• 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.