• gonxkilluaotp [he/him]
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 years ago

    I am extremely privileged. I have never been hungry. My parents were loving and kind. I have never wanted for anything. I have no student debt. I'm am paying off my first mortgage. I am young. I have a loving significant other. I am a programmer.

    Even with all these things, I have always regretted being born. I wish I never had to deal with the burden of life. I have held these opinions since middle school. I can't kill myself because it wouldn't be fair to those who are attached to me. I am locked into a 70-90 year long ride I never chose. My parents' little miracle where they got 1 more chance to raise a child for the fifth time is my curse.

    I would never curse another with this. I never gave consent to be born. Now I am here. Now I will struggle with my comrades to free ourselves from our chains. I sure wish I didn't have to.

    • sappho [she/her]
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      My story is similar. I think for many people they have not suffered so deeply or so long that they can comprehend what it is like, the fear that I could doom a single other person to this fate. And I'm glad for them. No one should have to experience what I've felt, and I haven't had anywhere near the worst of it. When you make a kid you make a gamble for them that their life will be worth living, and I think many just don't understand how badly things can really go. I care too much about my hypothetical children to roll those dice for them.

          • AStonedApe [they/them]
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 years ago

            That's a dangerous way to think about consent, imo. In general, when someone is unable to consent to something, we err on the side of caution and don't do that thing. Animals, intoxicated people, intellectually disabled people, etc can't consent; that doesn't mean you get to fuck them, it means you don't get to fuck them.

              • AStonedApe [they/them]
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 years ago

                in order to be able even to not consent to something you have to exist

                But why?

                Consent is really important for all sorts of things, and it's something we take very seriously. But bringing a life into existence, literally the most important decision one can make, is somehow the one decision that need not concern itself with consent?

                  • AStonedApe [they/them]
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 years ago

                    what are you asking for consent?

                    I mean, we're obviously not literally asking an unborn baby for consent, that'd be crazy. We simply recognize that an unborn baby can't consent, so we don't make the baby.

                    as they don’t exist they can’t have an opinion or preference

                    I totally agree, but this doesn't address my question. Why is it that existence is a prerequisite for the importance of consent? Why is it that a lack of consent means not performing an action in every case except this one?

                      • AStonedApe [they/them]
                        arrow-down
                        1
                        ·
                        4 years ago

                        the entity in question exists and is capable of having a preference.

                        Why is having a preference a prerequisite for the importance of consent?

                          • AStonedApe [they/them]
                            arrow-down
                            1
                            ·
                            4 years ago

                            we assume non-consent when consent is unclear

                            I'm with you here.

                            in this case both non-consent and consent are impossible as both pre-suppose existence

                            So we have a case where consent is unclear, why aren't we assuming non-consent like in every other case? I'll ask again, why is existence a prerequisite for consent?

                            it’s incredibly different

                            In what ways is it different?

                              • AStonedApe [they/them]
                                arrow-down
                                1
                                ·
                                4 years ago

                                The way I look at it non-consent is the default state. Consent is an action you take, non-consent is simply the lack of consent. For someone to consent of course they have to exist, otherwise they've not consented by default. The whole idea of someone choosing to not consent is nonsense.

                                  • AStonedApe [they/them]
                                    ·
                                    4 years ago

                                    contrastedly if I was to ask an unconscious person people would tell me to assume they don’t want a glass of water and that I shouldn’t pour it down their throat

                                    This is exactly my point! When given neither direct consent nor direct non-consent, we assume non-consent. The difference is I apply this same logic to an unborn person, and you don't. Why not?

                                    and again if I was to offer a non entity a glass of water it could neither want or not want said water as both presuppose existence

                                    In this case it wouldn't make sense to involve an unborn person because the question being asked is a question exclusively for existent people. But the question of whether to bring a person into existence is a question exclusively for non-existent people; it wouldn't make sense to ask that question of an existent person.