|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 28, 2018 2:09:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 28, 2018 2:12:58 GMT
There is indeed a conundrum. Why should 'should there be a presumption of non-consent' from something that doesn'texist now, may not in the future, and if it does, may( and in fact mostly) will be grateful for life and have readily given consent? Most living creatures just 'live' and only a few misery guts like you and the very unlucky in their circumstance would revoke consent. They can always kill themselves. One millionth of those who just live, nay even enjoy their existence. What choice for the act of procreation? No-one knows when a woman will become pregnant...it is by no means a certainty as I have outline before, even in IVF circumstances. You can't really say procreating is activating a choice' with or without consent, if the outcome is uncertain. It may or may not happen. There is absolutely no moral or ethical precedent or logic in a presumption of non consent from something that does not exist where it is impossible to predict their circumstances and opinions should that non-entity ever exist (conundrum time again). As I have stated, the majority would wish to live, given the opportunity. The basis for presumption of non-consent is very simple (and if there was an unconscious woman, then there would be a presumption that she did not consent for someone to have sexual intercourse). In this case, it is something that is completely unnecessary from the perspective of the person who will have to live the life, given that that person does not yet exist and does not feel deprived of the life that they may have. Nothing can be inferred about what they would choose if they were alive, because they aren't alive, and nothing is known about what their future disposition would be, let alone the harm that they would inevitably face. You cannot do something harmful to someone and then get consent after you've irrevocably done it. And you're the one who has been arguing that it should be as hard as possible in most cases for people do be able to kill themselves, even though their life was something that was imposed upon them without consent (why should it have to be the suffering person's burden to fix a mess that someone else created for them, and why should they have to be the ones to take all the risk and endure all the pain associated with that?). Even if people like you and cupcakes no longer get your way with respect to suicide in the future, that will still leave people to be suffering sufficiently until they get to the stage where they decide to kill themselves. That would take them into their adult years, and they would likely only request suicide if they overcame their biological conditioning to cling to life even in the face of grievous suffering. I'm aware that pregnancies can be unpredictable, but in civilised nations, usually pregnancies are the result of a plan. And unplanned pregnancies can be avoided by sterilisation (perhaps this can be achieved without even a procedure). And in decent nations, the woman has a choice to abort. There's absolutely no ethical reason to say that we should needlessly plunge someone into risky and dangerous circumstances, with aught to justify the imposition but the desire of people who haven't been able to consult with the person who will actually be faced with the dangers and harms. What the majority would wish is irrelevant, because 0% of people who are never born feel deprived of life, and you will never be able to counter that by saying that 100% of people who are born are glad to exist. Therefore, all you are left to defend is Irrelevant and wrong. An unconscious woman already exists. Since a non-existent person cannot consent this is a non-argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 2:23:07 GMT
The basis for presumption of non-consent is very simple (and if there was an unconscious woman, then there would be a presumption that she did not consent for someone to have sexual intercourse). In this case, it is something that is completely unnecessary from the perspective of the person who will have to live the life, given that that person does not yet exist and does not feel deprived of the life that they may have. Nothing can be inferred about what they would choose if they were alive, because they aren't alive, and nothing is known about what their future disposition would be, let alone the harm that they would inevitably face. You cannot do something harmful to someone and then get consent after you've irrevocably done it. And you're the one who has been arguing that it should be as hard as possible in most cases for people do be able to kill themselves, even though their life was something that was imposed upon them without consent (why should it have to be the suffering person's burden to fix a mess that someone else created for them, and why should they have to be the ones to take all the risk and endure all the pain associated with that?). Even if people like you and cupcakes no longer get your way with respect to suicide in the future, that will still leave people to be suffering sufficiently until they get to the stage where they decide to kill themselves. That would take them into their adult years, and they would likely only request suicide if they overcame their biological conditioning to cling to life even in the face of grievous suffering. I'm aware that pregnancies can be unpredictable, but in civilised nations, usually pregnancies are the result of a plan. And unplanned pregnancies can be avoided by sterilisation (perhaps this can be achieved without even a procedure). And in decent nations, the woman has a choice to abort. There's absolutely no ethical reason to say that we should needlessly plunge someone into risky and dangerous circumstances, with aught to justify the imposition but the desire of people who haven't been able to consult with the person who will actually be faced with the dangers and harms. What the majority would wish is irrelevant, because 0% of people who are never born feel deprived of life, and you will never be able to counter that by saying that 100% of people who are born are glad to exist. Therefore, all you are left to defend is Irrelevant and wrong. An unconscious woman already exists. Since a non-existent person cannot consent this is a non-argument. We don't know anything about whether she would accept a man having sex with her if she were conscious. And we do not know whether the offspring is going to be happy to be born, or will be badly enough harmed that they would rather not have existed. In both cases, it is impossible to obtain consent, and in both cases, the action would not apparently be fulfilling any pressing necessity or desire on the part of the person who is either unconscious or doesn't exist. Why is it moral for you to get to take a gamble with someone else's welfare when there's absolutely no problem for them needing to be solved via your interference, and the action taken is only for the benefit of the parents? Why should someone else be forced to navigate this landmine and work their entire life to maintain the burden, just so that you can get what it is you want out of life? There's not considered to be an obligation to have children for the sake of the child who will come into existence, ergo most people intuitively understand that procreation isn't done for the benefit of the offspring.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 28, 2018 2:24:31 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 2:26:08 GMT
As I've repeated countless times, the 'others' are those who will come into existence as a consequence of the action. Just as there is concern over global warming on behalf of the people who will come into existence later on and suffer the consequences.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 28, 2018 2:26:21 GMT
tpfkar Irrelevant and wrong. An unconscious woman already exists. Since a non-existent person cannot consent this is a non-argument. We don't know anything about whether she would accept a man having sex with her if she were conscious. And we do not know whether the offspring is going to be happy to be born, or will be badly enough harmed that they would rather not have existed. We can refrain from terminating her before she wakes up. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 28, 2018 2:28:23 GMT
tpfkar As I've repeated countless times, the 'others' are those who will come into existence as a consequence of the action. Just as there is concern over global warming on behalf of the people who will come into existence later on and suffer the consequences. Right, the nonexistent. ![(Apple) Smiling Face With Open Mouth & Closed Eyes](https://s1.postimg.org/1aeeq0jfe7/sfwomatce.a.png) And of course the great options and massively likely wants of "those who will come into existence" can and should be considered just as much as any deranged framing of "imposition". And to add to this, the people who give birth are the ones who are sentencing people to death in the first place
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 28, 2018 2:31:12 GMT
As I've repeated countless times, the 'others' are those who will come into existence as a consequence of the action. Just as there is concern over global warming on behalf of the people who will come into existence later on and suffer the consequences. You do not know who those 'others' are and that they will even 'come into existence'! Because of the conundrum. You are presupposing that they will with absolutely NO evidence. Those who are non-existent have no rights, are unable to give consent to anything as they may not happen. Please specify just which non-existent people are going to come into existence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 2:35:03 GMT
tpfkar As I've repeated countless times, the 'others' are those who will come into existence as a consequence of the action. Just as there is concern over global warming on behalf of the people who will come into existence later on and suffer the consequences. Right, the nonexistent. ![(Apple) Smiling Face With Open Mouth & Closed Eyes](https://s1.postimg.org/1aeeq0jfe7/sfwomatce.a.png) And of course the great options and massively likely wants of "those who will come into existence" can and should be considered just as much as any deranged framing of "imposition". And to add to this, the people who give birth are the ones who are sentencing people to death in the first placeNope, not the non existence. There is no imposition upon them whilst they do not exist. When they are born, they will have to endure the consequences of the imposition.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 28, 2018 2:35:24 GMT
tpfkar No, by what means do you value taking away 'consent' from the billions of living, above 'consent' of the non-existent, to being born. Consent for the unborn is not possible so it is a negligible argument. You are, and always will be hampered in the conundrum between the extant and the future which is uncertain and unprovable. Afterall you said that you are not a soothsayer, so you cannot know what the unborn and unimagined, might think when they become sentient. You are merely basing your argument on what you and a few other crazies think, from a 'privileged position of current existence. So basically you HAVE no argument because the unborn have nothing, not rights, not sentience, not choice, no ability to consent, until they are born. It is that pesky old conumdrum again. There is no conundrum, because where consent cannot be obtained for a completely unnecessary risk being taken on someone else's behalf, then there should be a presumption of non-consent. Consent obtained from whom? Consent for what? Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 28, 2018 2:36:43 GMT
As I've repeated countless times, the 'others' are those who will come into existence as a consequence of the action. Just as there is concern over global warming on behalf of the people who will come into existence later on and suffer the consequences. Wow, you have really blown it now! Did you not realise that by bringing in the 'those who come into existence that we care about with global warming' you have inadvertently 'cared' about the existence of the future of non-existence people? That means that you agree that it would be possible and responsible to give them a good life...as opposed to none at all! lLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL I knew you would crack when you really don't have a logical argument to begin with! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 28, 2018 2:36:57 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 2:41:08 GMT
As I've repeated countless times, the 'others' are those who will come into existence as a consequence of the action. Just as there is concern over global warming on behalf of the people who will come into existence later on and suffer the consequences. You do not know who those 'others' are and that they will even 'come into existence'! Because of the conundrum. You are presupposing that they will with absolutely NO evidence. Those who are non-existent have no rights, are unable to give consent to anything as they may not happen. Please specify just which non-existent people are going to come into existence. The ones who come into existence are the ones who will be imposed upon. And there aren't any 'non-existent people' who are going to come into existence, because there is no such thing as a non-existent person. The only people who will come into existence are those who are brought into existence through procreation. If we disregard the wellbeing of people who will exist in the future, then that undermines the basis for the political war that is being waged against climate change, as much as it would work in favour of even the most reckless act of procreation. It also means that if there were 2 parents who were carriers of some kind of rare gene that gave their child a 50% probability of being born with a horrendous disability that would make life an absolute misery, then we should green flag them to go ahead and have 10 children if that's what they desire. Because in your books, since the harm isn't happening at present, it is meaningless. There is no conundrum, as there is absolutely no need for those people to exist to begin with. And given that there are people existing at present who feel imposed upon by having been born, there is absolutely no basis from which to conclude that there will cease to be any such people amongst the cohort of people born in the foreseeable future. Therefore we don't create a problem that is only 'necessary' from the perspective of the selfish desires of those who already exist. Upon what evidence do you base the notion that starting from some arbitrary point in the near future, there isn't going to be anybody who will feel imposed upon by being brought into existence, and that's going to justify the creation of a set of needs and vulnerabilities that doesn't need to exist?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 28, 2018 2:45:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 28, 2018 2:46:12 GMT
You do not know who those 'others' are and that they will even 'come into existence'! Because of the conundrum. You are presupposing that they will with absolutely NO evidence. Those who are non-existent have no rights, are unable to give consent to anything as they may not happen. Please specify just which non-existent people are going to come into existence. The ones who come into existence are the ones who will be imposed upon. And there aren't any 'non-existent people' who are going to come into existence, because there is no such thing as a non-existent person. The only people who will come into existence are those who are brought into existence through procreation. If we disregard the wellbeing of people who will exist in the future, then that undermines the basis for the political war that is being waged against climate change, as much as it would work in favour of even the most reckless act of procreation. It also means that if there were 2 parents who were carriers of some kind of rare gene that gave their child a 50% probability of being born with a horrendous disability that would make life an absolute misery, then we should green flag them to go ahead and have 10 children if that's what they desire. Because in your books, since the harm isn't happening at present, it is meaningless. There is no conundrum, as there is absolutely no need for those people to exist to begin with. And given that there are people existing at present who feel imposed upon by having been born, there is absolutely no basis from which to conclude that there will cease to be any such people amongst the cohort of people born in the foreseeable future. Therefore we don't create a problem that is only 'necessary' from the perspective of the selfish desires of those who already exist. Upon what evidence do you base the notion that starting from some arbitrary point in the near future, there isn't going to be anybody who will feel imposed upon by being brought into existence, and that's going to justify the creation of a set of needs and vulnerabilities that doesn't need to exist? Butt of course there is a conundrum, because there are people (us) who already do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 2:46:20 GMT
As I've repeated countless times, the 'others' are those who will come into existence as a consequence of the action. Just as there is concern over global warming on behalf of the people who will come into existence later on and suffer the consequences. Wow, you have really blown it now! Did you not realise that by bringing in the 'those who come into existence that we care about with global warming' you have inadvertently 'cared' about the existence of the future of non-existence people? That means that you agree that it would be possible and responsible to give them a good life...as opposed to none at all! lLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL I knew you would crack when you really don't have a logical argument to begin with! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL I care about those who will exist in the future, because with a fairly high degree of certainty, I can be sure that procreation isn't going to cease by the time that I've ended this sentence. And of course if someone has to exist, then it would be far better for them to have a good standard of living than a miserable one. I've never gainsaid that some parents will give some children a good life, although luck is a huge factor in this, because even the best parents may have a disabled child who will always be miserable despite even their best efforts. But there's no reason at all to think that there's some arbitrary cut off point coming in the near future, whereafter nobody will ever be born who will be unhappy at having been. There's been nothing to suggest that I think that the continuation of this lottery (even if the odds of avoiding a horrible fate do improve in the future) would be preferable to stopping the lottery altogether. And if I don't have a 'logical argument', why have you been spending this much time trying to find a flaw in it, and apparently getting quite upset in the process?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 2:48:38 GMT
The terminated will never feel imposed upon, and you can't be abstractly imposed upon. You can only be imposed upon if you have some awareness that a burden exists which was not of your own making. There's no evidence to suggest that a foetus would know that it's being terminated, and it's ridiculous to think that it would feel burdened after it is dead. And goz is the one who is saying that the wellbeing of future people is irrelevant because they don't exist yet and can't identify who they will be.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 28, 2018 2:49:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 28, 2018 2:51:10 GMT
tpfkar The terminated will never feel imposed upon, and you can't be abstractly imposed upon. You can only be imposed upon if you have some awareness that a burden exists which was not of your own making. There's no evidence to suggest that a foetus would know that it's being terminated, and it's ridiculous to think that it would feel burdened after it is dead. And goz is the one who is saying that the wellbeing of future people is irrelevant because they don't exist yet and can't identify who they will be. Neither will the victims you sneak up behind and put a bullet in their brainpans. "Feeling imposed upon" is not a sane measure. Does Free Will Exist?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 28, 2018 2:53:39 GMT
4. Wow, you have really blown it now! Did you not realise that by bringing in the 'those who come into existence that we care about with global warming' you have inadvertently 'cared' about the existence of the future of non-existence people? That means that you agree that it would be possible and responsible to give them a good life...as opposed to none at all! lLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL I knew you would crack when you really don't have a logical argument to begin with! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL I care about those who will exist in the future, because with a fairly high degree of certainty, I can be sure that procreation isn't going to cease by the time that I've ended this sentence. And of course if someone has to exist, then it would be far better for them to have a good standard of living than a miserable one. I've never gainsaid that some parents will give some children a good life, although luck is a huge factor in this, because even the best parents may have a disabled child who will always be miserable despite even their best efforts. But there's no reason at all to think that there's some arbitrary cut off point coming in the near future, whereafter nobody will ever be born who will be unhappy at having been. There's been nothing to suggest that I think that the continuation of this lottery (even if the odds of avoiding a horrible fate do improve in the future) would be preferable to stopping the lottery altogether. And if I don't have a 'logical argument', why have you been spending this much time trying to find a flaw in it, and apparently getting quite upset in the process? Yeah! Well fought Mic, butt you blew it. I guess it could come down to the modern concepts of democracy and polling. Were it possible to have a worldwide poll of all living people, 1. How many would wish that they had never been born? 2. How many want to commit suicide as a result? 3. How many 'can't because of current legislation'? 4. How many would willingly submit to being killed by Mic and AI because life is shit according to them? 5. How many would willingly submit to Mic and Erjenious mandating contraceptive chemtrails? Do you really think that me posting LOLOLOLOLOLOL is getting upset? I will alert my husband and family when that next happens. If I could I would give you a hug and a kiss to make you feel better.
|
|