• AStonedApe [they/them]
      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]
          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.