Posted in Reader's Responses

“Should this be the last generation?” and “Thinking Before You Breed”

A common theme between these two essays was the idea of existence in general and whether or not it is a “right” that should be guaranteed. Though one could make a reasonable argument for the positive side of this debate, there are some obvious holes. How can someone who doesn’t exist have rights? Is it then immoral to make a choice not to have children? If the answer to this question is yes, then we must look even deeper into the implications of the right to existence. Though it would mean that an immediate decision not to have children, what about all of the potential children that a woman could give birth to? If she has two children, is she infringing upon a possible third child’s “right to existence?” Furthermore, does our own opinion on whether or not life = suffering justify our reasons whether or not to reproduce? If one person believes that to bring a child into the world is to guarantee them suffering and another believes that the happiness of life outweighs the suffering, the “right to existence” becomes subjective. Therefore, it is impossible to make a statement on whether or not potential people are guaranteed the “right to existence.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s