Pros And Cons Of Elizabeth Barnes

Elizabeth Barnes argues against L.A. Paul’s claim that the decision of whether or not to have a child is not a rational decision no matter the choice. Paul’s claim is as a result of the transformative nature of such an experience as having a child. Barnes problem is with Paul’s conclusion which is along the lines of, “If you choose to undergo a transformative experience and its outcomes, you choose the experience for the sake of discovery itself. (p. 120)” Barnes disagrees, because such a statement would mean that the choice she and her husband made is not rational because they are rejecting the chance to discover a new experience. Instead, Barnes argues that avoiding having children can be a rational choice based on projected outcomes. Her reason is to avoid a violation of her current desires, preferences, and self. This would be reasonable if the arguments she used to reach this conclusion matched such a reasoning. The claim of violation

Even when a pregnancy is found too late, there is no way for someone to have a child they don’t want to be having without external force. Moreover, it is possible to stop being a parent, even if you’ve had a child for a number of years. All you have to do is give them up, or prove to be a terrible parent. There is no possible way to to have you mauled limb returned or to be removed from a pillaging hivemind. Conversely, it would be within reason to argue that having a child results in a loss of autonomy. There are a recent psychological studies that claim parenthood creates a loss of autonomy. Statistics also show that childfree people are often happier than parents. However in these studies, loss of autonomy is defined as “losing the right to decide what we want to do” (Brogaard). This is something that occurs between equal human beings. Having a child, especially a young one, also requires you to sacrifice many things, but there are two problems with