Where consent isn't possible, it's unreasonable, to say the least, to insist that it must be given.

I'm not sure if this is what one might call a tautology. It's inherent in the problem that you cannot require consent from someone or something who cannot give one. It does not make the situation unreasonable, it just is the nature of the problem.

The more important question is how to react in the face of such a challenge.

I read an exchange on reddit a few days ago on consent where analogies with deciding for the fate of kids and dead bodies were cited. The bottomline is that those in power eventually have to impose what they think is right to those who cannot decide for themselves. The question then is, what gives anyone the right to decide for something or someone who is unable to give consent? My initial guess is that majority of the default decisions come from the unchecked collective human experience passed from generation to generation.

Where consent isn't possible, it's unreasonable, to say the least, to insist that it must be given. — Ciceronianus the White

Why is it unreasonable?

Would you say the same in the case of sleeping person or person in a coma? Consent is possible in the future of a persons life so it is not that the unborn will not have desires and opinions that can be thwarted.

The reason consent is not available before birth is because the person does not exist (in this form at least) So it is not that I am insisting consent be given I am saying that the act is never consensual.

We can never view an individual as having consented to life. Future consent is weak because you could compare it to consenting to sex after being raped. Or consenting to a meal after someone force fed you. (Ie ethically dubious)

Another analogy is if someone offers for you to chose between three boxes with hidden gifts but they withhold a fourth box with a million dollars/pounds in it. They have withheld the greatest choice from you.

Also we don't have immediate freedom after birth including freedom to reject life. It would be different if we started life able to consent to everything and make choices.

. The bottomline is that those in power eventually have to impose what they think is right to those who cannot decide for themselves — OglopTo

People claim that you can't impose on the unborn (a semantic issue in my opinion).

So when one is creating a child one can only be acting for their own sake or own desires. If one begin to imagine the desires of a hypothetical child then one can realise they may and will be different than one's own.

Consent becomes a problem as soon as life begins when we begin to infringe on people's ability to consent.

I don't see how we can have ethics without consent. If we just start forcing things on people then there is no logical justification for opposing them using force in return.

I don't see how we can have ethics without consent. — Andrew4Handel

Consent may be a component of a majority of ethical problems but maybe it is not the proper word to use in the issue of procreation? Because as @Ciceronianus the White might be implying, it may not be an issue of consent if the other party has no way of giving one.

A matter of wording or framing the problem, I guess, but this should not prevent us from questioning the moral and ethical implications of procreation. I like your other framing better which may not technically equate to consent: "So when one is creating a child one can only be acting for their own sake or own desires."

Where consent isn't possible, it's unreasonable, to say the least, to insist that it must be given. — Ciceronianus the White

Agreed. People can't exercise their right to freedom of assembly before they're born, either. This doesn't create a massive ethical problem, it creates nonsense.

People can't exercise their right to freedom of assembly before they're born, either. This doesn't create a massive ethical problem, it creates nonsense. — Sapientia

Framed from the issue of consent, maybe yes. But framed from the issue of fulfilling one's selfish desires at the expense of suffering of other people, hmm, maybe not.

You just have to acknowledge the reality of suffering and that up to a million people feel the need to commit suicide every year. — Andrew4Handel

If suicide is an option, then life is continued by consent once suicide is declined, which is by far the most prevalent choice. Ethically speaking, wouldn't it be the right thing to do to offer life, considering most often those offered it desperately protect it?

Framed from the issue of consent, maybe yes. But framed from the issue of fulfilling one's selfish desires at the expense of suffering of other people, hmm, maybe not. — OglopTo

The way the issue is framed is especially important when it comes to this topic. It's rarely done in an unbiased manner. The desires needn't be selfish, and the suffering should be put into context.

Why is it unreasonable? — Andrew4Handel

It is unreasonable, at best, because there is no person, or people, who don't exist. There is no person whose consent should be obtained, nor is there a person who has certain rights which would be violated. There is no person who we would prevent from suffering harm, there is no person who would not live, there is no person who should not live.

I can harm someone more by creating them than by committing your average criminal offence that people get lynch mobby about. — Andrew4Handel

Consider what you're saying. How can you harm someone? There is no "someone."

A sleeping person and a person in a coma are, nonetheless, living people. We may say they should or should not be treated in a certain manner. We can't say such things regarding nothing.

There is no person who we would prevent from suffering harm, — Ciceronianus the White

I'm not sure what you mean by this particular phrase but certainly, when a person is born, it will most certainly consume resources other people in more pressing situations could have used, will need other people to attend to their needs directly or indirectly, get hurt, get sick, get old, and die.

I don't really get the logic that not procreating does not equate to preventing at least one 'something' to exist once born and suffer.

I'm not sure what you mean by this particular phrase but certainly, when a person is born, it will most certainly consume resources other people in more pressing situations could have used, will need other people to attend to their needs directly or indirectly, get hurt, get sick, get old, and die. — OglopTo

What's that an argument for? Extermination or time travel? When a person is born, there's a person we need to think about. We could try to address those issues in a sensible manner.

I don't really get the logic that not procreating does not equate to preventing at least one 'something' to exist once born and suffer. — OglopTo

It prevents a whole load of other things too, which you chose not to mention. Mentioning only suffering is a reflection of bias and an appeal to emotion.

The ethical issue, in my view, is doing something against one's consent.

Being born isn't against one's consent. There is no person to grant or not grant consent prior to conception, and in fact, there is no person to grant or not grant consent at conception either. It takes development of a fetus for there then be a person there, and arguably it takes development of the baby once it's born for there to be a person there.

Furthermore, in my view, we make way to big of a deal about consent violations such as groping others. In my opinion the consent violations that matter are those that physically harm the other person long term.

Would you say the same in the case of sleeping person or person in a coma? — Andrew4Handel

That matters because they were a person with opinions about what they'd like done to them prior to being asleep or in a coma.

With a baby born who immediately goes into a coma, there are no consent issues re medical treatment. The baby wasn't a person with opinions about such things. And in fact, we even treat minors who might have opinions about such things as not being the ultimate arbiter for them. We don't legally or socially treat minors as fully autonomous persons. Hence why parents can force kids to do all sorts of things without issue.

I don't really get the logic that not procreating does not equate to preventing at least one 'something' to exist once born and suffer. — OglopTo

I don't get the disposition of people who are so miserable that they see everything, or at least such a significant portion of experience, as suffering with a strong negative connotation either. I always figure that they must basically be Eeyores to us Tiggers, Roos, Kangas, Owls, Poohs, etc, and I always figure that what would really do them good is professional psychiatric help.

People can't exercise their right to freedom of assembly before they're born, either. This doesn't create a massive ethical problem, it creates nonsense. — Sapientia

You are conflating my argument and Ciceronianuses response to it.
Life is founded on and created by a lack of consent. It is not created by stopping freedom of assembly.

It is created by a non consensual act. Creating a child does not impact on their ability to assemble but it does impact on consent because it is an nonconsensual act. How can you justify carrying out a non consensual act that affects someone else in the long run?

Intention matters also because you can be jailed for planning crime. If you planned to torture your child (as has happened) whilst trying to get pregnant you intend to behave immorally towards a future person who will exist.

Hiding behind the ambiguity of "existence" is unconvincing. Planning to create a child is planning to create someone you know by experience of other children/humans will have volition and exhibit consent issues

If suicide is an option, then life is continued by consent once suicide is declined, which is by far the most prevalent choice. Ethically speaking, wouldn't it be the right thing to do to offer life, considering most often those offered it desperately protect it? — Hanover

Successful suicide is the tip of the iceberg more people attempt it or have suicidal ideation. The unwillingness to commit suicide does not logically denote the value of life.

Self preservation can be simply a biological instinct forced on one or based on hope or delusion. It is genuinely not easy to commit suicide the only reason it becomes easy is when you are in extreme pain mental usually or physical. I took two overdoses when I was younger. Why should someone be put in that situation in the first place?

You can't offer someone life because they don't exist initially. They can accept life once you've created them but they can't be deprived of it before they begin to exist.

I don't think consent is just an issue of whether the act in question brings happiness. Just the simple fact of not having consented can cause suffering (it does for me) I found it easier to be imposed upon as a child until I discovered it was unjustified.

Consider what you're saying. How can you harm someone? There is no "someone." — Ciceronianus the White

I said you harm someone by creating them not be fore they exist. The act of creating them entails future harm. Creating someone is bringing them into existence
.
Some parents have been told that their child will inherit a genetic illness so they are actively creating a certainty of suffering. Are you claiming that the act of creating a person has no moral dimension even when you know full well what it will cause and what it entails. The law recognises intent to harm this way.

Just the first seconds of the below video will show you what harm can becaused by creating someone.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aAD0yJ3SdQ

A matter of wording or framing the problem, I guess, — OglopTo

An unconscious person cannot consent to sex but that does not make rape alright. An unconscious person will be able to consent in the future but then so will the child a person intends to have.

I don't think it is a genuine metaphysical problem because a lot of human life is based on confident predictions. It would only not be a problem if there was no evidence provided to parents that the world contained suffering or that a child would express desires.

It is not magical (unless that is ones metaphysical position) to be able to predict the future and contemplate the result of actions. Thoughts and concepts do not physically exist like a physical child (being abstract or mental) but they are a reality.

An unconscious person cannot consent to sex but that does not make rape alright. — Andrew4Handel

It's reasonable to expect that there are no positive consequences for the person raped. Saving the life of a person in coma would be far more accurate.

That matters because they were a person with opinions about what they'd like done to them prior to being asleep or in a coma.

With a baby born who immediately goes into a coma, there are no consent issues re medical treatment. The baby wasn't a person with opinions about such things. And in fact, we even treat minors who might have opinions about such things as not being the ultimate arbiter for them. We don't legally or socially treat minors as fully autonomous persons. Hence why parents can force kids to do all sorts of things without issue. — Terrapin Station

Well I do have an issue "with parents forcing kids to do things"

I have never said to someone "don't rape me when I am asleep" someone does not need to voice an opinion explicitly for you to imagine how they might feel.(accurately)

I was forced to go to church several times of week and forced to go to school where I was getting bullied. So forcing things on children is not essential and benevolent. I prefer to ask a child how they feeling or read their expressions. Babies cry to express discontent. It is exactly childhood indoctrination that creates people willing to be imposed on. Lots of people justify bad doctrines and its all they've known.

There is no person to grant or not grant consent prior to conception, and in fact, there is no person to grant or not grant consent at conception either. It takes development of a fetus for there then be a person there, and arguably it takes development of the baby once it's born for there to be a person there. — Terrapin Station

Whether the person exists prior or after is irrelevant. There is no consent and the are potentially detrimental consequences for the person who is to exist.

That the person doesn't exist even immediately after being born is irrelevant as well. The person will exist at some point after their existence is caused.

That matters because they were a person with opinions about what they'd like done to them prior to being asleep or in a coma. — Terrapin Station

Ok so if a person is born in coma it's okay to cause them pain and then wake them up.

Yes you did consent to being born. You can read more about our pre-mortal existence and our choice to come to earth here: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Premortal_Life

Check mate anti-natalists!

It's reasonable to expect that there are no positive consequences for the person raped. Saving the life of a person in coma would be far more accurate. — BlueBanana

The issue we are discussing is whether you can harm someone or behave immorally if the person is unable to consent. The counter argument is you can't harm someone by creating them. They didn't exist when you made the decision to create them.

Some people are raped on many occasions as a child and that is a product of creating them. If life was paradise then consent would be less of an issue but that is far from the exploitative unequal world we actually live in.

The main issue however is that no one consented to come into existence and that undermines argument concerning consent. How can we say it is wrong to infringe someone's consent when, how we were created was nonconsensual?

People do reject life (suicide) or they just genuinely dislike it. You have to consider what it is like to be the victim in this scenario who didn't ask for life then suffer either through harms or just through not enjoying life itself.

If suicide is an option, then life is continued by consent once suicide is declined, which is by far the most prevalent choice. Ethically speaking, wouldn't it be the right thing to do to offer life, considering most often those offered it desperately protect it? — Hanover

This is something I can completely get behind of and almost exactly what I would've originally posted, had you not been faster. There is always an option, and a person who makes a free choice shouldn't complain about the choice they made, having known the possible consequences of the decision.

I have never said to someone "don't rape me when I am asleep" someone does not need to voice an opinion explicitly for you to imagine how they might feel.(accurately) — Andrew4Handel

It's not an issue of whether you say it. It's an issue of being a person, a sentient being, who has opinions on such things.

And not everyone has the same opinon, by the way.

Re forcing kids to do things, I think to some extent it's beneficial, and I surely wouldn't want to change laws so that parents would get into trouble for all sorts of non-violent consent violations. I think it's a good thing that we require that kids go to school and that most parents make their kids eat stuff other than Twinkies and Coca Cola.

I tend to look at children as a continuum from "dictatorial subject" basically to fully autonomous adult.

I thought rape was basically defined by lack of consent. Sex without consent is rape. It is not the sex act that is the problem but the lack of consent.

So with life it is not the quality of life that is the issue but the lack of consent.

Whether the person exists prior or after is irrelevant. — BlueBanana

Irrelevant to whom? Not to me. It can be irrelevant to you.

There is no consent and the are potentially detrimental consequences for the person who is to exist. — BlueBanana

Again, MY concern with consent is when something is done against someone's consent, and that's MY only concern with it. And even at that, I only really care about violent consent violations with long-lasting physical effects. You can have a different view, obviously.

Ok so if a person is born in coma it's okay to cause them pain and then wake them up. — BlueBanana

I agree with the consensus that it's okay to do things like operations on them and then wake them up, yes.

You'd have a much easier time persuading me that we should be able to outright euthanize infants (at least a la Peter Singer) than you'd have of persuading me of antinatalist nonsense.