FTL.Wanderer
Enlightened
- May 31, 2018
- 1,782
An excerpt from the article linked to below featuring the dominant worldview assumption justifying labeling those of us who refuse to subscribe to it as "crazy:"
"The conclusion that because 'the lives of children are going to be very difficult' at some unspecified point in the future, people should consider not having them is daft. It is also, on its own terms anyway, inexplicable. To think this way you would at the very least I think have to be bringing some fairly serious prior anti-natal commitments to the table. Otherwise, what difference could it possibly make? To live in a world where it's half a degree warmer or where the oceans are filled with garbage and the rivers are overrun with toxic plastic is better than never being born, surely."
Notice the pro-life apologists never have to provide any empirically sound evidence in support of their conclusion that, because they are satisfied with life, those they create must, obviously, also be satisfied with life. This is the inherent irrationalism fueling anti-suicide pundits' prohibitions of personal freedom--at the root a mere opinion. Not a mention of the "fairly serious prior [natalist] commitments" the pro-lifers bring to the table.
https://theweek.com/articles/828614/what-does-climate-change-mean-having-children-nothing
"The conclusion that because 'the lives of children are going to be very difficult' at some unspecified point in the future, people should consider not having them is daft. It is also, on its own terms anyway, inexplicable. To think this way you would at the very least I think have to be bringing some fairly serious prior anti-natal commitments to the table. Otherwise, what difference could it possibly make? To live in a world where it's half a degree warmer or where the oceans are filled with garbage and the rivers are overrun with toxic plastic is better than never being born, surely."
Notice the pro-life apologists never have to provide any empirically sound evidence in support of their conclusion that, because they are satisfied with life, those they create must, obviously, also be satisfied with life. This is the inherent irrationalism fueling anti-suicide pundits' prohibitions of personal freedom--at the root a mere opinion. Not a mention of the "fairly serious prior [natalist] commitments" the pro-lifers bring to the table.
https://theweek.com/articles/828614/what-does-climate-change-mean-having-children-nothing
