An Unpopular Conviction

Just as a disclaimer that I really should have given, I am not advocating suicide (which I believe is a personal choice that no one has the right to influence), and I'm certainly not advocating killing anyone, at least not in regards to this issue. I'm not a nihilist, and I would agree that I suffer from depression, but I do not believe it has influenced my view. Depression or lack thereof does not stop one from being a realist, which is what I believe I am doing.

To answer Br. John's question, I find every aspect of reproduction disgusting, from pregnancy, to childbirth, to infants. I also think it's been used as a means of oppressing women, though that is a seperate issue and irrelevant to my views on reproduction. I'm not too into "normal" sex (which, oddly enough, has nothing to do with my anti-reproduction convictions, it was just the way I was programmed), but rest assured there are other things I enjoy (and I will go into no greater detail).

I mean, is the idea of a Christian, fairly conservative, heterosexual, American man being against reproduction so horribly alien?

Luthien wrote: Ah, yes. Br. John, I would have gone into that, but I don't like making my posts longer than they need to be. As I've studied different beliefs and such, I have ran across that thought pattern as well. As a Buddhist or Hindu, I would be more inclined to believe I have a soul that carries its experiences from human life to other forms of life. As a Hindu, I'd also be more inclined to believe that I am part of the collective experience and incarnation of Krishna. Please correct me if I'm wrong as I'd hope not to offend or make false claims.

As far as I'm concerned the possibilities you mention are all on the table as well as a great many more.

Star Forge wrote: Just as a disclaimer that I really should have given, I am not advocating suicide (which I believe is a personal choice that no one has the right to influence), and I'm certainly not advocating killing anyone, at least not in regards to this issue. I'm not a nihilist, and I would agree that I suffer from depression, but I do not believe it has influenced my view. Depression or lack thereof does not stop one from being a realist, which is what I believe I am doing.

To answer Br. John's question, I find every aspect of reproduction disgusting, from pregnancy, to childbirth, to infants. I also think it's been used as a means of oppressing women, though that is a seperate issue and irrelevant to my views on reproduction. I'm not too into "normal" sex (which, oddly enough, has nothing to do with my anti-reproduction convictions, it was just the way I was programmed), but rest assured there are other things I enjoy (and I will go into no greater detail).

I mean, is the idea of a Christian, fairly conservative, heterosexual, American man being against reproduction so horribly alien?

Everything is relevant... It all forms our basis if intelligence... Helps form our opinions, and shapes who we are, and how we think...

I was wondering if you missed my question a few pages back...about that it seemed the foundation of your morality assessment was that the soul did not choose its physical incarnation - and had you considered therefore the equally validate assertion that the soul could choose its physical incarnation thus perhaps resolving the moral dilemma!? Obviously we have no proof either way but it goes to the rebirth and karma beliefs in Buddhism about reaching a higher spiritual identity ie evolution of the soul itself.

I Won’t Hatch
Oh I am a chickie who lives in an egg,
But I will not hatch, I will not hatch.
The hens they all cackle, the roosters all beg,
But I will not hatch, I will not hatch.
For I hear all the talk of pollution and war
As the people all shout and the airplanes roar,
So I’m staying in here where it’s safe and it’s warm,
And I WILL NOT HATCH!

-- Shel Silverstein, Where the Sidewalk Ends, HarperCollins 1974

'Wow, sounds like something crawled up YOUR butt, girly.' Kendalina sneered.

"Cut me a little slack -- Sissy, you're still in high school and in that phase of 'Yeah, well I didn't ASK to be born', right?" Jack replied, calmly. Sissy snorted and looked away, stubbornly.

'So, you're saying you can at least empathize where he's coming from?' James clarified. Jack took another bite of her pizza.

"It's my number one defense for when people harass me about my decision to never have children. I could never do that to another person, especially not someone I'm supposed to love, unconditionally." Jack paused and could hear the inevitable 'Well, why don't we all commit suicide, then?' question. Maybe everyone wasn't saying that because they knew about Jack's history on that score, or maybe because they knew she knew they were thinking it, "...Granted, though, there are people who DO find happiness in life. Because it is about transcending the bad and embracing the good. Trick is, some people aren't up to it, and I don't think we're all born with instincts on how to do that."

'So, you're saying it's up to the parents to teach their children how to live well, how to live a good and enlightened life, and they should have as many children as they please -- within the constraints of health of the mother and consent, of course -- but it's totally okay for folks who don't think they could pass it on to remain childless?' James put in, sounding quite hopeful.

"Or people who could pass it on could become teachers if they think they know, but aren't sure -- being a teacher is kinda like being a parent, part-time."

'Oh, so THAT'S why you wanna go for a career as a philosophy teacher.' Kendalina jabbed, sarcastically. And everyone knew it was because Jack was, admittedly, a very on-again/off-again role model and teacher of enlightenment.

Jack watched Kendalina for a moment.

"Kendalina..." She said, chewing her dinner, "You wanna see how hard I can punch?"

Don't read into it that deep, because I wouldn't say it wasn't relevant if it was relevant. I am against reproduction itself. The fact that it can be used sociologically to oppress women is a seperate issue, perhaps a reason for me to hate it more, but I am against reproduction as it is, no matter what people make of it or how they go about it.

Adder wrote: I was wondering if you missed my question a few pages back...about that it seemed the foundation of your morality assessment was that the soul did not choose its physical incarnation - and had you considered therefore the equally validate assertion that the soul could choose its physical incarnation thus perhaps resolving the moral dilemma!? Obviously we have no proof either way but it goes to the rebirth and karma beliefs in Buddhism about reaching a higher spiritual identity ie evolution of the soul itself.

Interesting you should say that. For the sake of the question, let's say that complete, unchanged, pure, unrefined Buddhism is true. The goal of a Buddhist is to ultimately achieve Nirvana, freedom from the cycle of rebirth. Everyone will at some point, even if it's an unimaginably long time from now, achieve Nirvana. That would mean that people would stop being born, as rebirth would not be necessary. I mean, one of the central tenets of Buddhism is that we are living in a false reality and that we need to be rejoined with the real. Also, take note of the fact that it's not like the whole world would accept my view overnight, if ever.

Anyway, seen in such a light, our two beliefs are compatible, in a way.

Even if it is not forced, you're forgetting that half of the problem deals not with the unborn, but with those already here, for instance, the mother's suffering, societal complications, overpopulation, etc. Like I said, my views are not going to be adopted en masse anytime soon, so, in the case that reincarnation is true, and it is chosen, I'm not changing a thing, except the hypothetical person is not going to be composed of my bodily fluids.

On a side note, I cannot remember if you are among those who accused me of pessimism earlier, but if I remember correctly, one of the central tenets of Buddism is that life is suffering...

The oppression of women goes well beyond childbirth and has for centuries, however, I don't think that is necessarily Jestor's point.

We gather opinions from hundreds of sources and yet if we are able to name 3 we're doing better than most. Our opinions are shaped by a combination of personality, nature, past experience, and outside input from other people's opinions. When I was Atheist for a time I was firmly Atheist and I held those opinions with the utmost conviction, and yet, as I began to feel the ache of the absence of the spiritual side of my life my opinion backflipped and I couldn't conceive how someone could maintain an atheist view indefinitely; at least the first time. Does that make my opinion or experience at those times any less assured or invalid? No. Does it mean that as my experiences and point of view shifted that my opinions did as well? Definitely and on what could be seen as an almost fundamental point.

All of that said; I can't reproduce. I'm physically incapable regardless of what my biological clock tells me. I'd love nothing more than to have a child and teach it everything I've learned in my life but politics get in the way and I can't even adopt. I could let that make me bitter and say "well I never wanted kids," or "who could bring them into 'this' world?" but I don't, not because I think their life won't contain suffering. Rather, I know it will contain suffering but that the child will learn and eventually it will learn as I have, how to see life for what it is and maybe, if enough children learn it, and their children learn it and so forth, our world can be that much better a place.

Red Lila wrote: The oppression of women goes well beyond childbirth and has for centuries, however, I don't think that is necessarily Jestor's point.

We gather opinions from hundreds of sources and yet if we are able to name 3 we're doing better than most. Our opinions are shaped by a combination of personality, nature, past experience, and outside input from other people's opinions. When I was Atheist for a time I was firmly Atheist and I held those opinions with the utmost conviction, and yet, as I began to feel the ache of the absence of the spiritual side of my life my opinion backflipped and I couldn't conceive how someone could maintain an atheist view indefinitely; at least the first time. Does that make my opinion or experience at those times any less assured or invalid? No. Does it mean that as my experiences and point of view shifted that my opinions did as well? Definitely and on what could be seen as an almost fundamental point.

All of that said; I can't reproduce. I'm physically incapable regardless of what my biological clock tells me. I'd love nothing more than to have a child and teach it everything I've learned in my life but politics get in the way and I can't even adopt. I could let that make me bitter and say "well I never wanted kids," or "who could bring them into 'this' world?" but I don't, not because I think their life won't contain suffering. Rather, I know it will contain suffering but that the child will learn and eventually it will learn as I have, how to see life for what it is and maybe, if enough children learn it, and their children learn it and so forth, our world can be that much better a place.

You're all making this into ad hominem stuff. I'm not bitter. My thesis statement is VERY SIMPLE and I will repeat it yet again. Life is suffering. No matter what quality of life, no matter how fulfilling or horrible, no matter if you are a Brahmin or an Untouchable, life still contains suffering to some degree. To what extent the hypothetical unborn person can deal with and/or overcome the suffering is irrelevant and beside the point. It is still morally wrong to knowingly and intentionally bring a person into a life of suffering. Because Elie Wiesel was able to overcome his experience, should the Holocaust not be considered an injustice, or even just Elie's personal experience? If someone tries to kill you, but you survive and go on to do well, does that mean that their attempted murder was not wrong?