So in your view, it's a problem to do things to any arbitrary biological matter? For example, if you have a mole that's bothering you, it's an ethical issue to cut it off? — Terrapin Station

Obviously not the mole isn't conscious

The problem is if I somehow made the mole sentient

You're not limiting this to conscious biological matter, are you?

What? What is "this"

The problem is if I somehow made the mole sentient — khaled

The problem doesn't arise prior to sentience, though.

What? What is "this" — khaled

This=the stance you just uttered.

The problem of the suffering baby with 8 broken limbs doesn't arise before sentience either

This=the stance you just uttered. — Terrapin Station

That it is a problem to make things sentient? Yes that's the whole point of antinatalism. If I somehow make a rock sentient and capable of suffering that's also a problem

The problem of the suffering baby with 8 broken limbs doesn't arise before sentience either — khaled

Correct. So you agree that it's can not be an issue prior to having a sentient baby.

Sure. As long as that doesn't translate to "So you agree it isn't an issue which makes it ok"

?? If it's not okay to you, then it's an ethical issue in your view. At any rate, obviously the stance of mine that you quoted doesn't apply to nonexistent entities or to any arbitrary biological matter.

The point in time at which the issue occurs is after the baby is born with 8 limbs however that doesn't mean genetically modifying it to give it 8 limbs is ok even though the actual problem occurs later. That is because the suffering of having 8 broken limbs is causally pegablle to that genetic alteration. Do we agree?

?? If it's not okay to you, then it's an ethical issue in your view. At any rate, obviously the stance of mine that you quoted doesn't apply to nonexistent entities or to any arbitrary biological matter. — Terrapin Station

Ok I'm consfused now. Is it or is it not ok to genetically modify a baby so that it is born with 8 broken limbs and suffers severely for the rest of its life?

Just ignore everything and answer that for now because I have to go soon: Is it or is it not ok to genetically modify a baby so that it is born with 8 broken limbs and suffers severely for the rest of its life? under your ethical system

The point in time at which the issue occurs is after the baby is born with 8 limbs however that doesn't mean genetically modifying it to give it 8 limbs is ok even though the actual problem occurs later. That is because the suffering of having 8 broken limbs is causally pegablle to that genetic alteration. Do we agree? — khaled

It's not just because of that. I didn't type stuff superfluously.

It's also because:

(a) we have an entity that will likely survive as a consent-capable being
(b) we're modifying it unusually, outside of corrective measures for deformities, diseases, etc., in a manner that would linger indefinitely/not be reversible during their consent-capable years.

So it is wrong. Positive?

So, for example, in my view, you could do anything you want to a fetus just in case you're going to abort the fetus.

So if I genetically alter said fetus to have 8 limbs and I know it will suffer severely I have to abort it? morally speaking

Is it or is it not ok to genetically modify a baby so that it is born with 8 broken limbs and suffers severely for the rest of its life? under your ethical system — khaled

As long as it's going to continue to live to a point where it's normally capable of granting or withholding consent, and the limb modification isn't reversible, then yes, I'd not allow that legally.

You don't have to abort it, but if it's not going to survive to a point where it's normally capable of granting or wiithholding consent, then it's not a problem.

Ok. Do we agree that
(a) we have an entity that will likely survive as a consent-capable being

Applies to the act of having a child

You mean giving birth? Because that definitely wouldn't be the case merely with conception. We can and should allow abortions.

Re giving birth, it depends on the health of the child, whether we'd allow infanticide (which I think we should in some cases), etc.

In other words would you say that the act of having a child causes the creatiion of an entity that will likely survive as a consent capable being?

Yes I mean giving birth

Right, so it depends on the health of the child, whether we'd allow infanticide (which I think we should in some cases), etc.

Re giving birth, it depends on the health of the child, whether we'd allow infanticide (which I think we should in some cases), etc. — Terrapin Station

Agreed with you on that one

It has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, really.

I need to run for now too. I'll be back in a bit.

I wish I could "set checkpoint" here

I feel we've agreed on something lol