Immorality of Giving Birth to Children
Introduction
The purpose of this essay is to assess the essay The Immortality of Having Children written by Stuart Rachels. In this essay, he expresses the idea of “Famine Relief Argument against Bearing Children”. To have children and bring them up spends a huge amount of money, which can used to solve the famine. Based on that reason, the author thinks that to bring up children is not moral. First of all, this essay will discuss the argument given by Stuart Rachels. Then, it will assess such viewpoint objectively.
This essay does not agree with the viewpoint with that of Stuart Rachels and supports its position with some theory.
Argument Given by Stuart Rachels in Opposing Children Bearing
Stuart
…show more content…
The moral life means that one has to overcome the sufferings, whose causes may be poverty, illness or something else (Rachels, 2013). In terms of rub, if one desires to live a generous life, the most significant decision he will make is whether he bears child because it occupies lots of time and finance of parents in nearly twenty years. Thus, Rachels argues that people should not have children. If one has children, he will be so generous with money at all and cannot ensure an ethical life style.
Finally, Stuart Rachels discusses the objections that do not agree with his opinion. Some think that it is a disastrous result that people do not have children because the whole world may become aging and human beings may not exist anymore and others mention that to bear children is a natural thing for human beings (Rachels, 2013). Aimed at different objections, Rachels has given the explanation. For example, he claims that his opinion is just to say that people should not have children, but do not forbid people to have children. In other words, to have children depends on the economic situation of
…show more content…
On another hand, if one individual is very clever, to have children is beneficial to create next smart generations due to the effect of genes (Bernstein, 2011). Thus, to have a kid does not affect donation made to charity. To have kids is a particular case of investing one’s time and money, which may make individuals happy. Just as what is advocated by objectivism of morality, to live for self means that to realize his own happiness is the supreme target of one individual. That is, the good of human beings does not need to make sacrifice for others. The behavior of having children is just like working for $56000 job one individual likes rather than working at a job you dislike that can earn $72000. If having kids can make individuals most happy, it appears
It is apparent that both authors provide insights into aiding the reader in making a conclusive determination, however, as mentioned; the reader may be misled by the author’s personal perceptive. Although much factual “doctrines” are exclusively used to provide a certain perceptive, both authors give their account as best as possible, however, neither side can conclusively claim their perceptive as ligament claims.
Every issue, topic, or argument consists usually of two opposing views and two answers. Both of these opposing views may both be right in their own manner. However, both sides have to effectively convince their own audience and the opposing audience as to why their side is more valid than the opposing side. The issue of whether or not falling birth rates pose a threat to human welfare, has been debated extensively by both sides of the argument. Michael Meyer and Julia Whitty both profoundly argue their sides in their articles regarding as to whether or not birth rates do pose a threat. In order to fully understand which side was more effective in their argument, both sides by Meyer and Whitty must analyzed profoundly by looking at their style
...g children may be able to pursue other things that could elevate their happiness. There are plenty of other benefits, and birth control has already been provided in many countries (developing and developed) where it was previously inaccessible and women were mainly extremely willing and happy to use it; freedom and agency improves people’s lives. Population Z is not too far-fetched and similar versions of it already exist in certain parts of the world, as well as famine- and disease-stricken, war-torn areas that are far worse.
‘Is it ethical to have a child for the purpose of saving another child’s life?’
Sanger explains that people who aren’t fit to care for a child shouldn’t bare children. She goes on to explain that the less irresponsible and reckless people there are “the less immortality shall exist”. Sanger wants to stop the disease known as over population at the source which is in the hands of women controlling the number of offspring they bring into the world. The argument in the speech is that using contraception doesn’t lower morals, when actually not using contraception is immoral because irresponsible people are “filling the earth with misery, poverty, and disease” (Sanger
It is written in Genesis 1:27 that when God created man and woman, the Torah states that He created them in “His Image” (Gen. 1:27). Many Jewish Orthodox scholars conclude from this, that each human being has a powerful, inherent value. After God created man and woman, He commanded them to, “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). The commandment of “Be fruitful and multiply” explains the importance of the religious responsibility of the Jewish people to have children.
In a world with abortion rights issues, the Zika Virus and a declining birth rate, countries are beginning to put the pressure on their citizens to procreate for the future of their nation, but is procreation the correct solution? The birth of a child causes significant changes for the lives involved around that birth, and creates new identities for all involved: mother, father, sister, aunt, grandmother, etc., killing what they used to know about themselves and being reborn as the birth of that child dictates. The cycle of death and rebirth, both for the child and by the child, make reoccurring appearances throughout the movies ' Up, Children of Men and UltraViolet. By analyzing a wide variety of movies that deal with the Child as the ultimate
For my final project I chose to compare two works of art from ancient Mesopotamia. A visual work of art and a literary one. The visual work of art I chose was the Statuettes of Worshipers which were created around 2900 to 2350 BCE at the Square Temple at Eshnunna, a city in ancient Mesopotamia. The literary artwork I have chosen is the Epic of Gilgamesh written roughly around 2800 BCE by author or authors unknown. It was set in Uruk, another city in ancient Mesopotamia. Both of these works of art share a common theme; the theme of immortality. It is my hopes that within this paper I can accurately show how each of these works of art express this theme, and how it relates to modern society.
With all the different economic opportunities, it is no wonder some Americans see procreation as a supplemental source of monetary income. During the twentieth century, we propagated the American Dream and placed pressure on Americans to settle down and start families. Prior to the twentieth century, many couples would have children, who would often then become labor assets; children would tend the fields or do various jobs around the home to save the family money by avoiding outsourcing. As the population grew, the laws of supply and demand triggered a need for new technology; this technology made it easier to sustain the population but also made the need for the extra children obsolete. This did not stop Americans from breeding.
Mills, Claudia. "Are There Morally Problematic Reasons for Having Children?." Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly 25.4 (2005): 2-9. Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly. Web. 29 Nov. 2013.
As Dr. Michael Jarmulowicz stated, "All children should be born for their own sake, not as a purpose for someone else's benefit" (BBC News).
In David Benatar's book "Better Never To Have Been The Harm of Coming Into Existence" Benatar argues for the idea that coming into existence is always a harm. Although he claims that in the end, many people will not agree with his views, Benatar offers several arguments that he uses in favor of the idea of the gradual extinction of mankind. In this paper I will be critiquing and raising an objection on an aspect of Benatar's argument that he makes in his defense of anti-natalism. Anti-natalism is the view that reproduction is often (or always) morally wrong and Benatar argues for this claim that "we ought to not reproduce."
Having a child changes your life completely and you no longer have to attend to your needs first, but you have to first put the baby's needs. There is not a manual to be the perfect parent, but people must have a stable relationship, or if they want to be a single parent they need to give them attention love and also you must have to afford food. The population need to know how important is to be prepared to have a child to raising them correctly and meet the needs of the kid. No everyone has the capacity to become parents the reason is that they need to provide food, cloths, love, care, home and
Gilkey argues, “Such a theory of moral action as a means merely to personal holiness completely ignores the fact that moral action has to do primarily with the relations between persons in a community.” When one eliminates his or her duty to society and focuses entirely on what he or she desires, the individual is only able to live at the expense of others. An example of this is being rich and not having to worry about food; however, many refuse to give up their life of luxury to help the poor. Although these individuals may give a small donation, they look for ways to enhance their lifestyle. They may buy the trendiest clothes or the latest car. They are only living for themselves and lose their sense of purpose or meaning in
(1) The eight social devices were personal ideals, public opinion, law, belief, education, art, illusions, and bugaboos. There were three popular bugaboos which were first termed by Hollingworth (1916) as false ideas or beliefs held by society that were created by medical men. The first was that if pregnancy was delayed until the age of 30, it was more painful and hard. Thus, prompting women to have babies at an earlier age. The second stated that women who do bear children live longer as opposed to women who don’t. The third stated that a child that was raised alone was more likely to become “selfish, egotistic, and an undesirable citizen” (Hollingworth, 1916). Which propelled women to have more than one child so their child would not become any of those things. (1) These eight social devices had been used as a means to confine women to the roles of child bearer and mother by manipulating them into not aspiring for anything more. When a woman went against her designated role they were considered abnormal, selfish, and were destined to encounter the wrath of God in the hereafter. (2) When this article was first published,