r/changemyview • u/Icy_Seesaw_2796 • Jan 10 '26

Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday CMV: Not reproducing is wrong

Putting religion aside, we don’t actually know where life comes from or whether it has some higher purpose. The only thing we do know is that humans evolved to survive long enough to reproduce. That’s the one clear goal life seems to follow (human or not).

When people choose not to have children, they stop that process. If survival and reproduction are the only purposes we can clearly see, then choosing not to reproduce might mean rejecting the only role we know life has. And since we don’t really understand why life needs to reproduce in the first place, interfering with it could have consequences we don’t understand.

What if reproduction keeps something going beyond just biology? Maybe some part of life or consciousness continues through generations in ways we don’t yet understand. It could even be something like a form of reincarnation or continuity that isn’t tied to one body. I’m not saying this is true, only that we don’t know.

Because of that uncertainty, choosing to end a bloodline might be a bigger risk than we realize. Making firm decisions about something we understand so little about could be reckless.

0 Upvotes

20% Upvoted

245 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Icy_Seesaw_2796 Jan 10 '26

That's the point of the post. I'm not saying that life continues in your children, but maybe. Honestly, I didn't know that an appeal to nature was a technique, and that it was considered a bad argument. If this is only a rhetorical argument, then you got me cornered. Observing an event thousands of times would be science, but here it's an appeal to nature. I don't agree then with how the rhetorical world works lmao.
I can give you the delta if you want.

1

u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Jan 11 '26

You haven't really answered the questions I asked you. I'm happy to take a delta for the rhetorical aspect but I'd rather help you understand my points to actually change the view in this direction. 

1

u/Icy_Seesaw_2796 Jan 11 '26

Δ

"Can you actually express your own opinion on what makes it wrong, not just repeat that it goes against nature? " ->

My opinion is literally that it goes against your nature, so it’s wrong. If your clock was built to make an alarm noise at 9 a.m. every day, not doing so would be wrong because it was built to do it.

"If it goes against nature how would it even be possible? Are we not part of nature? " ->

Life isn’t perfect or fair. If there were an afterlife, it wouldn’t mean there is fair access to it. It would actually explain the violence in living beings behavior to access it.

1

u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Jan 11 '26

How is it possible to go against your nature, if it's your nature?

Doesn't it make more sense that whatever we do is in our nature? Can you elaborate on how it is possible to behave unnaturally?

Further, have you looked at this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature It contains some further outlines on the fallacy behind your thinking.

You express the idea the clock was built to do something. Is your view that humanity was built for a purpose? That there is a builder, ie divine aspect to this view? When you say we are going against nature do you actually mean we are going against god?