Ethics of Parenting

[makischa]

I was wondering why and how do we have the right to chose to bring somebody to life. By definition we impose the state of life to our children. Life can be good but can also be hard, or even unbearable. Is this ethical? Since we do not know how our childrens lives will develop, if they are gonna be born with congenital problems, if they will suffer from leukemia at their 3 and so ever, no matter how hard we try avoid anything bad from happening to them. Sure some of the mishaps in life will result from THEIR faults and they will be THEIR responsibility, some will still be just "bad luck", and will happen.
If we make children and everything goes normal, no problem (under the hypothesis that "normal" means more good than bad things as our children perceive them, or at least in equal amount). But if we make a child and gets afflicted with misfortunes she is not willing to endure, then she can blame us because we sort of bet on her behalf by bringing her to the game called life... Some examples would be impoverished economies, hereditary disorders, periods of war or instability etc. But it can be generalized to almost all aspects of life.
Since humans are the only species having full consciousness about themselves and their surroundings, and really know about the facts of reproduction while have effective means of contraception, is it ethical to make children? Based on which criteria? Why the fact that *I* "feel ready to be a parent" should affect someone on the most fundamental basis, his/her _existence_? And if I have that right, why can't I take that life -or any other life, since they could be my children- "back"? How can I have the right to chose to bring somebody to life, when that decision has to do with his/her very existence? And since I do have the right obviously, why shouldn't I kill somebody? It's just the reverse case, but the degree of influence over one's life is still the same! It only would be reasonable if we, a priori, take life as a good thing in general, but we all know that this is not always the case.
Of course a negative answer on the ethical matter would have dire consequences for the survival of the human race, but I think it is a very fundamental topic because we do not discuss here the quality/meaning of life but it's existence itself.
I am really interested in hearing your opinion on that and your suggestions of any relevant bibliography on the issue.

The important thing remains: "How ethical is to chose to bring someone to life?"

[ape]

I was wondering why and how do we have the right to chose to bring somebody to life. By definition we impose the state of life to our children. Life can be good but can also be hard, or even unbearable.
Is this ethical?
......

Since humans are the only species having full consciousness about themselves and their surroundings, and really know about the facts of reproduction while have effective means of contraception,
is it ethical to make children?

Based on which criteria?
Why the fact that *I* "feel ready to be a parent" should affect someone on the most fundamental basis, his/her _existence_?

And if I have that right, why can't I take that life -or any other life, since they could be my children- "back"?

How can I have the right to chose to bring somebody to life, when that decision has to do with his/her very existence?

And since I do have the right obviously, why shouldn't I kill somebody?

I am really interested in hearing your opinion on that and your suggestions of any relevant bibliography on the issue.

Thanx!
So true!

But this proves that imposition or force or lack of choice is not wrong of itself.

What is wrong is Hatred of either choice or lack of choice, imposition or its opposite.

The imposition of life on others is ethical because and when we have the Ethic of Love and love and so confer unconditional Love of the new lives: for Love makes life ethical and makes life worth living and life worth dying, and makes all burdens in the dash in-between bearable of itself--with no reward either now or later.
Love is its own reward and re-word!

Here is the comment of one on whom a life-sentence of 98 was imposed:
'My whole religion is this:
do every duty,
and expect no reward for it, either here or hereafter.'
Bertrand Russell, childhood diary, quoted from Against the Faith by Jim Herrick

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life:
the longing for Love,
the search for knowledge,
and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.... This has been my life.
I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me.
-- Bertrand Russell, "What I Have Lived For," the prologue to his Autobiography, vol. I p. 4

The important thing remains:
"How ethical is to chose to bring someone to life?"

As ethical as it is to the degree and extent of Unconditional Love in the heart of the one making the choice to choose life or to not choose life.

[makischa]

But this proves that imposition or force or lack of choice is not wrong of itself.

But we know that the Ethic of Love as you say it not prevalent at all in the world we are bringing our children, and if even something miraculous happened and everyone started following such an Ethic, bad things would continue to afflict people on earth.
I'm saying that life is good and bad. And since it is like that, if it is ethical to bring someone to such a place where bad things will happen to him. If we don't bring him, he hasn't anything to loose because he isn't yet created.

[ape]

But this proves that imposition or force or lack of choice is not wrong of itself.

But we know that the Ethic of Love as you say it not prevalent at all in the world we are bringing our children, ...

ape:
But if asked, all kids would never miss the opportunity to be born into a bad and cruel world if they knew they had the chance to get the Love that would empower them to make that bad good and good better and better best.

It is better to have lived and lost the possibility to have ever-present Love than to never have been born and to have removed all doubt.

and if even something miraculous happened and everyone started following such an Ethic, bad things would continue to afflict people on earth.

That bad is a given.
There is no good action without an equal and opposite bad reaction.
It takes Love of both to make good out of bad, and better out of good, and better out of best.
What is NOT a given is that we have to hate the bad, which Hate of the bad is the first bad: the Bad Attitude that makes good bad and bad worse and worse worst.

I'm saying that life is good and bad.

ape;
exactly.

And since it is like that, if it is ethical to bring someone to such a place where bad things will happen to him.

ape:
It is ethical when done in Love, which Love is why 99.9% of the sex that causes kids occurs.

It is unethical to the extent that those who have sex in Love also live life in Hate of themselves as children: how can they really love children if they hate themselves as children and hate to treated like children?

If we don't bring him, he hasn't anything to loose because he isn't yet created.

Ape:
But then, he also has nothing to gain!
No risk of loss taken, no thing gained.

Enjoy sadly:
here Shakespeare discusses your very point:
the 'children' born are 'thoughts' and 'time,' and so the same principle applies:

"I have been studying how I may compare
This prison where I live unto the world:
And for because the world is populous
And here is not a creature but myself,
I cannot do it; yet I'll hammer it out.

My brain I'll prove the female to my soul,
My soul the father; and these two beget
A generation of still-breeding thoughts,
And these same thoughts people this little world,
In humours like the people of this world,
For no thought is contented.

The better sort,
As thoughts of things divine, are intermix'd
With scruples and do set the word itself
Against the word:
As thus, 'Come, little ones,' and then again,
'It is as hard to come as for a camel
To thread the postern of a small needle's eye.'

Thoughts tending to ambition, they do plot
Unlikely wonders; how these vain weak nails
May tear a passage through the flinty ribs
Of this hard world, my ragged prison walls,
And, for they cannot, die in their own pride.

Thoughts tending to content flatter themselves
That they are not the first of fortune's slaves,
Nor shall not be the last; like silly beggars
Who sitting in the stocks refuge their shame,
That many have and others must sit there;
And in this thought they find a kind of ease,
Bearing their own misfortunes on the back
Of such as have before endured the like.

Thus play I in one person many people,
And none contented: sometimes am I king;
Then treasons make me wish myself a beggar,
And so I am: then crushing penury
Persuades me I was better when a king;
Then am I king'd again: and by and by
Think that I am unking'd by Bolingbroke,
And straight am nothing: but whate'er I be,
Nor I nor any man that but man is
With nothing shall be pleased, till he be eased
With being nothing. Music do I hear?
[Music]

Ha, ha! keep time: how sour sweet music is,
When time is broke and no proportion kept!
So is it in the music of men's lives.
And here have I the daintiness of ear
To cheque time broke in a disorder'd string;
But for the concord of my state and time
Had not an ear to hear my true time broke.
I wasted time, and now doth time waste me;

For now hath time made me his numbering clock:
My thoughts are minutes; and with sighs they jar
Their watches on unto mine eyes, the outward watch,
Whereto my finger, like a dial's point,
Is pointing still, in cleansing them from tears.
Now sir, the sound that tells what hour it is
Are clamorous groans, which strike upon my heart,
Which is the bell: so sighs and tears and groans
Show minutes, times, and hours: but my time
Runs posting on in Bolingbroke's proud joy,
While I stand fooling here, his Jack o' the clock.

This music mads me; let it sound no more;
For though it have holp madmen to their wits,
In me it seems it will make wise men mad.
Yet blessing on his heart that gives it me!
For 'tis a sign of love; and love to Richard
Is a strange brooch in this all-hating world."
Richard II [V, 5]

[makischa]

ape
It's an interesting perspective you have about Love and all, but I'd like to read some more opinions on the question I asked in my first post if this is possible, and of course if they are any!
Thanks again!