My argument is in defense of the child (concern for the parents’ well-being can be resolved by the option of placing the child for adoption). It is definitely not moral to decide for others whether their lives are better than their deaths, but in reality everyone does this all the time—simply by bringing children into the world (which I morally oppose). If the social assumption is that bringing children into the world is acceptable, then why is killing them not? In both cases we didn’t ask their opinion. In any case, we do what seems right to us, and parents bring children into the world solely for their own personal benefit (that’s my opinion). If people don’t take this into account beforehand and bring children into the world, why not abort unwanted children?

Here there is already a logical error. The decision to kill a child is harming a being without asking him. The decision to bring him into the world is made when there is no one to ask (it is not a decision about a person, since the person about whom the decision is being made does not exist without it). Therefore there is no basis for comparison.
This parallels what is called in legal theory the question of “wrongful birth” (parents whose child sues them for not having had an abortion when they knew the fetus was very ill). A tort claim is based on comparing two states of the same person, before the harm and after it. If I caused him damage, we must assess the difference between his prior state and his current one, and that difference is the amount of compensation. But in wrongful birth, the claim is that there is no tort cause of action, because the comparison is between a state in which the child did not exist at all (not that had they aborted he would have existed whole and healthy) and a state in which he exists and suffers. That is the same distinction I wrote above regarding abortions.
Beyond that, as I already noted to you above and for some reason you didn’t answer, the same decision could be made regarding a disabled child (for his own good, of course). So why, in your opinion, is it legitimate to do this only regarding a fetus? You care about children less, only about fetuses?! Or are you in favor of murdering children for their own good? It seems to me we are familiar with such an approach (from a little over seventy years ago), and it has not been very popular ever since.

I tried to dodge it, but yes. I would be willing to kill disabled children if I had the authority to do so. (On the level of principle; I also assume I’d be too weak and would give in to emotional motives and make a mistake.)

Both when I sat in that torts class and now, I still can’t understand why the fact that there’s no one to ask is part of the comparison at all. To harm a being without asking him when it would have been possible is immoral, but to bring someone into the world—when that itself is harm—is fine because he still can’t express an opinion about it? Where is the logic in that?

If so, then you really are a consistent Nazi (I’m not saying this to mock you or make you look ridiculous. No connection to Godwin’s law. In my eyes this is a realistic and simple description of your position). No complaints.
Although consistency is not necessarily logic, because the simple logical distinction I explained between bringing into the world and killing, you apparently do not understand.

Finally someone moral and honest who agrees with antinatalism. I’m curious whether you’re religious?

Apparently not.

I consider myself religious, at least part of the religious community, committed to Jewish law, but I believe more or less in “Spinoza’s God.”

Why “apparently”? You can say it’s immoral to have children, and still that God commanded it. Stoning a Sabbath desecrator is also immoral, and God commanded that too.

Against Childbearing,
The position she expressed here was not antinatalism. In any case, that wasn’t her novelty here. Here she supported the systematic killing of fetuses and disabled people even against their will (or at least without their consent). To call that a moral and honest position is roughly like calling Mengele and Eichmann that.

And do you know of an antinatalist community in Israel where people talk about this?

She is antinatalist, and maybe inclined toward efilism; what difference does it make that that isn’t the main novelty?
Godwin’s law. If Eichmann intended to reduce 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 don’t agree with him, his motivation to reduce suffering is moral.

I don’t know of a community; honestly I also don’t personally know anyone else who agrees with me. In any case, I agree with your last comment.

So first of all, I agree with you. I’m also an efilist, if you know what that is.
Maybe we could set up such a community—interested?

Rabbi Michael, if I know with certainty that if I have a child, he will suffer great suffering all his life and not enjoy even one moment, would it be moral to bring him into the world?

Eichmann and Hitler intended to reduce the suffering of the world by cleansing it of Jews, disabled people, and Gypsies. No doubt without Gypsies there would be fewer thefts in the world. Does that make the act moral? In my view, no. I think a rich person suffers because he has too much money and is constantly worried. So I’ll take his money without asking him. Is that moral? In my view, no. The next step is to say that having a lot of money is itself not a good state (even if he isn’t worried), and then take the money. Maybe that too is moral in your eyes? After all, you are making decisions for someone else for his own good. What does it matter if he himself does not agree to them? Paternalism of that kind is not moral.
And in general, anyone who thinks there is any justification for murder—that itself is an immoral position, even if his justification is moral. The fact that there is a moral component in the motivation for an immoral act does not make the act moral. At most, you could argue that Eichmann was coerced if he thought that this was indeed the right way to act. But his decision was clearly immoral.

As for your last question, I’m not sure whether it is moral or not, or just a neutral act. But I would certainly understand someone who decides not to bring him into the world, because he is not harming anyone (at the moment there is no one with respect to whom he is taking this paternalistic step). I explained above the difference between not bringing someone into the world and killing.

This thread really challenges my strong belief in freedom of speech. Here I am closest to deciding to censor a thread, even though censorship runs against everything I believe in. If my platform is being used to create a gang that supports an ideology of murder, that seems to me like a good ground for censorship. Further consideration is required.

I laughed out loud. I’m against absolute freedom of speech, probably because of people like me. In any case, I’m also against setting up a community and don’t understand the need.

Forget the killing; I’m talking about bringing into the world. You only “understand him”?! Don’t you think that a person who knows that if he has a child, then with certainty in the first second after he comes out into the air of the world he will fall into a blazing fire that will burn him in infernal agony—is a cruel and wicked 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 to the Jews as possible? A person who cares about suffering, and wants to reduce it, and is forced to kill a venomous snake, won’t first gouge out its right eye, then its left eye, and then cut it slowly and cruelly; he will do it with as little suffering as possible. If the Nazis had empathy for the suffering of living creatures, they wouldn’t have been so cruel to the Jews; they would simply have murdered them as quickly as possible, and not kept them in those conditions. Apparently the feeling that they were preventing the suffering of the world was only false consciousness, and their motives were simply racism and so on. Maybe they only cared about the suffering of their own people, and then again we are no longer dealing with a moral outlook but a utilitarian one.
By the way, I do not support murdering a person against his will. Don’t let me challenge your openness.
The community is meant to persuade people not to bring children into the world.

And one last thing (a genuine moral consultation with the honored Rabbi): my yard is swarming with insects, ants, and all kinds of pests, and every few days I happen to see an insect writhing after apparently one of the neighbors stepped on it. Usually I step on the insect to end its suffering; I simply can’t bear to see it writhing smeared on the ground. Am I doing the right thing, or is it wrong to kill it?

The Rabbi wrote here that he is against censorship. Has the Rabbi elaborated on this somewhere? Is there some post on the topic? If not—I’m inviting one…

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 proper to kill it for no reason, on account of harming a creature that was created. But its life has no value, and if you are sparing 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 one should make decisions on its behalf.

Too bad the parents of the questioner and the commenter didn’t agree with them; that way they could have spared us their punishment.

Shame on you—why are you talking like that? You can disagree with their opinion, but to regret their existence because you disagree with their view is despicable.

H,
I wouldn’t have written it that way, but we’re not talking about people who merely disagree with his opinion, but about support for murder. Beyond that, maybe there is also an ironic statement here meant to illustrate for them the consequences of their approach (what will happen if each of us decides whether the other has a right to exist).

Y. D., I suggest you also not bring children into the world, lest they become corrupted, heaven forbid.
Against Childbearing, I have a few questions. Send me an email privately, so we don’t disturb everyone else. eleanor.roh@gmail.com

Happy holiday

Hjd,
“The same way, blunt his teeth,” says the Haggadah. From her angry response one can understand that I was right.

Y. G.,
Even if a heavenly voice were to come forth and say that they would turn out wicked, I would still bring them into the world and love them and rejoice in them and share the inheritance with them. Just like the Holy One, blessed be He, who despite knowing that Israel would sin in the Land of Israel, still brought them into the Land of Israel and only gave Moses the Song of Ha’azinu so that it would be a witness for them forever (I heard this from Rabbi Sherlo).