Lol, no...YOU dont know what Im talking about when I say it seems horrible to me. Im happy to clarify if you just ask.
So you keep focusing on framing and semantics for some reason, but not really addressing the actual question. Maybe Im coming off as adversarial? Im sincerely asking about your view here, not even trying to object to your view per say. My questions aren’t meant to lead you anywhere or entrap you or any of that typical internet shit.
Anyway, what seems horrible to me is the authoritarian nature of such a law, in the sense that an authority presumes to decide for someone else something that I consider a fundamental liberty. I know you may not agree, but that's what I mean.

Anyway, what seems horrible to me is the authoritarian nature of such a law, in the sense that an authority presumes to decide for someone else something that I consider a fundamental liberty. I know you may not agree, but that's what I mean. — DingoJones

Okay...

Well, I preferred you when you thought more like me, and less like Terrapin Station. But it's not even a liberty issue. People are at liberty to kill themselves. That's simply a fact, regardless of our views on the matter. I can go and jump off of a bridge or hang myself. It's just not something that I would say is acceptable simply because the person wants to do so. Have you even thought through the logical consequences of that? You realise of course that death is permanent, irreversible. And you also realise that feelings can be rash, impulsive, fleeting, or stemming from a disorder?

Lol, well I have a range of views and sometimes they line up with other peoples. *shrug* (not that the free speech stuff is something I agree with Terra on, Im not a free speech absolutist.)

Ive thought of the logical consequences yes, we probably mostly agree there. My issue is with the law part...when you make something a law it becomes a liberty issue. You are not at liberty to do certain things under the law, which is distinct from being at liberty to do them at all. (You are at liberty to kill someone if you can manage it, but not at liberty under the law to do so. Maybe thats not a distinction you make?)
So Im curious about why you think its important that it be the law that people can’t kill themselves...keeping in mind that I understand that some people might need help or are not thinking clearly...We should help them or get them thinking clearly but ultimately it should be up to them, not some authority. But you disagree with that so, why exactly? (In principal )

It should be up to who knows best, so medical professionals. If the person really does know best, then I would expect their case to be granted by the medical professions and get the go ahead in accordance with the laws I referenced. But that's unlikely in the case of that random guy from earlier who is probably just depressed and needs professional help treating his depression.

Why would you simply leave it up to the person, with no safeguards whatsoever? You say that we should try to get them help and so on, but ultimately they could completely disregard that against their own best interest.

Why do they know best? Are you saying that people (aside from your stated exceptions) who want to commit suicide are always mentally ill?
I guess what Im wondering now is whether or not you think someone can decide to commit suicide rationally, and why dying of cancer or whatever legal exceptions you accept are different than someone elses equally strong desire to die if you dont believe in “rational suicide”.

Why do they know best? They're medical professionals! If you're suicidal, then that's a symptom of mental illness. Who better to assess them? Themselves? Ha! Yeah, forget the medical professionals, let's let the patients diagnose themselves. They know best, after all.

Yes, someone can decide to commit suicide rationally. But that's not most people, who think that they're being rational, but are just being emotional or not thinking clearly. Can you think of a better system that will somehow distinguish the rational from the irrational, when the latter can be subtle or convincing? It's complicated, but once again, it's a cost-benefit analysis. It's better to have safeguards than to risk all those people slipping through the net and wrongfully sanctioning suicide. It's not like they can't take matters into their own hands anyway. That's why the most prominent cases of assisted suicide are about those for whom it is physically very difficult, if not impossible, through disability.

Alright, I understand. It seems pretty strange to me to call for a law to be in place and follow that up with how meaningless the law is (“its not like they cant take matters into their own hands anyway”) but I understand how your looking at it.

how in the world do you expect me to go about proving a claim such as "In every situation when consent is not available the least risky option is chosen". Do you seriously expect me to go over every conceivable situation where consent is not available and you have to make a situation for someone else?

It would be so much easier for you to come up with a counterexample to disprove it wouldn't it?

Because under consequentialism that's irrelevant. If the riskier situation is the better option consequentially, then that's the one you should go for — S

Where did you get that I was appealing to consequentialism?

There are lots of things that children can't consent to, and which carry risks, some of which are severe, like with almost any medication or surgery — S

Yes. And for all of those cases where putting a child through surgery is considered to be ok is when the risk of not going through surgery Trumps the risk of going through surgery. You wouldn't consider it moral for parents to force their children to go through a surgery that replaces their hands with hooves for example would you? Because there is no way that's needed. The only situation where people find it ok to put children through surgery is when the surgery is the least risky option.

The alternative I am offering is, essentially, that future people have no moral weight at all. I don't like the implications of that, but I'd like to know if anyone can offer a convinving argument that they do. — Echarmion

No one can. That's a moral premise. You can't "convince" someone of a premise logically. For example: no one can prove that if A=B and B=C that A=C and yet we all believe it. If someone said he doesn't believe that statement to be true there would be not argument to convince them. If you don't like the implications of it maybe use a different premise?

That means that while we are still deciding, we have to treat the future child as non-existant in the present and future. — Echarmion

We don't "have to". That's the premise you decide to use which we don't share. Even through you recognize that it has ridiculous implications. Such as for example: it's perfectly ok to genetically engineer children to suffer.

The special case is creating new moral subjects in the first place. — Echarmion

I just said I don't believe this is a special case and in response you re assert that it is. This doesn't help anyone

Even if I concede that point for the purposes of this argument, this still leaves the question of how future people can exist — Echarmion

No? I never claimed future people can "exist" in the same way people do but that we should not act in a way that harms someone in the future regardless of whether or not they existed then and that's the argument you just conceded. That is enough to make the case for antinatalism. I don't need to claim the existence of magical ghost babies if you concede that:

That if an action results in harming someone in the future, it doesn't matter whether or not that person existed at the time the action took place. — khaled

Does procreation harm someone in the future? Yes. Did they exist at the time it took place? No and that doesn't matter. So don't procreate. No magical ghost babies needed.

Where did you get that I was appealing to consequentialism? — khaled

I didn't. You've misunderstood. That was just a counterargument.

And for all of those cases where putting a child through surgery is considered to be ok is when the risk of not going through surgery Trumps the risk of going through surgery. — khaled

False.

You wouldn't consider it moral for parents to force their children to go through a surgery that replaces their hands with hooves for example would you? — khaled

Another false analogy. You're really bad at analogies.

The only situation where people find it ok to put children through surgery is when the surgery is the least risky option. — khaled

Basically a repetition of the same false assertion.

False — S

Give an example of it being false.

Basically a repetition of the same false assertion. — S

The same correct assertion.

Another false analogy. You're really bad at analogies. — S

This was an example of a very stupid unnecessary surgery. At being that it did its job. Why is this one a false analogy do you mind explaining?

Also you haven't answered this, which is the most important question I had for you

how in the world do you expect me to go about proving a claim such as "In every situation when consent is not available the least risky option is chosen". Do you seriously expect me to go over every conceivable situation where consent is not available and you have to make a situation for someone else?

It would be so much easier for you to come up with a counterexample to disprove it wouldn't it? — khaled

Give an example of it being false. — khaled

Give one yourself. All you have to do is think of a situation where the parents make a decision based on what they consider to be best for the child where that doesn't necessarily match up with the least risky option. I don't see why I should keep having to put the effort in to refute your overblown claims when the burden lies with the person who makes those claims in the first place.

Why is this one a false analogy do you mind explaining? — khaled

Yes, I do mind explaining, because your analogies are half-arsed.

A fish is just like a dog! Explain to me why that's a poor comparison. And then when you're done with that, I've got another one. And another one after that.

Give one yourself. — S

I can't think of one. That's the thing.

All you have to do is think of a situation where the parents make a decision based on what they consider to be best for the child where that doesn't necessarily match up with the least risky option. — S

That IS the least risky option though. Just so we're on the same page: The least risky option is the one that risks the least harm. Parents always try to do the thing they believe will risk harming their child the least.

A fish is just like a dog! — S

That's not what my analogies are like though. The things being compared share common features, it's just that one is extreme. Fish and dogs don't share any common features.

That IS the least risky option though. — khaled

No, it isn't. That suggests that the parent or legal guardian is infallible when they make those difficult judgement calls, which is simply absurd.

That's not what my analogies are like though. The things being compared share common features, it's just that one is extreme. Fish and dogs don't share any common features. — khaled

The irony. :lol:

Well, at least you have a rough understanding of the problem with bad analogies. But I can't be bothered to keep going into the details every time you put one to me. It's just another fish-dog each time, and it gets tiring.

I've been looking through this thread, and this phrase comes up a lot. Anyone care to explain what a "yet to be born child.." of a non-pregnant woman even is?

I never quite get why this is a problem for people. The person that would be born if someone were to get pregnant and bring it to term. It is applying a future state to something that does not exist in the present. However, the conditions to bring about the future state can be in the present or near present. So why is this so hard to fathom?

Why does anyone need to go through the "growth-through-adversity" game in the first place? Seems to be that people think they have some sort of right to impose this on others, as if the universe cares that more humans play this game. "Ah yes" they might say "we need to create people to be challenged so they can be strengthened through it, and hopefully find the joy in it". — schopenhauer1

You're the one reducing life to a "growth-through-adversity" game, I understand that's how you see life, but understand that that's not how many people see life.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6434/the-mild-torture-of-do-something-about-it-assumptions/p1 — schopenhauer1

You want to live, right? And you want to enjoy your life but you don't enjoy it much, right? So indeed, why don't you do something about it, instead of spending so much time complaining that you have to do something about it? If you don't want to do something about it then why do you keep living? I suppose you don't want to do something about that either? You just want to stay in limbo complaining about life?

What is your dream world? One where the whole of humanity shakes your hand and say "yes schopenhauer1 we agree, we all agree with you, let's all stop having children and let's watch humanity go extinct"? Will that make you content?

The only situation where people find it ok to put children through surgery is when the surgery is the least risky option. — khaled

Least risky right off the bat is an incredibly hard thing to track. But I assume you would be against parents buyng kids skateboards, since these are associated with injuries. Of course there might be subtle pains (social pain, loss of joy, but these are telling pains in the context of wanting all birth to end), but do these outweigh the accidents. Shoudl parents sterilize their children? It would seem from an antinatalist position they should. Right now it is illegal, but from an antinatalist position it would seem moral. It prevents them from not only having kids, but it will, in many cases prevent untold future selves from being put at risk without consent. The possible harms of the surgery and its results pale in comparisom with all those postential future sufferers.

Homeschooling seems right off the bat better. If the schools require being driven to (a major risk) or other transportation - we are dealing with all sorts of risk. Keeping them in a controlled safe environment seems automatically better and should be the default position unless studies show counterevidence.

No children should be driven anywhere. One of the most dangerous activities. Especially if the child is in the womb and cannot even give a child's limited consent to the trip.

One might question whether trying to give a child a happy childhood might increase the chances the child will procreate or will have more kids.

And one should be working on or encouraging research into a device that would kill all human life, all life that can suffer. Yes, this would be killing without consent, but it very likely could be painless and if everyone died, then there could not be the likely coming thousands or more generations of potential babies having their suffering risked. Killing everyone minimizes this risk. It is a consent violation, but one that people will not experience the pain of. When it happens, they will be gone.

Because one cannot weigh the positives of life against the risk of violating the consent of non-existent beings. We must share the priorities of the anti-natalists.

Even if they, as fallible humans, might be confused about some part of their beliefs, but not realize it, and this is a risk they take with everyone as they proselytize, ultimately, for the end of all human life. Should they be successful they will have, without the consent of those who would have wanted to live, wherever they are, risked their loss of things they would ahve valued differently, if they hadn't been all nipped in the bud.

I've been looking through this thread, and this phrase comes up a lot. Anyone care to explain what a "yet to be born child.." of a non-pregnant woman even is? — Swan

It's purely hypothetical speculation. That's what it is.

You're the one reducing life to a "growth-through-adversity" game, I understand that's how you see life, but understand that that's not how many people see life. — leo

Yep, that's the standard one-sided rhetoric you'll get from them.

And it's also kind of weird that people say anti-natalism is a projection onto a future child while also claiming that all non-pregnant women are potential mothers without having been fertilized in the first place..?

:brow: I'm not even much into this subject, because I find it a sticky one for me personally, but I don't think the natalist arguments are pretty shitty.

And it's also kind of weird that people say anti-natalism is a projection onto a future child while also claiming that all non-pregnant women are potential mothers without having been fertilized in the first place..?

:brow: I'm not even much into this subject, because I find it a sticky one for me personally, but I don't think the natalist arguments are pretty shitty. — Swan

That's an odd way to phrase that. Anyways, I don't know who said "all non-pregnant women are potential mothers".. but that is not quite true. Antinatalism is essentially about not having children to prevent a future person from either contingent or structural suffering. That is it. Whatever other odd choice of phrasing you want to add for a straw man or red herring, doesn't really matter to this argument. If someone doesn't have children, they are preventing a future person, who will inevitably suffer. That is it.

Antinatalism is essentially about not having children to prevent a future person from either contingent or structural suffering. — schopenhauer1

And everything else, which you don't mention, which is misleading. It literally can't be about just that, as we all know, because life is so much more than that, and obviously not having children wouldn't just prevent suffering, it would prevent every single emotion. So really, a more accurate description of antinatalism would be that it's about not having children to prevent a future person from experiencing anger, fear, sadness, happiness, disgust, surprise, aggression, apathy, anxiety, boredom, contempt, depression, doubt, empathy, envy, embarrassment, euphoria, frustration, gratitude, grief, guilt, hatred, hope, horror, hostility, hunger, hysteria, loneliness, love, paranoia, pity, pleasure, pride, rage, regret, remorse, shame, shock, suffering, sympathy. And all of that in spite of the fact that the average person wouldn't trade all of that for having never existed.

If you want to stop describing the position in a misleading way, you can copy and paste the above.

If you want to stop describing the position in a misleading way, you can copy and paste the above. — S

So it is good to bring about negative conditions for others because of the host of emotions you list? So the ability to experience these emotions is the main reason to then procreate, despite being exposed to negative experiences? Then, why would these emotions need to be experienced by another person in the first place? Why would that be important? Think hard on that, because appealing to "common sense" or a "common sensibility' or some such shit is not an argument.

Why do you continue living, despite having been exposed to negative experiences and are possibly going to continue to be exposed to such?

Again, the threshold to kill yourself vs. the threshold to procreate another person are different heuristics. Prior to birth the asymmetry (no one actually exists to be deprived, but all suffering prevented). After birth, someone with fears, personality, interests exists and may be worth continuing.

Just answer the question, please.

Um, I did. Pay attention.