• 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?