Moral Childfree Girl

Moral Childfree is a movement that stipulates that conceiving a child is immoral because of the amount or nature of suffering that the child would inevitably be subjected to, especially since there is no guarantee that this suffering can be eliminated or ameliorated, and because child's happiness may not outweigh suffering. To me, even if happiness outweighs suffering, so what? When they are enduring suffering, you and the child have no way of determining if the suffering will ever end.

Conceiving a Child is a Sin by P. Srivastana is the best, most noble essay I have come across on this topic. It shows that not all those against procreation believe all the same things. The author is Hindu, therefore he does not accept the argument by some moral childfree thinkers that life is inherently meaningless.

Speaking of life being inherently meaningless, I have deliberately excluded certain moral childfree essays because they amounted to nothing more than whining. For example, the notion that because death exists, life is pointless is so fully and totally logically flawed I wouldn't know where to begin. In fact, obviously, the opposite is true: because death exists, life is made more meaningful. If we lived forever, then we could undoubtedly make (ultimately meaningless) arguments about the futility and boredom of life. Besides, since life has no intrinsic meaning from an atheist standpoint, how lucky we all are that we can make life into whatever we want and establish our own morality.

This all sounds strangely optimistic coming from a moral childfree advocate. But anti-procreation arguments do not necessarily have to sound pessimistic. They simply have to make logical sense.

The logical arguments have already been addressed by other writers and philosophers, both old and new. I will not rehash them here. Instead, I propose that conceiving a female child is particularly immoral.

But why?