it is still the same that no wrong is done to the child prior to its existence. — TVCL

Technically true yes but that doesn't mean it's not wrong. It's wrong in the same way that setting a bear trap in a public place is wrong. Even though the bear trap harms no one at the time of being set.

Indeed, we could conclude that genetic splicing is wrong because we can argue that once the child exists it would be better for them to have sight than to be blind. — TVCL

Fair enough. Although this implies that giving birth to anyone with "suboptimal" genes is also wrong. It is better for a child to be born a genius than not. However this doesn't answer whether or not having children is ethical in the first place.

If malicious genetic splicing is carried out the wrong is not done until it is actualised in a being that exists. — TVCL

This also applies to birth. The wrong is done when actualised in a being that exists, because that being is harmed.

this is not the same as arguing that even if the child is to be born blind it is better that the child never had existed — TVCL

This has never been the argument. If it was then it would be an argument for killing said child. The argument is it is better to avoid creating harm by not giving birth to anyone. Since birth results in unconsented harm.

↪unenlightened May we have someday a book of your collected pithy apothegms? Think of the joy you could spread with them. — tim wood

They fall like gentle Autumn leaves in the dialogical breeze - if you want to rake them into a pile, go ahead, I'm not going to get possessive about them. :cool:

& @schopenhauer1

I fear that we will start irritating each other by moving in circles and so I will attempt to be concise in re-stating my case for why these positions are unconvincing.

The crux of the issue, as you state, is that:

The argument is it is better to avoid creating harm by not giving birth to anyone. Since birth results in unconsented harm. — khaled

And so, allow me to speak to the case for freedom/consent and then to harm.

Regarding freedom:
If we accept that respect for one's freedom is a moral good, we recognise that we are not respecting one's freedom by inflicting a decision upon them which was outside of their consent. The unborn child does not consent to life and thus the giving of life is force against the child's will and therefore a moral infraction.

However, again, a being that does not exist at all has no freedoms whatsoever. Moreover, the argument would lead to no newborns being birthed at all and - eventually - no life or beings who could exist to have any freedoms. Therefore, it appears that the logical conclusion of the argument is to respect the freedom of humans by ensuring that humans are eventually phased out of existence, in which case they will loose all of their other freedoms at the cost of the first freedom being respected. If this is a bit extreme, the same logic applies to the individual alone in which case we conclude that we must respect the freedom of the individual child and, in so doing, remove all other freedoms that the child will ever have. This is different from the case for allowing birth which would require that the initial decision is made without consent in order to allow all other freedoms. Therefore, of the two alternatives, withholding birth seems to ensure the least amount of freedoms to the child.

Regarding harm:
The argument here appears to be that when we have children we actively choose that the child will be in a state of increased suffering relative to the alternative of doing nothing, much like the example of splicing to create suffering. In the case of splicing doing nothing is not splicing and with the case of birth, doing nothing is not giving birth or conceiving. Both of these options produce the more ethical outcome of less harm done to the child.

However, the disagreement here probably stems from axioms shared about harm, life and what it entails. The giving of life is not - in total - simply an act of doing harm to those given life. Instead, the giving of life is the giving of a state in which there is both the potential for the child to be harmed, but also the potential for the child to experience all of the things that might justify the experience of that harm to them including joy and meaning (this distinguished it from the splicing example which was solely to ensure more harm). There may also be a contention about whether the giving of life is the same as inflicting the harm that life entails, but even if we were to take these as morally equal it would still be the case that the deprivation of harm would also be the deprivation of those things that might justify it. Now, of course, it might be the case that the child comes to regard the harm as not ultimately justified, in which case there is the freedom to cancel life in the form of suicide. However, completely depriving the child of life does not allow for this option to exist at all, nor for there to be things in that child's life that ultimately made the suffering worthwhile. If those who give children life are responsible for inflicting the harm done to them, they must also be responsible for the things that justify that harm. The axiom that we may be disagreeing on here is the status of harm or pain or suffering - being such that it is so grievous that it should never be "inflicted" under any circumstances or that it must entail a moral wrong by necessity.

It is for these reasons that I remain unconvinced.

However, again, a being that does not exist at all has no freedoms whatsoever. — TVCL

This seems to me to imply that since the child has no freedoms whatsoever then malicious genetic editing is not against their consent. Sure you can say that, but that doesn't mean it's not wrong. I think we're getting stuck on technicality. Note that I never said that giving birth to someone is going against their consent, because that would imply that they could consent before they even existed. I always said, since consent is not given (no one to get it from) it is EFFECTIVELY denied. That is not the same thing as actively going against someone's consent.

It's the difference betweeen stopping life saving medication from an unconscious person and forcing someone to take medication they didn't consent to. Both are wrong but in the former consent wasn't available, yet it was still treated the same as in the latter case (as if consent was denied). You can say that in the former case there was no one to get consent from but that doesn't make the act not wrong.

withholding birth seems to ensure the least amount of freedoms to the child. — TVCL

Why is this a problem? Since when is "maximizing freedoms" a good thing? For example if an elderly man refuses expensive medication despite being able to afford it and chooses to die instead I think we can agree that doctors forcing him to live against his will would not be considered good right? Even though this is the exact same situation, where one freedom is respected at the cost of reducing them later.

The giving of life is not - in total - simply an act of doing harm to those given life. — TVCL

I don't think that life overall is guarateed to be more harm than good if that's what you mean. But I think we can both agree that it CAN be a living hell. And that risk shouldn't be taken for others.

The giving of life is not - in total - simply an act of doing harm to those given life. Instead, the giving of life is the giving of a state in which there is both the potential for the child to be harmed, but also the potential for the child to experience all of the things that might justify the experience of that harm to them including joy and meaning (this distinguished it from the splicing example which was solely to ensure more harm). — TVCL

Keyword: POTENTIAL. It is not a guarantee. And if it is not a guarantee consent is needed. For example a company can't force you to work for them no matter how good their employees view the company. In this forced labor there would also be the potential of harm and for things that justify it including joy and meaning. But I think we can agree that forced labor is unethical. NO MATTER how good the company in question is, even if they have never had an employee complain before. I would go so far as to say that EVEN IF you enjoy said forced labor and find meaning in it that the company still shouldn't have hired in you at first (because they couldn't have known that was the outcome). Furthermore, with life, you can't just quit as easily as you can quit a company and go looking somewhere else.

the deprivation of harm would also be the deprivation of those things that might justify it. — TVCL

I hear this one the most. Antinatalism is NOT about doing good by "depriving someone of harm". There is no one to deprive from harm if no one is born. Similarly there is no one to deprive from pleasure/meaning if no none is born. Not giving birth to someone is NOT a good thing. On the other hand giving birth to someone IS a bad thing. That's the view. Again, it's the same logic as "Don't shoot poeple". It's not that "not shooting people" is good it's that shooting them is bad.

in which case there is the freedom to cancel life in the form of suicide. — TVCL

And this is the most monstrous argument of all, and one that I am very sad to hear often. You are basically saying "If you don't like it just kill yourself". This can be used to justify ANYTHING. If this was truly a justification, then torturing someone is fine as long as you give them a button they can press to kill themselves.

However, completely depriving the child of life does not allow for this option to exist at all — TVCL

You make it sound like the lack of the option to: suffer to the point of killing yourself despite all the survival mechanisms that are supposed to keep you alive
is something to be sad about lol.

made the suffering worthwhile. If those who give children life are responsible for inflicting the harm done to them, they must also be responsible for the things that justify that harm. — TVCL

True. But it is still not good to take that risk for others. It's like how in the forced labor example the company is responsible for your suffering as well as your joy. But that doesn't permit them to forcibly hire people, even if they have a prestine track record.

I think population management is eminently sensible, given that overpopulation either causes or exacerbates the most serious problems facing humanity. I think the notion of restricting population growth based on financial status is despicable.

they're preventing suffering

Not all kids suffer. Or rather for most (or some) their pleasure outweighs their suffering

By inflicting it upon others?

Seems like a questionable idea; to be able to inflict suffering on others according to one's own vague and subjective notions of suffering.

Reminds me of the saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."