Both of you.

I think Agu is more obsessed with Borat and Donald Drumpf (wow, right on queue, lol) than you are with men, fwiw. However, you do give off the vibe of being a misandrist.

verb (transitive) rags, ragging, ragged
1.
to draw attention facetiously and persistently to the shortcomings or alleged shortcomings of (a person)

If I had a significant other that I was in love with, I probably wouldn't spend any time on forums like these. That someone both rags on the forum, but still partakes in it, tells me that they're not getting what they want offline, so they come here. Of course I admit that myself, I just hope that I'm not always a belligerent dickface.

Nerds.

As long as you do no feffing then perhaps i'll consider saving you a slice. — TimeLine

Do you think I'm a creep? :’(

Don't worry, when in social environments I usually seek out the pet(s) and avoid people like the plague.

But I will want some cake...

Coke Zero living up to its name, hahaaaaaa, *slaps knee.*

It is not a semantic trick at all. Giving birth to a child cannot be wrong since the child is not harmed. Something wrong would be doing something that actually harms the child in life. — Agustino

The child being harmed in life is not an issue were they not to exist. Yet, people still choose to procreate.

Almost by definition they can't, since an exaggeration is something that goes above and beyond what is the case. — Agustino

Exaggeration doesn't remove the truth totally, though.

Which one lol? — Agustino

"People can't consent to being born." It has 170 replies. Big fuckin clusterfuck of a fuck.

Yes I agree with you. But I meant to say there is a positive type of self-love which is NOT selfishness - not benefiting yourself at the expense of others. — Agustino

Isn't that just respect? "To will the good of another" can't include you, can it?

As far as I know, wrong is when you directly cause harm to someone. Giving birth to someone isn't directly causing them harm, for the simple reason that they don't exist prior to birth. — Agustino

You're directly causing the child to exist, which means that you are the facilitator for their suffering, whether you're cognizant (is this really how this is spelled?) of that or not.

Are flying pigs really being argued as being logically equivalent to unborn children? Jesus Christ...

Man, I used a rotten tomato as an example in my most, now it feels weird. I didn't know you guys were discussing froots and veggies.

We try to eliminate criminals through punishment. However we rarely try to look at it through the angle of restoration and rehabilitation. — Rosalina

True, but sometimes a tomato is too rotten to eat, even if there's still some color left. Question is, are inmates ever too rotten to rehabilitate? I think for some, yes. For the severely mentally ill, say, who aren't even criminals, it's a question of how much can I save, and what can't I save. A rotting tomato can't become fresh again, but there's sometimes the possibility of getting good out of it still!

I'm wondering if evil can sometimes be good. — Rosalina

Evil cannot in itself be good, but I do think that evil can bring about the good. Then again, I think it depends on how you define evil, and whether evil causes the good or if evil merely facilitates a future moral dilemma that comes out good, but that would not have been possible were evil not the choice made prior.

As for why is it necessary for the human race to continue, I don't think it's necessary, but I do think we should continue. — Agustino

Hey, fuck you, I disagree!

Because one of those actions is evil in and of themselves in-so-far as it harms another being, while another isn't evil in and of itself, since it harms no one. — Agustino

A child being born facilitates their being harmed, though, as much you'd like to play a semantic trick on me.

Another example - murder is prohibited in the 10 Commandments, procreation isn't. The two are not comparable, it would be an EXTREME exaggeration to say that to procreate is as bad as to murder. — Agustino

Exaggerations can be true, though.

What other thread? — Agustino

The other one that's exactly like this, but for some reason we have two threads now! >:o

It's not just selfishness that is at play. Love your neighbour as yourself implies that you should love yourself to begin with, which is different than selfishness, which entails benefiting yourself and the expense of others. — Agustino

Fuck no, bro. "Benefiting" yourself at the expense of others, whilst realizing that you are doing so, sounds pretty fucked up to me.

I agree with this, but I don't agree that this has anything to do with procreation, because, as I've said, someone cannot be harmed by birth. They can be harmed only by what comes after. — Agustino

Which can only be facilitated by their being born! I agree birth in itself is not wrong, but procreation, the decision to bring a life into a world of suffering, is wrong, especially if you admit that the child will suffer later.

It would seem that some here are wanting the unborn child to have the ability to consent to their birth. This is quite obviously impossible, logically and practically. However, the fact is that once born, the child cannot, subsequently, give its consent to being born, seeing as they're already here, alive and kicking. This is the distinction I'd assume the OP is actually trying to argue as being morally repugnant. In other words, the baby that's in the crib is now in a world where he/she must consent to some things, every thing, or no thing...except their own having been born into this bizarre world ruled by endless acts of consenting. And the thing that ironically pushes many people to suicide is the idea that suicide can get those who wished they hadn't been born the golden ticket back to the primordial sleep, the nonexistence before they were born. But, I'm not convinced that exiting the world is the same as entering it.

Think - when we are born we have nothing to lose but nothingness itself, which is really quite a baffling exchange given that once existing as individual we come to realize that we did not choose to be.

What I meant to point out with this, is that some desires are natural, in that they are innate to the human organism - others are not, like cannibalism and the examples you often give — Agustino

But why is it necessary for the human race to continue if on an individual level you admit that it isn't necessary to procreate?

Okay I think your analogy fails because killing, in and of itself, is wrong, even if in some circumstances it is acceptable (such as in self-defence). However, procreation in and of itself isn't wrong, even though in some circumstances it can be wrong. — Agustino

Okay, but why do you drive a distinction between procreation and murder?

There is no child for whom the decision is made without consent. The child simply doesn't exist, so the question of consent is illogical. — Agustino

I'm not so sure. Maybe I should stick my dick in that other thread, though it has looked a giant can of worms...

Maybe, but there seems to be the desire to have your own child too. Maybe people should have on child of their own and also adopt? — Agustino

Yes, because people are selfish. Surely this comes as no surprise to you?

Yes, and no I don't think I should be. The origins and ends of existence are mysterious. — Agustino

Seeing as your actions have consequences, and in the case of procreation, will have an extremely important consequence (the having of a child) on you and the world, I might find it disgusting to think anyone leaves a decision like procreating up to "mystery."

Why not? — Agustino

Living in the world for me is an act of self defense against the world. There is enough suffering to go around for love to always be applied without the need to make matters worse by creating more suffering just so that I can love that too. To look to cause suffering, either in yourself or in others is sadism, and is the complete antithesis to love.

As for the rest, it should be no big deal for them, too. — Sapientia

Why?

I dunno, I was just shrugging. Perhaps if I was a sex-crazed maniac I'd be shrugging my peepee?

I'd rather be labeled a prude than a sex-crazed maniac *shrug*.

No.

Have a read of what Aristotle, Epicurus, and other philosophers have meant by "natural desire". For example. — Agustino

I'm familiar with some of these classical definitions, but...

"examples of natural and necessary desires include the desires for food, shelter, and the like. Epicurus thinks that these desires are easy to satisfy, difficult to eliminate (they are 'hard-wired' into human beings naturally), and bring great pleasure when satisfied. Furthermore, they are necessary for life, and they are naturally limited: that is, if one is hungry, it only takes a limited amount of food to fill the stomach, after which the desire is satisfied. Epicurus says that one should try to fulfill these desires."

the part, "they are necessary for life" is where'd I counter and agree to an extent, but argue that a natural desire, let's say procreation for example here, is not necessary for love. Life? Sure, at the fundamental level. But love? I don't think so.

Why do you think sex with the tramp is the same as sex with your wife? — Agustino

The sex is the same, but not the love, which would be (and is) different. Consider me killing someone out of self defense with a small firearm opposed to me killing someone in murder with a small firearm. In both cases I'm using a firearm to kill someone, but why I'm doing the killing and to whom is what matters. In that example, sex is the firearm, the thing doing the killing. Love would be me acting in self-defense, while my murdering someone would be more akin to shagging a prostitute.

I don't have a criteria as such, as it is something that each individual should decide for themselves. — Agustino

Each individual, except the child for whom the decision is being made without consent.

However, typically those who can afford children, who want children, and who can provide and protect them should have children.

These aren't good enough reasons to have a child. At the very least adopt a child if these three reasons are what "most" people desire.

Well yes prolonging humankind on Earth seems to be what God intended, until the end times at least. Since this started from a discussion of the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply", this is what I shall answer. — Agustino

Seems to be? Shouldn't you be a bit more assured in your understanding of God's will?

Because I think suffering can sometimes be rewarding in itself. It is through suffering that you really love someone or something, not otherwise. If you love someone or something, you kind of want to suffer for them you know? Otherwise you don't really love them. What would love be without suffering? An impossibility. — Agustino

Maybe, but it doesn't follow that suffering must be propagated in order for love to be fulfilled.

Okay yes! So here is my point I believe: you becoming better at playing the drums isn't above and beyond the suffering - the suffering IS your becoming better at drums. It's the same for example with me working out. I don't take the suffering as any different from my becoming stronger. The two are connected like two sides of the same coin are. You seem to function in a different paradigm, where suffering and reward are disconnected, and you undertake the one to obtain the other. But I say that suffering and reward are one and the same. — Agustino

I don't think you quite understand what I was getting at.

Well to be a natural desire doesn't mean that it is present in absolutely everyone. — Agustino

True, but I'm saying that a natural desire still exists in the natural world, even if not everyone possesses it.

The human body is the most beautiful thing in existence. Lets me grown ups, and criticize people on substantial, rather than superficial and self-centered fronts. — Wosret

I remember you saying that you have a big nose, as I do.

I bet my big nose is far more beautious.

Should I be critiquing Sapientia, TimeLine, Baden, or Mongrel? Oh, you mean McTrumpus? Hmm, tough call :P

I think it has more to do with who it is. Neither of Williams sisters are upstanding human beings, really they're quite nasty. I mean, depictions of pregnant women are probably the oldest expressions of art in human history, but I'd rather consider a 5,000 year old mother goddesses carved from stone instead of tennis player. *shrug*

Looks ugly to me, does that make me sexist and/or racist?

If women weren't vastly inferior to their male counterparts in almost every sport, we wouldn't have gendered sporting events in the first place. That we do separate the men from the women only serves to underline the fact that women would get steamrolled in most competitions if they weren't gated by their gender. Then again, we now have male transgender athletes who now get to compete in women's competitions, and guess what? They dominate the field because sex, not gender, ought to be the determinate for who can compete.

Bottom line, if people want to screech and holler about how women are just as "good" as men in most sports, then do away with the male/female distinction. Combine everyone all in one pool. But see, nobody wants that because then the truth will sit out for all to see. The horror!

A natural desire is one which belongs to the essence of that organism. Cannibalism isn't a natural desire for example. Nourishing your body, however, is a natural desire. — Agustino

Natural, adjective

1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria"
2.
of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
"sharks have no natural enemies"

Nature, noun

1.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
"the breathtaking beauty of nature"
synonyms: the natural world, Mother Nature, Mother Earth, the environment; More
2.
the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it.

Sorry, Agu, but cannibalism can be a natural desire.

No, I can assure you that having sex is a different experience with a prostitute than with your wife. The two may bear a resemblance, but they are not the same. — Agustino

You'll have to convince me of this assurance because at present you're failing to do so.

Yes it is, but not for a particular human being, but rather for the human race as a whole. — Agustino

Humankind is but a collection of particular human beings, not some amorphous blob. Furthermore, what is your criteria for those who must procreate? Who are they, and why do they have to procreate?

What's this strange sign? — Agustino

It's an arrow.

In other words, there's situations when it's not immoral to have a child. — Agustino

Such as? If it's merely to prolong humankind as a race on Earth, why is that important and sufficient justification?

Suffering, contrary to your axiom, isn't necessarily evil.

And why is that?

Okay, it seems that this is the point over which we disagree. I don't think suffering is evil, many times the suffering and the reward are not separate. Many saints, for example, have enjoyed to suffer for the sake of God. — Agustino

There are three parts to this. The suffering, the act of doing what brings about the suffering, and the "reward" once the act is suffered through. For instance, I play the drums, so if I go to practice the drums there is, 1. the specific practicing of the drums, 2. the suffering that goes along with that (muscle fatigue, sweat, finger blisters, etc.), and 3. the end product of me being better at playing the drums (only attainable through practice.) Merely because I've become a better drummer post-practicing doesn't remove the prior state of suffering.

I never claimed everyone longs to have a child, I said most people. — Agustino

If this is the case, then how exactly is procreation a natural desire if it isn't inherent in everyone?

Not all desires are of the same kind. Some are not natural desires. — Agustino

You seem very focused on bull shit in this response, so I call bullshit again. You'll have to explain to me how a desire in nature doesn't have to be natural.

Yes, that's why I made a useful distinction, which you've completely ignored, and spoke of natural desires. That eliminates psychopaths and cannibals, so please, no such examples. — Agustino

Throwing attachments onto a desire doesn't change the desire in itself.

Okay, how is this related to two people in love who have sex within the boundaries of a married relationship again? — Agustino

Same response here as what I just gave above. Sex is sex. What you're trying to change, rather, is the love, not the sex. But I don't think you've figured that out yet, or at least you've not alluded to the affirmative.

So if you have sex with a prostitute that is no different than having sex with your wife within the boundaries of marriage in terms of morality according to you? — Agustino

No, the sex is the same. But whether there is love present is what's the matter.

Well, most Platonists/Aristotelians - of which the early Christians were - would associate natural with good, for the most part. — Agustino

Okay?

I don't see an argument here. — Agustino

And kissing is spiritual. Alright, bro.

Of other kind of fruitfulness, including, yes, love. — Agustino

So procreation is an absolute essential for love? Brooooo, please stop contradicting yourself.

Nope, I haven't said it's neither. I said it can be either of them, depending on context. — Agustino

I
I
I
V

Furthermore, I don't hold that having a child is right or moral by necessity, only that it is not immoral by necessity. — Agustino

?

Suffering is not always bad, sorry to tell you — Agustino

Yes it is. Suffering is "bad" even if it brings about the good.

That is indication it is a natural desire that comes from within man's own being. — Agustino

But one must identify, and argue, from which half of man's being the desire to procreate comes. I also contest that the will to procreate is inherent and that everyone longs to have a child.

No, I don't watch Hollywood anymore :P Such bullshit honestly, I get so bored trying to watch a movie nowadays. It's the same crap story time and time again, and it seems bullshitty to experience emotions while starring at the screen instead of by living through them. I can't stand the fakery. — Agustino

Humor me and watch it. At the very least you'll enjoy it more than dropping a pizza on the tile.

Every individual "out there" has, at all times, some condition/state that is not considered normal. But if we see a person walking with a limp, struggling to hear a sound, violently coughing, etc. we don't say that he/she is in any way "screwed up". We have compassion for him/her.

We recognize that some part of him/her is not functioning normally and we show compassion.

We must not really believe that mental illnesses are abnormalities, because a lot of people refer to them with words like "screwed up". Those words imply that, rather than suffering from symptoms of something that has gone wrong, a person is inherently defective, flawed, etc.

And "screwed up" is not a fact that can be confirmed by science. It is an attitude--an uncharitable attitude that sees people as less than human rather than as humans experiencing a variation of what all humans experience: suffering. If psychology is science, "screwed up" has no place in a discussion of psychology. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

You read my post that you quoted about as wrongly and uncharitably as possible. None of what you say here goes against my position.

Why would not procreating be the baseline, when we have a natural desire to procreate and be intimate? — Agustino

Because one's desires need not be fulfilled. Merely because one has a desire does not mean that they must carry out that desire, otherwise hellfire and damnation upon them.

Yes, I do love the person. The sex can be an expression of our love though, that's what you don't seem to understand. It's an expression of it. Just like a bird sings its song, as an expression of its being. — Agustino

You're still trying to abstract sex out into some nebulous universe of righteous feeling and noodly virtue. I'm sure a psychopath will say that them hacking up someone to bits is an expression of their feeling free. But does this mean that whatever expression they think their act is refutes the base nature of the act itself? Surely not.

This is absolutely false. Immoral sex is different than righteous and moral sex. — Agustino

This is merely attaching things to sex in order for you to think about it in a better light. Like coating a turd in gold leaf.

I disagree. There is a natural desire to procreate. — Agustino

This doesn't make it good. And if it isn't good, one has no good reason, therefore, to do it.

Oh yeah, how funny you are. Only that you forget that the physical motion of the penis inside the vagina isn't all that's happening at all. There's the touches, the looking into each other's eyes, the feeling of each other's bodies, the shared emotions, the feelings, the kissing, the intimate connection etc. You strip the act of 99% of what it includes, and then proceed to deride it. Well done. — Agustino

All you've done here is replace the rawness of having sex with the rawness of kissing someone, looking into their eyes. Love is not a sentiment, and your categorization of sex is just that, a petty sentiment.

While that meaning may ALSO be the case it's not the essential meaning of the statement. Why not? Because Adam and Eve were the first human beings on Earth. Who were they to love? Themselves? No, they had to first reproduce. — Agustino

Erm, yes? Eve was made so that Adam might love her, as Adam could not love himself.

This is ridiculous. So Adam and Eve are the only people on Earth (cause God had just created them) and one of the first commandments is to be fruitful and multiply virtue by evangelizing non-existent human beings in Paradise (cause the Fall hadn't occurred yet) :s Utterly absurd. — Agustino

Love is not reserved merely for humankind.

It is true that "fruitfulness" implies much more than physically procreating, but physical procreation is one of the absolute essentials, which makes all the other fruitfulness possible in the first place. So it seems to me you want to have the tree, without its roots. I do agree that the Bible has multiple levels of meaning, but these levels of meaning are complementary and not self-refuting. — Agustino

Procreation is an absolute essential of what? Love?

This is a frequent misunderstanding of the way sexual desire functions - and Catholic priests aren't taught how to handle their sexual energy, they way monks are taught, so of course they struggle with it. That's one of the reasons why Orthodox priests are encouraged to marry. — Agustino

Marriage doesn't require sexual relations.

Being a celibate cannot be wrong, but there are wrong ways of practicing celibacy. — Agustino

This makes zero sense.

nothing [...] can satisfy [...] desire — Agustino

Agreed. So marriage and having "righteous sex" and having children are but shams.

Sure, but it doesn't make it wrong either. — Agustino

If having a child is neither right nor wrong in your thinking, then there is, as I've said several times now, no good reason to procreate. And if there's no good reason to do something, one has no moral foundation from which they can retreat to if it blows up in their face.

Consider the above this way: there are no good reasons for me to walk outside, lower my pants, and shit on the concrete, but there are bad reasons for me to do the same, such as being seen, someone having to pick it up if not me, someone running it over, my dog eating it, the list goes on. However, were all these reasons entirely unconvincing to me, and the decision to shit on the pavement appeared neither good nor bad, and I go out and shit on the pavement instead of doing nothing, then that decision immediately becomes the past. Once I've shat on the concrete, there then arrives an all new environment where I have to decide whether or not I want to clean up the poo, make someone else do it, risk fallout from that, etc. etc. So, in the instance that you decide to carry out the seemingly amoral decision to crap on the sidewalk instead of doing nothing, you then have to deal with the new realities of that decision, which subsequently facilitate moral dilemmas. In the context of procreation, this means that you can put on blinders and think that deciding to procreate is some sort of amoral, blah decision, but once you've carried out that decision, you then have to take responsibility for the shit on your doorstep. You can't sit back and say after the fact that having the child, then, was a good and righteous and lahdeedahdeedah. Also, the original decision not to shit on the sidewalk because it is judged as being neither good nor bad but amoral, does not facilitate moral dilemmas because I've not acted upon it. It has affected no one but me for the moment I thought about it and then forgot about it.

Regardless, I think I do consider procreation always wrong because there are guarantees with the decision to procreate. The decision to shit on the sidewalk at the very least does not guarantee suffering. Procreating a child into existence does, which is why playing dumb, or flicking the amoral card on the table just isn't going to cut it.

That doesn't mean there isn't a right way to engage in it. — Agustino

To engage in sex or procreation. I agree that there is a right way to have sex (different from yours, and to which I've explained before, in some other thread), but disagree that there is a right way to procreate, as that entails there being a good reason to procreate, which you yourself have argued against.

Sure, but again most people do have a desire to have their own children - to be co-creators. — Agustino

So what?

Well this is precisely what Heister was objecting to, he was saying that sex did not exist, except after the Fall. But if sex didn't exist, how were Adam and Eve meant to procreate before the Fall? — Agustino

Adam and Eve weren't meant to procreate before the Fall because they didn't need to, just as they didn't need to wear clothing. But once they were expelled from the Garden, they were committed to sin, which means they were pigeon-holed into making bad decisions. I'm arguing here that procreation is one of them, and not a virtue of some sort such as Adam and Eve's capacity to still love each other, to take care of each other, etc.

~ Have you watched the recent Noah movie with Russell Crowe? I think I've asked you this before...but I'd be interested to know how you'd review the movie from a moral standpoint, because even though I think the movie itself from a film standpoint is kinda bad and cheesy, some of its themes are surprisingly deep. I don't even think the movie's writers quite realized what they were suggesting, let alone very many of the movie's watchers. Anyway, I suggest you watch it, or if you already have, think about it again with half a mind toward this discussion. I just find it intriguing how a movie like Noah can subtly argue against procreation just the same as a Se7en can. A testament to the beauty of the arts! O:)

Yes. I'd say that I'm not anti-sex in many cases, am not anti-birth because I think that once a life is in the world we have a responsibility to love it, but I am against procreation as there are no good reasons enough that convince me that it's necessary, for anything.

Then why must I assume the child will agree with my judgement? — Agustino

Your judgement not to procreate? The baseline is doing nothing, not having the child.

There is a difference between fucking a girl and being in love with a girl (even when that includes sex). Fucking a girl is like a leper scratching an itch - it's ultimately not fulfilling but it's something one does either out of spite for themselves or out of suffering. Being in love with a girl and marrying her can lead to sex, but the action is different. In that case it's not scratching an itch, but doing something that is positively fulfilling of a natural human desire - the desire for intimacy. I'm sorry if you cannot comprehend that there's more to sex than just fucking. — Agustino

You love the person, not the sex. Sex is sex, regardless of what you're having sex with. And you don't need to have sex in order to love someone more fully.

The sexual act isn't necessary with regard to procreation? :s What? — Agustino

Sex isn't always evil, but procreation is never good. Having sex doesn't mean you're procreating, even though that's the primary, natural function of sex.

Well, leaving the vulgarity aside, the physical connection that happens during sex is mirroring the spiritual connection that happens between the two lovers. A dick in the hole may be a dick in the hole, but the act itself doesn't include just a dick in a hole. — Agustino

Yes, I'm sure that you love someone so much more if you spiritually slide your cock back and forth inside her! :D

First of all this is completely unbiblical and completely false. Read Genesis 1:27-28, which occurs way before the Fall, just after God had created man. What does it say? — Agustino

You know, I shouldn't have brought up the Bible, as that's a can of worms I'm not even going to open. All I'll say is that "be fruitful and multiply" doesn't necessarily infer human reproduction. Seeing as God is classically understood as love, to be fruitful is to multiply love.

There is nothing wrong with sex in itself. But sex, like all other good things from God, has been corrupted with the Fall. And instead of being used for intimacy and procreation, it was used for power, status, etc. Promiscuity (and ALL other sexual sins which, by the way, have their root in promiscuity) is a fallen expression of sexuality. — Agustino

Please separate sex from procreation. The two are different.

What's wrong with it, I seem to be too stupid to realise? — Agustino

Obviously being celibate can be wrong. I assumed you would think of pedophilic priests who are supposed to be celibates but fail at it. I would argue that they fail at it because they're not satisfying their sexual desires. Not doing that ends up with worse consequences (child abuse).

Marriage and intimacy are fulfilling for many human beings, and they are goods, including having children. This is just how men and women were naturally created to be. — Agustino

Nature is corrupt. Merely because having sex and procreating children is natural doesn't make it right or necessary to do so.

Now, if you either cannot find a woman who fits with you, — Agustino

My attempt here to emphasize the rawness of sex makes a statement like this absolutely hilarious, >:O

I don't suggest you should marry someone for the sake of having children or having sex. Only if you find the right person. But if you do, then you would be throwing away something that is precious - at least to most people, given our human nature. — Agustino

Procreation gets added to the list of corrupted, natural processes.

Even so, if a couple wants to have a child so that they might father and mother it and love it, then there are millions of little shits out there that can keep them up at night and are needing to be adopted.

So the slim margin that someone might be rich enough to be above the fray of economic obligations means the whole principle is wrong? I don't think so. Also, if you look at most of my other antinatalism threads, I give many, many reasons why procreation leads to harm. This is just one of many. Combine them all together, and you have a pretty compelling case. This is just yet another reason. — schopenhauer1

But I'm saying that you need better reasoning than just, "you may not x, y, z." The discussion I'm having with Agustino I think entails absolutes. As I said before, black and whites, no grays. If you have an absolutist position that you think defends not procreating, I'd like to hear it.

Why would I be assuming that? You're presupposing that the right thing to do has to be what the child will think is the right thing. — Agustino

No.

Furthermore, I don't hold that having a child is right or moral by necessity, only that it is not immoral by necessity. — Agustino

Then you have no good reason to have a child. So, why are you in favor of having children if there's no good reason or necessity that demands their procreation?

First of all, I wouldn't call it "fucking" a woman, the word has connotations which denote abuse, or using her. — Agustino

You are using someone when you're having sex with them.

And it's not my creation, it's the creation of the two of us, cause presumably my wife will also want to have a child, otherwise I wouldn't be having a child in the first place.

What difference does this make? You have responsibility over the child just as you do over the cake you baked with your wife.

You seem to think that the sexual act is always evil, but that's not true. — Agustino

No, only that it isn't necessary with regard to procreation.

God has intended a natural place for the sexual act, which is fuelled by our desire for intimacy and union with the beloved. The act is symbolic of God's creation, and is certainly something holy if done right and within the boundaries of marriage. — Agustino

A dick in the hole is a dick in the hole. Throwing around symbolism and metaphorical interpretations on top of you having sex is willful sentimentalism. Also, I think it's worth noting that sex as a function came about after the fall of Man, so to equate sex to God's first creative emanations before sin's entrance into the world would be an entirely obtuse characterization. Sex is not sacred and pure as love is in itself, or justice, or any other virtue.

Of course there's nothing wrong with celibacy either, for those who aren't yet married (like myself) and those who want to be entirely devoted to God (monks/nuns). — Agustino

Nothing wrong? Think about what you're saying here for a second, and I think you'll take that back.

Also, while human beings are fallen, there is an element of goodness left in us, otherwise we would be unable to recognise what is good in the first place, and salvation would be impossible (much like for those who have committed the unforgivable sin).

Eckhartus' mate, St. Thomas Aquinas writes:
“Human Nature is not so completely corrupted by sin as to be totally lacking in natural goodness.” — Agustino

I don't deny that we can do good, only that I cannot divine up an instance wherein procreation is necessary.

Some don't need to have sex, and so celibacy is a properly moral option. Others, however, do need to satiate their sexual appetite, thereby curbing future ruin by not doing what is necessary. Yet, outside of this spectrum, what I'm saying is that it is never morally necessary for anyone to procreate. There is no need great or demanding enough that one cannot do good unless they themselves birth a child.

Yes. That was part of the wisdom of submission he was preaching. — Mongrel

Would you agree that a lot of women, perhaps most, have more of a problem with keeping their mouths closed as opposed to keeping their legs together? :)

He did? ...

The unborn child, ;)

The argument about economic obligations still stands for 99% of people. Suffering exists for 100%. — schopenhauer1

If an argument can't hold for the 100%, it shouldn't be held. With regard to principles, they must be black and white. If there are exceptions, then the principle is flimsy.

Because you love God, and you believe in the things promised by God. "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" — Agustino

But if you have faith that having a child is the right thing to do, then you're assuming that this child once born will agree with you.

The decision to have a child, is similar symbolically to the divine decision to create the world with its myriad forms in it. It emanates out of love, in this case the creative love that exists between a man and a woman. — Agustino

So play God? You do realize that our creations are wretched, imperfect, immoral, and better not to have been, right? God creating the world isn't the same as you fucking a woman and creating a fallen human being. There's nothing loving about bringing a child into the world so that it may suffer.

As you yourself said, that is one point of many. If you want me to clarify something in my argument, make it clear where and why you feel it may not be correct — TimeLine

I did that in my first reply to you, to which you replied with, "sigh." :/

Are you saying men are never submissive and only women are or that men are only dominating etc? — TimeLine

No, are you?

"Gender" is a social construct while "Sex" is a biological trait. Patriarchal cultures that encourage dominant-submissive roles are not formed due to anything inherent in our chromosomes; such roles are relational. It is driven by a mutually constitutive social experience that attempts to engineer relationships and when in excess - as in, when one person/sex has an excessive need to dominate - exploitation, violence, and other morally abhorrent activities are encouraged to strengthen such differences.

Lots of telling, but no showing. Back up these claims of yours, please.

No, it is impossible to dominate me because this submission relies on my consent, which I will never give even in the event where I am coerced by a dominating force. My will is too strong. — TimeLine

So you get to decide whether or not you want to partake in a monetary society? You get to decide what government you're born into and are a citizen of? You get to will whether or not you have to pay taxes? lol

I wasn't talking about any particular response on your part, I was referring to your whole modus operandi. You're a jerk. A schmuck. Yes, that's an inappropriate ad hominem attack and I'm deeply ashamed. Someone should take this post down. — T Clark

I'm glad that you realized you have nothing to say here, >:O (Y)

Where did I do any of that in my first reply to TimeLine? I asked for clarification, additional argument, and all I got was a "sigh." That "sigh" tells me that TimeLine is being a lazy bum. This is just a fact, whether it's mean or not.