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
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
In kilner’s case study “Having a baby the new-fashioned way”, present a story that can be relatable to a lot of families struggling to have a child. This is a dilemma that can be controversial and ethical in own sense. The couple that were discussed in the case study were Betty and Tom. Betty and Tom who are both in their early forties who have struggled to bear children. Dr. Ralph Linstra from Liberty University believes that “Fertility can be taken for granted”. Dr. Ralph talks about how many couples who are marriage may run into an issue of bearing a child and turn to “medical science” to fix the issue. He discusses that “God is author of life and he can open and close the womb”. That in it’s self presents how powerful God.
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.
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
basic charge of this criticism can be stated in the words of a recent critic,
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.
Julian Savulescu tries to argue on the grounds of Utilitarianism that parents have a moral duty to improve their children’s genetic makeup in the same way that they would improve the child’s “environment” or prevent diseases (The Ethical Life, 443). Julian thinks this is a duty because it will yield the most positive outcomes or consequences. He believes that failure to use genetic enhancements, when a parent has an opportunity to benefit their child, is neglecting the child’s needs which is morally wrong (The Ethical Life, 443). Julian also defends his position by claiming that it would be inconsistent to “train our children to behave well”, but then refuse to seek genetic enhancements for our children so they have the tools to succeed, when
Around the 1950’s, the media perpetuated the idea of the picturesque family unit; children made the shift from being a necessary evil to a symbol of status. Children were no longer meant to help sustain the family, so much as meant to be trophies of the parents’ competentness. Children became an outlet for parents to mold and live through vicariously: the more perfect your child was, the better parent you were. The problem is not that people want to have children, but that many cannot afford to take care of their spawn. Whether you are a young mother utilizing the assistance of government programs such as WIC or simply writing off your children on your taxes, you are making use of government incentive to procreate. Reproduction is completely natural; however, once backed by government incentive, the motivations for having children can take an unnatural turn. Children may be a symbol of love and unity, but it has expanded beyond the family unit. Many children have become the responsibility of the Unite...
Sustainability: Suitable for the investigation, because it contains large amounts of information on the issue at hand. Details certain links between abortion and other diseases such as breast cancer. Contains Qualitative and Quantitative information. This article is a form of Secondary information. Gives the negatives and positives on abortion.
... to have at any given take not only this it deserves it. If you cannot afford for an adoption the person adopting shouldn’t be having one, this will help prevent homelessness for the millenniums to come.
...e are now able to have children. Human beings have a deep and basic need to procreate, and if we can help to fulfill this need I believe that we should, we should just make sure we do so with the possible child’s best interest and future in mind as well.
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.
Utilizing case of demonstrating how it can rationally influence a woman for a lifetime because of the certainty of required a moms care and love. Likewise demonstrating how it influences a child’s way in turning into a mother themselves. I agree with the author and his points throughout the article, demonstrating a motherless child is obscure of the untrue love that is originated from men, in both the period of the composed play furthermore present. The article and composed play successfully go together hand in hand as an inseparable unit demonstrating points of interest on how it is ideal to have a mother in a child’s
Our world is too small for our ever rapidly growing population. One day resources will run dry and vanish, which will bring death and loss to all nations on this planet. Many researchers and scientists have confirmed that the population will reach 10 billion by the end of the century and will continue to stream upward. There are many different ways in trying to decrease population to contain global warming and assist our environmental changes. The only way to steadily succeeding, families must be the regulators of their fertility and future. Environmentalism can head in a negative direction, which may result in population control and even anti-immigrant policies. Can the developing effort of ‘population integrity’ protect our world while recognizing birth moralities?
...l needs children before they are born. This may seem good in this moment, but in the future when better options become more available, these choices may be regretted. Tim Challies believes that although people can pick traits for children, they may also regret their decision in the future. If people pick traits of their child and it comes out “wrong,” will the parents not love them (Challies)? The morality of parents will change if they can customize their own children because any mistake will make the child unloved. In Huxley’s novel, the citizens of the London have no parents. When scientists create babies in a lab, they are opening up the possibility that society will become completely customized and that parents will not exist. Tim Challies stated that “Endless choice brings endless regret.” This regret has the potential to change the morality of society.