Morality of choosing not to have children

[latent aaaack]

I wish to compare, mostly for the sake of argument, the act of murder and the act of choosing not to have children when it's possible for you to do so. I'm not coming at this from any particular ideological or religious angle and am genuinely stuck about this sort of tricky idea. I should add that I'm not trying to be offensive but just think of this as a nagging philosophical burr.

First of all people (like me) who have, so far anyway, chosen not to have children of course aren't similar to murderers because childless people don't act out of malice, violence, personality disorder, etc. and generally aren't at all comparably immoral in general in any way simply for that choice.

But what got me thinking about this (and I can see arguments for both sides) is this: the act of choosing not to have kids in your lifetime means that someone who would have existed does not exist because of your action. In the case of abortion this is not the case because that act only affects timing not actual lives. It's ironic there's so much outrage over abortion from some people and none over choosing not to have kids, which is the much harder moral issue in my opinion.

To compare this to murder, the main reasons why murder is considered wrong are reasons like it breaks "do onto others as you would have them do onto you," because human life is inherently valuable and good, the pain it causes those who love them, the economic loss to society, the physical pain of the dying process, and of course all the pragmatic societal stability reasons. So it seems initially that not having children might be some fraction of as bad as murder.

However, reasons against it being immoral might be that there are too many or just enough humans on earth so it's good for the species to not have many or any children. Another reason is that choosing to have children doesn't necessarily save someone from non-existence because whoever you choose to have children with probably would've gone on to have children anyway. So the only way that having children would save someone from non-existence would be to have children with someone who you somehow know was not otherwise going to have children if not for you begging them or something.

Then again one person or both people in a relationship deciding not to have children does directly cause someone to be deprived of life. I emphasize again that I'm (inappropriate as the phrase sounds) "pro abortion."

Then again if someone doesn't emotionally want children then you could argue that such a person would not be a good enough parent to have children. But on the other hand even people born into a variety of less than optimal circumstances still value their life very much so it seems wrong to make the choice for them that they shouldn't exist.

In the end I think it would just be simpler (if I'm too confused by the issue) to forget about it and do what humans have always done and just reproduce based on current societal norms, based on chance, and based on (now non-existent, as in farm labor) physical need and/or emotional need. I'm stuck. Your thoughts please.

 

[wagnerbl]

I think the problem in your reasoning is the "potential kids", if this was something immoral or wrong in any way, the males in the world (who can have 100000 kids) will have a tough time explaining this to the lord above.

 

[This Guy]

First, you admit that choosing to not have children leaves someone in a non-existent state. Non-existence would indicate they do not exist. I don't understand how there can be a moral dilemma over something that is nonexistent.

On the other hand, you say you support the abortion of something that does exist?

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me.

For the record, while I support the right of people to choose, I am personally anti-abortion. Perhaps that slants my view.

Perhaps I'm missing, or misreading something, but I get the impression that you would feel it is a tragedy when a man has a wet dream, and all those possible people are lost forever, but have no qualms with the abortion of a viable human fetus that, left alone would likely develop into a real human, not an imagined one. And frankly, I find this just silly.

Is this a parody thread?

 

[arthwollipot]

But what got me thinking about this (and I can see arguments for both sides) is this: the act of choosing not to have kids in your lifetime means that someone who would have existed does not exist because of your action.

Someone who would have existed? No they wouldn't. You choose not to have a child. There's not even any potential for a person there. In the case of abortion, there is a potential for a person. When you choose to use birth control because you don't want to have children, there's no "potential people" - they don't exist. How could denying existence to something that doesn't have any existence anyway be a morally difficult problem?

So it seems initially that not having children might be some fraction of as bad as murder.

Rubbish. As wagnerbl pointed out, I as a fertile male could potentially have thousands of children. I in actual fact have one. Have I "denied existence" to all those other thousands? If choosing not to have children is morally bad, then a woman should never get her period - she should get pregnant before she has the chance. Otherwise, a "potential human" (unfertilised egg) is washed out of her uterus. What a senseless waste of potential human life!

Ridiculous.

In the end I think it would just be simpler (if I'm too confused by the issue) to forget about it and do what humans have always done and just reproduce based on current societal norms, based on chance, and based on (now non-existent, as in farm labor) physical need and/or emotional need. I'm stuck. Your thoughts please.

You're on the right track. It's not a moral issue whether to have children or not. You decide based on the state of your mind, your home life, and your finances, and whether you feel the biological imperative (which, btw, is quite strong...) There is no moral choice involved.

If we start counting "potential" life as of equal value to actual life, then all forms of birth control, and indeed masturbation, are wrong, just like the Pope says. Every sperm is sacred and should be used to cause potential life to become actual life. Women should be breeders, becoming pregnant as soon as possible after giving birth. Otherwise, you're denying potential humans existence.

Enough of a reductio ad absurdum for you? This is not a moral choice. It is a practical and an emotional choice.

 

[Wolfman]

I'm sorry, but the whole argument makes no sense. Allow me to illustrate.

If one is going to consider a particular argument, one must apply that argument to all situations, not just one. Your position is that "choosing not to have children" is somehow equivalent to depriving a "potential life" of existence, and that this is somehow comparable to (although not as severe as) the act of murder.

Well, let's say that I accept your argument; that a choice not to have a child is morally wrong because it is depriving a potential life of existence. Let's say that I do choose to have a child. But wait...if I choose not to have any more children, I'll still be depriving those potential lives their existence, also.

Thus, by your logic, I am morally bound to have as many children as possible; any attempt to prevent pregnancy is a morally repugnant act.

But wait...that's not all! Because with modern technology, its possible to have more than one child at a time. Fertility drugs, or implanting multiple fetuses from in vitro fertilization. If it is possible for me to have more than one baby, and I choose to only have one, then that means that I am once again in the moral dilemma of choosing to prevent potential lives from coming into existence!

In short, if I accept that your argument has any validity whatsoever, then my only real option is to have as many children as possible, as often as possible.

Now, for myself, I consider the entire proposition absolutely ludicrous; a sadly failed attempt at intellectual/philosophical speculation. Simply choosing not to have children has no moral aspect to it whatsoever. However, having children when you don't want them, or are unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to properly care for them, is a significant moral issue.


ETA: Arth and I seem to have simultaneously replied with similar arguments

 

[jsfisher]

the act of choosing not to have kids in your lifetime means that someone who would have existed does not exist because of your action.

This is so backwards it hurts. Having kids should be the choice. You act to have kids. Not having kids requires no action whatsoever. (And I don't mean that in the literal no-sex way, either.)

 

[slingblade]

That's um....wow.

No.

 

[Dunstan]

We have moral objections to murder mainly because we don't want to be murdered, and a society in which we can be murdered without consequence would be an unpleasant one in which to live: we would be living in constant fear, wasting time and resources on maintaining our defenses, etc.

Neither reason applies to non-existent "potential persons." We don't fear the possibility of never being born because it can't happen to us; by definition, we've already been born. The not-yet-born can't experience fear, and can't spend time or resources trying to ensure that they will be born.

We make moral rules based in large part on the question "what kind of society do we want?" A society without murder would be a happy one. A society where every potential person who physically could be born, is born, would be a horrid one, filled with famine, disease, war, and other typical consequences of overpopulation.

Also, what would such a rule mean for the obligations of a parent to a child? Right now, we generally believe that parents have obligations to their children because, hey, you chose to bring a child into the world, therefore you have responsibilities to that child. (We even -- usually -- extend that principle to children who were conceived accidentally.) But if you have a moral obligation to have as many children as possible, why do you also have a moral obligation to care for them? What is the basis for imposing an obligation on someone who never had a choice?

 

[arthwollipot]

ETA: Arth and I seem to have simultaneously replied with similar arguments

Yeah, but you were much nicer about it.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

latent aaaack said:

[...] the act of choosing not to have kids in your lifetime means that someone who would have existed does not exist because of your action.

No, it doesn't. Possible children, unlike (say) blond children, are not a sort of children.

 

[Wolfman]

Yeah, but you were much nicer about it.

I've had a tendency to be rather acerbic recently, and this post was no exception; but after writing it (and before submitting it), I went back and took out the more personal stuff.

 

[Roma]

someone who would have existed does not exist because of your action
QUOTE]

What if, just for the sake of argument, you could look fifty years ahead and find out that you were never destined to have children? That there never was an actual "someone" that you were denying life to. Then your action has not caused any harm, there was never anyone there to be murdered.

I can't look into the future for you but I think that if there is a "someone" out there that is destined to live it will. I personally know three babies who were born to women who had their tubes tied, and twins who were born to a man who had a vasectomy.

Maybe we just have really bad doctors up here but I say those "someones" were going to be here no matter what.

 

[arthwollipot]

I still have trouble with that phrase "someone that would have existed". According to who? And how could it ever be found out?

No, you can't say that someone "would have existed". Because they "would have existed" only if the world were different. And aside from theoretical quantum-mechanical bifurcations, it isn't. The world isn't different to what it is, and such a person doesn't exist.

 

[maxfrost]

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

 

[slingblade]

In my fertile span, I produced approximately 264 ova. Some months, there's the possiblity I popped out two or three at once. There's also the possibility I produced none, some months. And during both my pregnancies, I almost certainly produced none.

I was fertile for 22 years.

In order not to murder any of these potential children, I would have had to get pregnant every one of those years, starting at age 14, and would have to have borne 12 children per pregnancy.

That's impossible.

Can the impossible be immoral?

 

[arthwollipot]

Thanks for doing the maths, Sling. I wanted to make this point, but didn't have the stats.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

What's worse is that if you do have kids, you're consigning them to death. You're a murderer either way.

 

[tkingdoll]

This is a poor philosophical argument. Of course, it's also hideously unfair to women but presumably not giving both genders the same freedoms and opportunities is not immoral in the code of the OP's universe.

As others have pointed out, this "idea" results in a woman having to give birth to as many babies as is humanly possible, also by as many fathers as she possibly can (presumably there is no caveat that the 'potential' life has to come from only one sperm), from the earliest age possible. Never mind the number of women who will die from childbirth complications, the number of children who will die in youth, the strain it would put on the economy leading to poverty and more early deaths (after low quality of life), the relationship breakdowns because of the multiple partners. THOSE things are immoral.

I'm not one to take offence easily, but I'm almost offended by this. The only reason I'm not is because it's laughable and so poorly conceived. I think it's pretty much talking about the complete breakdown of productive society.

I'm all for philosophical meandering or hypothetical ethical dilemmas, but this question is the intellectual and moral equivalent of asking "if forced at gunpoint, would you have sex with your mother, or a dead goat?"

 

[Fiona]

latent aaaack said:


No, it doesn't. Possible children, unlike (say) blond children, are not a sort of children.

I think this is as concise a refutation as I have seen, and it is enough.

 

[The Atheist]

Can I suggest that next time these kind of questions pop into your head, you should immediately drink spirituous liquors until you stop thinking them.

A hangover, in the end, is much less trouble.

Alternatively, you could consider why masturbation is akin to genocide.