416
Antinatalism Rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Zacryon@lemmy.wtf 8 points 1 month ago

The child can still consider taking the one-way exit as soon as it is able to make such considerations and thereby gets a choice.

You could ask in a similar manner:
Wouldn't it be immoral to disallow this decision making process by leaving the child no choice by not having it?

Asking for consent of an unborn is paradoxial and inherently impossible. It's almost like asking a plant whether it consents into being planted and eaten afterwards. It has no agency. Is it immoral though to plant it and eat it anyway?

Having a child is similar. Get it, let it grow and develop its agency. Then it can decide for itself.

[-] Thrillhouse@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

So the answer boils down to kill yourself when you turn 18 bud? That seems like incredibly callous and unnecessary pain for all involved.

Consent 101: If you’re unsure about whether or not someone would consent, the answer is no. And since we can’t ask the unborn, people who don’t want kids assume the answer is no.

[-] SapientLasagna@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

And that's why you should never pull an unconscious person out of a fire. QED.

[-] Thrillhouse@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I don’t know what that is supposed to mean. In the Canadian medical system consent to save an unconscious person’s life is pretty automatic.

We’re talking about consent to opt in to be born, which is completely different.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
416 points (99.3% liked)

196

16084 readers
2124 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS