LogFAQs > #956278997

kind9 posted...

Does #3 not contradict #1 though? What is consent to an "unrealized person" i.e., non-existence, and how does it compare to consent from a living, i.e., existing person? Why do you want to destroy us all? Do you want all animals to disappear?

As I said, they are simply two separate questions. You can think about consent for "unborn people" the same way you would moral considerations. For example, I think most people would agree that it would be cruelty towards an unborn child for them to be conceived and given birth to in a situation where they are guaranteed to die painfully or be tortured, think human experimentation or something. The cruelty of the hypothetically is apparent and acknowledgeable but unrealized until such a thing actually happens, until the child is actually born which may not happen at all.

In that same way you can say that although they don't exist and may never exist, a hypothetical person who could exist would not be able to consent to being born. All of the humans who have ever existed were once merely hypotheticaland if you ask around I doubt you'll find anyone (sane) who will tell you they did consent to their birth (regardless of how they feel about being born).