Number one, they can’t consent to being born, If given the choice, I would not consent to being born right now, why should I force that on someone else.
All your points are solid except this one. This one just gives the pro-birthers ammunition to use and strengthen a belief. Something which does not exist nor has any consciousness isn’t capable of the concept of consent. Consent is a social construct created by humans (which unfortunately not everyone believes in), but a fetus isn’t yet human (in your example, it’s not even a fetus but the concept of a human, which is even further abstract. This is like complaining a painting did not consent to existing).
It also is a rationally failed thought in that such a hypothetical still non existent being also can’t communicate a desire to exist. It can’t communicate anything, actually.
Projecting your own depression into it doesn’t help anyone, including yourself.
Bytemeister@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Consent exists outside of humans, it just what we’ve decided to call “respecting autonomy”.
I don’t think it is forced birther ammo. Something that does not exist cannot consent. A fetus is just a collection of cells, it has the same ability to consent as a finger or a liver, in the vast majority of abortions it has no more individual identity than a tumor. Consent of the fetus shouldn’t be a criteria for abortion anyway, it’s consent of the individual that it is taking resources from that matters.