Post by cupcakes on May 17, 2017 21:41:21 GMT
tpfkar
@miccee said: If the possibility of experiencing joy is the only thing that matters, and the risks for the child are irrelevant,
then you should be condemning childless adults for refusing to bestow that 'gift' upon a new life. Moreover, it is normally not acceptable to unilaterally gamble on someone else's behalf just because in your subjective view, the potential rewards are worth it.
For example, suppose someone else was able to steal your banking details and had the ability to clear out your bank account of all funds without seeking permission. They intend to make a gamble with the money that they have stolen, but if they win, they intend to pay you back a little more than what they stole to begin with. Is that a fair and reasonable proposition?
And there would not be any problem with the fact that there was no preference and no ability to act on a preference. Nobody thinks of the universe's state before the existence of sentient life as being a grand tragedy because of all of the life forms that are missing out on life. But plenty of people who are alive now lament their circumstances and having been brought into existence.
Stay tuned to this same bat channel.
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.