Complete misunderstanding. Sorry I made you miss my point. I don't have the guilt you are talking about.
Ok, so why are you drawing up these scenarios? Why even bring it up as a reason why not to bring another human into existence? My understanding is that you're trying to avoid the suffering that may be placed upon a human because they will be thrust into one of these scenarios you're talking about.
Where did I say that the life's worth in the hedonistic values?
I'm not saying you did. I'm asking. The reason is that you mention that there are moments where existence is worthwhile and pleasurable. So what is it about these moments that make it so?
Who knows that better parents or society?
You're kind of getting to the heart of the matter here. Who should make laws that go to the heart of ethical issues? It could be said US society condemns hitting a child as punishment. You can get in trouble for that. But who knows better? Parents or society how to discipline a child? It's really about individuals who have a strong sense of ethics and then go on to make the laws.
I don't make one rule for all. You are actually making it. I am just saying that each parent has a right to decide, not society making a law.
Ok, point taken about making the one rule. But why should abortion be this one thing that parents should have a right to but society can't deny it? And you use the word parents, but does that include the father as having a right to stop an abortion or to initiate one? What about having a law that says parents have a right to a choice to whip their children? What exactly is it about abortion that there should
be a choice?
I don't know exactly what you meant here, but if you say that child can be killed after the birth, I consider it wrong.
I meant that if a child is born into suffering, others can help if the mother can't. As far as the birth thing, there are laws right now that if you are a robber and you kill a mother and her 4 month fetus in the course of a robbery, you will be charged with two murders. Do you agree with this? Shouldn't the charge be a civil one like "taking away the right to choose"?