Fed up with the 'you must have children' propaganda

[Willie Boy]

There is harm in existence (and no harm in non-existence.)

Where do you come up with this idea? Depending on how one handles one's existence there can either be harm or a lack of harm. Hell, there can even be great pleasure. It is for the individual to decide what his/her existence will be.

Causing someone to come into existence entails harm (while causing someone to remain non-existent does not).
Therefore, one shouldn't cause someone to come into existence.

But the harm is to the one bringing the other person into existence and therefore is up to her to decide if the harm (or pain) is worth it, not anyone else.

Note, that causing someone to become non-existent does entail harm; and there is no argument being made^ that people should be caused to become non-existent.

What a...... clinical........ way to describe killing another individual. Then again, one could also suggest that that is exactly what you are describing when you suggest not bringing children to life because of the "harm" it causes. By not giving birth the woman is thereby sentencing that child that could have been born to death, simply by not getting pregnant. All under the guise of "not bringing harm".

Your whole attempt at logic is flawed. You incorrectly assume that the very act of creating life is harmful. Why? What is it about life that you find so hurtful? If someone is not allowed to live (as you call it "not brought into existence) he or she never has a chance to love. That is the greatest harm imaginable..... Who was it that said, "Better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all"? By denying the right to exist you deny the chance to live, and to love..... Who the Hell appointed you the authority over who gets to have that chance or not? So what if you feel your life sucks, do something to change it! Find someone or something to love, but shut the Hell up with your hate, because that is all it is, hatred of life..... But you can't even call it that, can you? You just call it existence, as if denying existence to others is somehow less evil than denying them life.

Don't bother to respond to this because I wont bother to read your shit..... I am going to deny it existence because it is harm.

 

[zoltanspawn]

I guess if I can survive being told by another member that they would like to murder me for my opinion in this thread, I can survive without your^ readership, too.

Is this a viscerally provocative issue or something?

 

[Gentleheart]

Is this a viscerally provocative issue or something?

apparently so...

I'm...amazed at some of the directions people have taken this thing.

 

[zoltanspawn]

apparently so...

I'm...amazed at some of the directions people have taken this thing.

Maybe I should start a "Funny Anti-Natalist Internet Pictures" thread?^

 

[The Fly]

I would think if a anti-natalist were really dedicated to their beliefs, suicide should be their first act.

 

[zoltanspawn]

I would think if a anti-natalist were really dedicated to their beliefs, suicide should be their first act.

1) Suicide causes harm. Antinatalists are interested in avoiding harm.

2) Antinatalists recognize a difference between preventing someone from coming into existence in the first place, and causing someone to become non-existent.

These^ points are already covered in the thread.

 

[Kulindahr]

You do realize that "dictating what characteristics are allowed" is the same as "allowing prospective parents to protect against having children with known genetic disorders" right?

So to you coercion is the same as free choice? Bizarre.

What you are advocating is not genetic counseling but genetically engineering human beings under the guise of eliminating genetic disorders. We all know where that will lead...have you learned nothing from Star Trek....?

Where did I say I advocate genetic engineering? I'm only interested in sticking with human DNA, not trying to "improve" it.

Kuli,

I have much respect for you, but that is just utterly fucking ridiculous and I call you on your bullshit.

I'm proposing medical treatment for disorders. You're opposing it. There's no "bullshit" involved.

^disturbing...

You've already shown you find logic disturbing.

The fact that you have diluted yourself to see genetically engineering human beings and are hoping or expecting guidelines to be implemented aka enforced, to make genetically engineering human beings a reality, as compassionate, is disturbing.

I have no proposed genetic engineering. That you can;t tell the difference is what's really disturbing.

Why? Because you're essentially saying you want to do the same things the Nazi scientists did with eugenics, only we won't be doing it under a fascist regime, and instead will use the passive bureaucracy of the U.S. healthcare system to engineer our DNA so then it apparently makes it ok.

That's your fantasy, not my proposal.

While in theory it sounds wonderful to be able to resolve genetic dysfunction in utero.
The reality of genetic engineering human beings however, when put into practice is entirely something different when you take into account what the implications and consequences will be.

And gays are all pedophiles -- we get it.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is your version of my argument:

Existence is identical to harm.
Ending existence reduces harm.
Therefore you should end existence.

I am saying something different:

There is harm in existence (and no harm in non-existence.)
Causing someone to come into existence entails harm (while causing someone to remain non-existent does not).
Therefore, one shouldn't cause someone to come into existence.

Note, that causing someone to become non-existent does entail harm; and there is no argument being made^ that people should be caused to become non-existent.

That is entirely fabricated on your part.

I've fabricated nothing -- you're just unwilling to be consistent. Asserting that there is harm in existence, yet refusing to terminate existence, is just hypocrisy.

If making someone non-existent entails harm, then death entails harm. To be consistent, you should oppose death.

The argument fails by making something that isn't binary into a binary system, and it also fails because it's proponents are engaging in hypocrisy.

 

[Kulindahr]

I guess if I can survive being told by another member that they would like to murder me for my opinion in this thread, I can survive without your^ readership, too.

No one said that.

 

[Kulindahr]

I would think if a anti-natalist were really dedicated to their beliefs, suicide should be their first act.

They're too happy engaging in sophistry to be consistent. Of course they aren't going to reduce harm by ending their existence -- they're too brilliant and valuable!

 

[ElmosToe]

Where did I say I advocate genetic engineering? I'm only interested in sticking with human DNA, not trying to "improve" it.

uummm...

Point of information: no one is talking about altering human DNA at all, let alone "all down the line". We're talking about replacing bad human DNA with good human DNA.

You do realize that statement is not only contradictory but advocating genetic engineering, right...?



some info on genetic engineering

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease. Gene targeting is a different technique that uses homologous recombination to change an endogenous gene, and can be used to delete a gene, remove exons, add a gene, or introduce point mutations.

I'm proposing medical treatment for disorders. You're opposing it. There's no "bullshit" involved.

^fascinating to watch how you spin and twist things.

You've already shown you find logic disturbing.

Your definition and display of "logic" yes, is VERY disturbing.

I have no proposed genetic engineering. That you can;t tell the difference is what's really disturbing.

You have proposed it though, the fact you can't see or rather, choose not to see that you have is precisely what is disturbing.

That's your fantasy, not my proposal.

It's not fantasy if it's already been reality and just waiting to become reality again...

And gays are all pedophiles -- we get it.

^this is offensive, I don't appreciate that shit and you need to explain what you are implying with such an absurd statement.

I already have a good idea what you are saying, I just want you to have the balls to sy it and I find your passive/aggressive way of throwing an ignorant insult fucking ridiculous and riddled with bullshit. You should have the balls to clearly explain yourself rather than using veiled, vague references that only merely hint at what you apparently can't come out of say up front.

As I said, I like you Kuli, I have much respect for you, but you seem to be choosing willful ignorance for the sake of argument.

I'm rather perplexed as to why those who are for this procedure cannot admit it or what it is...genetic engineering. What are you afraid of?

 

[zoltanspawn]

If making someone non-existent entails harm, then death entails harm. To be consistent, you should oppose death.

Where on Earth do you get the idea that I don't consider death harmful (in your words, "oppose death")?

As you like to say, this is a "lie."

No one said that.

Yes they did.

If someone forced another person to kill themselves this is the same as murder.

Maintaining otherwise is absurd and pedantic and rooted in personal motives.

Another member telling me they would murder me if they could contributes nothing to the conversation. It's mere malice.

 

[zoltanspawn]

They're too happy engaging in sophistry to be consistent. Of course they aren't going to reduce harm by ending their existence -- they're too brilliant and valuable!

Your dumb criticism is like this one:

If you love spaghetti, why don't you marry it.

Suicide is not equivalent to family planning.

 

[sixthson]

The world needs more babies, not less.

 

[Gentleheart]

The world needs more babies, not less.

millions of abandoned and/or orphaned children would beg to differ.

 

[darden]

millions of abandoned and/or orphaned children would beg to differ.

the trick is throwing them in the river before they get old enough to walk

 

[xbuzzerx]

^this is offensive, I don't appreciate that shit and you need to explain what you are implying with such an absurd statement.

It was pretty obvious he was showing the problem with taking the worst possible association or expression of something and insisting all of it is necessarily characterized by that thing. Whether it's calling all gays pedophiles or saying any possible use of genetic medicine is going to be Third Reich eugenics.

I find the notion ridiculous that someone presented with the possibility of curing their lifelong genetic illness, or preventing their child from having the same one they suffered with their entire life, would view that choice as having anything to do with exterminating Jews or non-blue-eyed children. And I also think it's ridiculous to imply we should censor such a discussion on that reasoning.

 

[Kulindahr]

some info on genetic engineering

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease. Gene targeting is a different technique that uses homologous recombination to change an endogenous gene, and can be used to delete a gene, remove exons, add a gene, or introduce point mutations.

Thank you for showing that I'm not advocating genetic engineering.

^fascinating to watch how you spin and twist things.

Your definition and display of "logic" yes, is VERY disturbing.

His position is that existence means harm. Logically, then, he should end his existence.

You have proposed it though, the fact you can't see or rather, choose not to see that you have is precisely what is disturbing.

By the definition you brought in and I quoted above, I have not. Gene therapy is gene targeting, which is "a different technique that uses homologous recombination to change an endogenous gene, and can be used to delete a gene, remove exons, add a gene, or introduce point mutations." No new DNA at all, just human DNA to fix what's broken.

It's not fantasy if it's already been reality and just waiting to become reality again...

It's purely your fantasy. You're dragging things out of your mental closet and dumping them on me.

^this is offensive, I don't appreciate that shit and you need to explain what you are implying with such an absurd statement.

Good -- then you got the point. You're taking something that's just a bit out of the ordinary and claiming it inevitably leads to something you despise. It's no different than insisting that gays are pedophiles.

No one here is a Nazi. No one is interested in a"master race". No one is interested in introducing new genes to "improve" the species. But you insist that practicing medicine is the equivalent of Nazi breeding programs and the like.

I'm rather perplexed as to why those who are for this procedure cannot admit it or what it is...genetic engineering. What are you afraid of?

It isn't genetic engineering -- as you showed above.

 

[Kulindahr]

Where on Earth do you get the idea that I don't consider death harmful (in your words, "oppose death")?

As you like to say, this is a "lie."

Yes -- it's your lie. I said you DO consider death harmful -- so to be consistent, you should oppose death.

This whole asymmetry argument is an exercise in deception and hypocrisy.

Yes they did.

If someone forced another person to kill themselves this is the same as murder.

Maintaining otherwise is absurd and pedantic and rooted in personal motives.

Another member telling me they would murder me if they could contributes nothing to the conversation. It's mere malice.

Requiring you to be consistent with your own philosophy isn't murder -- unless there's murder in your philosophy.

You can't have it both ways: if existence means harm, then ending your existence will reduce harm. If you claim that ending your existence means harm, then you should fight to bring an end to death. But ultimately, your position would lead to the sterilization of all life, because any living thing being born means suffering, so all new life should be stopped. It's a philosophy of death.

Willie's more mundane reaction shows the stupidity of the entire position. Life is better than death, and no cutesy little bit of false reasoning can change that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your dumb criticism is like this one:

If you love spaghetti, why don't you marry it.

Suicide is not equivalent to family planning.

Of course it is, in your little argument you cited. Life means harm, so ending life means reducing harm. That's intrinsic to the position you're arguing.

Besides which, you're now changing the subject: this isn't about "family planning", it's about harm. And existence inevitably means harm, by your claim. Reducing harm is a good thing, so suicide for all those holding your position is only logical.