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. — Andrew4Handel

The problem on my view is when someone doesn't want you to do something but you do it anyway. (And once again, also on my view, this is only a problem when we're talking about something with long-lasting physical effects.)

The issue we are discussing is whether you can harm someone or behave immorally if the person is unable to consent. — Andrew4Handel

Of course that's possible. That's not the question, the question is whether the specific case of being created is an example of such an action.

There are people who don't like living, sure. But it's about expected value. There are by far more people who enjoy life. There's the possibility of causing suffering by creating a person, but there's also the possibility of creating happiness, and on average the latter is what happens.

But there's even more. The happiness and misery are not equal because of the capability of people to change their situation. A person can end their misery with a suicide, or even get happy in the best case scenario, but a person who doesn't exist can't decide to exist and be happy.

Existing isn't something a person is forced to. It's a choice. It's both the choice and the opportunity to make the choice.

The issue we are discussing is whether you can harm someone or behave immorally if the person is unable to consent. — Andrew4Handel

And the answer is that this is only an issue when we're actually talking about a person, which entails that they have opinions about these sorts of things, etc.

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. — Andrew4Handel

Are you referring to a "wrongful birth" action? That's in the nature of medical malpractice; the duty breached is that of the physician to the parents. Or, perhaps you're referring to a "wrongful life" action, but that again is a negligence action against a doctor generally by the parents or guardians of a diseased child, and is a cause of action which isn't recognized by most jurisdictions by my understanding. In either case, though, the "harm" experienced occurs after existence begins.

So, there is no someone who is harmed by virtue of coming into existence in and of itself. Merely coming to exist isn't a harm. After coming into existence, a person is subject to harm for a number of reasons, virtually all of them identifiable as people, things, other causal agents, to which the responsibility for harm may be attributed.

You'd have a much easier time persuading me that we should be able to outright euthanize infants than you'd have of persuading me of antinatalist nonsense. — Terrapin Station

Isn't that an antinatalist opinion?

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

I didn't mention operations, I'm talking of pain for the sake of it, just to cause them both physical and emotional pain. Hypothetical scenario, of course.

MY concern with consent is when something is done against someone's consenst — Terrapin Station

I suppose you mean without, not against?

Certain assumptions of what opinions the person is going to have once they exist can be made.

Isn't that an antinatalist opinion? — BlueBanana

Not unless you have a really unusual definition of antinatalism. Maybe you do. I can't know unless you tell me.

I didn't mention operations, I'm talking of pain for the sake of it, just to cause them both physical and emotional pain. Hypothetical scenario, of course.

Again, I'm not really against the idea of allowing infanticide, so . . .

I suppose you mean without, not against? — BlueBanana

No, I said against because I mean against.

Certain assumptions of what opinions the person is going to have once they exist can be made. — BlueBanana

They could be, but I'd not base any ethical stances on that.

Not unless you have a really unusual definition of antinatalism. Maybe you do. I can't know unless you tell me. — Terrapin Station

If birth has negative value, wouldn't killing the baby immediately prevent that negative value of potential suffering?

Again, I'm not really against the idea of allowing infanticide, so . . . — Terrapin Station

Ok...

No, I said against because I mean against. — Terrapin Station

So it's morally right to do a person in coma or sleeping anything as long as they haven't specifically forbid that? No, as long as the consequences of an action are expected to be negative or have a high risk of being that, those actions are needed a consent for to be done and without consent those things are by default not done.

Let's do one thing at a time for a minute (especially because the other thing is going to be long . . . although I explained part of it already above)

If birth has negative value — BlueBanana

If birth has "negative value" to whom?

If birth has "negative value" to whom? — Terrapin Station

Doesn't antinatalism believe the birth to be negative to the person who is born because the life of the person who is born is suffering and mainly negative? Idk, that isn't my opinion, we just got side tracked because you compared an idea I though was antinatalist to antinatalism as if it wasn't.

Doesn't antinatalism believe the birth to be negative to the person who is born because the life of the person who is born is suffering and mainly negative? — BlueBanana

Yeah, but one huge problem with that on my view is that value is always to an individual. I'm a value subjectivist (and an ethical subjectivist, etc.). This is one of the reasons that antinatalism is nonsense.

So if you're asking my opinion, it only makes sense to say that something has such and such value to a particular person. There is no value other than that.

Ok, so we rephrase that so that people's subjective opinion of their own life quality and its worth is negative. If the question is how we compare these subjective experiences, we can just take the premise that everyone believes their own life to be a negative thing.

But we're getting side tracked, this isn't even my opinion on subject. The reason I'm arguing against you is just that I disagree with your arguments and opinions leading to the conclusion that being born and making someone exist is a good thing.

What our disagreement is that whether what makes an action morally wrong is the lack of consent or the person not giving consent. I'd like to get back to this situation:

So it's morally right to do a person in coma or sleeping anything as long as they haven't specifically forbid that? No, as long as the consequences of an action are expected to be negative or have a high risk of being that, those actions are needed a consent for to be done and without consent those things are by default not done. — BlueBanana

Here the person exists, which imo proves the argument that whether the person exists prior to the action is relevant to be incorrect, as the situation is similar to creating a person in the sense that the person is incapable of giving the consent.

You are conflating my argument and Ciceronianuses response to it. — Andrew4Handel

No I'm not. That analogy was directed at your argument. Look at the first few lines. "People can't consent to being born. It creates a massive problem". These are your words, not his, and I dispute them. People can't exercise their right to assembly without first being born, either. If anything, that's an argument for being born. That way, they can consent to life, or, analogously, exercise their human rights. Either that or it's nonsense.

Life is founded on and created by a lack of consent. It is not created by stopping freedom of assembly. — Andrew4Handel

Notice the switch there, people? Lack of consent, lack of assembly. It's not stopping assembly, it's not stopping consent.

It is created by a non-consensual act. — Andrew4Handel

It is created by a non-assembly act.

Creating a child does not impact on their ability to assemble but it does impact on consent because it is an nonconsensual act. — Andrew4Handel

They don't have an ability to assemble, just as they don't have an ability to consent. That's why it's nonsense.

How can you justify carrying out a non consensual act that affects someone else in the long run? — Andrew4Handel

Consent doesn't come into it, just as assembly doesn't come into it.

But as for how the act is justified, it's done so on the basis that it's a gamble that might well pay off, like many other acts. And you can fold at any time. Once you're here, as you and I are, it isn't about that, or at least it shouldn't be. Blaming parents can be a sign of immaturity and of trying to evade personal responsibility.

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. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, intention matters to some extent, and in cases like that, which are very particular.

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. — Andrew4Handel

That's to be dealt with at a time when it's meaningful to do so, and not before.

But we're getting side tracked, this isn't even my opinion on subject. The reason I'm arguing against you is just that I disagree with your arguments and opinions leading to the conclusion that being born and making someone exist is a good thing. — BlueBanana

But I didn't say I think it's a good thing. It's not an inherently good thing or bad thing. Whether it's a good or bad thing is up to each individual, once they've developed mentally to be able to make such judgments.

Re the other thing, I said that I object to it in general when we're talking about:

(a) a person--they must have personhood, which means that they have a sufficiently developed mentality that they can have opinions about such things,
(b) they do have opinons about such things, whether they've expressed them out loud or not,
(c) when their opinion about having things done to them when they're in a coma, etc. would be that they'd not grant consent to that, and
(d) when someone took a chance and gambled that they'd not object to it (but the person got that gamble wrong--they unconscious party would object to it).

In the case of something like an infant, (a), (b) and (c) do not obtain. However, I wouldn't object to a prohibition on something like physically mutilating an infant, where we do not kill them, so that the physical effects would last well into the point of their life where (a), (b) and (c) do obtain.

In the case of something like an infant, (a), (b) and (c) do not obtain. However, I wouldn't object to a prohibition on something like physically mutilating an infant, where we do not kill them, so that the physical effects would last well into the point of their life where (a), (b) and (c) do obtain. — Terrapin Station

But if you make someone exist, it's basically the same thing. (a), (b) and (c) do not apply but you're causing the physical effect of them physically existing which lasts into the point where they do apply.

"People can't consent to being born."

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.

Secondly, if people are not souls and come into existence at some moment defined as "being born" then there is no one prior to that moment that could either consent, refuse or be "forced" to be born; so your premise would then be incoherent.

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. — BlueBanana

That contrast is an effective way of showing the one-sided, cherry-picking nature of typical anti-natalist arguments like Andrew's above. They're always shot with loaded language full of negative connotations. Look here, not there. Don't get distracted. Focus on rape and suffering. I know, let's call something "abuse". Feel bad yet?

And the answer is that this is only an issue when we're actually talking about a person, which entails that they have opinions about these sorts of things, etc. — Terrapin Station

But you're opinion is at odds with the law. People have been imprisoned for criminal intentions and these intentions have not been aimed at a specific person. People have made plans to abuse children when they are born.

I think you are being disingenuous. If someone told you" I am going to have children because I want to make money from child pornography and have fun torturing them" would you ignore their intentions because there plans for children that did not yet exist? That is an extreme case which has actually been documented however.

But there are more common cases like drug addicts having children, religious fanatics, alcoholics an so on. There are a wide range of people that we can easily assess would make bad parents that would damage a child, before their child is actually conceived. Almost everyone has a scenario in which they think someone else is an inappropriate parent, most pro-lifers probably oppose gay surrogacy cases. So it is quite easy to consider the fate of a child before it is conceived or cast judgement on parenting aspirations.

Just like you can assess the probability of your future child getting cancer etc.

Don't get distracted. Focus on rape and suffering. Feel bad yet? — Sapientia

The whole point of antinatalism is that suffering is very real including thousands of rapes everyday. That is what needs focusing on because these are real people condemned to suffer.

If there wasn't war, genocide, torture, famine and so on, there would be less antinatalists.

The issue of consent runs deep. Consent to existence seems like a minor problem for someone thoroughly enjoying life. But consent is a glaring issue for those suffering and in various cases forced to commit suicide. But I am focusing on the contradiction or hypocrisy of valuing consent at all when the nature of creating somone is the complete opposite of consent.

Imagine someone has been brutalised as child (a Yazidi child by ISIS say) Then they are sitting next to someone on a bus and accidentally step on their toe getting up. The person gets angry at them( like sometimes happen.) It is ludicrous that a minor perceived violation of someone causes distress but these accidents and impositions are nothing like having a whole child hood or lifetime of pain imposed on you by nature or others.

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

There is no coherent way a pre existing soul could force someone to be their parent.

As a childless person how could a pre existing soul force me to be their parent?

By creating a child through intercourse the parents are making it possible for a new person arise and Without that sex act, which I have never heard being blamed in spirits ,then a soul could not enter this temporary realm.

Why are people so desperate to create this temporary state that ends in certain death? Death either makes us oblivious we ever existed or we go back to the hypothetical spirit world.

I have cared on and off for a relative who has now been seriously ill for around 15 years (paralysed, feeding tube etc). Imagining a cosy family unit is nice fantasy but the reality is often harsher. I can enjoy my fantasy infallible family in my head.

There is no coherent way a pre existing soul could force someone to be their parent. — Andrew4Handel

Maybe the soul chooses which fertilized ovum to enter. No "forcing" is necessary since the parents would know nothing of it.

If there are good reasons for souls to be born, then people procreating are performing an essential service.

How predictable. You're making my point. I know you, and other anti-natalists, want to focus on and exaggerate the negative aspects. You want to make out that it's the be-all and end-all. But it ain't.

The "issue" of consent is a non-issue. It's a nonsense, as has been explained.

Look at the first few lines. "People can't consent to being born. It creates a massive problem". These are your words, not his, and I dispute them. People can't exercise their right to assembly without first being born — Sapientia

This is leading to the semantic quibble I was aiming to avoid.

The right to assemble is something that someone may want after being born but consent is an issue about personal integrity and the basis of obligation etc. Your overall response was incoherent to me.

I deliberately did not say "we did not consent to be born" I just pointed out that it was a non consensual act. (Even though personally as I have elaborated I think we can easily and rationally imagine a child not consenting to the life they have to lead)

So if the act by which we come to exist is non consensual and that that existence can be very painful how can we coherently advocate consent? I think people are completely justified in not being stoical about suffering they did not choose. If society undermines consent we undermine the grounds for politics and law which is why society does have a farcical and dystopian feel.

People can't consent to being born. — John

Glad we agree.

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

If pigs can fly, and one just flew past my window, then...

Secondly, if people are not souls and come into existence at some moment defined as "being born" then there is no one prior to that moment that could either consent or refuse to be born; so your premise would then be incoherent. — John

Yes, trivially, it's worded such that it's problematic. To reword it: there is nothing there which could consent to being born.

How predictable. You're making my point. I know you, and other anti-natalists, want to focus on the negative aspects. You want to make out that it's the be-all and end-all. But it ain't. — Sapientia

The whole point of antinatalism is avoiding suffering especially unnecessary suffering, which a lot is. The suffering is non consensual because suffering is something endowed by nature. So while you can embrace some suffering if you want we are talking cases where someones life is marred by suffering.

Consent is a bigger issue than suffering for me as a child who was forced continuously to do unpleasant things and was attacked by others. I can choose to expose myself to some discomfort if I desire to do something. I don't have the right to chose suffering for another person to fulfill my desire to be a parent.

I could have succeeded in my first suicide attempt when I was 17 and what would that have achieved? That would have silenced me, made my parents looks like victims and no acknowledgement would be made of the bullying at school etc. What frustrates me is we haven't even got near rational parenting and social justice and people are resistant to full parental accountability or examining the role of procreating in social and personal ills.

physical effect of them physically existing — BlueBanana

How in the world are you figuring that mutilation and "physical effect of them physically existing" would be at all the same thing in my view?

(Not to mention that doing something to somebody is different than talking about actions that would be towards a non-existent "entity")

Glad we agree. — Sapientia

I'm surprised you didn't realize that was not my statement, but was quoted from the OP.

Maybe the soul chooses which fertilized ovum to enter. No "forcing" is necessary since the parent's would know nothing of it. — John

As I mentioned unless the parents initially have sex there is no fertilization process. And contraceptives are also used to avoid this.

Nevertheless there is no evidence for this scenario. It has the absurd and grotesque consequences that you are essentially claiming a child murdered by her parents chose those parents.

Even if a soul wanted me as a parent I would prevent them from coming here because I know what this life is like. So even if a soul desire to exist here for this temporary time we can chose not to let them via contraceptives.

And I don't believe most parents even put this depth of analysis into the reproductive act..

The right to assemble is something that someone may want after being born but consent is an issue about personal integrity and the basis of obligation etc. Your overall response was incoherent to me. — Andrew4Handel

It was an analogy. The one and the other do not have to be exact in every way. The distinction you make doesn't seem to address my criticism. Perhaps you'd like to try again?

I deliberately did not say "we did not consent to be born" I just pointed out that it was a non consensual act. — Andrew4Handel

That doesn't avoid the problem I brought up. It doesn't even address it. It's like calling a banana agnostic. Consent doesn't come into what you're talking about, like knowledge doesn't come into the example I just gave. You're talking nonsense.