I don't think unwanted children should be looked at as the problem, but rather why people don't want their children in the first place.

unwanted children most certainly are the problem. people are going to have sex, that's a given and it will always be a given. it is much cheaper to provide birth control than to support an unwanted child for 18 years.

In Rome, it was not uncommon to abandon or kill unwanted children at birth.

Indeed, I was speaking more about societal norms that strike me as odd or, well, wrong. Parents not wanting their children is, in fact, quite odd, and not something you would imagine someone with a healthy mentality to feel.

There are plenty of rational reasons for not wanting a child. Poverty, age, or instability are just a few off the top of my head.

Poverty, age, and instability are insecurities, and make having a child difficult. That is not the same as someone simply not wanting their child. I'd like to point out that those are problems of society more so than psychology, and there are quite a few people experiencing those specific problems that still enjoy their children.

No money to support a child, being too young to raise a child, and lacking the ability to provide a child with a stable upbringing are all detrimental to a child's development. Whether these are societal problems or personal problems is irrelevant, they are harmful to the child, so all precautions should be taken in preventing a child being born into one of these situations. Providing birth control is an important part of that.

Indeed, but couldn't it be argued that, in terms of the child, not existing is more detrimental?

If something doesn't exist, how can something be to the detriment of that thing?

Why should the interests of the parents and society in general be considered less important than the interests of something that doesn't even exist yet?

Why should something that doesn't exist be considered less important?

Because it doesn't exist. Once something exists you can give it as much moral worth as you want, but an idea of a thing does not have any because it is only an idea. It is not real; it does not exist. Potentiality means nothing in the face of actuality. I ask again: why should something that doesn't exist, no more than an idea of a thing, be considered more important than something that actually exists?

Well, you never really answered my question, you really just restated the conditions I was asking the question upon. Now, of course, my initial point was really what was more detrimental, not who we thought was more important. Regardless, I'm sure there are an infinite multitude of hypothetical situations in which something that does not exist at the time of hypothetical conception is much more important than other, already existing things. I suspect human ego can be attributed to such hasty, existence prioritizing behavior.

[quote]Well, you never really answered my question, you really just restated the conditions I was asking the question upon. [/quote]Considering how you 'answered' my initial question with simply the opposite question, that's a bit rich. [quote]Now, of course, my initial point was really what was more detrimental, not who we thought was more important. Regardless, I'm sure there are an infinite multitude of hypothetical situations in which something that does not exist at the time of hypothetical conception is much more important than other, already existing things. I suspect human ego can be attributed to such hasty, existence prioritizing behavior.[/quote]Oh I'm sure there are but this is a specific circumstance we're discussing, not general principles. Although in fact this discussion has more to do with understanding the concept of something not existing, than assessing the worth of one thing over another. Scenario 1. Bill and Jane live on a low income in the middle of a housing estate in the middle of Manchester. Between them they just about make enough money to pay the rent and have enough left over for essentials like food and loo roll. Scenario 2. Bill, Jane and recently-born Alice live on a low income in a housing estate in the middle of Manchester. In order to look after Alice, Jane has had to leave work and is now living on Child Support Benefits which she gets from the state. It is less than she previously earned, but not significantly so. However now there is an extra mouth to feed and Alice won't eat cheap beans and pot noodles; baby formula is expensive and so are nappies and wipes. As a result of this the household is not capable of adequately supporting itself. Both Jane and Bill sacrifice food and day-to-day essentials for the sake of those of the baby. Which scenario is more detrimental? Before you answer let me make one thing perfectly clear. In scenario 1 there is no child. In the same way, there is no dog, no disabled aunt or intimidating loan-shark. If a potential child is to be considered in assessing scenario 1s worth then so should all the other potentialities. It is nonsensical to talk about how scenario 1 would be detrimental to a child; in scenario 1 there is no child. There is no child's point of view to take, any more than there is a disabled aunt's point of view to take. They are not relevant to the situation; they are only ideas that you have about what could be there in the future. There is no reason to factor in a child unless a child is conceived; unless an actual, physical, dependant clump of cells is produced. A child cannot have an interest if it is just an idea in your mind; that would be an interest which you made up and then put into your idea of a child. Maybe I am making an arbitrary distinction between things that exist and things that don't, but when we're talking about situations that only include things that currently exist, to introduce an idea of something that doesn't exist, but then act as if it does, is to make no sense whatsoever.