Comment on "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" aren't actually opposite positions

• agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  My point is the anti natalists have the perspective that the risk of suffering is not worth imposing on a new human.

  You saying that assessment is overblown does not change their perspective

  The real part I didn’t understand is the “prior consent” part. Like I said, before you have the child, there’s nothing to ask for consent. It doesn’t make any sense.

  But as to the rest, I’m saying that the assessment is so overblown that it ceases to be rational. A fraction of a fraction of a percent of people will never get fulfillment from life, so no one should ever have children?

  There’s always some risk associated with everything. To never do anything because there’s a minuscule chance it could be disastrous is ridiculous.

  source

  • Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Ok so you do understand it, but you are dismissing the concern. That’s fine.

    For the prior consent part, consent requires active and willful assent to the act being effectuated. By the constraints of existence, children can not consent to be created. It’s an order of operations issue.

    The act of consent is not asking. The act of consent is being told, yes you can do that to me.

    source

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I know what consent is. I’m saying that applying the concept of consent here is nonsensical. Consent is so logically impossible that it’s irrelevant. This is the part beyond understanding.

      That’s why I bothered to go into any of the rest of the concern. The prior consent angle is meaningless, so the next place you go is retroactive consent.

      source

      • Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        And when you don’t get it retroactively?

        source

        • -> View More Comments