainability of one's relationship, and a child is basically dumping that responsibility off one's self and onto another human being (one who had no choice in the matter to boot) when one's efforts would probably be better spent trying to improve the relationship between the two (or more) original members. If something isn't lacking, but the relationship still needs something (though I'll not get into how that might be), how can one ethically justify not only passing that responsibility onto another human being, but onto one that is likely cognitively incapable of giving consent, even years after being born?
But what if their relationship doesn't need a child? First off, ignoring the "Why have one in the first place?" vein, because it is relevant that they are doing so. One would be needlessly bringing a new life into this world (disregarding the ethical dilemmas of that, what with overpopulation, war, an uncertain economic future, still-present prejudices (some, like homophobia, that can't be planned against by having the bio-parents be of a particular skin colour, or the parents being of a certain SES, etc) that they may be forced to face, and probable others), when there are likely far better alternatives (like the adoption/foster/charity/community-support/etc), with no guarantee that they would be capable of providing the necessary emotional, social and financial support that person would need for the next 18-ish years.
So yes, it is much more responsible to wait to have a child until you have accomplished what you wanted to accomplish, and are reasonably secure, emotionally, financially and socially, but being more responsible doesn't mean it is necessarily responsible, and regardless, you would still be taking risks with a life that isn't yours (take all the risks you want with your own money, your own body, your own mind, that's fine, because it is YOURS, but not with a friend's, or a partner's or a stranger's, or a child's, because they are not YOURS to gamble with).
Wow, that went longer than expected. I'll try a TL;DR.
TL;DR: If you don't need a child, then there are arguably better alternatives. If you do, then the problem would rest with the initial necessity, not with the future-baby, and the child is like a patsy for the underlying problems. If you do and the child is not a patsy, it is still putting a great deal of responsibility onto another human being, (kind of like the patsy, but instead of the problem being something else in the person/s, the problem is the lack of a child), without their consent. If I've missed a possibility, I genuinely would like to hear it, I don't make arguments because I want to win, I make them because I want to see how bullet-proof my ideas are, such that I can improve them.
