Abortions

My argument is for the protection of the child (the concern for the parents' well-being should be summarized in the option of giving them up for adoption). It is certainly immoral to determine for others whether their life is better than death, but everyone does it in reality all the time - in fact, bringing children into the world (which I oppose morally). If the social assumption is that bringing children is kosher, then why not kill them? After all, neither here nor here did we ask for their opinion. In any case, we do what we see fit, and parents bring children for their own personal benefit only (this is my opinion). If we don't think ahead and bring children, why not abort unwanted children?

There is already a logical error here. The decision to kill a child is an injury to a creature without asking it. The decision to bring it into the world is made when there is no one to ask (this is not a decision regarding a person, since the person regarding whom the decision is made does not exist at all without it). Therefore, there is no room for comparison.
This is parallel to what is known in the legal world as the question of “wrongful procreation” (parents whose child sues them for not having an abortion when they knew that the fetus was very sick), a tortious cause based on a comparison between two states of that person, before and after the injury. If I caused him harm, we must establish the difference between his previous and current state, and the difference is the amount of the damages. But in wrongful procreation, the argument is that there is no tortious cause, because the comparison is made between a state in which the child does not exist at all (and not that if they had had an abortion, he would have existed in a complete and healthy state) and a state in which he exists and suffers. This is the same distinction I wrote about above regarding abortions.
Beyond that, as I already pointed out to you above and for some reason you didn't answer, the same decision can be made regarding a disabled child (for his benefit, of course). So why do you think it's legitimate to do this only regarding a fetus? Don't you care about children, only fetuses?! Or are you in favor of killing children for their benefit? I think we know such an approach (a little over seventy years ago), and it's not very popular to this day.

I tried to avoid it, but yes. I would be willing to kill disabled children if I had the authority to do so. (On a principle level, I also assume that I was too weak and gave in to emotional motives and made a mistake)

Even when I was sitting in that class on torts and even now I can't understand why the fact that I have no one to ask is part of the equation at all. Harming a creature without asking it when it was possible is immoral, but bringing someone into the world – when it is harming itself– is okay because he can't express an opinion about it yet? Where is the logic?

If so, then you are truly a consistent Nazi (I'm not saying this to disparage you or to mock you. Nothing to do with Godwin's Law. In my opinion, this is a realistic and simple description of your position). No complaints.
Although consistency is not necessarily logic, because you probably don't understand the simple logical division I explained between coming into the world and dying.

Finally someone moral and honest who agrees with anti-natalism. I wonder if you are religious?

Probably not.

I consider myself religious, at least part of the religious community, committed to halakha, but I believe in the 'God of Spinoza' more or less.

Why, apparently? One could say that it is immoral to have children, and yet God commanded it. Also, stoning someone who violates the Sabbath is immoral and God commanded it.

Against childbirth,
The position she expressed here was not anti-natalism. In any case, that was not her innovation here. Here she advocated the systematic killing of fetuses and disabled people even against their will (or at least without their consent). To call this a moral and upright position – is about the same as calling Mengele and Eichmann that.

And do you know of an anti-natalist community in Israel that talks about this?

It is anti-natalist, and perhaps inclined to evil, which is not the main point of the innovation
Godwin's Law. If Eichmann intended to minimize the suffering of disabled people by killing them, and not because he thought they were inferior, then in my opinion his intention was excellent. Even if you disagree with him, his motivation to minimize suffering is moral.

I don't know a community, I don't know the truth personally. Anyone else who agrees with me? I agree with your last comment.

So first of all I agree with you. I'm also an epileptic if you know what that is.
Maybe it's possible to establish such a community, on this subject?

To Rabbi Michael, if I know for sure that if I give birth to a child, he will suffer great suffering his entire life and not enjoy even a single moment, would it be moral to give birth to him?

Eichmann and Hitler intended to reduce the suffering of the world by cleansing it of Jews, the disabled, and Gypsies. There is no doubt that without Gypsies there would be less theft in the world. Does that make the act moral? In my opinion, it doesn't. I think a rich person suffers because he has too much money and is constantly worried. Therefore, I will take his money without asking him. Is that moral? In my opinion, it doesn't. The next step is to say that having a lot of money is not a good thing in itself (even if he is not worried), and then take the money. Maybe that is moral in your opinion too? After all, you are making decisions for someone in their own best interest. What does it matter if they themselves do not agree with them? This kind of paternalism is immoral.
And in general, anyone who thinks that there is some reason that justifies murder is itself an immoral position, even if their reason is moral. The fact that there is a moral component in the motivation for an immoral act does not make the act a moral act. At most, you could argue that Eichmann was a coward if he thought it was the right thing to do. But his decision was clearly immoral.

As for your last question, I'm not sure if it's moral or not, or just a neutral act. But I would certainly understand someone who decides not to give birth to him, because he's not harming anyone (there's currently no one he's taking this paternalistic step towards). I explained above the difference between not giving birth to a child and stillbirth.

This thread really challenges my strong belief in free speech. This is the closest I've come to a decision to censor a thread, even though censorship goes against everything I believe in. If my platform is being used to create a gang that advocates a murderous ideology, that seems like a good reason to censor. And so on.

I laughed out loud. I'm against absolute freedom of expression, probably because of people like me. And I'm also against establishing a community and don't understand the need for it.

Forget about the killing, I'm talking about giving birth. You just "understand him"?! Don't you think that a person who knows that if a child is born to him, for sure the first second he comes into the world he will fall into a blazing fire that will burn him in hellish agony, is a cruel and evil person of the highest order?

And if you think the Nazis acted to prevent suffering in the world, why didn't they do it with as little suffering for the Jews as possible? A person who cares about suffering, and wants to reduce it and is forced to kill a venomous snake, wouldn't first gouge out its right eye, then its left eye, and then slowly and cruelly cut it out, he would do it with as little suffering as possible. If the Nazis had empathy for the suffering of living beings, they wouldn't be so cruel to the Jews, but would simply murder them as quickly as possible, and not keep them in those conditions. Apparently the feeling that they were preventing suffering in the world was just a false consciousness, and the motives were simply racism and so on. Maybe they only cared about the suffering of their own people, and again, this is no longer a moral concept, but a utilitarian one.
By the way, I don't support the murder of a person against their will. Don't challenge your openness.
The community is designed to convince people not to have children.

And one last thing (a real moral consultation with the Rabbi): My yard is infested with insects, ants, and all sorts of nasty vermin, and every few days I happen to see an insect fluttering after apparently one of the neighbors stepped on it. Usually I step on the insect to end its suffering, I simply can't stand to see it fluttering and sprawling on the floor. Am I doing the right thing, or is it wrong to kill it?

The rabbi wrote here that he is against censorship. Did the rabbi expand on this somewhere? Is there a post on the subject? If not – I invite …

See column 6

And what about my question?

In my opinion, you are doing the right thing, for two reasons: 1. An insect's life has no value. It is forbidden to cause it suffering and it is not right to kill it simply because it harms a created being. But its life has no value and if you spare it suffering, it is right to kill it. 2. There is no one to ask (because an insect does not make decisions), and therefore here it is asked to make decisions for it.

It's a shame that the parents of the questioner and the respondent didn't agree with them and thus would have exempted us from their punishment.

Shame on you, why do you talk like that? You can disagree with their opinions, but to regret their existence out of disagreement with their opinions is despicable.

H
I wouldn't write it that way, but it's not about those who disagree with him, but about supporting murder. Beyond that, Olymish is making an ironic statement here to illustrate to them the results of their approach (what would happen if each of us decided whether the other had a right to exist).

Y.D., I suggest you not have children, lest they spoil your health.
Against childbirth, I have a few questions. Send me an email, so that we don't disturb everyone else. eleanor.roh@gmail.com

Happy Holidays

Hjd,
“You also blunted their teeth” says the Haggadah. From her angry response, one can understand that I was right.

Y.G.
Even if a voice comes out that they turned out to be wicked, I will still bring them into the world and love them and rejoice in them and share their inheritance. Like the Almighty who, although He knew that Israel would sin in the Land of Israel, still brought them into the Land of Israel and only gave Moses the song of the Hearken so that it would be with them forever (I heard from Rabbi Charlo).