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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
deleted by creator
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.
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?
deleted by creator
Why is having a preference a prerequisite for the importance of consent?
deleted by creator
I'm with you here.
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?
In what ways is it different?
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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?
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.
deleted by creator
Touché mate, you got me there.