Matchaaa
Please excuse any tone misunderstandings,thank you
- Dec 10, 2025
- 263
Another slightly rambling piece of reflection ^ ^
Having children is not merely a personal choice, but a major life decision that carries significant ethical weight and responsibility. No one can guarantee a life that is always stable or consistently experienced as good. In reality, every life trajectory carries the possibility that, at some point, things may fundamentally fall apart—for instance, a person may find life meaningful and beautiful in the first half, only to later feel that it is no longer worth living due to uncontrollable chronic pain, illness, or existential crises.
This possibility turns procreation into a genuine moral gamble. Parents cannot foresee whether their child will encounter such a rupture, yet it is the child who ultimately bears the consequences. In this sense, non-existence is better than existence. Choosing to have children cautiously—or even choosing not to have them at all—is more responsible than blind optimism. To bring a child into the world is, in effect, to stake a new life—along with its capacity for suffering—on an uncertain outcome. No matter how much effort parents put in, unforeseen events will always occur. This is precisely why careful reflection before choosing to have a child is so important.
Each person's adaptability and disposition are fundamentally different. This is why many people believe that "human potential is limitless" and begin to imagine how wonderful their child's future might be—and that hope is understandable. However, what is often overlooked is the other side of this idea: just because parents perceive an environment as acceptable does not mean the new life will experience it the same way. To have a child is, in effect, to choose their country of birth, their upbringing, and even their social position.
If, after growing up, that child finds themselves unable to adapt to this environment—and has no realistic means of leaving—they may begin to contemplate suicide. Yet at that point, parents and society may respond by saying, "How can you be so irresponsible?" This reveals a moral double standard: when deciding to have a child, one is not expected to foresee the factors that will shape that child's life; yet when that life becomes unbearable, the individual is expected to endure suffering indefinitely and bear the burden of that mismatch.
But if that life had never existed, there would be no suicide to begin with. So What right does society have to condemn someone, without reflecting on the quality and trajectory of the life they were given? In procreation, parents are not held accountable for how their child may come to feel about existence; yet in the case of suicide, the child is expected to bear responsibility for the emotional pain their parents would experience. I understand that parents who lose a child suffer deeply. However, there may be more compassionate, non-judgmental ways to express that pain.
More realistically, it is impossible to ensure that no new lives are ever born. But before choosing to have a child, beyond considering one's own happiness and sense of meaning, could we also give more serious thought to the life we are choosing to bring into the world? After all, that future person will possess the same capacity for suffering as we do.
For example: Is the political environment of this country suitable for raising a child? If not, do I have the means to provide access to a better environment? How will the education system shape them? If the values of this society come into deep conflict with theirs in the future, can I give them the freedom to choose a different path? Is there sufficient financial stability? If the relationship breaks down, would I still be able to provide a stable and loving life?
I believe that if people approached procreation not only from self-interest but also with deeper ethical consideration, many forms of suffering could be reduced. At the same time, for those who are already living under adverse conditions, we must ask whether society provides adequate support systems to alleviate their suffering. And if an individual, after careful reflection, ultimately decides to end their life, should we respect their autonomy and allow the process to be peaceful and dignified—rather than forcing them to endure further pain even in their final moments?
After all, many methods of suicide are extremely painful, and we know that enduring such pain is deeply frightening.
Having children is not merely a personal choice, but a major life decision that carries significant ethical weight and responsibility. No one can guarantee a life that is always stable or consistently experienced as good. In reality, every life trajectory carries the possibility that, at some point, things may fundamentally fall apart—for instance, a person may find life meaningful and beautiful in the first half, only to later feel that it is no longer worth living due to uncontrollable chronic pain, illness, or existential crises.
This possibility turns procreation into a genuine moral gamble. Parents cannot foresee whether their child will encounter such a rupture, yet it is the child who ultimately bears the consequences. In this sense, non-existence is better than existence. Choosing to have children cautiously—or even choosing not to have them at all—is more responsible than blind optimism. To bring a child into the world is, in effect, to stake a new life—along with its capacity for suffering—on an uncertain outcome. No matter how much effort parents put in, unforeseen events will always occur. This is precisely why careful reflection before choosing to have a child is so important.
Each person's adaptability and disposition are fundamentally different. This is why many people believe that "human potential is limitless" and begin to imagine how wonderful their child's future might be—and that hope is understandable. However, what is often overlooked is the other side of this idea: just because parents perceive an environment as acceptable does not mean the new life will experience it the same way. To have a child is, in effect, to choose their country of birth, their upbringing, and even their social position.
If, after growing up, that child finds themselves unable to adapt to this environment—and has no realistic means of leaving—they may begin to contemplate suicide. Yet at that point, parents and society may respond by saying, "How can you be so irresponsible?" This reveals a moral double standard: when deciding to have a child, one is not expected to foresee the factors that will shape that child's life; yet when that life becomes unbearable, the individual is expected to endure suffering indefinitely and bear the burden of that mismatch.
But if that life had never existed, there would be no suicide to begin with. So What right does society have to condemn someone, without reflecting on the quality and trajectory of the life they were given? In procreation, parents are not held accountable for how their child may come to feel about existence; yet in the case of suicide, the child is expected to bear responsibility for the emotional pain their parents would experience. I understand that parents who lose a child suffer deeply. However, there may be more compassionate, non-judgmental ways to express that pain.
More realistically, it is impossible to ensure that no new lives are ever born. But before choosing to have a child, beyond considering one's own happiness and sense of meaning, could we also give more serious thought to the life we are choosing to bring into the world? After all, that future person will possess the same capacity for suffering as we do.
For example: Is the political environment of this country suitable for raising a child? If not, do I have the means to provide access to a better environment? How will the education system shape them? If the values of this society come into deep conflict with theirs in the future, can I give them the freedom to choose a different path? Is there sufficient financial stability? If the relationship breaks down, would I still be able to provide a stable and loving life?
I believe that if people approached procreation not only from self-interest but also with deeper ethical consideration, many forms of suffering could be reduced. At the same time, for those who are already living under adverse conditions, we must ask whether society provides adequate support systems to alleviate their suffering. And if an individual, after careful reflection, ultimately decides to end their life, should we respect their autonomy and allow the process to be peaceful and dignified—rather than forcing them to endure further pain even in their final moments?
After all, many methods of suicide are extremely painful, and we know that enduring such pain is deeply frightening.
