Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Isn't reproduction technically child abuse? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes!! Thanks you too, gives me hope that not everyone is a moron haha

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by princesssarah)
    Yes!! Thanks you too, gives me hope that not everyone is a moron haha

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I wouldnt call anyone a moron since you're the one who seems incapable of appreciating another persons view. You're all one sided.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Lol okay well that's your opinion but I just don't have the time to try to understand those that think that life is so limited. Nothing is stopping anyone from getting the job they want. You just have to work hard for it. You just seem like a 'glass half empty' kind of person. I know trying to explain to you how great life is won't get anywhere so whatever.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Children do not have free will. They slowly (but surely) tend to gain autonomy as they grow. With exception to the marginal cases (see Singer).
    Link? I'm curious as that seems to imply that said marginal case gained autonomy from a very early age and I'd like to read more about it

    Or on the flipside, it implies that some never gain autonomy. Either way, source me like you would a plate of chips.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    No

    /thread
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    There should be a poll on this thread to see who can think properly and who are the nutcases :rolleyes:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    Link? I'm curious as that seems to imply that said marginal case gained autonomy from a very early age and I'd like to read more about it

    Or on the flipside, it implies that some never gain autonomy. Either way, source me like you would a plate of chips.
    Well a baby has no idea what's going on, it wouldn't be fair to say that they are autonomous in the same context as your average human adult due to the fact that, they're just not aware. They have the same autonomy as an animal (maybe less).

    The marginal cases never gain autonomy (though I see how you ms-inturrprted what I said).

    But specifically from a legal point of view, children aren't afforded responsibility (and it is slowly granted to them).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Well a baby has no idea what's going on, it wouldn't be fair to say that they are autonomous in the same context as your average human adult due to the fact that, they're just not aware. They have the same autonomy as an animal (maybe less).

    The marginal cases never gain autonomy (though I see how you ms-inturrprted what I said).

    But specifically from a legal point of view, children aren't afforded responsibility (and it is slowly granted to them).
    I read something a while back that stated that the most "advanced" (for lack of a better word) gorilla has the same degree of sense of self as a 2 year old, so with that in mind my money would be on having the same autonomy as any given animal.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    I read something a while back that stated that the most "advanced" (for lack of a better word) gorilla has the same degree of sense of self as a 2 year old, so with that in mind my money would be on having the same autonomy as any given animal.
    Is that what we mean when we talk about free will?

    It is a relative term. A gorilla has a free will to go a certain place etc.

    But it doesn't have the capacity, and thus doesn't have the free will to vote, or give an answer to the question: what is more valuable and why: The freedom to vote or freedom from government sanctioned physical coercion?

    In that sense that you and I have free will, a child doesn't, but is developing it.

    It's a bit like saying 'it's cool/hot'. It's a relative term.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I loled at the title :lol:

    But sorry if i offended you, i didn't read your post OP.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Is that what we mean when we talk about free will?

    It is a relative term. A gorilla has a free will to go a certain place etc.

    But it doesn't have the capacity, and thus doesn't have the free will to vote, or give an answer to the question: what is more valuable and why: The freedom to vote or freedom from government sanctioned physical coercion?

    In that sense that you and I have free will, a child doesn't, but is developing it.

    It's a bit like saying 'it's cool/hot'. It's a relative term.
    No not free will, although I guess the two are tied in together.

    There was an experiment done a while back where young children were shown a video clip of two people (we'll call them A and B). A puts a biscuit into a box then leaves the room. Once A has left the room, B takes the biscuit out of the box and puts it into a jar. The children are then asked where A is going to look for the biscuit, and this was an experiment to gauge the sense of self.
    The children would say that A would look for the biscuit in the jar, because they saw B put it there. They don't take into account that A didn't experience B putting it into the jar, they only take into account where the biscuit is. This demonstrates a lack of subjectivity in children during their early years, and proves that during those early years the children have a lack of this sense of self as they think that everyone knows and thinks exactly the same things. In their minds, they saw B move the biscuit, therefore A must know that the biscuit has been moved despite not experiencing it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    No not free will, although I guess the two are tied in together.

    There was an experiment done a while back where young children were shown a video clip of two people (we'll call them A and B). A puts a biscuit into a box then leaves the room. Once A has left the room, B takes the biscuit out of the box and puts it into a jar. The children are then asked where A is going to look for the biscuit, and this was an experiment to gauge the sense of self.
    The children would say that A would look for the biscuit in the jar, because they saw B put it there. They don't take into account that A didn't experience B putting it into the jar, they only take into account where the biscuit is. This demonstrates a lack of subjectivity in children during their early years, and proves that during those early years the children have a lack of this sense of self as they think that everyone knows and thinks exactly the same things. In their minds, they saw B move the biscuit, therefore A must know that the biscuit has been moved despite not experiencing it.
    I think you're still confused by my posts by the reply you've given, I'm arguing children don't have free will and the marginal cases never gain free will.

    You seem to think that I'm saying the marginal cases do gain free will in KS1 or younger.

    But I'm actually saying the opposite. And that from a legal and practical standpoint they are not given this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I think you're still confused by my posts by the reply you've given, I'm arguing children don't have free will and the marginal cases never gain free will.

    You seem to think that I'm saying the marginal cases do gain free will in KS1 or younger.

    But I'm actually saying the opposite. And that from a legal and practical standpoint they are not given this.
    Aw hell no, I know children have no free will. The above experiment shows that even when they can walk and say a few words they still don't realise that their consciousness is separate from anyone elses'. That they can't completely think for themselves surely proves that they don't gain a grasp of free will at least until they're in double figures.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I guess so because if you think about it you're basically sperming onto a child just before it exists

    I mean all this Rolf Harris business with him touching fourteen year old girls is mostly excusable, seeings as him (and nearly everyone else) was smothered in their father's lovejuice and exposed to the innermost cavern of their mother's vagina well before they were developed enough to give consent.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayJay-C19)
    I've read some pretty messed up views on here but this takes the medal. To answer your question, no. It is not child abuse. You don't even need to think about it especially not as ridiculously deeply as you have. It is N O T.
    You are not saying anything. If you say some opinion, you should provide arguments. Otherwise your opinion is worthless.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PTMalewski)
    You are not saying anything. If you say some opinion, you should provide arguments. Otherwise your opinion is worthless.
    To you it's worthless. To me, it's perfectly self-explanatory without arguments. Plus, to be fair, it's not even opinion - it's pretty much fact. How can bring a child into the world be abuse!? It's just basically saying we were all abused.

    It's ridiculous.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayJay-C19)
    To you it's worthless. To me, it's perfectly self-explanatory without arguments.
    You may talk to yourself, but why using public forum for that?

    (Original post by JayJay-C19)
    Plus, to be fair, it's not even opinion - it's pretty much fact.
    Depends how do you understand "abuse"


    (Original post by JayJay-C19)
    How can bring a child into the world be abuse!?
    You create the one that will be punished for sure.

    (Original post by JayJay-C19)
    It's just basically saying we were all abused.
    And we aren't? Only the one who does not exist cannot suffer. Faitugue, fear, pain and dieing an integral part of life.
    I wrote "dieing" on purpose. Being dead is not bad, while dieing brings you fear and may be painfull.

    (Original post by JayJay-C19)
    It's ridiculous.
    Heraclitus was recognized as ridiculous by his fellomen. This doesn't change the fact that he turned out to be of the most important and clever persons in human history.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PTMalewski)

    You create the one that will be punished for sure.
    What do you mean by this? I sincerely hope you don't mean what I think you mean. If you do, I'm pretty damn offended.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayJay-C19)
    What do you mean by this? I sincerely hope you don't mean what I think you mean. If you do, I'm pretty damn offended.
    I think he's either saying what you think, or that children will face some form of abuse therefore their existence is abuse.

    Stealing from criticisms of the ontological argument (Kant to be precise): "Existence is not a predicate".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It come down to the fact that I am very torn between whether there is a God or not.

    If there's a God, God must reckon 'Each person will find a way for what is best for them or will die in the struggle by disease / disappointment / depression / drugs etc but will then be in my care after death'.

    If there's no God, SOCIETY must reckon - well, absolutely nothing at all. It will just be 6 billion individuals who have biological ties, physical / age / temperamental/ intellectual similarities or differences. None of whom necessarily has to show that they give a damn about anyone or anything that is not within their comfort zone , even if it's to their own detriment. But the free will of adults can be damaging to children for a long time in their life if the child's own free will is not allowed full expression. What survives in life is not necessarily what is most beautiful.
    Children, given the right environment of people, are naturally beautiful. When not given the right environment of people they might not make it alive to adulthood. If disease / accidents / malicious injuries by others on them don't kill them as well.

    So I think - if you don't believe in God, think very carefully about whether it is moral to bring a child who is going to have injuries, aging processes and then eventually die forever in to the world.
    Or, deep down, if you don't believe in God do you even really believe in morality at all? Is a child just your desperate attempt at having a companion- or someone who is dependent on you to make you feel more powerful- or your metaphorical or actual punching bag?

    Thanks for your posts by the way- I think you've responded nicely.

    Always look on the bright side of life! That should be my last word. But remember that it is not only the bright side of your life but it can be the bright side of other people's too.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.