Why are "refugees" still having children?

[laughing dog]

Ah, an observation about the non-birth of people in general, made by pointing out the non-birth of "these judgmental posters". Got it.

Wrong again.

The prevalence of discrimination everywhere we look means that the argument that people shouldn't discriminate is an argument against observed human nature. And yet you argue against discrimination.

Wrong again. Your conclusion is based on a false premise (the prevalence of discrimination everywhere we look).

Most people when they find themselves in an unwanted hole, stop digging. You are an exception to that common sense observation.

 

[Derec]

Should all refugees be treated poorly because of the people in the photo you post here?

Refugeescertainly should not be let in by the millions without vetting. And the invaders at Idomeni certainly should not be rewarded for their violent behavior. That means they all (i.e. those who have refuse to leave Idomeni) should be deported back to Syria. If they want to fight, there is plenty of fighting to do there.

It's almost like watching The Walking Dead!

- - - Updated - - -

Not having any metadata provided with the photo, how do we even know who, where and what it depicts and whether or not the people in the photo are comdemnable or have been condemned?

Those people are violent migrants who want to breach the border into Macedonia in their quest to Invade Germany.

The text overlay and context of you posting it seems to imply that those are representative of refugees in general. Why should we assume that?

They are certainly representatives of the migrants camped out at Idomeni who refuse to go to official shelters because they do not abut the border they want to cross illegally.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Sorry this took a while -- tax prep intervened.

No, it's a choice that, history shows, has wound up being profitable in the long run. Not always, and not every time, but various reasons it is common enough as a survival strategy that its successes tend to outnumber its failures.

What's your basis for that inference?

The fact that human beings were able to produce and support viable offspring for 500,000 years before the invention of electricity, indoor plumbing, synthetic clothing, prenatal vitamins or antibiotics. We exist as a species because slightly more of our distant ancestors survived infancy than were killed by predators and/or exposure to the elements.

In more contemporary times, the population growth rates of poorer countries has almost always exceeded that of wealthier ones. There are a lot of reasons for this, most obviously the lack of availability of sex education and birth control, but the elephant in the room is that for a country with a higher infant mortality rate and a shorter life expectancy, it is simply more important to replace children/family members who die of accidents or natural causes than it is in countries with better outcomes and longevity.

In both situations, the solution serves the same purpose: If the odds of survival are lower, then you can beat the odds by having more babies. From an evolutionary standpoint, this is precisely the reason why some species (rabbits, for example) breed as fast as they do: because LOTS of things are trying to eat them and they can't keep their numbers up otherwise. From a sociological standpoint, it's much the same: your family needs the manpower and is more likely to experience losses, so you make some new family members to keep your numbers up.

According the the OP link, Sulaf has five children. If people applying her "survival strategy" average 2.4 children growing up to reproductive age and 2.6 dying in childhood, that will be enough to make it a choice that history will show being common enough to cause the cultures that embrace it to grow and spread and win in the evolutionary struggle for survival among cultures. But its failures will still tend to outnumber its successes.

Well, no, in this case "one of the babies died" doesn't count as a failure. Quite the opposite in fact; suppose you live in a place that has a 90% infant mortality rate (say, the middle of the Zombie Apocalypse or on a planet infested with xenomorphs). You give birth to ten children; nine of them are eaten by zombies and/or aliens. The one that survives is one more child than you would have had otherwise: success. If, on the other hand, you wait for the zombie apocalypse to end or you wait until you're sure you can gaurantee more reliable shelter for the next 2 years, your chances of conceiving a child while still fertile (or for that matter, still ALIVE) are much smaller, as are your chances of beating the statistically high mortality rate.

IOW: "good planning" isn't actually a reliable strategy for producing children in a chaotic environment. In a calm and stable environment you can afford to take your time and call your shots; when things get chaotic and unpredictable, it's "spray and pray." It sucks to think about the fact that each failed attempt is a human life ended prematurely, but on the balance of things this means a poor person is more likely to maintain his or her family by out-breeding whatever it is that's killing them.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Why on earth do people keep making that argument, after it has already been refuted upthread?

Because it hasn't been refuted. Human beings have been reproducing under unstable circumstances for hundreds of thousands of years. The continued existence of black people in America is proof enough that the ever-present threat of having ones children sold away, or of being murdered on a master's whim, or of being tortured, abused or accidentally killed by neglect, were not enough to stop slaves from marrying and attempting to raise families.

The circumstance that a person has benefited from a wrongdoing, or even only exists in the first place because of the wrongdoing, does not retroactively cause the wrongdoing to have been right.

Implying that having children in unstable circumstances actually counts as "wrongdoing" because of the immense risk of those children suffering pain or deprivation or even death. That's a very puzzling implication, considering what billby and LD have elegantly pointed out: NO parent in history has EVER been able guarantee a life of total health and comfort for children who have not yet even been born. Most of us couldn't even guarantee their happiness AFTER they were born. Parents do the best they can with the resources they have and obtain the best outcome they can manage.

You do not wait for conditions to be perfect before having a child, because for the majority of the human race, conditions will NEVER be perfect. It's exactly the other way around: when you are about to have a child, you bust your ass to make your living conditions accommodate him and you get things as close to perfect as you can humanly manage.

You do not exist because somebody had an excellent plan, and neither does LP. You exist because two people had sex and at least one of them did all the neccesary things for a long enough period of time to keep you from dying. Poor people are just as capable of doing that as rich people, and their having accomplished this literally BILLIONS of times is the all the refutation we need of yours and LPs laughable claims.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Why on earth do people keep making that argument, after it has already been refuted upthread?

Because they do not realize it's already been refuted.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

laughing dog,

You seem to misunderstand some of Bomb#20's points.
For example, you say:

I strongly suspect that if the standard that pregnancy should only be carried to term in the case where the parents know they will be to properly care for child had been practiced then a number of these judgmental posters would not have been born.

In the context of B20's points, a reply to that would be:

I strongly suspect that if the standard that rape for fun or for the sake of power (e.g., in village raids, etc.) should never be carried out had been always practiced, then none of the posters here would ever have been born.​

However, that does not suggest that the standard in question is not a correct one in the rape case. Why would in the other case?

The fact is that if the standard that pregnancy should only be carried to term in the case where the parents know they will be to properly care for child had (always) been practiced, then none of the posters in this thread would ever had been born, but similarly, if the standard that rape for fun or for the sake of power (e.g., in village raids, etc.) should never be carried out had been always practiced, then none of the posters in this thread would ever had been born.

The point of the parallels is to illustrate by example that the fact that if person A had not engaged in behavior X, we would not had been born, does not provide good reasons to believe that behavior X was not immoral behavior.

 

[laughing dog]

laughing dog,

You seem to misunderstand some of Bomb#20's points.
For example, you say:

I strongly suspect that if the standard that pregnancy should only be carried to term in the case where the parents know they will be to properly care for child had been practiced then a number of these judgmental posters would not have been born.

In the context of B20's points, a reply to that would be:
<indent>
I strongly suspect that if the standard that rape for fun or for the sake of power (e.g., in village raids, etc.) should never be carried out had been always practiced, then none of the posters here would ever have been born. </indent>
However, that does not suggest that the standard in question is not a correct one in the rape case. Why would in the other case?

The fact is that if the standard that pregnancy should only be carried to term in the case where the parents know they will be to properly care for child had (always) been practiced, then none of the posters in this thread would ever had been born, but similarly, if the standard that rape for fun or for the sake of power (e.g., in village raids, etc.) should never be carried out had been always practiced, then none of the posters in this thread would ever had been born.

The point of the parallels is to illustrate by example that the fact that if person A had not engaged in behavior X, we would not had been born, does not provide good reasons to believe that behavior X was not immoral behavior.

What Bomb#20 is saying (among other things) is that sure, if the standard that pregnancy should only be carried to term in the case where the parents know they will be to properly care for child had been practiced, he and others would not have been born (neither would you, but that's also irrelevant), but that does not provide a good reason to think that the standard is false.

I understood it, I just think it is not relevant to what I wrote. My point was that the standard is unrealistic given human nature. Moreover it is irrelevant to the OP question of why are refugees having children.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

laughing dog,

You seem to misunderstand some of Bomb#20's points.
For example, you say:



In the context of B20's points, a reply to that would be:
<indent>
I strongly suspect that if the standard that rape for fun or for the sake of power (e.g., in village raids, etc.) should never be carried out had been always practiced, then none of the posters here would ever have been born. </indent>
However, that does not suggest that the standard in question is not a correct one in the rape case. Why would in the other case?

The fact is that if the standard that pregnancy should only be carried to term in the case where the parents know they will be to properly care for child had (always) been practiced, then none of the posters in this thread would ever had been born, but similarly, if the standard that rape for fun or for the sake of power (e.g., in village raids, etc.) should never be carried out had been always practiced, then none of the posters in this thread would ever had been born.

The point of the parallels is to illustrate by example that the fact that if person A had not engaged in behavior X, we would not had been born, does not provide good reasons to believe that behavior X was not immoral behavior.

What Bomb#20 is saying (among other things) is that sure, if the standard that pregnancy should only be carried to term in the case where the parents know they will be to properly care for child had been practiced, he and others would not have been born (neither would you, but that's also irrelevant), but that does not provide a good reason to think that the standard is false.

I understood it, I just think it is not relevant to what I wrote. My point was that the standard is unrealistic given human nature. Moreover it is irrelevant to the OP question of why are refugees having children.

Do you mean that:

1. The standard is unrealistic in the sense that it's very improbable that (most? many? all?) people will apply it, given human nature.
2. The standard unrealistic as in "very probably false", given human nature?
3. Other.


P.S: Actually, the standard you mentioned was your wording; Bomb#20 said "There's a widespread feeling it's unethical to do things that make you temporarily happy but that impose a substantial risk of a permanently unhappy life on a non-volunteering third party." The question is whether that widespread belief is true (though B20 didn't specifically endorse it), and it's relevant to the matters under discussion because that's the basis for the criticism of the parents' actions leveled by several posters.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Angra, have you read the entire thread?

It starts with a question, a why question and contains a lot of judgment, not very well organized into a point. Many posters here have responded in answer to the why question. Others have legitimately answered the hateful judgments which are quite common for the op author.

If indeed you have read the whole thread, did you notice this:

Brilliant idea. Have a baby even though the future is uncertain.

The future is always uncertain. There is always risk. Risk comes in different degrees but remains a prediction. This includes predicting that better times are coming which would be the case in context for refugees. It includes predicting that worse times are coming. How accurate do you suppose predictions are? What does the risk have to be to say yes or no? I'd think that there is a lot of risk to have a child in Israel as compared to the US because the probability of being bombed might be higher. It's probably worse in the Gaza strip because in addition to army attacks, there's also poorer economic conditions and no recognition of a nation which blocks certain other benefits from certain other countries. Worse still is probably the conditions described by the op. And on-par with that, the Great Depression.

* Note that here I am defining risk as it is typically defined in risk assessment: probability * severity of outcome. And I am considering infant mortality. Risk doesn't have to be defined specifically and/or only considering infant mortality but it is useful to consider.

Did you also notice this?

You say "when there is uncertainty" as though that were a binary variable. Nobody here has ludicrously claimed one ought not to have kids when there is uncertainty.

Yet angelo did actually say that. Bomb#20 of course continues with his own opinion about a continuum but of course I was never the one saying there is no continuum. That is part of the crux of the issue which this side has recognized since the beginning but the other side has been engaging in finger-pointing at refugees.

The fact is that if the standard ...

Why is that a standard, who standardized it? Is that really the context of this thread or is it specifically to point to "refugees" and ask "why?"

...that pregnancy should only be carried to term...

Why "to term" as opposed to earlier, as in "...that pregnancy should only be carried to X in the case where..."? Is it because setting a specific threshold as to what X is, is problematic? If so, welcome to the thread. If not, then why?

...in the case where the parents know they will be to properly care for child had (always) been practiced...

One person living in one location and time will define "properly" differently than some other person in some other location and time. Who gets to define "properly" and why? Is "properly" really binary or does it involve different levels of risk and cost-benefit? For example, in a zombie apocalypse, if one values the human species, the creation of babies is very important.

..., then none of the posters in this thread would ever had been born, ...

Do you value the human species? Do people have other variants of the same value, such as valuing their own offspring or valuing relatives or valuing like people (ingroup)? or even valuing rational people?

...but similarly, if the standard that rape for fun or for the sake of power (e.g., in village raids, etc.) should never be carried out had been always practiced, then none of the posters in this thread would ever had been born.

Should people value their own existence to care or ought they value the human species more, which would exist regardless of whether rape has? same for families? same for human genes?

 

[Derec]

Fruits of Islamization of Europe

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Angra referencing Bomb#20's quote:

... There's a widespread feeling it's unethical to do things that make you temporarily happy but that impose a substantial risk of a permanently unhappy life on a non-volunteering third party. ...

I was very poor when I was a kid. I was probably also lucky to be able to get out of poverty. How lucky maybe is harder to say. In any case, it wasn't the kinds of conditions we are discussing (like being homeless and/or having no food) that made me unhappy in most cases. I was often happy in my childhood. I had fun fantasy places to go to in my mind. While I did sometimes have hunger pains, it taught me strength. My most unhappy times were only indirectly related to the conditions of my childhood. That had mostly to do with how other people treated me, not exactly my economic conditions.

In any case, here's the world's happiness report by country, averages of course:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

There's 157 countries in the list. The happiest country is Denmark. The least happy is Burundi. The highest country happiness measure is 7.526. and the lowest happiness measure is 2.905. Would you say that generally speaking people in Burundi should not have children because they "impose a substantial risk of a permanently unhappy life on a non-volunteering third party?" Where would be the line for you where most of such citizens of said country should not have children, but the country just above in the happiness index can mostly have children because on average they do not pose a substantial risk to an unhappy life? Would it be Kenya? Kenya is #122 on the list. Kenya has a 4.356 index.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't know if I will get answers any time soon or if all of the questions are unanswerable. Some thresholds may be a bit arbitrary but we might still be able to compare relative environments as better or worse for children. And that brings me to...

Syria. Syria is ranked #156 out of 157 in the happiness index. Most of the refugees are coming from there.

From Wikipedia:

Since 2014, refugees from Syria, but also from Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries of the Middle East began to flock to Idomeni in order to pass the Greek borders and enter the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). Both the latter and Serbia to the north are out of the Schengen Area, which is why the refugees prefer this way to reach countries such as Germany and Sweden, so entering again the Schengen Area from Serbia; in case of arrest, they will be sent back to Croatia or Hungary (closer to their desired immigration destinations, especially Germany), and not to Greece, which is further south. In 2015, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia decided to guard its borders by military forces in order to prevent the refugees by entering the country, as Serbia also closed its borders. Thus Idomeni became a vast camp, where many refugees entering Greece abut. The number of refugees that stay in Idomeni are more than 15,000​

The preferred destinations are Germany and Sweden. Germany has a happiness ranking of 16 and Sweden is #10. Both of these locations are more than double the happiness factor of Syria, whatever that might mean. One can see why the refugees would want to flee Syria to go to other places for sake of themselves and their progeny.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you mean that:

1. The standard is unrealistic in the sense that it's very improbable that (most? many? all?) people will apply it, given human nature.
2. The standard unrealistic as in "very probably false", given human nature?
3. Other.

#1

P.S: Actually, the standard you mentioned was your wording; Bomb#20 said "There's a widespread feeling it's unethical to do things that make you temporarily happy but that impose a substantial risk of a permanently unhappy life on a non-volunteering third party." The question is whether that widespread belief is true (though B20 didn't specifically endorse it), and it's relevant to the matters under discussion because that's the basis for the criticism of the parents' actions leveled by several posters.

The criticism of the parents actions are irrelevant as to the question of "why" they act they way they do (the OP). So, the question is irrelevant.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Angra, have you read the entire thread?

Yes.

It starts with a question, a why question and contains a lot of judgment, not very well organized into a point. Many posters here have responded in answer to the why question. Others have legitimately answered the hateful judgments which are quite common for the op author.

The question seems rethorical to me, or at most asking for a moral justification, or for attempts at a moral justification; it's not a question about causes, in my view.

It's in the title only; the OP is about morally condemning some people for having children in a certain dangerous environment.

As for dismal's behavior, I wasn't commenting on that, and I'd rather not comment on that.

The future is always uncertain. There is always risk. Risk comes in different degrees but remains a prediction.

Sure, but that's not relevant to the comments I made. Sure, angelo made a bad argument, but that's not relevant to my point.
I was commenting one of Bomb#20's argument, and I would rather not engage all of the other arguments you're bringing about, both because it takes a lot of time, and because I don't think it would be good for me to do it (too much hostility in the thread, as usual).

How accurate do you suppose predictions are? What does the risk have to be to say yes or no? I'd think that there is a lot of risk to have a child in Israel as compared to the US because the probability of being bombed might be higher. It's probably worse in the Gaza strip because in addition to army attacks, there's also poorer economic conditions and no recognition of a nation which blocks certain other benefits from certain other countries. Worse still is probably the conditions described by the op. And on-par with that, the Great Depression.

* Note that here I am defining risk as it is typically defined in risk assessment: probability * severity of outcome. And I am considering infant mortality. Risk doesn't have to be defined specifically and/or only considering infant mortality but it is useful to consider.

I don't think introducing a definition of "risk" is useful, because other people are using it coloquially (i.e., in the usual sense of the words), and there is the risk that people end up talking past each other.
It's immoral to behave in a way that likely will result in pregnancy in some circumstances, and it's not immoral in other circumstances.
It's immoral to behave in a way that not likely but still might (i.e., not remote chances) result in pregnancy in some circumstances, and it's not immoral in other circumstances.
Relevant questions here are when that is so. And clearly there is a moral disagreement.

Why is that a standard, who standardized it? Is that really the context of this thread or is it specifically to point to "refugees" and ask "why?"

That's a puzzling question, but I guess it would be laughing dog if someone standardized it, since he said it was a standard, and actually that is his wording.
As I said in my reply to laughing dog, Bomb#20 said "There's a widespread feeling it's unethical to do things that make you temporarily happy but that impose a substantial risk of a permanently unhappy life on a non-volunteering third party." The question (a question, but key in this context) is whether that widespread belief is true (though B20 didn't specifically endorse it), and it's relevant to the matters under discussion because that's the basis for the criticism of the parents' actions leveled by several posters.

It's still puzzling that you ask me that, but let's tabboo the word "standard" (after all, that's irrelevant to the point I was making).
The question still is whether it's true that it's unethical to do things that make you temporarily happy but that impose a substantial risk of a permanently unhappy life on a non-volunteering third party, and moreover, how much risk counts as "substantial" in which situations.

Why "to term" as opposed to earlier, as in "...that pregnancy should only be carried to X in the case where..."? Is it because setting a specific threshold as to what X is, is problematic? If so, welcome to the thread. If not, then why?

I don't know. That's laughing dog's choice of words.

One person living in one location and time will define "properly" differently than some other person in some other location and time. Who gets to define "properly" and why? Is "properly" really binary or does it involve different levels of risk and cost-benefit?

I would suggest you raise that point to laughing dog, not to me. I was only replying to his point.
But my position is that they disagree about what's proper, but that does not mean that they mean different things.

For example, in a zombie apocalypse, if one values the human species, the creation of babies is very important.

It depends on the zombie apocalypse, but if you're talking about Glenn and Maggie, of course that was immoral, because:
1. If they manage to bring a child into that horrific world, that's wrong, even if that's to minuscully contribute to the continuation of the human species.
2. If Maggie miscarries after some basic brain function develops, she will die in a horrific manner, with a walker/crawler trying to eat her from the inside. For that reason alone, Glenn should never have tried.
3. Who made the walkers in the first place?
Surely, they did not evolve. They have a very complex physiology that came out of nowhere (yes, their world works differently, else there wouldn't be walkers. But evolution still happens, apparently). They are a biological weapon (or else, they should reckon they are).
If it was a rogue AI going Skynet on humanity (but using bioweapons instead of nukes), it's over. It will finish everyone off when it chooses to (unless it chooses not to, but that seems improbable given its attack).
If it was aliens, it's over (unless they choose not to kill humans off in the end, but that seems improbable given their attack).
If some humans managed to make the weapon, they probably are inoculated against it, they're living elsewhere and they have working infrastructure and advanced tech, so humanity is not doomed, regardless of babies in the low-tech community.
So, how can they even think of continuing the human species by making babies?
If it's AI or aliens, that's very probably not going to work (and in any case, there is a serious risk of new horrors in the future, so that's another good reason not to have a baby), and if it's humans, then humanity will continue.
4. There are more reasons. But it's just wrong (which doesn't change the fact that Glenn and Maggie are better people than the vast majority of people in that world, it seems). It's probably more wrong for males, though, given the risk they are imposing on their partners (females impose that risk on themselves), in addition to the risk for future people.

Do you value the human species? Do people have other variants of the same value, such as valuing their own offspring or valuing relatives or valuing like people (ingroup)? or even valuing rational people?

Have you read the post you're replying to?
I was explaining that B20 already refuted an argument, but his refutation wasn't understood, and you haven't understood my explanation, either, unless you have, but instead of asking questions that are relevant to it, you ask me a lot of other questions? Please clarify what you're getting at.

Should people value their own existence to care or ought they value the human species more, which would exist regardless of whether rape has? same for families? same for human genes?

Whether they should value their own existence has nothing to do with caring about past rape, but this is not relevant to any of my points. I'd rather not engage in that.

The highest country happiness measure is 7.526. and the lowest happiness measure is 2.905.

I don't find happiness estimates very useful, and I definitely wouldn't rely on them to make an assessment. There are too many variables not taken into account.

Would you say that generally speaking people in Burundi should not have children because they "impose a substantial risk of a permanently unhappy life on a non-volunteering third party?"

That's not what I wanted to talk about, and not related to my point. Why are you asking me that?
I'm not very familiar with the conditions in Burundi to tell for sure, but I think very probably not. But it would also depend on the person; for some people, it would be immoral, and for some, it wouldn't be.
On the other hand, people in The Walking Dead definitely should not have children - well, not deliberately (e.g., if a woman is raped, obviously it's not her fault).

Where would be the line for you where most of such citizens of said country should not have children, but the country just above in the happiness index can mostly have children because on average they do not pose a substantial risk to an unhappy life?

That's not what I wanted to talk about, and not related to my point. Why are you asking me that?
I wouldn't rely on the happiness index, and in any case, I don't know where to draw the line - and it's probably fuzzy anyway.

But that's not relevant to my points at all.

By the way, I do know that, for example, it's okay to slightly risk the lives of your children to go with them on vacation, if the risk is only what's usual in an American road, and your car is in good condition.
On the other hand, it would not be okay to risk the lives of your children far more by taking them on vacation from the US to the most dangerous war zones in Syria, or - say - to take a course of action when risk of death for them is 1/20.
But where do I draw the line?
I don't know (or rather, I don't; it's fuzzy, but leaving that aside). I suspect neither do you, and neither does anyone else reading this thread.

Yet, the fact that we don't know where to draw the line is not an objection to making proper moral assessments in clear cases.

Now, in the refugee camp cases, it seems clear to you that it's not immoral to risk having children; it seems clear to your opponents that it is. Which doesn't have anything to do with the fact that B20 refuted an argument, but others failed to realize it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

#1

Okay, but that's not relevant to the matter of the morality of the behavior, which is what was being discussed.

The criticism of the parents actions are irrelevant as to the question of "why" they act they way they do (the OP). So, the question is irrelevant.

Actually, the "why" question is only in the title. The OP is about the criticism of the parent's actions.

As I told Don2, the question seems rethorical to me, or at most asking for a moral justification, or for attempts at a moral justification; it's not a question about causes, as far as I can tell.

 

[laughing dog]

Okay, but that's not relevant to the matter of the morality of the behavior, which is what was being discussed.

True, but the morality of the behavior was irrelevant to what was being discussed.

Actually, the "why" question is only in the title. The OP is about the criticism of the parent's actions.

Okay, but that the criticism is efficacy not morality based.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Angra, before I get to your post in its entirety, I'd like to focus on the op versus the op title. The op title "Why are "refugees" still having children?" is a part of the overall op. Also, the moral condemnation of parents at the camp for having babies is also only a part of the op. The op is actually much larger in scope and the two above parts mentioned are used as a part of a thesis which is not explicitly stated. Such thesis can be observed though by paying attention to the op and asking are these other sentences non-sequiturs or is there a larger point? The thesis can also be observed in examining the op author's other posts throughout the thread.

Here is the op:
Title: Why are "refugees" still having children?

Apparently a mother gave birth in the Idomeni camp and the article focuses on how terrible the conditions are. Well it really is terrible, but the couple are responsible for having brought a baby into this situation. The civil war has been raging for at least 5 years now, and continuing to bring more children into this situation is very irresponsible.
The baby born in hell: Tragic migrant mother gives birth in the squalor of Idomeni's tent city and washes the child in a PUDDLE
The bathing experience is really not that bad. They even have what seems to be Nivea body wash. Nivea is nice shit! Water temperature though can't be too much fun! Note though, that these people refuse to move to better, army-built shelters because they want to be close to the border they are trying to cross illegally.

And this woman already has four other children, the youngest of them only one year old, thus also conceived well into the civil war.​

Is there a reason for "Nivea is nice shit!" Is there a reason to mention the barracks? or the further crossing of borders illegally? Yes, of course there is. It's a general moral condemnation of the decision the mother has made because she is purposefully living outside the army-built shelter (allegedly) to get somewhere else.

As stated in Wikipedia article and from happiness index that linked, the reasons would likely be to go to Sweden or Germany where her family would be much happier.

But that's not Derec's gripe or claim. His gripe is that baby suffering is the result of people wanting to invade Europe . He's also got a gripe with the media and "The Left" for portraying the camp as hell without an analysis of the options that led the woman to the camp and her refusal to go to the barracks. And further the reason he put "refugees" in quotes was because in his view many of the people are NOT refugees but are there to spread Islamism further into Europe.

Because of the large scope of the op and the non-existence of an explicitly stated thesis the thread has generated several sub-topics. That is not meant to be judgmental on Derec, I don't mind creativity and art. It just is.

Further, my point has been that people value things and they should. (a) They value the human species and should. (b) They generally value themselves and should. They generally want their genes to continue on as a result of both (a) and (b).

Because people generally want to have children they'll examine the cost benefit of the decision, intuitively at least. They will take into account happiness, suffering, survival, and so forth because they value the people in question. I agree that it would be immoral to purposefully bring a person into the world while thinking that they will ONLY suffer and ONLY ever be unhappy. That's a strawman though as very, very few people only suffer and only are unhappy. One can try to make up some probability like "substantial risk" and bad outcomes like "an unhappy life" but those are difficult to quantify as you admitted when you said things are "fuzzy" and you didn't believe in the happiness index.

Finally, here are some pictures from Derec's linked article of children who clearly are not permanently unhappy:

 

[Angra Mainyu]

True, but the morality of the behavior was irrelevant to what was being discussed.

Actually, the morality of the behavior was being discussed from the beginning. And the argument B20 refuted was an argument intended to show that the behavior of the parents was not immoral, so the thread has been mostly a moral discussion on the behavior of the parents, combined with charges of immoral behavior leveled by some of the posters against some other posters.

Okay, but that the criticism is efficacy not morality based.

I reread the OP, and it seems very clear to me that the criticism is entirely moral criticism. You misunderstood Derec's OP. He's saying that the parents in a particular case are behaving immorally for having children in that situation, and extending the criticism to other people in similar conditions with the title question.

I would suggest asking Derec for clarification if you're not sure.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

As for dismal's behavior, I wasn't commenting on that, and I'd rather not comment on that.

Sorry, I meant Derec's behavior.

 

[laughing dog]

Actually, the morality of the behavior was being discussed from the beginning.

We disagree.

I reread the OP, and it seems very clear to me that the criticism is entirely moral criticism. You misunderstood Derec's OP.

I can read. There is no mention of morality.