|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 25, 2018 17:35:04 GMT
tpfkar Where did I claim that. Since you are an obsessive cataloger of posts, you should be able to find the one where I claimed that non-existent people could be imposed upon. If it so happens that I did, through careless misuse of language, then I will own up to the mistake. But I've been very clear that I am concerned about the imposition on creatures that come into being, not ones that never come into being. I don't jump hoops for the crazies, I'm here for my own delight. It's your whole line that regularly slides between creating life, and then bringing a child, then sentience, or whatever as you feel the need to slide around. We even went around about how banging isn't really even creating life, although it can be a consequence that bodies do after said act. And once the thing exists, "imposing" on it by not terminating it is pure deranged morbid preference only. Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIME
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 17:48:10 GMT
tpfkar Where did I claim that. Since you are an obsessive cataloger of posts, you should be able to find the one where I claimed that non-existent people could be imposed upon. If it so happens that I did, through careless misuse of language, then I will own up to the mistake. But I've been very clear that I am concerned about the imposition on creatures that come into being, not ones that never come into being. I don't jump hoops for the crazies, I'm here for my own delight. It's your whole line that regularly slides between creating life, and then bringing a child, then sentience, or whatever as you feel the need to slide around. We even went around about how banging isn't really even creating life, although it can be a consequence that bodies do after said act. And once the thing exists, "imposing" on it by not terminating it is pure deranged morbid preference only. Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIMEIf you haven't got a quote saved, then I probably never stated that the non-existent were imposed upon. So I would appreciate it if henceforth, you could only address the claim that I am making (that the person coming into existence is imposed upon, not any non-existent person). Imposition is when a sentient life form is created. In the case of humans, that dividing line would probably be the point where it is no longer legal to abort the foetus, as it is at that point at which the parent has committed to the decision to impose life on someone who will be sentient and therefore capable of appreciating the imposition.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 25, 2018 17:52:11 GMT
tpfkar That quote pertains to a person who is going to exist, hence the imposition falls not on the non-existent person who doesn't exist at the time of conception; it falls upon the actual person who does exist as a consequence of the reproductive choices of the parents. So this example does not illustrate what you are claiming that it illustrates. Termination of a non-sentient foetus is not an imposition, because only conscious entities can be imposed upon. Even if it could be proven that the foetus was aware of its termination (and therefore by some stretch of the language, we could designate this as an imposition), it would be by light years the lesser of the two possible impositions. Not all antinatalists will endorse forcible extermination of the species. My personal views are that some kind of extermination may be the only thing that could stop the cycle of imposition, and would be permissible due to the fact that the harm inflicted on those currently living would be as nothing when compared to the harm inflicted on any number of generations of future animals and people by failing to do everything necessary to prevent the imposition. I'm not claiming that all antinatalists agree with me on how to best approach the issue, or even whether anything at all should be done. Right. And you're not murderous even though you want to nuke the world. And not irrational, even though you choose to frantically try to get people to choose to accept your pathologically morbid ideas when you "hold" that no choice actually exists and people are "pre-programmed robots" set from the beginning of time. And of course you're imposing now not on what doesn't exist, you're imposing on what will exist at whatever magical time you decide it exists. In general, termination of any living thing is far far more of an "imposition" to it than not terminating it. Before getting into the fact that giving kids the option to ride this great ride or chuck it early is in no way shape or form an "imposition". And I know all about your murderous psychopathic intents. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 18:00:02 GMT
tpfkar That quote pertains to a person who is going to exist, hence the imposition falls not on the non-existent person who doesn't exist at the time of conception; it falls upon the actual person who does exist as a consequence of the reproductive choices of the parents. So this example does not illustrate what you are claiming that it illustrates. Termination of a non-sentient foetus is not an imposition, because only conscious entities can be imposed upon. Even if it could be proven that the foetus was aware of its termination (and therefore by some stretch of the language, we could designate this as an imposition), it would be by light years the lesser of the two possible impositions. Not all antinatalists will endorse forcible extermination of the species. My personal views are that some kind of extermination may be the only thing that could stop the cycle of imposition, and would be permissible due to the fact that the harm inflicted on those currently living would be as nothing when compared to the harm inflicted on any number of generations of future animals and people by failing to do everything necessary to prevent the imposition. I'm not claiming that all antinatalists agree with me on how to best approach the issue, or even whether anything at all should be done. Right. And you're not murderous even though you want to nuke the world. And not irrational, even though you choose to frantically try to get people to choose to accept your pathologically morbid ideas when you "hold" that no choice actually exists and people are "pre-programmed robots" set from the beginning of time. And of course you're imposing now not on what doesn't exist, you're imposing on what will exist at whatever magical time you decide it exists. In general, termination of any living thing is far far more of an "imposition" to it than not terminating it. Before getting into the fact that giving kids the option to ride this great ride or chuck it early is in no way shape or form an "imposition". And I know all about your murderous psychopathic intents. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.There's a difference between the time when the parent decides to impose, and when the person becomes imposed upon. The person doesn't become imposed upon until they are capable of suffering. The mother makes the decision to impose at a certain point (although there is not yet an imposee in existence at this stage), then the future imposition becomes irrevocable at the point where it becomes illegal to abort the foetus. I don't have any "murderous psychopathic intents", because I have no intention of killing anyone. I'm just hoping that, one way or another, the cycle of imposition is stopped.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 25, 2018 18:00:50 GMT
tpfkar I don't jump hoops for the crazies, I'm here for my own delight. It's your whole line that regularly slides between creating life, and then bringing a child, then sentience, or whatever as you feel the need to slide around. We even went around about how banging isn't really even creating life, although it can be a consequence that bodies do after said act. And once the thing exists, "imposing" on it by not terminating it is pure deranged morbid preference only. Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIMEIf you haven't got a quote saved, then I probably never stated that the non-existent were imposed upon. So I would appreciate it if henceforth, you could only address the claim that I am making (that the person coming into existence is imposed upon, not any non-existent person). Imposition is when a sentient life form is created. In the case of humans, that dividing line would probably be the point where it is no longer legal to abort the foetus, as it is at that point at which the parent has committed to the decision to impose life on someone who will be sentient and therefore capable of appreciating the imposition. I don't care about your "probably"s. And I don't care what lunacy you'd appreciate, as you keep trying to pose that the nonexistent are imposed upon I'll keep pointing it out. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 18:06:51 GMT
tpfkar If you haven't got a quote saved, then I probably never stated that the non-existent were imposed upon. So I would appreciate it if henceforth, you could only address the claim that I am making (that the person coming into existence is imposed upon, not any non-existent person). Imposition is when a sentient life form is created. In the case of humans, that dividing line would probably be the point where it is no longer legal to abort the foetus, as it is at that point at which the parent has committed to the decision to impose life on someone who will be sentient and therefore capable of appreciating the imposition. I don't care about your "probably"s. And I don't care what lunacy you'd appreciate, as you keep trying to pose that the nonexistent are imposed upon I'll keep pointing it out. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.I haven't claimed that recently, if ever. And yet you still keep straw-manning that.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 25, 2018 18:07:29 GMT
tpfkar Right. And you're not murderous even though you want to nuke the world. And not irrational, even though you choose to frantically try to get people to choose to accept your pathologically morbid ideas when you "hold" that no choice actually exists and people are "pre-programmed robots" set from the beginning of time. And of course you're imposing now not on what doesn't exist, you're imposing on what will exist at whatever magical time you decide it exists. In general, termination of any living thing is far far more of an "imposition" to it than not terminating it. Before getting into the fact that giving kids the option to ride this great ride or chuck it early is in no way shape or form an "imposition". And I know all about your murderous psychopathic intents. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.There's a difference between the time when the parent decides to impose, and when the person becomes imposed upon. The person doesn't become imposed upon until they are capable of suffering. The mother makes the decision to impose at a certain point (although there is not yet an imposee in existence at this stage), then the future imposition becomes irrevocable at the point where it becomes illegal to abort the foetus. I don't have any "murderous psychopathic intents", because I have no intention of killing anyone. I'm just hoping that, one way or another, the cycle of imposition is stopped. Right, so when somebody "decides to impose", but decide against it or are hit by a bus before they do, they still imposed. Lovely babbledygook. And one of your "hopes" is that a crazy world leader nukes the place mass murdering countless regardless if it plunges everything back to vicious/barbaric early civilization civilizations or even savage pre-sentience. No murderous psychopathy there, boyee. Given that there's no compelling reason why life needs to be created, then the principle of non-violence should obtain here (an act of imposing a burden on someone else without their consent, even if that burden may bring benefits, is an act of violence).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 18:11:06 GMT
tpfkar There's a difference between the time when the parent decides to impose, and when the person becomes imposed upon. The person doesn't become imposed upon until they are capable of suffering. The mother makes the decision to impose at a certain point (although there is not yet an imposee in existence at this stage), then the future imposition becomes irrevocable at the point where it becomes illegal to abort the foetus. I don't have any "murderous psychopathic intents", because I have no intention of killing anyone. I'm just hoping that, one way or another, the cycle of imposition is stopped. Right, so when somebody "decides to impose", but decide against it or are hit by a bus before they do, they still imposed. Lovely babbledygook. And one of your "hopes" is that a crazy world leader nukes the place mass murdering countless regardless if it plunges everything back to vicious/barbaric early civilization civilizations or even savage pre-sentience. No murderous psychopathy there, boyee. Given that there's no compelling reason why life needs to be created, then the principle of non-violence should obtain here (an act of imposing a burden on someone else without their consent, even if that burden may bring benefits, is an act of violence).Nope, your example of the mother dying before the baby was born would be an example of someone who intended to impose but due to circumstances beyond their control, the imposition never becomes actual. If the mother simply decides to abort the foetus, then she decides not to impose and the imposition is also prevented. Having a hope for some kind of end to the cycle of imposition, without any personal plans to take violent action is not "murderous psychopathy". And I'm the one who favours the least amount of future harm occurring to sentient organisms. I'm not the one who is being dismissive of the catastrophic levels of collateral damage that it costs to continue producing human lives.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 25, 2018 18:14:06 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 18:23:22 GMT
Saying that the non-existent don't need to be made existent is simply a refutation of the notion that there is a benefit to be accrued to someone by bringing them into existence. I'm not claiming that it would be better for the wellbeing of the non-existent person to not exist, because there is no such person who would be benefited by never existing. That's the same reason why parents cannot be bringing a child into existence for the child's benefit. Once the person does exist, they may enjoy pleasures, but that comes at a cost of harm, and the cost varies drastically from one life to the next, and can never be accurately predicted up front. Some children brought up even by the most economically and emotionally supportive parents may go on to live wretched lives characterised by oppressive and constant suffering, very seldom tempered by any pleasure. And of course, you are opposed to the idea that the governments should allow such a wretch to be assisted in escaping from their lifetime of torment. The only time the positives become relevant are after the problem has been created to begin with; as non-existent people (or non-existence) is neither in need/desirous of benefits nor vulnerable to harms.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 25, 2018 18:23:39 GMT
tpfkar Nope, your example of the mother dying before the baby was born would be an example of someone who intended to impose but due to circumstances beyond their control, the imposition never becomes actual. If the mother simply decides to abort the foetus, then she decides not to impose and the imposition is also prevented. Having a hope for some kind of end to the cycle of imposition, without any personal plans to take violent action is not "murderous psychopathy". And I'm the one who favours the least amount of future harm occurring to sentient organisms. I'm not the one who is being dismissive of the catastrophic levels of collateral damage that it costs to continue producing human lives. Right, according to your new line, the imposition doesn't happen until, what, the fetus is a certain maturity? birth? Sometime postpartum when you've decided they're sentient and so "exist"? And sorry, wanting the world to be nuked by a madman leader is murderous psychopathy, and wanting all people to be forcibly prevented from procreating (even before your murderous intents) is jackboot extremism. It is an act of imposition, based on the desires of those who are capable of bestowing life. To impose on someone without their consent is an act of violence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 18:34:20 GMT
tpfkar Nope, your example of the mother dying before the baby was born would be an example of someone who intended to impose but due to circumstances beyond their control, the imposition never becomes actual. If the mother simply decides to abort the foetus, then she decides not to impose and the imposition is also prevented. Having a hope for some kind of end to the cycle of imposition, without any personal plans to take violent action is not "murderous psychopathy". And I'm the one who favours the least amount of future harm occurring to sentient organisms. I'm not the one who is being dismissive of the catastrophic levels of collateral damage that it costs to continue producing human lives. Right, according to your new line, the imposition doesn't happen until, what, the fetus is a certain maturity? birth? Sometime postpartum when you've decided they're sentient and so "exist"? And sorry, wanting the world to be nuked by a madman leader is murderous psychopathy, and wanting all people to be forcibly prevented from procreating (even before your murderous intents) is jackboot extremism. It is an act of imposition, based on the desires of those who are capable of bestowing life. To impose on someone without their consent is an act of violence.The actual imposition occurs when the being becomes capable of feeling imposed upon (which is any form of harm or suffering that they are aware of). But there's a cut off point at which the parent has committed to the course of impositon (the point at which the foetus can no longer be terminated), and from that point up until the child becomes capable of feeling imposed upon, the future imposition is inevitable, save for unforeseen circumstances which cause the woman to miscarry, or if sentience doesn't develop until after birth, it could be that the child's life is unforeseeably cut short before it could experience suffering. It's not murderous if one doesn't have any personal desire to murder, and it's not psychopathy if ones hopes are driven by great concern for the suffering of other sentient beings. And people shouldn't be given free reign to do something that harms those who cannot consent. If those people are already intending to impose suffering on others even after they've heard the unanswerable arguments of antinatalism, then it's completely warranted to take authoritarian means to prevent them from imposing. There are laws against harming others for no good reason already, and you don't refer to laws against rape and the preventative measures taken as 'jackboot extremism', even though those people would be forcibly detained to prevent them from using other people as a means to satisfy their desires and impulses.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 25, 2018 18:34:42 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 18:38:08 GMT
Ok, if you're going to be pedantic and nitpick over small things like this, I will henceforth specify 'sentient existence'. Because obviously I don't mean that because my chair exists, that means that it can be imposed upon, if that really needed to be spelled out. The supposed benefits to existing aren't to be considered from the perspective of not having yet created a child, because you would then be deciding based on your own values and predilections that the risks are worth taking on someone else's behalf, when at that point there is nobody who stands to benefit from being brought into existence.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 25, 2018 18:42:29 GMT
tpfkar The actual imposition occurs when the being becomes capable of feeling imposed upon (which is any form of harm or suffering that they are aware of). But there's a cut off point at which the parent has committed to the course of impositon (the point at which the foetus can no longer be terminated), and from that point up until the child becomes capable of feeling imposed upon, the future imposition is inevitable, save for unforeseen circumstances which cause the woman to miscarry, or if sentience doesn't develop until after birth, it could be that the child's life is unforeseeably cut short before it could experience suffering. It's not murderous if one doesn't have any personal desire to murder, and it's not psychopathy if ones hopes are driven by great concern for the suffering of other sentient beings. And people shouldn't be given free reign to do something that harms those who cannot consent. If those people are already intending to impose suffering on others even after they've heard the unanswerable arguments of antinatalism, then it's completely warranted to take authoritarian means to prevent them from imposing. There are laws against harming others for no good reason already, and you don't refer to laws against rape and the preventative measures taken as 'jackboot extremism', even though those people would be forcibly detained to prevent them from using other people as a means to satisfy their desires and impulses. It's not an "imposition". When/if they feel that they can start making their own plans and decisions. And all events are inevitable, including any great great enjoyment as well as the massive likelihood that the creature will be glad to have been given the shot. And I'm not interested in your hairsplits about wanting the world nuked and people mass-murdered but you're not bad really because you don't have the gonads to do any of it yourself. And except for gushing standard-less opportunist crazies, existence and birth (at least for the child) is nothing like rape. And the only arguments that you've fielded that are not trivially answerable are the ones that leave people so gobsmacked by their utter derangement. Violence in this case would be the imposition of needs, wants and the potential for suffering by way of the creation of new life.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 25, 2018 19:03:08 GMT
Okay. Hopefully you won't mind if I ask you something now. Recently you said something about being made to exist without giving your permission. Need I point out the conundrum involved with that? Yes, point out the 'conundrum' involved with that. If one cannot obtain consent for an unnecessary and risky imposition (including if the person to be imposed upon doesn't yet exist), then non-consent should always be presumed. I can see that while I was away, goz has covered the conundrum well enough. Well, wasn't that awfully sweet of her? Before you can grant your permission (or deny it), you must exist. Look, mic, some years ago I realized the futility of dealing with life the way I think it should be. Now, I deal with it as it is. I have a friend who is several years older than me, and evidently she still thinks she has the power to change the world by seeing it her way, when in fact the only thing she can change is herself, assuming she wanted to, which is doubtful. She's put decades of hard work into perfecting the programmed character that she plays in society, and at least outwardly she seems very pleased with it. Just something for you to think about when you've got nothing more exciting going on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 19:33:40 GMT
Yes, point out the 'conundrum' involved with that. If one cannot obtain consent for an unnecessary and risky imposition (including if the person to be imposed upon doesn't yet exist), then non-consent should always be presumed. I can see that while I was away, goz has covered the conundrum well enough. Well, wasn't that awfully sweet of her? Before you can grant your permission (or deny it), you must exist. Look, mic, some years ago I realized the futility of dealing with life the way I think it should be. Now, I deal with it as it is. I have a friend who is several years older than me, and evidently she still thinks she has the power to change the world by seeing it her way, when in fact the only thing she can change is herself, assuming she wanted to, which is doubtful. She's put decades of hard work into perfecting the programmed character that she plays in society, and at least outwardly she seems very pleased with it. Just something for you to think about when you've got nothing more exciting going on. I don't see that as being a conundrum, any more than it's a conundrum to refrain from having sex with an unconscious woman who cannot give her consent. The situation where I need to exist in order to determine for myself whether I resent being brought into existence is a needless one, except for the projected benefit of my parents. When consent can't be obtained for something that is highly risky, dangerous and doesn't bring with it a needed advantage, then non-consent should be presumed. That way, nobody misses out on a benefit and nobody is needlessly exposed to harm. It would only be the parents who either refrain from or are thwarted in their designs to drag another person into life so that they can fulfill one of their own selfish desires. I don't think that any normal person can change the world by themselves. All I'm really doing is trying to pass on a set of memes that I have come across and which make sense to me. Ideas really can change the world, and I am convinced that the ideas that I'm espousing are unanswerable using anything that resembles logic or ethics. I don't currently espouse antinatalist views offline, so in real life, I would be perceived somewhat differently.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 25, 2018 20:19:01 GMT
tpfkar Ok, if you're going to be pedantic and nitpick over small things like this, I will henceforth specify 'sentient existence'. Because obviously I don't mean that because my chair exists, that means that it can be imposed upon, if that really needed to be spelled out. The supposed benefits to existing aren't to be considered from the perspective of not having yet created a child, because you would then be deciding based on your own values and predilections that the risks are worth taking on someone else's behalf, when at that point there is nobody who stands to benefit from being brought into existence. Months and months of lunacy is just a "small thing". You do know that your chair is not a living creature, don't you? And what's obvious is that the superior position of an option for the existing creature is many times better than being forced to be offed by wannabe mass-murdering jackboots. Especially since the overwhelming evidence is that the creature will prefer having the shot, by magnitudes. And of course the creature exists long prior to any time you arbitrarily, tendentiously, apply "sentience". Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We Should
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 26, 2018 5:50:58 GMT
I can see that while I was away, goz has covered the conundrum well enough. Well, wasn't that awfully sweet of her? Before you can grant your permission (or deny it), you must exist. Look, mic, some years ago I realized the futility of dealing with life the way I think it should be. Now, I deal with it as it is. I have a friend who is several years older than me, and evidently she still thinks she has the power to change the world by seeing it her way, when in fact the only thing she can change is herself, assuming she wanted to, which is doubtful. She's put decades of hard work into perfecting the programmed character that she plays in society, and at least outwardly she seems very pleased with it. Just something for you to think about when you've got nothing more exciting going on. I don't see that as being a conundrum, any more than it's a conundrum to refrain from having sex with an unconscious woman who cannot give her consent. The situation where I need to exist in order to determine for myself whether I resent being brought into existence is a needless one, except for the projected benefit of my parents. When consent can't be obtained for something that is highly risky, dangerous and doesn't bring with it a needed advantage, then non-consent should be presumed. That way, nobody misses out on a benefit and nobody is needlessly exposed to harm. It would only be the parents who either refrain from or are thwarted in their designs to drag another person into life so that they can fulfill one of their own selfish desires. I don't think that any normal person can change the world by themselves. All I'm really doing is trying to pass on a set of memes that I have come across and which make sense to me. Ideas really can change the world, and I am convinced that the ideas that I'm espousing are unanswerable using anything that resembles logic or ethics. I don't currently espouse antinatalist views offline, so in real life, I would be perceived somewhat differently. After all these years, I have actually found the flaw in your argument. ( aside from the numerous I have already pointed out) You are so certain that your argument of anti-natalism is waterproof butt you have forgotten one thing. EVEN despite IVF treatment which STILL has inexplicable failure rates, the conception of new people is largely due to 'chance'. (This is not a religious statement butt a pragmatic and scientific one) There are young people who have sex once who get pregnant, there are allegedly women who somehow pickup semen from a toilet seat who get pregnant, and YET there are people who DESPERATELY want to have a child and NO MATTER what they do it never happens. The point of this is that humans actually don't have control over the conception of the next generation unless sex is banned and no-one has sex in CASE they (according) to you 'impose' on a new life and within one generation the human population is wiped out. Is this what you want? If so, you are a quantum leap loopier and sociopathic than Hitler.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 10:10:19 GMT
I don't see that as being a conundrum, any more than it's a conundrum to refrain from having sex with an unconscious woman who cannot give her consent. The situation where I need to exist in order to determine for myself whether I resent being brought into existence is a needless one, except for the projected benefit of my parents. When consent can't be obtained for something that is highly risky, dangerous and doesn't bring with it a needed advantage, then non-consent should be presumed. That way, nobody misses out on a benefit and nobody is needlessly exposed to harm. It would only be the parents who either refrain from or are thwarted in their designs to drag another person into life so that they can fulfill one of their own selfish desires. I don't think that any normal person can change the world by themselves. All I'm really doing is trying to pass on a set of memes that I have come across and which make sense to me. Ideas really can change the world, and I am convinced that the ideas that I'm espousing are unanswerable using anything that resembles logic or ethics. I don't currently espouse antinatalist views offline, so in real life, I would be perceived somewhat differently. After all these years, I have actually found the flaw in your argument. ( aside from the numerous I have already pointed out) You are so certain that your argument of anti-natalism is waterproof butt you have forgotten one thing. EVEN despite IVF treatment which STILL has inexplicable failure rates, the conception of new people is largely due to 'chance'. (This is not a religious statement butt a pragmatic and scientific one) There are young people who have sex once who get pregnant, there are allegedly women who somehow pickup semen from a toilet seat who get pregnant, and YET there are people who DESPERATELY want to have a child and NO MATTER what they do it never happens. The point of this is that humans actually don't have control over the conception of the next generation unless sex is banned and no-one has sex in CASE they (according) to you 'impose' on a new life and within one generation the human population is wiped out. Is this what you want? If so, you are a quantum leap loopier and sociopathic than Hitler. I like how you added the statement in parentheses after admitting that you'd been unable heretofore to find a weakness in my argument (which you have still failed to do). I know that there are accidental pregnancies which occur, and that there is an element of chance in procreation. That's why I have been at pains to say that in cases where there is a planned pregnancy, the mother deliberately imposes. But in societies where women have access to contraceptives and prophylactics, they are able to take precautionary measures, and usually abort the foetus after they are pregnant. The reason why accidental pregnancies still occur so frequently and the women cannot terminate the pregnancies should they choose is due to the fact that womens' rights and access to healthcare is not universal. Moreover, it may be possible to spray a chemical in the world's air, or add something to the water supply that would prevent women from becoming pregnant. It wouldn't be necessary to ban sex. Alternatively, we could develop an AI that would peacefully and swiftly wipe out all sentient organisms on Earth, perhaps by releasing some kind of toxin into the air.
|
|