Fed up with the 'you must have children' propaganda

[Kulindahr]

The world needs more babies, not less.

How much is the pope paying you to say that?

 

[Kulindahr]

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

No, no -- wait till they can walk, so you can make them do the work of getting to the river.

But before they can talk.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

Nicely said.

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.

Exactly. Using human DNA to repair human DNA has as much in common with Nazi eugenics as slicing your toast has to do with slaughtering co-eds with a machete.

Meanwhile, we can only do what I and some others on JUB have done: recognized that we have defects in our DNA, and chosen not to pass it along.

 

[mikey3000]

What amazes me is how much effort goes into flinging poo at each other. Doesn't anyone here work or have any other hobbies?

 

[xbuzzerx]

What amazes me is how much effort goes into flinging poo at each other. Doesn't anyone here work or have any other hobbies?

Why don't you tell us, given that this post was just passive aggressive poo-flinging.

 

[pat grimshaw]

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

 

[ElmosToe]

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..

So, it's not genetic counseling anymore, now it's gene therapy....?

What you have been explaining in this thread is genetic engineering, and now you're changing it to gene targeting and referring to it as gene therapy.....

fascinating to watch how you spin and twist things.

Removing a gene sequence then replacing it with another gene sequence (which is what you were describing) in the broad sense is called genetic engineering. Genetic engineering does not refer only to introducing new DNA from another species and inserting it into the genes of another completely different species, although that is one of its many forms. For shits and giggles, let's go with your understanding....Even when you are removing a sequence and replacing it with another sequence of human DNA it is still genetic engineering because you are still introducing a new DNA sequence to that organism's existing DNA strand even if it is human DNA. Gene therapy is inserting a coded protein into a cell to activate or deactivate existing DNA sequences, in a sense, reprogramming the DNA to correct itself or instructing the cell to create new DNA to correct a problem. Either way, it is all still under the umbrella of genetic engineering since that is how gene targeting and gene therapy developed.


I'm not opposed to gene therapy because in adults this shit has actually proven that it works.

What I am opposed to is playing God or mother nature (whatever you want to call it). The assumption that we can correct a birth defect in utero without it causing unknown side effects and because ultimately you are dictating control over another person's life who has no voice or choice in the matter. No different than circumcision. I am also opposed to obvious implications of utilizing human genetic engineering to create designer children and how easily our culture or society could see it as perfectly normal and then have it fall into the hands of psychotic dictators or oppressive governments to do who knows what with innocent human beings, ultimately treating human life as a mere commodity or yesterday's garbage, something they rend to do anyway, but with genetic engineering, the reality of that mentality is far more horrific and terrifying, especially since we have already seen this shit go down in history before.


.........

Gattaca is an awesome movie.

Have fun

.......

 

[zoltanspawn]

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.

Are you able to understand the claim I am making: that ending life is harmful, and so one shouldn't end life?

Try to imagine a harmful situation that is made worse with more harm.

Can you imagine such a situation?

If you can imagine such a situation, then you must be able to see that ending a life (adding more harm) is not intrinsic to reducing the harm in life.

Did you follow that?

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.

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.

Nope. You’re making shit up, Kulindahr.

You’re making up that I don’t “oppose death.” But of course, I do, and—I’ve now said so over and over and over and over. You are deliberately not paying attention. I oppose death. I think death causes harm. I oppose suicide. I oppose the harm that death and suicide entails. I am against causing someone to become non-existent.

I have CLEARLY distinguished now, several times, that antinatalists in general, and myself also, recognize a difference between causing “someone” to *remain* non-existent, and causing someone to *become* non-existent. I have CLEARLY explained why: by the criterion that harm is not entailed in the former, and is entailed in the latter. There is no murder (causing to become non-existent) inherent in valuing non-existence. Death (becoming non-existent) and non-existence are not the same thing. You seem to be fundamentally confused on this obvious point. Suicide (causing to become non-existent) and non-existence are not the same thing. You’re laying on bad inferences, ad-hominem fallacies and blunt misconstruals so thick your head must be spinning.

 

[nyctopgam]

I think giving birth to children is one of the most selfish, short-sighted things mankind can do.
...
The media seem to shovel down our throats the idea we are successful only if we build a family for ourselves. Even the gays are now into it. Well, I beg to differ.

I essentially agree. Not quite I would frame it myself.

No, need to have children, to pass on your so precious DNA.

Want children? Adopt one. There too many unfortunate kids in the world already.

Too many people on the planet. Some negative growth is fine.

 

[The Fly]

The overwhelming majority of pregnancies are accidental. Very few people (comparatively) set out to have children. Most conception, in N.America anyway, is due to too much wine or unprotected sex (including birth control pills).....historically refereed to as "Happy Accidents".

 

[Kahaih]

The overwhelming majority of pregnancies are accidental. Very few people (comparatively) set out to have children. Most conception, in N.America anyway, is due to too much wine or unprotected sex (including birth control pills).....historically refereed to as "Happy Accidents".

OK, so, you're all liquored up, I get that part, but . . . which one of these guys are you hitting on?

 

[Kulindahr]

What I am opposed to is playing God or mother nature (whatever you want to call it). The assumption that we can correct a birth defect in utero without it causing unknown side effects and because ultimately you are dictating control over another person's life who has no voice or choice in the matter. No different than circumcision. I am also opposed to obvious implications of utilizing human genetic engineering to create designer children and how easily our culture or society could see it as perfectly normal and then have it fall into the hands of psychotic dictators or oppressive governments to do who knows what with innocent human beings, ultimately treating human life as a mere commodity or yesterday's garbage, something they rend to do anyway, but with genetic engineering, the reality of that mentality is far more horrific and terrifying, especially since we have already seen this shit go down in history before.

....

If the only thing that's changed is the targeted gene, there can't be any "unknown side effects" -- you're putting a fully functional genetic sequence in to replace one less than fully functioning.

"dictating control over another person's life" -- um, there is no "person" yet. Really, merely by bringing about a pregnancy you're "dictating control over another person's life"; after all, they didn't get to pick their own genes.

No one's talking about "designer children". Besides that, as the technology is developed it's going to "fall into the hands of psychotic dictators or oppressive governments" no matter what; that's the way it goes with technology.

No, we haven't seen this before -- we've never been able to make such repairs before.

 

[Kulindahr]

Are you able to understand the claim I am making: that ending life is harmful, and so one shouldn't end life?

Right -- so you should oppose all death. You should advocate that every possible resource be thrown into the effort to eliminate death.

You’re making up that I don’t “oppose death.” But of course, I do, and—I’ve now said so over and over and over and over. You are deliberately not paying attention. I oppose death. I think death causes harm. I oppose suicide. I oppose the harm that death and suicide entails. I am against causing someone to become non-existent.

If death causes harm, then that much harm is inevitable anyway -- unless you're going to be consistent and oppose all death, and think it's actually possible.

So you have a choice between death now and death whenever. You know that the existence in between brings suffering, so logically, you should choose to bring death sooner rather than later -- to reduce suffering.

I have CLEARLY distinguished now, several times, that antinatalists in general, and myself also, recognize a difference between causing “someone” to *remain* non-existent, and causing someone to *become* non-existent. I have CLEARLY explained why: by the criterion that harm is not entailed in the former, and is entailed in the latter. There is no murder (causing to become non-existent) inherent in valuing non-existence. Death (becoming non-existent) and non-existence are not the same thing. You seem to be fundamentally confused on this obvious point. Suicide (causing to become non-existent) and non-existence are not the same thing. You’re laying on bad inferences, ad-hominem fallacies and blunt misconstruals so thick your head must be spinning.

Non-existence is non-existence; whether existence came before it isn't relevant. And the act of causing non-existence is neutral, since death still comes. So implementing non-existence would reduce suffering.

 

[Kulindahr]

The overwhelming majority of pregnancies are accidental. Very few people (comparatively) set out to have children. Most conception, in N.America anyway, is due to too much wine or unprotected sex (including birth control pills).....historically refereed to as "Happy Accidents".

Long ago I had a T-shirt that brightly proclaimed, "Accidents cause people!"

 

[ElmosToe]

"dictating control over another person's life" -- um, there is no "person" yet.

^that right there is the flaw in the logic and the exact mentality I am referring to that creates a culture that devalues human life and sees it as just a thing, rather than sentient human life with rights.

Really, merely by bringing about a pregnancy you're "dictating control over another person's life"; after all, they didn't get to pick their own genes.

^so why do you as the parent get to make the choice on what their genes do then?
And didn't you just say there is no person yet?

 

[Draven]

This thread is good for a chuckle, I needed one after having a bad week.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Right -- so you should oppose all death. You should advocate that every possible resource be thrown into the effort to eliminate death.

You think people should be anti-mortalists instead of anti-natalists?

Anti-mortalism seems like a good idea. People who use doctors or believe in "healthcare" probably are anti-mortalists, aren't they? (Maybe not strong anti-mortalists like you describe, interested in investing every resource to battle death; but we could say, weak anti-mortalists.) Well, since I too believe in "healthcare" I guess I'm a weak anti-mortalist and an anti-natalist. At least I'm part of one, um, popular group!

If death causes harm, then that much harm is inevitable anyway -- unless you're going to be consistent and oppose all death, and think it's actually possible.

Maybe one good way to implement a strong anti-mortalist program is to adopt anti-natalism first. After all, you can't die if you aren't born!

So you have a choice between death now and death whenever. You know that the existence in between brings suffering, so logically, you should choose to bring death sooner rather than later -- to reduce suffering.

Yes, one should be harmful to not be harmful. That is logical, isn't it?

Non-existence is non-existence; whether existence came before it isn't relevant. And the act of causing non-existence is neutral, since death still comes. So implementing non-existence would reduce suffering.

Medical marijuana is probably another good way of reducing suffering. Beware the side-effects, though.