Yep. That'll probably be why I said...
This is indeed all valid and sound. It soundly proves that there is a negative aspect to procreation, that it creates a situation in which there will be undeserved harm which is a bad thing.
— Isaac — Isaac
No, Isaac, for you then proceeded to bang on about the benefits that life confers on the liver, yes? So, you didn't understand the point, did you?
That's like banging on about the $500 grand you racked up $1m to generate. Can you see that? Do you understand yet? The benefits that befall the liver of the life are all deserved - but they're LESS than the person deserves.
So, once more, if you rack up $1m of debt to make $500 grand, you're a shite business person. And if you think the $500 grand is profit, you're an idiot. It's not profit. You're down 500grand. You made 500 grand - but you made it at $1m cost.
Now, if you create a life, then you've created a debt. And it's a debt that isn't going to be paid off, is it? For the innocent deserves a harm-free beneficial life (pssst, this is the point where you forget that you said the argument establishing this was sound and we start all over again).
So, to create a life is to create a debt that can't be repaid. It's to rack up $1m of debt to do something that was always going to generate no more than 500grand. (For it is not in dispute that life here does not take the form of a totally harm-free life of benefit).
You are either incapable of understanding the point, or you're just willfully misunderstanding it because the conclusion is inconvenient to you. I don't know which it is. (And note, if you want once again to return to insisting that an innocent does not deserve any benefits, then you've made your task even harder, because desert adds moral value to benefits.....that is, it is better, morally speaking, for a person to receive a deserved benefit than an undeserved one).
So, it's a big black mark against procreative acts that they create a great injustice. They seem, if we focus on the person who is created by them, to be big moral loss makers. And to overcome those losses you'd need to locate a lot of moral positives (and remember, the benefits the procreative act confers on the person who is created can't be counted among them - if you ask 'why' then you haven't understood the point above; they've already been taken into account).
Now, what are those great other positives that such acts create? Perhaps all the good we do to other animals? Oh, shit, that's not going to work is it? What are the moral positives - the great goods - that procreative acts generate that are capable of overcoming the moral negatives?
Note too, that in this thread I am focussing on 'one' moral negative that procreative acts possess - one that has been overlooked.
They have lots of moral negatives. Lots. The one I am highlighting here is novel. But they have lots of other moral negatives. They're not consented to, for instance. And they cause untold harm to other sentient creatures. And they cause a person to die. And so on.