The problem I have with your argument is that it could easily be used to justify rape. A person who is incapable of giving consent is also incapable of requesting things, so does that make it okay to just assume consent?

[–] Knoxvomica@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

Another note on the original post, their argument could also be used to justify going through the NICU and killing every newborn. So there's a clear 'pro life' bias going on here, with acts that bring more life being seen as good, regardless of consent. Wouldn't a more reasoned approach be to maintain, keep those who are alive, alive, and those not yet existing, unexisting? Forcing a being across the border is bad, regardless of direction.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Do you consider all heterosexual sex a form of rape?

[–] KombatWombat@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

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.