Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2017 0:05:20 GMT
Giving birth imposes unnecessary risks, hazards and responsibilities on a sentient being that has not given consent, with the justification that the imposer/bestower believes that there are likely to be benefits which would make the risks worthwhile (in the estimation of the person who is imposing life). That would be considered morally wrong in any other context, and I don't think that birth should be any different just because we cannot request consent from the foetus.
Ideally, women should take precautions to avoid becoming impregnated. However, in the event that a pregnancy does occur, then the most ethical course of action would be to terminate the pregnancy.
Just to be clear, and I am pretty sure this is just an issue in interpretation, but are you suggesting that all pregnancies carried to term are immoral? I am opposed to the creation of new life, on the basis of the fact that it will impose risks upon someone who cannot consent to those risks (on the basis that they may reap a reward that would, in the estimation of the parents "make it all worth the risk"). However, I would hesitate to use the word 'immoral' in relation to a pregnancy carried to term, if the mother had never considered the antinatalist perspective. If they weren't aware that they were imposing unnecessary risks, then they were just following their biological programming.
|
|