196

My adopted son was born premature, and I'm currently doing a daily sabbatical to check on him. By all rights, he shouldn't be alive. One of the brighter moments of being an American right now is standing in a room full of babies whose lives hinge on our willingness to fund Medicaid. Every one of these beds is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours to maintain. And people are dedicating their entire careers to bringing early newborns off the brink of death.

Its put a whole new spin on the ideas of natalism and anti-natalism. So easy to see some chud troll on the internet saying we should pull the plug, because none of these kids "consented" to keep breathing. But then you've got rooms full of compassion and care and joy, as these medical workers weenie all these little guys and girls into the world with the power of modern medicine. Stunning and majestic. The NICU Ward should be on the god damned American Flag. Its a testament to our greatness.

But how can something that doesn't exist have the capability of consent being violated?

This fact has nothing to do with the philosophy of consenting to exist

If living organisms are predisposed to prefer existence, this would imply existence is an inherently preferable state.

Something that does not exist cannot desire.

Prove it

If we are to assume that every non-existent person desires to exist, and that we have the obligation to not block this, then we should be having children whenever possible as to not block anyone.

Sure. This is the philosophical counterpoint to the "Nobody consented to exist so it is unethnical to bring anyone into the world". You spin it to argue everyone has a right to exist and you end up with some sort of neoliberal spin on the Quiverfull movement.

There are people who would say that even if we create good by bringing people that do consent retrospectively, we also harm forcing life into people that wouldn’t and don’t want life.

You're assuming objective standards for "good" and "harm" that aren't a given. And you're still ultimately dictating a choice on behalf of other people - both people who are being born and people who are doing the birthing. I mean, ffs, how do you even approach the idea of consent while intruding on two people in the act of coitus? "Stop nutting! You're violating the potential rights of a potential person!" is a thing you get to say only when you've disregarded the actual rights of an actual person.

not harming is always the priority over giving pleasure

That's a personal ideal, not a functional standard. In practice, people routinely engage in socially harmful practices for the sake of personal pleasure. And that goes well beyond sex. Let me know when we abolish the cruise line industry and then maybe you can come back and discuss chopping off everyone's balls for the sake of potentially existent people.

now that’s called “Benatar asymmetry”

The theory is rooted in the perspective that pain is bad. But even this isn't an objective standard.

It means that the original argument of consent to life is invalid. Consent isn't possible until life. It's a great philosophical problem but not one with a known solution.

Do you consider all heterosexual sex a form of rape?

For general rape, the victim is typically capable of giving consent but chooses not to, meaning we know the rapist is violating them. For situations where the victim is incapable of consenting, it is true that we are assuming a position for them. As a society, we have observed that being made to have sex in a vulnerable position is a negative experience, so it makes sense to extrapolate they would be opposed if they were capable of choosing.

For life, the observation is different. Once people have the power to knowingly "opt out" of existing, they rarely do. Most people instead prefer existing and consider it to be positive. So we should assume a hypothetical person would also choose to be born when acting on their behalf.

So, how does the concept make any sense? Can I get consent from an angel, too?

I fail to see how the mere concept makes sense right now. That's the same flawed logic as longtermists use.

That's legally not possible. Every piece of land belongs to someone already, either a private entity or a government. You might be able to live somewhere in a forest, but you're at the mercy of the entity that owns the land you live on.

You could technically live in the ocean, but I'm no fish lol

With all due respect but that might be the worst take I've heard this week.

A currencies value is determined by the economy behind it. There's a reason why countries with lots of exports have a strong currency, while countries that don't are weaker in comparison.

Obviously, it's not the sole reason - economy is complex. But taxes have no role in a currencies value.