[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Simply put:

1)Procreation is a selfish act. (Let’s leave out whether selfishness is moral or not – that seems to be mudding the waters here.)

2)You cannot give the gift of life. To give there must be a receiver. You cannot gift to a non entity.

3)It is absurd to ask someone whether they would rather be alive or to never have lived

Is there any valid reason to procreate?

Basically my point is I don’t see how choosing it a makes logical sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes the valid reason is people want kids. You need to demonstrate that that desire (or following through on it) is immoral.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he recanted the immoral part.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then there's no difference between having them or not, its as easy (or difficult) to justify having them as not having them and neither is more selfless.

Can we justify dipping toast in our soft boiled eggs or should the eggs be put on the toast.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Or course the eggs should be put on the toast and eaten with a fork. Is this a trick question?

Now fried eggs require dipping.

[/ QUOTE ]
At Le Gavroche Restaurant (one of the finest in the world) I had boiled eggs with toast soldiers, dipping for the use of.

Kids not allowed [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Dang, I'm wrong again. (But, should we really use the French as our metric? They did get the no kids part right, though.)



[/ QUOTE ]
ooh yes when it comes to food. French, Italian, Chinese, Anglo-Indian and Thai is just about everything.

but if the Great Chef (Albert Roux) hadn't had a kid to take over then I wouldn't have had the eggs and soldiers and ... damn must be something profound here.

chez