Venting Procreation is immoral because nobody ever consented to being born in such a wretched place

[Darkover]

why do i think the world is a wretched place and procreation does more harm than good

16 percent of the world population have a mental illness

An estimated 1.3 billion people experience significant disability. This represents 16% of the world's population, or 1 in 6 of us.

As many as 828 million people – or 10 percent of the world's population – go to bed hungry each night

Extreme Poverty The World Bank defines extreme poverty as living on less than $2.15 a day (adjusted for purchasing power parity).

Approximately 719 million people were living in extreme poverty in 2020, representing about 9.2% of the global population .

Moderate poverty is often defined as living on less than $3.20 or $5.50 a day.

Around 24.1% of the global population (about 1.9 billion people) lived on less than $3.20 a day in 2018.
About 43.6% of the global population (approximately 3.4 billion people) lived on less than $5.50 a day in 2018.



Since we require the consent of people for nearly everything that could harm them, why are we making exception for procreation, which comes with lots of risk, especially if you are unlucky and could create a miserable life of suffering and tragic death?

The only reason to not ask for "direct" consent would be for things that most people have tacitly agreed to, like driving a car, taxes, taking a flight, saved by emergency services while unconscious, etc etc etc. These things are "pre-consented" as part of social contract/arrangement, because it comes with more benefit than risks, no?

But you cant "pre-consent" to procreation, because the child does not exist before conception, all births are without ANY form of consent (direct, implied or substituted) by default, right? The parents cant consent on behalf of the potential child either, because the unborn child has no history of "preferences" that the parents could inter from.

Morally speaking, we should never carry out an action if consent (direct, implied or substituted) is impossible, right? This means procreation is a violation of autonomy and consent by default, making it immoral, correct?

 

[AbusedInnocent]

This means procreation is a violation of autonomy and consent by default, making it immoral, correct?

The unborn being incapable of consent alone doesn't make procreation immoral, it just moves the full responsibility to the parents to act in the unborn's best interests.

Cats can't consent to receiving medical treatment, does that mean it's only moral to leave them to die of preventable illnesses because forcing a pill down their throat is too much of a violation of their autonomy?

I don't think the presence of risk alone makes it not in your best interest to come into existence, you must be worse off on average to make it immoral.

Of course I've said before coming into existence is always a harm so it's not in anyone's best interests but that's not a popular idea by any means.

 

[Downdraft]

The unborn being incapable of consent alone doesn't make procreation immoral, it just moves the full responsibility to the parents to act in the unborn's best interests.

Cats can't consent to receiving medical treatment, does that mean it's only moral to leave them to die of preventable illnesses because forcing a pill down their throat is too much of a violation of their autonomy?

I don't think the presence of risk alone makes it not in your best interest to come into existence, you must be worse off on average to make it immoral.

Of course I've said before coming into existence is always a harm so it's not in anyone's best interests but that's not a popular idea by any means.

Same. The consent argument doesn't work with good things. It's a redundant way to say that bad things suck that brings nothing to the table.

The alternative are people who only care about consent though, who wouldn't vaccine their cats because they can't consent.

 

[Darkover]

Cats can't consent to receiving medical treatment, does that mean it's only moral to leave them to die of preventable illnesses because forcing a pill down their throat is too much of a violation of their autonomy?

If someone is passed out on the sidewalk, an ambulance can come to treat them even without their consent. And this is widely viewed as moral.

 

[AbusedInnocent]

If someone is passed out on the sidewalk, an ambulance can come to treat them even without their consent. And this is widely viewed as moral.

It is moral, most people would choose to get treatment if they could so it's in their best interests.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I'd say it's a gamble... Life. Even a life with good odds- financially stable, loving parents, nice environment is prone to outside factors- illness, other horrible people, the economy and state of the world, eventual aging and death.

Is it immoral to gamble? No- if it's your own money or life- it's your choice. Is it immoral to gamble with someone else's life? I'd say- yes. Bringing a sentient being here enters them into a high risk game that they didn't consent to. They'll be expected to comply though. They'll be expected to get a job, support their parents, show gratitude for the opportunity to live. And at the end of it all- they'll lose everything most likely. They'll likely witness their parents and other family members die and then, they'll go through it themselves. Some very bad things are 100% guaranteed. The nicer things are only possibilities and- they may not even find them all that nice! It's a complete gamble.

Maybe it will pay off for both parties. Maybe that child will utterly adore their life and their parents. Maybe the parents will lead a blessed life because of the relationship they have with their children.

Most people's lives would probably improve if they won the lottery. So- why don't we all put all our savings into next weeks draw? Because we don't like our odds. I suppose people having children must like the look of their children's odds to be happy and successful in life. I wonder why! When so many people complain about their lives.

The worst thing is- I'm not so sure people do think like that. It's just something they feel they desperately need I suppose. Maybe we will get better at overcoming those natural urges.

I think what sums it up is the pro-abortion statement: 'My body, my choice.' I am actually pro-abortion but I don't like this slogan at all in the context of having a child. While it's accurate biologically- it will be down to the mother ultimately whether she keeps or aborts the child- morally speaking, I don't like it for what it implies: I own the life inside of me. It's entirely mine. It isn't- half of it was created by the Dad for a start. But more than that, it makes me sad because that child sadly is at the mercy of its parents decisions. And I hate it that we are. I think we should adopt that slogan instead- people who advocate the right to die. Because it really is our bodies we are claiming we have the right to choose over. Pro-abortionists are actually campaigning for the rights to choose for their children's bodies- not their own. It's splitting hairs but I think it's important because of what it illustrates- we do accept that a child's life is rightfully controlled by the parent. It can't actually be any other way when they haven't been born and can't decide for themselves but- that's the whole argument really- is it fair to force either choice on them? Birth or abortion?

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

As much as I hate my life and as much of a horrible person I am who shouldn't be alive, I can probably see how my unborn soul could be convinced to consent to being born if it was shown the right things. I suppose consent doesn't matter if you end up forgetting the choice in the first place but who's to really say we didn't actually somehow get tricked into volunteering in some way? Or maybe any one of us could have simply formerly been some entity that actually enjoys suffering somehow.

 

[Thanatox]

Cats can't consent to receiving medical treatment, does that mean it's only moral to leave them to die of preventable illnesses because forcing a pill down their throat is too much of a violation of their autonomy?

Well, I don't think that argument is valid. The fact that the cat even exists implies that two other cats procreated at some point, which is exactly what is trying to be discussed here.

it just moves the full responsibility to the parents to act in the unborn's best interests.

I don't think that the moral resposibility can be "moved" towards the parents because the parents just can't see the future. The parents acting in the unborn's best interests is just impossible because 1. they don't know what the unborn's best interests are gonna be, and 2. they don't know what will happen to that unborn child; what if he dies in a terrible manner? what if he is kidnapped, raped multiple times, and then killed whithout seeing their parents ever again? I know these are extreme cases, but what I try to say is that things can happen. Ignoring those possibilities seems just really cynical to me.

I don't think the presence of risk alone makes it not in your best interest to come into existence, you must be worse off on average to make it immoral.

I think it's okay to ignore the fact that you can die by taking your car for a trip because the risk you are taking can only impact you, but procreating suddenly involves a new life, and makes "taking the risk" a selfish decision that does not care about what would the unborn do. It's like saying "oh that won't happen, it's just to rare", but the truth is that it can happen, and in fact, I'm sure it has happened.
You say "I don't think the presence of risk alone makes it not in your best interest to come into existence". That's exactly what I'm saying. YOU think so, not everyone. Maybe, and just maybe, but a real and actual maybe, the unborn doesn't. And you don't know and can't know, so you shouldn't decide. As I said, it's so cynical to ignore the undesired possibilities...

Going back to the cat thing, I think that once the life is born, and the wrong thing (having that child) has alredy been done, it is moral trying to make that life be as best as possible. So in the case of the cat, well, he is alredy in this world without wanting to do so, and we know for sure he will die if we don't save him so in that case saving him is the best thing we can do. However this moral problem were the "don't take decisions for others" statement is not equally treated in both situations wouldn't exist if we didn't have taken decisions for others in the first place and we were all extint and life didn't exist at all.

 

[AbusedInnocent]

Well, I don't think that argument is valid. The fact that the cat even exists implies that two other cats procreated at some point, which is exactly what is trying to be discussed here.

I don't think that the moral resposibility can be "moved" towards the parents because the parents just can't see the future. The parents acting in the unborn's best interests is just impossible because 1. they don't know what the unborn's best interests are gonna be, and 2. they don't know what will happen to that unborn child; what if he dies in a terrible manner? what if he is kidnapped, raped multiple times, and then killed whithout seeing their parents ever again? I know these are extreme cases, but what I try to say is that things can happen. Ignoring those possibilities seems just really cynical to me.

I think it's okay to ignore the fact that you can die by taking your car for a trip because the risk you are taking can only impact you, but procreating suddenly involves a new life, and makes "taking the risk" a selfish decision that does not care about what would the unborn do. It's like saying "oh that won't happen, it's just to rare", but the truth is that it can happen, and in fact, I'm sure it has happened.
You say "I don't think the presence of risk alone makes it not in your best interest to come into existence". That's exactly what I'm saying. YOU think so, not everyone. Maybe, and just maybe, but a real and actual maybe, the unborn doesn't. And you don't know and can't know, so you shouldn't decide. As I said, it's so cynical to ignore the undesired possibilities...

Going back to the cat thing, I think that once the life is born, and the wrong thing (having that child) has alredy been done, it is moral trying to make that life be as best as possible. So in the case of the cat, well, he is alredy in this world without wanting to do so, and we know for sure he will die if we don't save him so in that case saving him is the best thing we can do. However this moral problem were the "don't take decisions for others" statement is not equally treated in both situations wouldn't exist if we didn't have taken decisions for others in the first place and we were all extint and life didn't exist at all.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here? It makes sense to me that when it comes to people who are unable to give consent we are allowed to guess what they actually want and act towards fulfilling that, risk is subjective and everything carries some risk, by your logic parents shouldn't be allowed to send their kids to school and should leave them uneducated because there's a very small chance they could die in a school shooting.

If life were something positive more than 50% of the time bringing people into existence would be moral as it's a net benefit to the majority.

As I said I believe that coming into existence is always a harm so why are you acting like I'm the optimist?

 

[Thanatox]

by your logic parents shouldn't be allowed to send their kids to school and should leave them uneducated because there's a very small chance they could die in a school shooting.

Again, the situation you present assumes that the damage has already been done. Since the child has already been born whithout their consent, the parents should do what they think is best for the child, which in my opinion is still bad (in an ideal world the child could decide) but the lesser of two evils. I would really like to say that the correct moral solution would be to let the child decide whether or not to go to school, but that has obvious harmful consequences for the child's future interests, so despite how much I hate paternalism, in this case it would be best to let the parents decide. However, as I said, this whole moral dilemma only exists because the child was born in the first place, so not having it would eliminate the problem.

If life were something positive more than 50% of the time bringing people into existence would be moral as it's a net benefit to the majority.

A "net benefit to the majority" justifies morality? So if your death would benefit the rest of the world, would it be morally okay to just kill you? Of course not.

As I said I believe that coming into existence is always a harm so why are you acting like I'm the optimist?

Because I think that even if coming into existence was good 99% of the time (which I don't think it is, and in fact I think it's always bad), the one percent would still be enough to make it immoral as a whole.

 

[NeverReallyHere]

This means procreation is a violation of autonomy and consent by default, making it immoral, correct?

I mean you can't have autonomy if you don't exist, so I guess this is a bit of a paradox.