(I wrote the following arguments at the rate of one or two a day, they can seem fragmented by reading them in one breath, or recall the same themes.)
In France there is a National Ethics Committee. In 2018 he launched a national bioethics consultation on the topic of procreation. I learned a little late this consultation, but I could still ask the topic, "Reproduction in itself is not ethical." Which seems to me the very basis of the general topic. If this topic is not dealt with, when it is the main one, why ask ethical questions about anything else? So a little caught up short on, but knowing the theme I did not have too much trouble to propose arguments "for.” There are some arguments "against", I leave you judge.
Comité Consultatif National d’Ethique (National Consultative Ethics Committee) (CCNE):
“Les Etats généraux,” organized by the “Comité Consultatif National d’Ethique” (National Consultative Ethics Committee), are a preliminary phase to the revision of the bioethics law scheduled for the end of 2018. In France, this law is revised every 7 years at least. Page about the approach: https://etatsgenerauxdelabioethique.fr/pages/la-demarche
It also provides for a review of the act within seven years, with, in the first instance, the organization of a public debate in the form of general statements by the government. The CCNE, “Comité Consultatif National d’Ethique” (National Consultative Committee of Ethics) ...
"What world do we want for tomorrow? It is on this issue that drives today the “Etats Généraux de la Bioéthiques” (General States of Bioethics), the first step in the revision of the bioethical law that should take place at the end of the year. The current law of bioethics dates from 2011 ...
All contributions will be the topic of a synthesis report to be submitted by CCNE in June to the OPECST, the “Office Parlementaire d’Evaluation des Choix Scientifiques et Technologiques” (Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Options), before the official closure of the Member States. At the beginning of July, under the aegis of the President of the Republic.
CCNE's mission in the coming months is to gather as objectively as possible all the opinions of the society. However, this is not a simple polling exercise that will be conducted by the Committee, to count the pros, cons, anti, pro, no opinion ... The challenge here is to know, above all, the reasons that motivate these positions. For that, a whole system of consultations has been put in place at various scales.
CCNE undertakes to make public on the website of the “Etats généraux” all the written contributions of associations, learned societies ... and reports of regional discussions.
All these contributions will be taken into account by the CCNE to constitute its synthesis report whether they are citizens or from different institutions.
Here is the entire arguments (most of them are mine) posted for the French “Etats Généraux de la Bioéthique 2018” (Estates General of Bioethics 2018), the topic of which is the title of this article: “Procreation in itself is not ethical”
Introduction of the topic: the procreation of an existence serves only those that already exist, and no one controls this procreation nor the path that will follow this existence. Once one has procreated a suffering being how to undo the suffering? The act of procreation is the most important act of a human being, should not we worry about the conditions of procreation, who procreates, in what environment we invite a being to participate in humanity? Should not we consider that the procreated person is a guest? To exist is infinitely dangerous and always mortal, and can even be considered as a slavery act since the child is fabricated to serve parents and society. Doctors take an oath to fulfill their mission, why do not people who wish to be parents take an oath, when the act of procreation is the main act, and that healing is a secondary act? It ought also to assure each child by a kind of natal contract, so he can live in conditions of well-being, otherwise why invite him on the planet?
Arguments for:
Argument 1: It is not ethical to make a child because he did not ask to exist. The child has been put before the fait accompli of existence, and he will suffer all the consequences. And we will even make him guilty of his "bad" actions while he had no control over his imperfections, physical, mental, educational. To make a child is an act that one does for oneself and not for the child, it is pure selfishness. To make a child is a service that one makes to oneself, so it is dictatorship. It is also a crime by imprudence since it can be born disabled or become disabled. It is a crime, because it will suffer with certainty and die with certainty. It is slavery because it is made to serve those that already exist. It is also slavery, because he will have to buy his body, his food, his health, his security, his lodging, etc. It is still slavery, because it will not only have to work to live, but pay taxes on this necessary work, to the nation. It is also a constraint of association since it is registered in the society without having asked for it. It is also permanent blackmail with threat by the weapons, the prison, the contraventions, if it does not behave according to the rules whereas it has not signed a social contract. It is still mental torture since it will ask questions about death and the afterlife, possibly hell if he is a believer. As well as absurd questions like: "Is life worth living?" While his parents should have asked the question that precedes it: "Is life worth the trouble?"
Argument 2: Making a child is an arbitrary, dictatorial act, so it is perfectly normal for the state to use its power to legislate on this issue. The role of the state is to protect citizens, and especially children, from all the bad living conditions imposed by others. Birth disability is a bad condition of life. No one can master procreation; many disabled and future disabled are born every day (genetic defect, food abuse, or drugged mother). Why does the state not prohibit procreation when someone knows they have a genetic disease? The state should prohibit procreation. It must be deduced that the state considers the birth-disabled as collateral damage, is not it intolerable? On the other hand, the state can slow procreation to ensure that everyone is born in good conditions. The state should at a minimum ensure every child a good and interesting life. If not, what is the use to exist? What is the point of "inviting" someone on the planet? We cannot exist for the service of the state whose role is to protect us; it is an absurd vicious circle. What ethics is there to consider the birth-disabled as collateral damages needed to get the quota of about right citizens to make the nation turning like a clock?
Argument 3: Why is the precautionary principle, and the notion of crime by recklessness, not used by human rights defenders and lawyers, when so many people procreate children with disabilities? Why do not birth-disabled people, no matter when their disability occurs, use the laws to obtain compensation and reparation? Why is the current justice principle based on the law of retaliation not recognized in the case of procreation? Is a blind child a second before birth less abused by his parents than a second after birth? There is no ethic in the making of an existence, and in addition without any mastery.
Argument 4: Why prohibit abortion after 12 weeks (in France)? Is it to protect the pregnant woman or do we consider that the fetus is already a person? If it is to protect the woman, why forbid this type of endangerment, while we allow many others daily and some jobs are highly dangerous, and while procreate is a double endangerment, that of the woman and the unborn child (or children)? More than 800 women die every day in the world during childbirth and one in seven get a pathology (WHO). To procreate is infinitely dangerous, but especially for the person made for the parental and social service. How can a man ask a woman to make him an offspring when his wife risks her life to procreate, and pretend that he loves her? There is no ethic in the simple fact of existing.
Argument 5: To make a child is not a right it is a dictatorial power. People have a desire for a child, or a need for a child, so they will manufacture it despite the infinite risks that this implies for the person who is manufactured. And since it is a power of one or more people over another, it must be controlled. Because the law (French laws) and human rights prohibit the power of one person over another. The child is a person. And this child is put before the fait accompli to exist, which implies his innocence to exist, and therefore the innocence of all his actions.
Argument 6: This child who was fabricated to serve parents and societies suffers social punishment when his behavior is antisocial. Did he ask to exist, and to exist in this or that society? How is he responsible for being what he is since he is a white paper, devoid of any cultural meaning and knowledge, and his brain will remain a black box all his life, all his physical and mental abilities have been imposed on him, education has been imposed on him, culture has been imposed on him, teachers have been imposed on him, existence has been imposed on him? Some countries still apply the death penalty. Is the innocence of existence not a simple argument against the death penalty? What ethics is there to punish with death, to simply punish, a human being innocent to exist?
Argument 7: All these arguments and many others, I take them to my account, and I have the right, given I exist, obviously without my agreement, and in a totally unpleasant world. And if a single human finds this obligation to exist and exist in these totally absurd and ignoble conditions, then he is certainly not the only one. It is time to become the ethical beings we want, the sentient, conscious and intelligent beings we boast about being. I know that I am not alone in this case, we are even numerous on Earth. The world is "overpopulated with suffering". It is despicable to bring children into the world without cleaning the cradle that is the Earth. It is certainly not an ethical action not to clean the cradle before installing the baby. And is it ethical that his parents asked him to do it for them because they did not succeed?
Argument 8: What is the ethics of claiming to "give" life to one's child, if next, he has to "earn" one's life? What is the ethic of rewarding people on the merit when they are very unlikely to be among the best endowed by Nature? Out of 100 births (made by the mother with a little help from the father), 50 have an IQ below 100 and 50 have a PQ (Physical Quotient) of less than 100 as well. This means that to make 25 people "normally" constituted, humans have to make 75 defective ones. If you add the EQ (Emotional Quotient), and the SQ (Sexual Quotient), those with the 4 quotients above 100 are only 6.25%, and, of course, there will be 6.25% of the people who will have their 4 quotients less than 100. Is the reliability of the operation morally sufficient to engage in such a manufacturing operation? Are the 94% of "disabled" people happy to know that they are missed experiences serving the "normal" 6%? It should also be noted that the "normal" 6% are not equal physically and intellectually, and no more equal in the environments in which they will land at birth, or in the quality of the education they will receive. What is the merit of being among the 6% winner in the lottery of life? What ethics is there to overpay (not necessarily) these 6% of pseudo-meritorious?
Argument 9 – ext. - Fanny D. - April 8, 2018, at 17:36: This is not very well formulated but I also think that we should set up a kind of license to be a parent because there are far too many parents who educate their children no matter how. On the other hand, we are too many so it would allow a little to regulate births while having children happy and well behaved. We could offer training to acquire the basics of parenthood (without saying, "A child has to be educated like that, and that's it!"), just explain that we must learn respect and propriety from a very young age ( and not wait 10 years thinking that before he is not able to understand) for example.
Argument 10: The temporary welfare of one million or even a billion people is not worth the suffering of one person. There are no ethics in procreation.
Argument 11: Until today babies do not count. They are not people. They have no voice to defend themselves. The children are procreated to serve. Society does not defend them. No law manages procreation. On the contrary, procreation without control makes the world, and come what may. To change our worldview we need to give a lot more importance to new people. The State cannot manage, must not manage, procreation statistically. The sovereign state is not our king. People are important, all, everyone, one by one. We have to count the people, but not as we count the blades of grass. A person can be "made" only if the conditions that you, the parents, grant him, that you impose on him, are favorable in all respect, if not, don't bring her into the world, or in our world. She did not ask to exist. She did not accept the invitation.
Argument 12: Life is not a gift nor a present, it is a constraint made by others. We are manufactured as we manufacture a vehicle. A vehicle is not a gift for itself but for its manufacturer. It's the same for us, all of us. We serve the ideas of our manufacturer, our manufacturers, and their associates or their accomplices according to the point of view. If your initial principle is equality in the well-being of people, then change the policy in this sense, for now you are only doing the opposite, you promote competition and merit, or we are not born equal physically and intellectually , and above all we are all forced to exist, so innocent to exist. We cannot at the same time force to exist and to promote equality (and freedom).
Argument 13: Can we complain about the state of the world, the state of society, modes of government, its own living conditions, etc., and make children? In my humble opinion, the answer is no, absolutely no, definitely no. Can we force a person to integrate into a society, by imposing existence, while ethical issues have not been resolved?
Argument 14: To make a child is to obey the orders of his body. And to obey the orders of his body is to obey the builders of his body, that is to say his parents. Are we required to obey anyone while we are supposed to be free? If making a child is like acting under the influence of drugs, then are we intelligent beings? To make a child is the most important act in the world. To make a child is therefore the act that must be the most cogitative of all human acts. The world is a garbage can full of bellicose people. The world is the cradle in which you place your baby. Should not you clean the crib before installing your child while he runs infinite risks?
Argument 15 – ext. - Yves D. L. - April 11, 2018, at 08:08: The issue of parental responsibility is important. Remember, however, that there are at least two other partners: nature and society.
Argument 16: Rape was formerly a normal action, and still is in patriarchal countries, where women make children whom their husband's master imposes on them, even when they do not want to. Rape still exists everywhere else in the world. Rape is prohibited by law. The State forbids rape, it has made it a crime. And that's another proof that the State controls procreation.
Argument 17: As associates we all have the right and the duty to forbid the suffering of one of our fellow citizens, but suffering begins with procreation. We have the right and the duty to control it. Overpopulation (of suffering, there is only that which exists) is useless, it is even immoral, unethical, filthy, abject, guilty, disgusting, shameful, ignoble, unspeakable, unworthy, infamous, obnoxious, unutterable, ineffable, cowardly, despicable, odious, repulsive, repugnant, scandalous, sordid, vile, nameless (find the most horrible adjective to describe it, it will be below the truth).
Argument 18: It is not ethical and it is even criminal to procreate because it is an infinite endangering of the life of others and a crime by recklessness. The WHO website lists hundreds of thousands of reasons (diseases, frailties, defects in "manufacturing"), thus demonstrating that it is not ethical to procreate.
Argument 19: It is not ethical to procreate because you are imposing on the procreative person your way of existence, your humanity, your society, your culture, etc. They're not its own, it's yours.
Argument 20: It is not ethical to procreate because the person you make is virgin of all cultural information and knowledge, and you can impregnate his memory, his thinking, his behavior of whatever you want, except that you do not master education. It is absolutely unethical to punish a person whom you have imperfectly fabricated and imperfectly educated, and then punished, eventually sentenced to death, by your educational faults. But you condemn, States condemn.
Argument 21: It is unethical to know that one can procreate a person with a disability, know that one can give him a defective gene, know that he can live a horrible life, and still launch his manufacturing. It is unethical to consider a handicapped child from birth as collateral damage.
Argument 22: It is not ethical for the Nation of Human Rights (France), to turn a deaf ear to the cries of the tens of billions of disabled and unfortunate people of all times who have lived, tortured by the life, because humans procreated by animal egoism, whereas it was not necessary. Life is worth living only in well-being. Life is never worth inflicted. Society has the power to control procreation, it must do so.
Argument 23: It is not ethical to procreate (fabricate a person) without ensuring one's bodily and intellectual well-being, longevity, and the interest of one's life.
Argument 24: It is not ethical to impose existence. It is not ethical to pretend to give freedom, whereas one imposes the "struggle for life". Hypocrisy and lies are not ethical. It is not ethical to fool one's own child by pretending that one loves him after having imposed on him the existence and all the risks of existence. It is not ethical to impose one's rules on someone who has no choice but to follow them.
Argument 25: Where are the ethics in making more than 4 babies per second?
Argument 26: To procreate is to impose the existence, it is to inflict the existence, it is not a gift which one makes to the person manufactured without mastery, it is a gift that makes the procreator to himself. Where are the ethics in this gift for oneself?
Argument 27: It is not ethical to punish someone who has been procreated to serve society. It is immoral to condemn to death someone who has been procreated to serve society, someone who has been fabricated and educated imperfectly in an imperfect society.
Argument 28: Ethical issues must be resolved in order, starting with the most important ones. The one on the ethics of procreation obviously precedes all the others. It is not ethical not to proclaim a truth as important as the innocence of existing on the surface of the Earth.
Argument 29: Procreate is the major crime, the mother of all crimes. If the State interferes with killing, rape, and slavery, which are artificial crimes since nature commits them without any particular problem, then why could the State not legislate to manage procreation that is a much bigger crime, and at the root of all other crimes, because there are no crimes without existence? The State must legislate on procreation, it is obvious that it must, since procreation is a rape, the supreme rape, the greatest rape, which can be committed to at least one person, sometimes several at a time when a mother gives birth to twins, triplets or more. The law defines what crimes are. Procreation contains multiple crimes without Justice has any objections, without anyone making a complaint to exist for the service of others. Complaints have already been made against being born disabled, although this has not (for now) been retained. But if to exist is not a crime, on the other hand, it is about the action of procreate which one talks about.
Argument 30: The crimes of procreation are (I count at least 9): 1) the infinite endangerment of a person who passes from non-existence to existence. 2) The crime of recklessness, because everyone knows that the procreator does not control the making of an existence and that many people are born with disabilities or will become disabled in their lifetime for many reasons. 3) It's a crime simply because suffering is inevitable in the course of life and to live is to be condemned to die ineluctably. 4) The procreated person is made to serve parents and societies, which is slavery. 5) The procreated person will be under parental domination and emancipated to his majority then will have to buy his body by buying his food, his health, his accommodation. To buy one's body is slavery. 6) The procreated person will have to pay taxes to society, without being able to do otherwise, it is slavery. 7) The procreated person is registered without his consent in the society. (8) The person who is procreated is under constant threat from society, under the threat of punishment, under the threat of police weapons, under the threat of imprisonment, without having asked to participate in the social game or the human adventure, or to perpetuate the species. 9) The person will suffer mental torture almost throughout his life, by the frantic competition that it undergoes daily, and the worst is undoubtedly the weight of the death when it will approach the end of its short existence, not to mention the fear of hell that is erected as a scarecrow in front of all humans while no one asked to exist. Procreate is indeed the crime that is the mother of all crimes.
Argument 31: All the political scientists of the world have always taken for granted that we can force a person to exist. Why? Why not consider politics by considering the management of procreation as a political act, since the law already manages some elements? Politics manages relationships between humans, and the first social relationship start with procreation. So, why this vital act, infinitely dangerous for others (this other person is the child, not to mention the risks of suffering and death that the mother takes in procreation), why does this act escapes the political process?
Argument 32: The State has the right to legislate on the procreation, because in an association (we live in society) we cannot add a partner without the agreement of the other associates. For now this agreement is implied, it might not be. It should not be, because the welfare of a person, who is forced to exist for our service, deserves that the whole society gives its approval to the essential act that is the procreation of this person, all the more, knowing the vagaries of its manufacture, its health and its longevity.
Argument 33: If I consider that procreation is a crime, then all those who do not see any problem in this act, I consider them to be complicit in the crime of making my existence. What is my recourse to the fait accompli of this crime on my person? What is my recourse against the ordeal to exist, to suffer, and to die for your sole pleasure, when you do not even know me? Where is your ethics in my suffering to exist, and in the billions of people who suffer during their life for no reason, because life is absurd? In what way will my adventures of humans embellish the silence of my tomb? What did it uses to exist? What is it for you to exist? What is the point of this constant violence that the human mentality adds to this unnecessary suffering since it is useless and absurd to exist? Where are the ethics of a procreator who knows that his child, this person who is not his reproduction, can suffer to exist? By what right do you impose on a person to exist? By what right?
Argument 34: It is unethical not to talk about the fact that it is not ethical to procreate. It is unethical to let people suffer, today (this day) tens of thousands of children with disabilities will be born, today more than 800 women will die of childbearing and one out of 7, that is, to say about 50 thousand women will gain a pathology. It is not ethical not to talk about the suffering of people in the world, suffering by billions, and even more not to remember the one hundred billion people who preceded us, those billions of people who had previously suffered for nothing to exist because they had been forced to do so. It would be unethical not to discuss the fact that life is useless, that life is inflicted on us for nothing, only for those who already exist, and for the societies of which we have become only pawns replacing pawns, dead for nothing and in suffering. It would not be ethical not to talk about the innocence of existing, the notion of "aresponsibility.” It is ethical to tell the truth. It is ethical to distribute the truth everywhere for the good of mankind. We should not be close to 8 billion, we should decrease the population quickly, voluntarily, kindly, jointly on the whole planet, and without pain, because it is enough not to make children, not to make suffer additional people, do not send them to death for nothing.
Argument 35: It is not ethical to educate a person by hiding the reality of who she is, the reasons she was procreated. It is not ethical to blame people who have not asked to exist, to hide from them that they have been forced to exist, therefore, that they are innocent to exist as they are, with physical and mental capacities that they have not asked for, of which they are not responsible. It is not ethical to punish after procreating those who are innocent of all their actions, since their brain is a black box that works by itself, and they have been educated by impregnation in a world they have not desired, by educators they have not desired, and mental functions that were imposed on them. The brain is a white book at birth and it fills with what is in front of the eyes, the ears, in front of all the systems of perception of the person. The procreated person has nothing to do with his own functionalities nor how his brain will handle this information.
Argument 36: It is not ethical to be free to constrain. Free to constrain to exist, free to constrain to liberty, relative freedom since the person will be emancipated, if it holds until then, after having executed approximately 1/4 of its life, at least in the West. How did people come to say, "Long live life! And "long live freedom!" Since it is contradictory. How can one imagine that one wants to perpetuate the human species, the human adventure, and "impose" existence? To "impose" existence is not an ethical act, since to exist is not a freely consented act.
Argument 37: Is it ethical to impose to exist if only one person lives in distress, if a person suffers, even only one among billions? But it is far from being the case, it is billions of people who suffer or have suffered, even you the reader has suffered or you will suffer in one way or another. Is it ethical to impose one's vision of the world on someone you know you will be able to fool because he was born with a virgin brain of all cultural notions, such as a white book?
Argument 38: We (the French) are a society, the term is used 30 times in the French Constitution, it means that we are partners to manage a territory, and as in any business, partners have the right to manage jointly the input of additional associates. The State therefore has the right to legislate on procreation.
Argument 39: To use again a sentence that I quoted in the introduction of the topic: "Procreation serves only those that already exist" demonstrates that it is not ethical to procreate. "Nobody controls this procreation" also shows that procreation is not ethical. "Once suffering is created how to undo it" once again demonstrates that procreation is not ethical. If procreation had the slightest utility, and a utility infinitely greater than the misery and the suffering engendered, perhaps one could discuss it, but no, to procreate is useless, because to exist is absurd. To seek to continue one's existence in well-being is quite normal, but to impose existence, when it is hard to achieve it for oneself, is totally unethical. And often procreation is done to heal a personal psychopathology that is transmitted to his descendant in a perfect circle totally vicious.
Argument 40: Can one be judge and jury and have an unambiguous ethic? That is to say, in the case of the ethics of procreation, can we be ethical on this topic and have children?
Argument 41: It is not a matter of voting whether it is ethical or not to procreate, it is only a question of argumentation. But if a woman finds it too risky to procreate, there is no reason for men to intervene to deliberate on the decision of this woman who is strictly personal. A loving man cannot ask his wife to take this risk, which is very high according to world statistics and even very high in France, he should even dissuade her.
Argument 42: Humanity has no other problem to solve than the end of the suffering of each individual. The end of the world is not a problem. The end of the species is not a problem. The end of civilization is not a problem. The end of a society or of any human society is not a problem. But the suffering of an individual is a problem since no one is bound to exist of himself. If parents allow themselves to produce children with disabilities, and other disadvantages to exist, without it causing them the slightest existential concern before engendering, why those who make profession of slavery (capitalists, warriors, and rulers of all kinds) would they worry in promoting servitude, suffering, violence, war?
Argument 43: Human beings will never find any political system guaranteeing them freedom and equality for the simple reason that they have all been forced to exist and fabricated in a totally random way. All humans are unaware of it, but all are intimately marked of it. The initiation of our existence is neither free nor equal, it cannot be and can never be. We are born slaves of our parents, and of society since we serve it almost as soon as we are conceived, whether we wanted it or not.
Argument 44: By what right (according to your human rights legislated by you all) do you fabricate a person, a sensitive and conscious person, your equal, your equal who can suffer and who will die? Do you like, for yourself, the idea of suffering and dying? Do you like slavery? Why are you looking for immortality and health when you are risking engendering suffering from procreation? Where did your empathy and imagination go, even though it is the child you want to conceive?
Argument 45: Until today babies do not count. They are not people. They have no voice to defend themselves. The children are procreated to serve. Society does not defend them. No law manages procreation. On the contrary, procreation without control makes the world, and come what may. To change our worldview we need to give a lot more importance to new people. The State cannot manage, must not manage, procreation statistically. The sovereign state is not our king. People are important, all, everyone, one by one. We have to count the people, but not as we count the blades of grass. A person can be "made" only if the conditions that you, the parents, grant him, that you impose on him, are favorable in all respect, if not, don't bring her into the world, or in our world. She did not ask to exist. She did not accept the invitation.
Argument 46: Life is not a gift nor a present, it is a constraint made by others. We are manufactured as we manufacture a vehicle. A vehicle is not a gift for itself but for its manufacturer. It's the same for us, all of us. We serve the ideas of our manufacturer, our manufacturers, and their associates or their accomplices according to the point of view.
Argument 47: If all parents wanted to admit that their own child is innocent to exist. If all parents wanted to admit that the child of the other is as innocent to exist as their own child. If all parents wanted to admit that they themselves are the children of their parents and that is so with all human beings. If all the parents wanted to admit the innocence of existing of everyone on this Earth, perhaps they could perceive the world in another way than aggressive, perhaps they could forget the suspicion, perhaps could they lend a helping hand to the other innocent people who populate this world! I ask you to consider that each of us is a guest to treat with respect.
Argument 48: I, the author E. Berlherm, of most of these arguments, I put no violence in my arguments, yet I could do it, what's stopping me? My rationalism! But the others, all these others who are violent in the world, are they not expressing their disgust with the life they have been offered? Those who are more slavers than others, all those billionaires who accumulate money at the expense of the poor who do not have the mental resource to make their way in life. What is ethics in procreation if life is random, if the sensitive and conscious people are forced to endure what the powerful, the well endowed with life, impose on them? I was propelled into a vegetable garden (France, the Earth), and it's not even a well-kept garden, but cluttered with brambles, nettles, bellicose human animals, and the gardener does not want me to crush his tomatoes! Why should I contain my violence against him and his accomplices, the person responsible for my suffering, my fears, my troubles? By fear ! I who speak to you, I do nothing because I hope that one day you will be sensitive to my words. And that humans cannot be turned away from violence by violence…
Argument 49: If a company made a diving suit with 10% risk that it breaks down during diving, the suit would be removed from the sale and the business condemned. If you make a child, there is a lot more than 10% risk for him to be born disabled or become disabled during his life, but the law says nothing. And everyone feels sorry for the poor mother who took the huge risk of fabricating him while she does not master anything! It's up to the child to complain, where is his lawyer?
Argument 50: Mental torture is certainly not ethical, but exposing someone to possible physical suffering, to death with certainty, is mental torture. The procreation of a human being is, of course, the fabrication of all his intellect, his fears, his terrors, all the mental torments that accompany existence. Procreate is not ethical.
Argument 51: If I consider life as a fatal slide, is not it normal for me to try to grab hold of everything within reach to slow down the slipping, to fight against the mad race, to avenge myself (simple law of retaliation) from the pushers (my parents and their social accomplices)? What would a violent man be responsible for reacting to this infinite violence that is his procreation? Why do we judge and punish a criminal who only applies violence infinitely less than that of his parents against himself?
Argument 52: If you find that procreation is ethical, then you will not have any problem with a dictator taking you to Mars and saying, "If you want to pursue your life, work, you have a choice! Unless he has you kidnapped at birth, in which case he will not have anything to say to you, you will find that quite natural, like the descendants of convicts in Australia or elsewhere. Moreover, according to the Christians, are we not all of the descendants of the convicts Adam and Eve, expelled manu militari from paradise, whereas they themselves had not asked to exist with their imperfections in an imperfect world?
Argument 53: If humans were naturally ethical beings, there would be no need to recall human rights, there would be no need to write them. Humans need to be educated, oriented, because their first reaction is always their own benefit in a competitive system, and that is why we must talk about the lack of ethics that is procreation. And you have to put it on Human Rights. This should be in the preamble.
Argument 54: What is ethics in procreation since any animal does it? What is ethical about setting up your own child in an animal world? What is the ethic for humanity to multiply disproportionately without taking into account the well-being of the child? What is ethical to think only of yourself when you procreate? It is an animal act, but not a thought act, an intelligent act.
Argument 55: Is it ethical to never confess to one's child that we have put him before the fait accompli to exist to serve parents and societies? Is it ethical to distort all world education and culture? To deceive one's child is to deceive oneself, and to deceive humanity. It is not ethical not to tell him the truth about the constraint of existing, therefore about the innocence of the existing, therefore about the innocence of one's actions.
Argument 56: A child does not belong to his parents, so where is the ethic in the fabricating of a person? We are all fabricated without any mastery with great variations of potential and physical and intellectual qualities. But if we do not belong to anyone, how can those who manufacture us miss us? How are they allowed to fabricate us, with untold suffering? Because these sufferings, this system of pain, are part of the fabricating... How since we do not belong to them can they impose us suffering and death? How since we belong to no one, can society impose on us our conduct, the purchase of our body, the purchase of our health, the purchase of our welfare, and even the purchase of our own death selling us our coffin?
Argument 57: Is it ethical to claim that one loves one's child while one has done it for oneself, to pass the time, out of pure selfishness, because one does not know what one could do well of his life, if not forcing someone else to endure that same life and maybe even a much worse life?
Argument 58: There is no reason for existence. Life is absurd. To inflict pain and death to someone sensitive, conscious, intelligent for nothing is certainly not ethical.
Argument 59: As soon as a woman procreates, her body is under social supervision, and after 12 weeks (in France) her body no longer belongs to her since she is forbidden to abort. It seems to me that it is far more serious to deprive a woman of her body than to forbid her to procreate. It is not ethical to procreate, but it would be ethical to manage procreation, and perfectly legitimate in the sense of Human Rights.
Argument 60 – ext. - Jean-Marie D. - April 25, 2018, at 23:11: It is certain that the sexual act is an act that should not be taken lightly, which has consequences and that we must not do to satisfy his selfishness. Civil society has to more empower men because they suffer little from the consequences of this act, even prosecute them when they refuse to assume it. Otherwise, compensate or help the mother. It is not necessary to kill the poor child who has nothing to do with it.
Argument 61: When we put another person before a fait accompli that has an extremely serious impact on the person, we are certainly not an ethical being. To put a person before the fait accompli of existence is certainly not ethical, it is criminal, and totally perverse when in addition one tells him wacky stories (religious or other) on the reasons for its existence.
Argument 62: When a man and a woman are liking each other, one asks the other: "Do you want to share my life? The answer of the other will depend on what will be proposed to him: "It depends, what do you propose to me? What life are we going to lead together? When a child is brought into the world, the question is not asked. The child is not considered to be a person in its own right. He is faced with the fait accompli of existence, whatever the conditions. As well in a slum, a low-income housing, any kind of bazaar, and even an igloo. That unemployment reigns and misery does not change anything. And not to mention the era, prehistory of animal conditions, overcrowded middle age and no hygiene, civil war, total war, revolution, bombing, falling heads, blood flowing freely. Procreation without ethics is without limit. The child is not a person, it is an object that will become a servant if it is well formatted.
Argument 63: To make a child is not a right, it is an animal power, imposed by our own procreators, and that we pass like a baton. Nobody orders us to procreate. And if we were ordered, it would be the slavery of which we would have the right to free ourselves. In fact, we are slaves of our bodies, therefore of our procreators. It is not ethical to impose suffering and death. At a minimum, we have a duty to think about it, to think about the ethics of simply procreating, and even more about the ethics of procreating en masse.
Argument 64: To make an imperfect child, to educate him imperfectly, to throw him into an imperfect world, more than imperfect, since dangerous, is certainly not ethical. To punish him (and even to kill him) for his imperfect behavior due to an existence he did not ask for is certainly not ethical.
Argument 65: There is no gender equality in procreation. A man does not wear the child. A man cannot abort while a woman can do it without the consent of the man. A woman is (theoretically) a mistress of what enters her body and a mistress of what comes out of it. A woman can mistreat the embryo and the fetus through her diet and her behavior without the society being able to say anything about it, and the child can be born malformed, handicapped, because of the behavior of the mother. The (French) law says that « Nul ne peut se prévaloir d’un préjudice du seul fait de sa naissance. » (Article L114-5 ) ("No one can claim harm by the mere fact of his birth.") But a child can be mistreated by his mother because of his harmful behavior while carrying it, and even by his father who can transmit an STD, AIDS (not to mention the unhealthy genes, or the unhealthy genetic combinations). A mother may be punished if she abuses her child after birth, but not before birth. What is ethics in this law, which is a law made by the healthy ones? The existing ones propel us into their unhealthy jungle and we would have nothing to say about this violence? Existing propel us on their fatal slide and we would have nothing to say against this ultraviolence? Why? What is ethical about the constraint of existence of a person by another person under any conditions
Argument 66: Procreate is not an innocuous act that can be treated in an offhand manner. Procreate is the most important act of the world for a human being. So, if there is indeed an act that must be legislated, it is this one. When we involve another person without his agreement in an action, the action to exist and these immense perils, obviously that society must legislate, obviously that the representative of the society that is the State must legislate. Procreate must be legislated, at least to ensure that the new person will live in the welfare, otherwise, it is useless to invite this new person to rub shoulders with a foolish society that does not care about her.
Argument 67: Procreation is the mother of all crimes and for that alone it is not ethical to procreate, even if in itself it was not multiple crimes together. People only care about ethics when it affects them personally and with violence. The fact that their own existence is not the result of an ethical act does not seem to bother them. Few people wonder about the constraint of existence, and almost none have realized the innocence of existing and therefore the innocence of their actions. The ethics of procreation is like the ethics of the death penalty, since it is its mother, it is up to the State to take the lead.
Argument 68: Procreation is an animal act, but certainly not an intelligent act. We are augmented animals who invented ethics. Ethics does not exist in animals. That one does work of intelligence for this act which is the most important of all the human acts seems essential. If the individuals are what they are with the IQ and the intelligence that chance has granted them, on the other hand, the legislator who is theoretically a set of people having an IQ and wisdom higher than average, must control this procreation. It is his duty to legislate on the topic. A child cannot be made by simple animal urge and integrated into a world that is not healthy, while no one controls the manufacturing and thus the health and well-being of this future person. The society must be able to receive it correctly, and remedy all the defects of its manufacture (its birth handicaps and its future handicaps). A child must be our guest, the guest of his parents and society, with the control of society. If making a child serve the child, and not only parents and society, then the (forced) invitation that has been issued to him must compensate for our shortcomings, our faults, our mistakes. His life must be interesting, always, otherwise don't invite him. It is only on this basis that a child must be procreated.
Argument 69: There is the point of view of the morality of procreation by those who wonder whether they have the right to procreate, but there is especially the point of view of the procreated human being, and it is the only one which counts for him. All procreate persons have the right to hold accountable to their procreators and their social accomplices who have authorized his procreation. And calling to account or revenge by the law of retaliation can go a long way. We could all be Hitlers quite legitimately. As long as there is immorality in the treatment of a person, that person will have the legitimate right to behave just as immorally. "I exist by immoral procreation, I have the right to treat the world immorally." This assertion shows that there will never be peace in the midst of conscious beings, and supposed intelligent, as long as they procreate, that is, as long as they exist.
Argument 70: Law of retaliation: if you make your child blind (by birth, if you make him blind in your belly) has he the right to do the same? Can he gouge your eyes by the law of retaliation? Is it ethical to take the risk of creating your child blind, deaf, or other kindness on the part of the procreators, your part? Is it ethical that society, aware of this problem that has been happening daily since life exists, lets this filthy act of making suffering, malaise, indigence, debility, etc., since she is conscious of that? The procreators are responsible for the diseases and fragility that they "give voluntarily" to their children through their ovum and sperm, as well as by the intrauterine construction which is due to the mother, since they know all these frailties and morbid possibilities inherent in life. Parents are also responsible for the future life of their child since they know the world in which they throw their child, into this random world.
Argument 71: To try to procreate is basically to want a child, but in very many cases it is not children who come out of the womb, they are aborted fetuses. That is, they are not considered by society as human beings. They are not treated as such. These are just disposable objects, in the true sense of the word. This means that the product of procreation is often a simple object without family and social interest. The worst is that after this kind of adventure, women have seen the major risk out of their womb, they do not even realize that there can be any intermediary between these aborted fetuses and the best child possible longed for. What is the ethic after having procreated an aborted fetus or even a handicapped child to procreate another by "hoping" that it does not happen again? It is an absolute crime that women commit daily in the world.
Argument 72: It is enough for one person to say that life is irrelevant to confirm that it is not ethical to procreate, because it is not the normal well-being which counts, since it is due to us, but the ill-being of only one.
Argument 73: 1) Procreation is immoral in itself because one manufactures a person without asking for his opinion, one puts it before the fait accompli of existence. We give him the injunction "Exist! "
2) It is immoral not to master the fabrication of this person who is supposed to be our equal but to whom we cannot even affirm when we launch his procreation that it will be physically and intellectually our equal.
3) It is immoral to offer suffering and death.
4) It is immoral to throw it into this bellicose, insane world.
5) It is immoral to deceive her, to fool her, to educate her by asking her to respect this world as if it were moral to respect immoral parents and an immoral society.
6) It is immoral to tell her that she has been "given life,” and to compel her to "earn a living.”
Argument 74: I notice that on all the arguments against, none claims that procreation is ethical. And in fact, the arguments proposed are not against. But should not ethics in all areas be respected when one claims to be humanistic that it disturbs us more or less? Since I started this topic on the ethics of procreation, counting 350,000 babies a day, more than 4 per second, hundreds of thousands of children have been born to suffer to serve us. We are in a democracy of able-bodied, these unfortunate suffer too much to think and to claim. It is up to us to be empathetic and compassionate, they do not have time to think of oneself as simple collateral damage to our service. What service?
Argument 75: I must call to end this debate without debater (almost none), that we are all innocent to exist and therefore innocent of all our actions, that we are born white book and that it is, therefore, understandable that we find it difficult to extract us from the animal culture we are impregnated. Procreation is a social act, which adds a partner to the joint venture. But in any society, it is necessary the agreement of the partners to introduce an additional partner. There is, therefore, no reason for social logic for society not to legislate on this capital act. Which anyone would understand in a small island (management of the population, therefore of procreation), there is no reason that one cannot understand it for the island which is the Nation, and on the island which is the Earth? It is impossible to claim to be a humanist and to affirm that it is ethical to procreate. It is impossible to be humanistic and, knowing that unethical action is produced hundreds of thousands of times each day by human beings, to say nothing.
Argument 76: For procreation to be ethical, it would be necessary at least that life itself be ethical, however, it is not even. The beginning of life, the first 18 years are not worth inflicting under the slavery of our parents, the last years of life are also not worth being inflicted for the pain of our bodies and the pain of dying, and for many of us, on the planet, the whole of life is not worth the trouble at all. Regarding the last argument "against": the launching of procreation, that is to say the copulation and fertilization that sometimes follows, is part of procreation, this is how the topic that I launched must be understood, but the manufacture of the child in the womb as I already mentioned, can be botched by the mother (poor diet, drugs, alcohol, etc.). If procreation was not controllable, rape could not be prohibited by law.
Argument 77: Although I am 70 years old, respectable age whereas 56% of the humans born at the same time as me are already underground to count up daisies by the root, I have not yet discovered "ethical" argument" for procreation, that is to say, arguments which oppose the topic I have proposed. There are arguments for procreation, but they are not ethical. These are the arguments of the sustainability of the species, the pursuit of the human adventure, patriotism, the property of one's own body, the need for love, for the most part, are selfish and therefore unethical arguments. There is also that of "non-existence" that I do not really understand (see Rivka Weinberg's book). So I leave to those who have ethical arguments "for" procreation the care of producing them. Here, I settled for just to present some of mine without developing them, the essential argument being my inability to understand that a sensitive and conscious person can impose the suffering and the death of another person (that we will pretend to love after the fact, in general) whereas there was no obligation to force her to exist.
Arguments against:
F. - April 30, 2018, at 13:35: The procreation and the birth are not of the order of the technique of the controllable.
w. - April 23, 2018, at 19:32: Sophism, we are all absolutely equal before procreation, it requires a man and a woman, not a single man, not a single woman or a same-sex couple, but a man and a woman . The human being is sexed and it is neither you nor I who chose it, it is a fact and we are all equal before this fact. What you are asking for is not equality, but privileges. These privileges voluntarily deprive a child of the father and / or mother and falsely modified his parentage. Two women will never replace a man, just as two men will never replace a woman. The man and the woman are equal before the law, but complementary sexually and in life. Unless you are a totalitarian state, you cannot meddle with the privacy of people. What you are asking for is not private, society does not have to respond to all individual desires, and even less so when it goes against the rights of the child.
W. W.-O – April 23, 2018, at 17:56: T.: Oh yes? and why ban it in other cases?
Jean-Michel C. - April 11, 2018, at 16:10: Keep us from a tyrannical society in which the forbidden would be the rule and the permit the exception.
E. O. L. - April 6, 2018, at 20:54: @Too: ah yes? And why? After all, we are not animals.
T. - April 5, 2018, at 14:04: The State cannot forbid human beings to procreate when they are equipped with this ability to do so together and without the intervention of a technique or a third person.
List of proposed sources:
Book: Rivka Weinberg - Oxford University Press - "The Risk of a Lifetime: How, When, and Why Procreation Maybe Permissible?” Professor of Philosophy at the Scripps Women's College Los Angeles. And on this page:
http://www.scrippscollege.edu/academics/faculty/profile/rivka-weinberg you will find a set of PDFs (in English) on the topic.Book: « L’art de guillotiner les procréateurs » (The art of guillotining the procreators) - Théophile de Giraud - Ed. La Mort qui trompe → One can be a deep thinker and have humor. If the topic disturbs you, read the book of Théophile de Giraud, his extraordinary humor and his talent as a writer softens the sauce.Book: « La procréation ne sert que ceux qui existent déjà » (procreation only serves those that already exist) - E. Berlherm - Ed. Atramenta? I try to understand why the suffering that reigns everywhere on Earth does not ask more questions to humans who pretend to be intelligent and of divine origin. Why not put an end to suffering simply by ceasing to procreate without pain for anyone, without the risk of dying?Book: « La sonate à Kreutzer » (The Kreutzer Sonata) - Leo Tolstoy https://beq.ebooksgratuits.com/vents/Tolstoi-sonate.pdf? "To preach the abstinence of childbirth so that the English lords can brag at their ease, it is allowed. To preach abstinence from childbirth under the pretext that one must take as much pleasure as possible is permissible; but dare to say that we must abstain from childbirth in the name of morality, my ancestors, what cries! … The danger that the human race will disappear because men wish no longer to be pigs."Article Slate.fr: http://www.slate.fr/story/110529/know-children-immoral? (In French) "For Rivka Weinberg, professor of philosophy at Scripps College, it is moral to have toddlers only if you had been ready, by putting yourself in their place, to accept living with all the risks of this world in which you bring them to life."Article Libération: http://liberationdephilo.blogs.liberation.fr/2014/11/17/faire-des-enfants-est-immoral-et-dangereux/ (in French) - Ruwen Ogien - Making children is immoral and dangerous? "Is not this an immoral and dangerous act considering that our species is the most damaging on the planet because of the disastrous consequences of its actions on other species and the natural environment? "More formally, the reasoning is as follows: 1) Everything that is done to others without their consent is immoral. 2) When one makes children, it is necessarily without their consent. 3) It is immoral to have children."End – E. Berlherm
