Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Parents are murderers of their biological children.

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 17 posts ] 
Parents are murderers of their biological children.
Author Message
dimaniacPosts: 2Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:38 pm Gender: Male

Post Parents are murderers of their biological children.

Life always leads to death. Birth leads to life. Conception leads to birth. Parents are responsible for conception. Ergo parents are murderers of their biological children.
Pure logic.
Prove me wrong

Also antinatalism general
Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:31 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Parents are murderers of their biological children.

Murder requires premeditation. I will presume you haven't seen The Blue Lagoon.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:49 am
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2748Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: Parents are murderers of their biological children.

1. Not eating food causes death
2. You can not eat food if you don't have it
3. If you eat food you won't have food
4. If you give food to a homeless man he will eat it.
5. John is homeless man
6. I give food to John

7. From 5 and 6 I feed a homeless man
8. From 7 and 4, John will eat the food that I gave him.
9. From 8 and 3, John will not have food because I gave him food.
10. From 9 and 2, John won't be able to eat because I gave him food
C. From 10 and 1, I have starved John to death because I gave him food.

Image
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:51 am
forgotten observerUser avatarPosts: 99Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 1:21 am

Post Re: Parents are murderers of their biological children.

dimaniac wrote:Life always leads to death. Birth leads to life. Conception leads to birth. Parents are responsible for conception. Ergo parents are murderers of their biological children.
Pure logic.
Prove me wrong


Right, firstly as prole correctly stated, murder is a legal offence defined as "killing with premeditated intent". This alone should be enough, but I'll be generous and suppose that you meant killing/killers. This is still wrong, certain knowledge of the consequences of an action and then making that action doesn't make you the cause. Imagine I buy a packet of hubbu-bubba, I know for sure the flavour will run out If I chew it, Is my buying it the cause of the flavour running out? No. It's a chemical reaction involving my saliva, much like how death is ultimately a result of accidents, killing or natural processes. If the person born from the parents wasn't born then yes by definition it couldn't die, but then the egg and sperm that created it would. By simply having reproductive organs that manufacture life, are we murderers/killers? No that's absurd, we can control the death of our cells, sperm and eggs no more than we can our children and their children and so on. If you believe what you are saying maybe you be castrated so your eggs/sperm aren't born so they don't die. Also you're talking about the potential death of potential life, I would love to hear what you think of vanishing twin-syndrome.

With good but perhaps too sarcastic intent, The forgotten observer.
"Nobody is ever born into this world as a soldier. "
—Rau Le Creuset, Mobile Suit Gundam Seed
Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:26 pm
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2995Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Parents are murderers of their biological children.

dimaniac wrote:Life always leads to death. Birth leads to life. Conception leads to birth. Parents are responsible for conception. Ergo parents are murderers of their biological children.
Pure logic.
Prove me wrong

Also antinatalism general


:lol: Seriously?

Do you know what it means to murder someone in legal terms?

It is a predetermined, intentional action of ending someone's life. Given that many people's parents aren't even alive when their children die, how can it be said with any degree of rationality that the parents are responsible for murdering their children?

Perhaps you are simply suffering from a poor choice of words. Maybe you mean that parents are indirectly responsible for their children's death by virtue of the fact that they gave them life in the first place. This is not the same thing as murder, however. And in response to this I'd say so fucking what.
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:22 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Parents are murderers of their biological children.

Honestly, I think s/he did mean murder. It makes no sense (from the antinatalist viewpoint) otherwise.

Using emotionally charged nouns always gets my heckles up (except when I do it, obvs), but it often invalidates the argument (because although they'll be well aware of a colloquial or general meaning, they, more often than not, fail to understand the implications of its actual usage and usually make no distinction between casual synonyms like kill, murder, slay, massacre, and slaughter), so makes me laugh.

Swings and roundabouts.

It's the simplest form of manipulation, but it's terribly easy to spot.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:59 pm
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2995Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Parents are murderers of their biological children.

Prolescum wrote:Honestly, I think s/he did mean murder. It makes no sense (from the antinatalist viewpoint) otherwise.

Using emotionally charged nouns always gets my heckles up (except when I do it, obvs), but it often invalidates the argument (because although they'll be well aware of a colloquial or general meaning, they, more often than not, fail to understand the implications of its actual usage and usually make no distinction between casual synonyms like kill, murder, slay, massacre, and slaughter), so makes me laugh.

Swings and roundabouts.

It's the simplest form of manipulation, but it's terribly easy to spot.


Well then, if that is indeed the case, the OP has a very different definition of murder to how I'd define it. I mean you might as well call everyone a murderer for failing to stop people from dying. Whenever you fail to stop someone from dying you have committed a murder. Prove that wrong. That makes about as much sense as calling parents murderers for giving birth...
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:40 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Parents are murderers of their biological children.

That's the antinatalist position in a nutshell; life is the cause of suffering, ergo, life must be removed from the equation. Bit like Manhunters, but with a different emphasis (and capability to effect change).
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:53 pm
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2995Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Parents are murderers of their biological children.

Prolescum wrote:That's the antinatalist position in a nutshell; life is the cause of suffering, ergo, life must be removed from the equation. Bit like Manhunters, but with a different emphasis (and capability to effect change).


Where does this assumption that morality ought to be about removing suffering completely come from?

Surely in making this claim they're appealing to the same kind of objective/absolutist values that religious people are chastised for holding?

If they are just appealing to some kind of subjective moral belief that they have that 'suffering ought to be eliminated completely' then that's all very well, but there is no use coming along and saying 'prove me wrong' because that would make no sense.
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:10 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Parents are murderers of their biological children.

Getting cod-philosophers to justify anything they say is much like trying to find an incorruptible cop in Gotham - nearly impossible.

Antinatalism is daft on the face of it and laughable in consideration.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:55 pm
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4347Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Parents are murderers of their biological children.

Prolescum wrote:That's the antinatalist position in a nutshell; life is the cause of suffering, ergo, life must be removed from the equation. Bit like Manhunters, but with a different emphasis (and capability to effect change).


Perhaps this guy has been reprogrammed by Krona.
Image
Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:10 pm
NemesiahPosts: 429Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 8:00 amLocation: Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Parents are murderers of their biological children.

Color me crazy (you will) but aside from the use of the word "murder" which is incorrect, the premise is correct, in giving life to them, parents condemn their children to die some day. We accept this as natural (which it is) but the fact remains that bringing a kid into life means starting their own reverse count to death. One of the reasons I don't want to bring children into the world is this one actually; I can't stomach the tought of my kid, he/she whom I love the most to be aware that he/she is dying and my not being there to hold him/her and tell him/her that everything will be allright that I will protect him/her. I know it is natural but I still feel it is kind of cruel to bring someone into life just so they can contemplaet their own death.

I have many other reasons not to have kids of course such as:

I don't want kids to ruin a loving relationship I might have in the future (I am the very definition of "forever alone" so this may not even be an issue)
I don't want to work to keep someone else, I value my freedom and having kids usually means having to conform to less than desirable jobs, realtionships, environments, etc... In name of the kids.
I don't want to bring a person into the world so this currupt society can twist them into grotesque caricatures so they become consumers.
I am dreadfully fearfull of my kids going into drugs or achoholism since those are problems my family has strugled with and have left me scarred.
I belive that humanity will eventually get better but the next few generations will (I believe) live in a dehumanized world where people will be treated as things much more than as individuals and wouldn't want my kids to be part of such an unjust world.
I believe that global warming and food scarecity are real problems that technology will not help us avoid and believe that in the near future famine and war will become much more common thus creating a dreadfully darwinistic society which I wouldn't want my kids to live in.
I am a rather controlling and authorative individual with a great amount of traumas and believe that I would make a terrible father.
I am myoptic and predisposed to obesity, my family has a story for cancer, strokes, heart attacks and alchoholism, I would not be doing the genetic pool any favors.
I believe that most people have kids for the wrong reasons, mainly a) To obey society's expectations, b) By mistake, c) To "strengthen" a failing relationship, d) To cement a hold into an spouse's resources, e) Out of vanity (as in I MUST reproduce since I'm such an amazing individual); and I would´t want to fall prey to any of those.
Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:55 pm
FrengerBloggerUser avatarPosts: 831Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:50 pmLocation: Derby, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Parents are murderers of their biological children.

Nemesiah wrote:Color me crazy (you will) but aside from the use of the word "murder" which is incorrect, the premise is correct, in giving life to them, parents condemn their children to die some day.


Unless of course the children later reproduce and their genetic information is carried on?

We accept this as natural (which it is) but the fact remains that bringing a kid into life means starting their own reverse count to death.


Just on a side note, I was told of a study once where a set of children were labelled with an age, say 76, and then on each birthday the number reduced. So on their first birthday, in this example, the child would have been 75, then 74 next year and so on. Completely messed with their heads. I'll see if I can't find the study somewhere.

One of the reasons I don't want to bring children into the world is this one actually; I can't stomach the tought of my kid, he/she whom I love the most to be aware that he/she is dying and my not being there to hold him/her and tell him/her that everything will be allright that I will protect him/her. I know it is natural but I still feel it is kind of cruel to bring someone into life just so they can contemplaet their own death.


I can only assume then, that you spend every waking hour contemplating your own death?

Or, if you're like me, you get on with it and try and have a nice time while you're here.
Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:47 am
WWW
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Parents are murderers of their biological children.

The burden of sentience is being aware of your impending death. Crying about it is a waste of everyone's time, given that everyone's time is limited. Fixating on it (as antinatalists do) is probably a reflection of the insignificance one feels when using all that limited time contemplating weak philosophy.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:17 pm
NemesiahPosts: 429Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 8:00 amLocation: Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Parents are murderers of their biological children.

Frenger wrote:
Nemesiah wrote:Color me crazy (you will) but aside from the use of the word "murder" which is incorrect, the premise is correct, in giving life to them, parents condemn their children to die some day.


Unless of course the children later reproduce and their genetic information is carried on?


The fact that reproduction carries on some of the genetic information in the next generation does not negate death. A parent is no less dead just because his/her kids survive him/her

Frenger wrote:
Nemesiah wrote:We accept this as natural (which it is) but the fact remains that bringing a kid into life means starting their own reverse count to death.


Just on a side note, I was told of a study once where a set of children were labelled with an age, say 76, and then on each birthday the number reduced. So on their first birthday, in this example, the child would have been 75, then 74 next year and so on. Completely messed with their heads. I'll see if I can't find the study somewhere.


That would be an interesting report to see, I heard once that prisioners on death row were given a chance to be bled to death (for science I believe) and that those that accepted were inmobilised and heard watter driping from a catheter, that psicological weight was such that they actually died

gimme a sec to see if I can find it

http://books.google.com.mx/books?id=1pjPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=prisoner+dies+blood+letting+experiment&source=bl&ots=kAyiE6Vpvt&sig=a9AZnPh3TZGukbxgM-I-prCr2tw&hl=es&sa=X&ei=cxlLUfrQHYTLqAGF7IC4Bw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=prisoner%20dies%20blood%20letting%20experiment&f=false

I don't know if this is a fiction or a fact related story however I don't remember the context in which I heard about it for the first time.

Frenger wrote:
Nemesiah wrote:One of the reasons I don't want to bring children into the world is this one actually; I can't stomach the tought of my kid, he/she whom I love the most to be aware that he/she is dying and my not being there to hold him/her and tell him/her that everything will be allright that I will protect him/her. I know it is natural but I still feel it is kind of cruel to bring someone into life just so they can contemplaet their own death.


I can only assume then, that you spend every waking hour contemplating your own death?

Or, if you're like me, you get on with it and try and have a nice time while you're here.


I spend a fair amount of time contemplaiting death actually I have been that way from a very early childhood, not just mine but my relatives' also; I do however get on with it and try to have a nice time whenever I can, I just think that by not having a kid I'm saving that hipothetical kid a lot of grief among which is the contemplation of one's own inescapable death.
Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:44 pm
NothPodcasterUser avatarPosts: 335Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:25 pmLocation: the Nether-regions Gender: Male

Post Re: Parents are murderers of their biological children.

Nemesiah wrote:I spend a fair amount of time contemplaiting death actually I have been that way from a very early childhood, not just mine but my relatives' also; I do however get on with it and try to have a nice time whenever I can, I just think that by not having a kid I'm saving that hipothetical kid a lot of grief among which is the contemplation of one's own inescapable death.
- Emphasis mine.

This assumes a number of things, though, does it not? It assumes that your future hypothetical child (hereafter, child) will engage in similar contemplation and, furthermore, that they will reach the same conclusions you did.
It also suggests that grief will be the main component of their existence. How do you know this?

I feel you could just as easily spin the argument around, if you hold this kind of perspective, and say that by not having children you are denying your potential offspring (logistics of getting them, aside) possible joys in life: love, liberty, passions, etc. More urgently, you'd deny potential human beings the most awesome realisation that they are, in fact, alive.

Now I am not saying that you ought to have children, in fact I think there are perfectly valid reasons for people not to have them, but it seems to me that the view you are posing is a little too bleak in the face of countless potential realities, if that makes sense.
I also don't really hold the above argument (that of the denying a potential child a life, yadayada) as it can be picked apart in the same way as the argument against having children can.

In essence, though, I do not think that the fact that you know your children will come to realise that they, too, will someday die is sufficient reason to deny them life to begin with.
Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:55 pm
NemesiahPosts: 429Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 8:00 amLocation: Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Parents are murderers of their biological children.

Noth wrote:
Nemesiah wrote:I spend a fair amount of time contemplaiting death actually I have been that way from a very early childhood, not just mine but my relatives' also; I do however get on with it and try to have a nice time whenever I can, I just think that by not having a kid I'm saving that hipothetical kid a lot of grief among which is the contemplation of one's own inescapable death.
- Emphasis mine.

This assumes a number of things, though, does it not? It assumes that your future hypothetical child (hereafter, child) will engage in similar contemplation and, furthermore, that they will reach the same conclusions you did.
It also suggests that grief will be the main component of their existence. How do you know this?

I feel you could just as easily spin the argument around, if you hold this kind of perspective, and say that by not having children you are denying your potential offspring (logistics of getting them, aside) possible joys in life: love, liberty, passions, etc. More urgently, you'd deny potential human beings the most awesome realisation that they are, in fact, alive.

Now I am not saying that you ought to have children, in fact I think there are perfectly valid reasons for people not to have them, but it seems to me that the view you are posing is a little too bleak in the face of countless potential realities, if that makes sense.
I also don't really hold the above argument (that of the denying a potential child a life, yadayada) as it can be picked apart in the same way as the argument against having children can.

In essence, though, I do not think that the fact that you know your children will come to realise that they, too, will someday die is sufficient reason to deny them life to begin with.


I agree that it is a most bleak and depresing view of life, however life has shown me that it is when I am the most depresed (I get depresed some times but not chemically so, I'm not, AFAIK, bipolar or anything similar) that I tend to see things as they are and not thrugh some rose colored lense that makes things better. I agree that mi hypothetical child could be different from me (that in itself bothers me some, remember I have already explained that one of the reasons for my not wanting to be a father is my conviction that I would be terrible at it) but eve then, I believe that in life the sorrows far outhweigh the joys. It's not that life is not worth living, I believe it is once you are already here, but, if a hypothetical child can be spared the experience, it's not as if it was destined to be born, I'm not denying anything to something that not yet is. I hope this explanation sheds some light on my previous post, if it does not, I will try to elaborate further.
Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:56 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 17 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests