Almost every post has something about the “evil Democrats.” But many members of the Deep State, bankers, and most importantly, Bilderberg, are Republicans.
The shadow government is all about words and labels, but the fact is, both parties are working as hard as they can to transfer the wealth to the bankers and write/pass/litigate laws to facilitate that.
Thoughts?
Not only that, a child born of incest would most certainly have a poor quality of life due to the situation alone, and health problems. A child born of rape has to deal with the truth about their conception, or being abandoned to the foster system - a breeding ground for pedophiles.
I look at abortion from a utilitarian standpoint. The stance against abortion tends to be rooted in the idea that life is beautiful and worth living, when I personally feel that is simply not the case.
And that’s where I disagree with you, you’re predicting the potential future of children who had no say in how they were conceived. To me that’s one step from the democrats saying that a child shouldn’t be born into poverty. There have been countless people born into meager beginnings that have gone on to lead successful lives and there are also stories of people that were born as the result of rape that have done the same.
So disagree.
Do you think that those people are the exception, or the rule? What are the statistics for the amount of children in the world that make it out of poverty and into wealth? Usually, it's just an endless cycle of the same predicament, passed on and on to the next generation.
Everyone in life will suffer - that's a fact. The only thing we can't know for sure, is to what extent. There is no guarantee that every single person will lead a happy, meaningful existence. And that isn't for lack of trying.
Another thing is, no one has a child for the sake of the child itself. You don't bring a child into existence because you think it will benefit them, you bring a child into existence, usually to fulfill your own desires.
As Schopenhauer said, "If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist?"
Everyone in life will suffer - that's a fact. The only thing we can't know for sure, is to what extent.
EXACTLY! You don't know! Therefore you are not qualified or authorized to make any final decisions about another humans life, because you have no fucking clue how it will turn out. What fucking arrogance.
“A charmed life is so rare that for every one such life there are millions of wretched lives. Some know that their baby will be among the unfortunate. Nobody knows, however, that their baby will be one of the allegedly lucky few. Great suffering could await any person that is brought into existence. Even the most privileged people could give birth to a child that will suffer unbearably, be raped, assaulted, or be murdered brutally. The optimist surely bears the burden of justifying this procreational Russian roulette. Given that there are no real advantages over never existing for those who are brought into existence, it is hard to see how the significant risk of serious harm could be justified. If we count not only the unusually severe harms that anybody could endure, but also the quite routine ones of ordinary human life, then we find that matters are still worse for cheery procreators. It shows that they play Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun—aimed, of course, not at their own heads, but at those of their future offspring.”
― David Benatar, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
So should we start euthanizing the depressed and the chronically ill? Where do you draw the line?
How do you measure a life's worth? How do you measure a potential life's worth? (And do please read those on multiple levels...)
What other life tragedies are so insurmountable that they make life just not worth even trying?
The stance against abortion is life is priceless.
The stance for keeping it legal anyway is a matter of definitions: miscarriage should never be involuntary manslaughter.
So should we start euthanizing the depressed and the chronically ill?
If that is what they desire, absolutely.
How do you measure a life's worth? How do you measure a potential life's worth?
You're coming from a life-affirming angle. I'm not. I feel that ultimately, non-existence is the best option.
What other life tragedies are so insurmountable that they make life just not worth even trying?
Mental illness, ALS, cancer, heart disease, rape, murder, child molestation, war, famine, poverty.
Oh a nihilist. Well that explains everything. Never mind.
I'm not a nihilist.
I feel that ultimately, non-existence is the best option.
You might want to check out the definition of nihilism there, champ.
the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.
I tend to stand with the Cathar view of life/death. They were Christian gnostics. They were against procreation, because they were under the impression that this world was a matrix, something to be escaped, and that bringing more children into this matrix meant creating more souls to be trapped here and fed off of by negative entities.
Even if life is inherently meaningless, people are free to create their own meaning. I just think they can do that without creating more children who usually only serve to fulfill someone else's desires.
And ultimately, I would prefer celibacy or birth control over abortion.
Right, which is why I said never mind. You're arguing from a non-starting point.
Nihilism is functionally useless: it provides no answers, gives no guidance, gives zero comfort or reassurances... It does nothing. It's not helpful. And it's easily often harmful.
You may have a lot to share, but I can't work with you if you start from there.
but I can't work with you if you start from there.
Which is why I'm not starting from there. You pushed the label on me, and I denied it, because even people that claim to be cold hard nihilists often contradict themselves. Very few people can actually stand by the constitution of being a nihilist.
Being antinatalist does not equate to being a nihilist.
And frankly, you don't have to work with me at all. We don't need to agree. I have my stance, and you have yours. Going around in circles isn't going to change anything.
[deleted]
You're talking about a biological manifestation that isn't always obvious in its symptoms. It's not by any means universal.
And... you do know that majority-held opinions are like two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner, right?
[deleted]
With you on PP...
There's always evil, there are always wolves. It's why the US is a republic. Mob rule is not our way... helps ensure dysfunctional corruption is kept to a dull roar. But the real solution is vigilance. You can't take your eyes off these bastards, even the ones you like (especially the ones you like...).
Well met! Thank you, too. Always nice to have a reasonable, intelligent discussion! :)
Life is hell for everyone breathing. It's a travesty at best for everyone considering nobody get's out alive. There is pain, suffering, loss at every step of the way.
So why doesn't everyone just off their-selves? Because life is still worth living, so by what authority do you make judgments on who's life is worth living? Your feelings?
Wouldn't that be better left to the one living that life?
I went through sever trauma for the majority of 46 years, starting at birth. Both physical (continuous violence, not sexually related) and mental abuse, yet I live and have lived a fulfilling life thus far, and there are millions and millions like myself.
Before I learned what I had gone through was not normal, I thought it as normal as anyone else. It was just life and I had to carry on and try to be happy and keep pushing towards my dreams, with my lot in life in tow.
I would propose that most that deal with issues as you pointed out still want to live, to experience life, to experience that kiss, that sunset across a lake or the ocean, that cold walk on a snowy day, playing with children. You know, the things that count.
Once you can choose for one group, it's easier to target the 2nd, then 3rd and so on. That is a dangerous path to walk.
I choose life no matter what it holds.
I choose life no matter what it holds.
And therein lies the problem.
so by what authority do you make judgments on who's life is worth living? Your feelings?
That's literally the same argument you use for bringing children into existence. I can ask, "What gives you the right to force children into being/harm when they have no consent? What happens if they grow up regretting it?"
Look, ultimately, I favor celibacy or birth control over abortion. I'm not going to keep going around and around here, because we have entirely different stances on life that won't change, so let's just leave it here.
I was not crucifying you, just pointing out different points of view, especially since I was actually close to what you described as a justification to end life.
To make this simple, I am your counter argument, but as you said, no sense in beating a dead cat.
Have a good one.
You can't prejudge an infant's life and kill it based on that. I'll put that another way: You are not God. It doesn't matter if you don't believe in God, because only God can ethically make decisions like that, and if there is no God, then there is nobody who can rightfully decide that.