Nitpicking on the actual agent that caused the harm on localized life events is only useful if you intend to do something about the causal agent. In the case of inherent harms in life like old age, sickness, loneliness, boredom, and anxiety/sadness about death which can at best be mitigated, coped with, or postponed, I don't think much can be done to "address those issues in a sensible manner". The point is, there's little use in decoupling the mere fact of existing with causal agents causing each particular localized harms. — OglopTo

I think the "nitpicking" you refer to is essential to intelligent judgment in placing blame and in assessing harm. Those who delight in pontificating regarding the immorality of parents (which would include their own parents, of course) for having children, or maintaining that no one (else!) should be born, are indulging in an absolutism I can't accept, alas.

As I've said elsewhere, such a position strikes me as being analogous to the doctrine of Original Sin, so dear to so many absolutists throughout history. Sometime, somewhere in the course of evolution there were people or proto-people who coupled and produced children and through this sinful act thus began the vast parade of horror that has led to our own horrible lives, which should never have been.

I prefer to make judgments on a case by case basis, and avoid a post hoc ergo propter hoc approach by which parents are irrevocably subject to blame merely because they have a child, regardless of circumstances. Certainly there may be circumstances where people should not have children. However, the claim that nobody should have children because they will be harmed in some fashion which may or may not be serious--by e.g. stubbing a toe, or getting a cold, or being underappreciated, etc.--is one I find hard to respect.

Except it's not. No one can exist before they exist, so you can't force the non-existent to exist. This is a logical refutation of your argument, showing that it depends on a contradiction and impossibility — Thorongil

I don't know what you think my argument is. I am stating the fact that we did not consent to be created or exist. So we are not here by consent or through our own desires.

I think coming to exist involves acts of of force such as physical forces involved in reproduction.
You can say that we are forced into existence. There is a force that makes us exist.

But you are playing on the ambiguities here. As has been said it is possible our "soul" exists before this body. What does coming to exist actually mean? (since the exploitation and abuse of children rests on it)

What concerns the individual is their consciousness and volition. The matter that our bodies are created from does have a prior existence (cannot be created or destroyed). So it is not that some part of us only starts to exist on birth. It is like a potter forces clay together to make a jar.

So what are you saying does not exist prior to birth?

None of this is a get out clause for exposing someone to suffering.

If the social services know that there are a couple who intend to create a child and they are alcoholics and drug users with criminal records, do you have a problem with them voicing a concern for any future child the couple may have?

Are you claiming we should only be concerned about someone when they start to exist and that we should not try to prevent any people existing even if we know they will live in poverty or inherit a severe disability etc?

You can try and prevent suffering quite coherently before someone is born. Parents will move house and get better jobs and so on before trying for a child. There is nothing incoherent about planning for a future child. You can plan to complete undermine the future childs consent.

In the case I highlighted I find it absurd if you think the man who has claimed he wants to rape and cannibalise a child and has a cage to imprison them etc in his basement, should not be imprisoned. The mean clearly presented a danger to children.

I was not just intending to talk about procreation and antinatalism i was asking how you can defend the notion of consent at all when our parents chose for us to come to exist. Like I said their are minor non consensual acts that have less harm than creating someone.

As someone else said the issue with consent and birth is that consent isn't possible so that we can never arrive here through consent.You can't claim someone consented to be born, consented to be a girl, consented to get cancer and so on.

I think if we value consent we have to assign responsibility properly because current;y consent only comes into play after a lot of imposition.

I also think you can't argue for a ham based morality if we people are allowed to harm people by creating them in harm prone bodies that will eventually die. So I think procreation undermines a lot of moral positions ( maybe not deontology.)

I was not just intending to talk about procreation and antinatalism i was asking how you can defend the notion of consent at all when our parents chose for us to come to exist — Andrew4Handel

Sorry for seeming to digressing in my previous responses, it was not intentional. But if you view "consent" as some sort of assigning responsibility for someone who cannot give consent, it will inevitably lead to a subjective valuation (as I think @Sapientia and @Ciceronianus the White is trying to imply) of whether there is something wrong with the current state of affairs, e.g. what is wrong that life is imposed or what is wrong that there is suffering?

I think if someone consents to something that gives them some accountability or responsibility.

I think if someone creates someone else then the person created cannot be responsible for her existence but the creator can.

I think the only responsibilities people have is towards the children they created. if you have a child whilst in a broken marriage or poverty that is your responsibility and an unjustifiable burden on the child.

I think the only responsibilities people have is towards the children they created. if you have a child whilst in a broken marriage or poverty that is your responsibility and an unjustifiable burden on the child. — Andrew4Handel

And I think that this is also the point raised by some participants in this thread, that we should pass judgment on a case to case basis. I think this is more easily acceptable than claiming the wrongness of mindful acts leading to procreation, regardless of circumstance, which I currently hold as a worldview stemming from my biased valuation of suffering.

If the social services know that there are a couple who intend to create a child and they are alcoholics and drug users with criminal records, do you have a problem with them voicing a concern for any future child the couple may have? — Andrew4Handel

Yes. I'd have a problem with that.

Are you claiming we should only be concerned about someone when they start to exist and that we should not try to prevent any people existing even if we know they will live in poverty or inherit a severe disability etc? — Andrew4Handel

Again, I'd have a problem with that.

Also, associating suffering with economic level and the lack of physical disabilities shows that you don't have a good handle on just what it is that makes people happy or not. You're thinking that possessing particular things or abilities is the answer.

You can try and prevent suffering quite coherently before someone is born. — Andrew4Handel

Unless we specify just what counts as suffering or not, I'd not agree to using that as any sort of demarcation criterion.

I find it absurd if you think the man who has claimed he wants to rape and cannibalise a child and has a cage to imprison them etc in his basement, should not be imprisoned. — Andrew4Handel

Then find that absurd. I couldn't be more against criminalizing ANY speech, expressed desires, etc.

I think a lot of the opposition on this thread amounts to semantics or exploiting ambiguity.

Children are exposed to suffering and the body and mind we possess is clearly liable to cause suffering. Even non-malicious parents can cause suffering in different ways if not just by creating the persons fallible body.

What is important here is that this was not a consensual situation. No one is to blame for their own suffering. The ambiguity of coming into existence and causality is not sufficient to make parents blameless.

And its strange that whilst people excuse parents of various thing blaming the individual is quite common. I think we should intervene immediately in a child's life to ensure it has the best possible life and at the very least regulate parents. It is a waste of time trying to "improve" things whilst having no profound parental responsibility.

Then find that absurd. I couldn't be more against criminalizing ANY speech, expressed desires, etc. — Terrapin Station

But because he had an actual cage and chains in his basement it wasn't just a desire and speech. And a hate speech can incite violence.

People can get longer sentences than a murderer for hiring a killer. I personally find that strange since the killer was not forced or caused to kill by the person hiring them. But hiring a killer is greatly increasing the chance of a person being murdered.

But again I don't think you can just wait for a crime to happen before acting.

As someone else said the issue with consent and birth is that consent isn't possible so that we can never arrive here through consent.You can't claim someone consented to be born, consented to be a girl, consented to get cancer and so on. — Andrew4Handel

In my view you can't say that someone didn't consent to be born, etc. either. Not consenting to something is an action in my view. It's not the default.

But because he had an actual cage and chains in his basement it wasn't just a desire and speech — Andrew4Handel

It's not illegal to have a cage and chains, etc. (or at least it shoudln't be)

And a hate speech can incite violence. — Andrew4Handel

No one can demonstrate that it causes violence, and I'd only accept a causal demonstration. And we can easily show that the same exact speech, said to many people, doesn't cause violence at all. So that's even stronger support that it's not causal than the mere fact that we can't demonstrate causality.

People can get longer sentences than a murderer for hiring a killer. — Andrew4Handel

Sure, and I think that's ridiculous. It's not at all as if I agree with laws just because they're laws.

But again I don't think you can just wait for a crime to happen before acting. — Andrew4Handel

If I were king I'd have a category of criminal threatening, but I define that pretty narrowly.

So basically you now throw away all the arguments you have said in this thread, for example whether the person exists and has opinions prior to the harm being caused matters, and instead go for the "I just feel that way"? Ok.

And by the way, on my view, nothing has intrinsic value period. Value is always simply how an individual feels about the thing in question — Terrapin Station

Just out of curiosity, how about that feeling about the thing in question?

So basically you now throw away all the arguments you have said in this thread, for example whether the person exists and has opinions prior to the harm being caused matters, — BlueBanana

What? I'm not really following you. What argument (or comment) specifically are you referring to? I didn't actually say anything about "mattering," so I'm not sure what you have in mind there.

how about that feeling about the thing in question? — BlueBanana

I have no idea what you're asking there.

What? I'm not really following you. What argument (or comment) specifically are you referring to? I didn't actually say anything about "mattering," so I'm not sure what you have in mind there. — Terrapin Station

Well basically every argument of yours other than feelings, but especially the a-b-c-d list that was on page 3 if I remember correctly. What I don't just get is how to fit both emotivism and other arguments into same opinion on morals.

I have no idea what you're asking there. — Terrapin Station

If nothing has intrinsic value because the value is based on persons' feelings about those things, doesn't the feeling about that thing that defines the value have intrinsic value?

Well basically every argument of yours other than feelings, but especially the a-b-c-d list that was on page 3 if I remember correctly. What I don't just get is how to fit both emotivism and other arguments into same opinion on morals. — BlueBanana

Oh, well there I'm detailing my feelings about it. Anything like that was just reporting my feelings a la yaying/booing in more or less detail.

doesn't the feeling about that thing that defines the value have intrinsic value? — BlueBanana

Well "the thing that defines the value" is the individual person in question. So you're asking about whether "the feeling" (Whose feeling? And in what context?) about the individual person in question has intrinsic value? Is that right?

You can't claim someone consented to be born, consented to be a girl, consented to get cancer and so on. — Andrew4Handel

In my view you can't say that someone didn't consent to be born, etc. either. — Terrapin Station

I kind of agree with Terrapin, but for a different reason. Technically, you can do both, but you can't do either without seeming to partake in talk that just isn't sensible. The obvious question is, why on earth would you be talking about consent or the lack thereof in relation to these things to begin with? It's bizarre.

What would you think if I said that chairs don't speak loud enough? Or that apples were not surprised at the recent general election result? Or that people didn't protest against the big bang at the time?

It's not illegal to have a cage and chains, etc. (or at least it shoudln't be) — Terrapin Station

That wasn't the issue. I feel slightly ludicrous having to explain this. He didn't have these things ornamentally but as part of a plot to harm someone in the future.

I find is implausible that you cannot imagine someone planning to harm someone in the future. It is just not plausible.

If the weather report says it will rain into two days it is rational to find an umbrella before the the actual event exists.

Your position seems to rest on an implausibility. The idea that you can predict nothing about the future and nothing about the future welfare of a person. You know that most humans created will have desires that can be thwarted and will desire consent.

The ability of a person to have desires after they have been created means these potential desires can be taken into consideration. The child you plan to have is not a total mystery like a new species but will share common traits.

why on earth would you be talking about consent — Sapientia

Have you not heard of hypotheticals? There is nothing bizarre about predicting the future based on the past.

Hello science!

We are not talking about whether a non existent person should be able to consent but that the future person who comes to exist will be able to withhold consent and have desires and that these desires can be in opposition to your act of creating them.

I don't think you can grant consent to someone after you have forced them into existence or coerced. You are clearly imposing your own desires on someone by choosing to create them.

I have no problem saying that the person was planning to hurt someone.

I have a problem with making planning illegal.

You know that most humans created will have desires that can be thwarted — Andrew4Handel

I don't feel that it's categorically a problem to have desires that are thwarted.

You are clearly imposing your own desires on someone by choosing to create them. — Andrew4Handel

You keep talking about it as if the person exists prior to conception. You can't impose anything on anyone who doesn't exist.

It would seem that some here are wanting the unborn child to have the ability to consent to their birth. This is quite obviously impossible, logically and practically. However, the fact is that once born, the child cannot, subsequently, give its consent to being born, seeing as they're already here, alive and kicking. This is the distinction I'd assume the OP is actually trying to argue as being morally repugnant. In other words, the baby that's in the crib is now in a world where he/she must consent to some things, every thing, or no thing...except their own having been born into this bizarre world ruled by endless acts of consenting. And the thing that ironically pushes many people to suicide is the idea that suicide can get those who wished they hadn't been born the golden ticket back to the primordial sleep, the nonexistence before they were born. But, I'm not convinced that exiting the world is the same as entering it.

Think - when we are born we have nothing to lose but nothingness itself, which is really quite a baffling exchange given that once existing as individual we come to realize that we did not choose to be.

If someone is unconscious they cannot consent to sex. Therefore it is wrong to have sex with them in this state.

if someone cannot consent to be created then you should not create them. You cannot be acting in their benefit or based on them expressing any desire to exist.

Because consent to come into existence is impossible then everyone is here not at her request. There is no consent to life. There is no ethical justification for causing someone to exist and no need to create new people and lots of good reasons not to create new people and expose them to harm.

I think intending to harm someone is not far removed from harming them.

I think it is inaccurate, for instance, to say there is no harm in deciding to have children because for example my mother knew my father didn't have an affinity with children before she had children with him. then I was forced to do lots of things as a child and am now forced to try and survive as an adult and I certainly feel my life was an imposition not a gift.

It is a semantic quibble to say life was not imposed on me because I certainly did not choose my parents or my body or my childhood experiences.

If parents took seriously what they are doing to a child then they would have to plan to have a child much more seriously.

You can impose on someone else by having children.

For instance your children are consuming and competing for limited resources and your children can have a negative effect on other people. For example I was bullied for years as a child. Also children in other countries are used as slaves in mines or have to work in sweat shops having a child isn't a neutral act with no ramifications

There are lots of ramifications for creating new people particular in the context within which you create them which is a connection of relationships.

In my view you can't say that someone didn't consent to be born, etc. either. Not consenting to something is an action in my view. It's not the default. — Terrapin Station

If someone is unconscious they can't consent. So you can violate their consent without them having to be able to vocalise it. Unless you want to claim we can do what we like to unconscious people. The same way you assume a sleeping person isn't consenting to sex you can assume things about future humans.

If a child had the choice to be born to millionaire or to be born in a slum facing hunger do you think any child would choose the slum over the wealthy existence?

A child can't withhold their consent to grow up in a slum but you can safely assume that that life will harm them and would not be something they would choose.

I love baroque music and it is harmless but I wouldn't assume my child would like it... so I certainly wouldn't assume my child would like any form of harm let alone simply having my tastes forced on them.

Indeed, why cause the burden of life to exist in the first place for a new person when there did not have to be a burden in the first place? To see it have to overcome obstacles? What they will say is that there are goods that just must be experienced (relationships, accomplishment, entertainment, pleasure, learning, self-actualization, etc.). Apparently someone NEEDS to be born in order to experience these goods, despite the burdens of life and any structural or contingent suffering that will or may occur.

If parents took seriously what they are doing to a child then they would have to plan to have a child much more seriously. — Andrew4Handel

Hence the significance accorded to marriage in traditional culture.

We see eye to eye on this issue. Consent is a keystone in ethics/morality. Without consent any relationship would automatically become an imposition and that is an attack on personal freedom, which is morally reprehensible.

Since, children didn't consent to being born, it implies that parents have committed a moral wrong. The consquences in the OP - the unaviodable suffering and pain that accompanies life - don't even matter. Absence of consent, in and of itself, is sufficient to qualify the act of proceeation as immoral. The suffering and pain of life just clinches the argument against bearing children.

The whole argument rests on two pillars:

1. Consent was not taken

2. Life is suffering

On the matter of 1, some posters have said that it's irrelevant because consent was impossible and what is impossible can't be of moral significance. It's impossible to remove gravity from our lives and to include it in moral, or any other, evaluation would be unreasonable, to say the least. In short, the distinction ''can't'' vs ''didn't'' matters. Children can't consent not didn't consent. That, some say, relieves the parents of moral responsibility in birthing children and, simulaltaneously, surrenders a child's autonomy to the parents. Is this true?

Empirical data suggests that this is true. Many situations exist where people can't consent e.g. when as a child, in a coma, in absentia, when mentally challenged, etc. At these times, someone - a loved one, friend, colleague, parent - makes the decision for the person, hopefully, keeping best interests in mind. As you can see, impossibility does matter - we're morally permitted to make decisions for others when it's a can't rather than a didn't consent.

2 is controversial and actually defies empirical evidence. Most people aren't depressed, suicide is not as common as would be expected, people aren't avoiding having children, etc.

One could say that this is simply because people haven't given enough thought on the matter i.e. they fail to see the truth, the truth that life is suffering. If everyone were to just give a moment to consider the matter, everyone would see that life's just not worth it.

However, one could argue back along the same lines. Take Buddhism for example. It's central tenet is exactly what is your premise - life is suffering. But, according to the Buddha, this suffering has an irrational origin - unmoderated attachment, expecting more than is possible, clinging to the superficial, a failure to recognize and accept nature. So, right back at you, in fact, suffering is not because you haven't contrmplated the issue, rather, it's because you haven't.

In addition, the experience of life is improving - we're healthier, safer, happier than we were a thousand years ago. This trend is likely to continue and a few thousand years from now, life will be even better. This seriously undermines your argument. Life is a dynamic force, it progresses, and your argument ignores this crucial fact. Your argument was good in the past, is less applicable now, and will become utterly bad in the future.

You seem to have misunderstood again. That wasn't what I was talking about. I've moved on from that. I specifically referred to the if-then in your original comment, by which I meant the following:

Firstly, you don't know that. If people are souls, and souls exist prior to birth, then it is possible they do consent to being born. — John

I was saying that I matched your "lightweight/superficial/ill-considered/trivial" if-then above with a "lightweight/superficial/ill considered/trivial" if-then of my own. — Sapientia

Again untrue. Firstly my "if-then" is simply an examination of a purely logical possibility. It is neither lightweight, superficial, ill-considered nor trivial. And I was not being flippant, either. On the other hand you, apparently bereft of any argument against what I had said, flippantly offer up something which is not even a proper "if-then" (you don't even say what will or could be the case if pigs do fly).

And your 'contribution' to the discussion is not even a good analogy because although it is certainly possible that pigs might fly, they have never been observed doing so; whereas no observations at all that we are aware of have been made as to whether persons are souls that exist prior to birth, and in fact no conceivable means of observation that would satisfy empirical criteria could ever be made in that connection.

You make this kind of pathetic effort, and you wonder why I don't want to bother with you. At least try to use your brain a little more creatively instead of repeating the same old tired "commonsense cliche" objections :-}

I doubt whether people in traditional cultures, whether married or otherwise, gave, or even today give, much thought to planning childbirth. They could hardly avoid it in any case, and commonly relied on having as many children as possible to help carry the survival workload.