(August 5, 2015 at 5:57 pm)Dystopia Wrote: The idea of bringing someone to existence without consent is ridiculous when the beginning of the process usually occurs trough regular intercourse and consequent fertilization/conception, etc - Minors, children, newborns, you name it - Are incapable of consent, so talking about consent related to people who can't consent is ridiculous.
It is logically impossible to get consent from someone who does not exist. I think you will likely agree with me on that point. (If not, go ahead and express whatever disagreement you have with it.)
From that, it follows that it is impossible to create someone with their consent. They could only give their consent once they exist, and so any possible consent could only follow the action of creation, and not precede it.
Consequently, every time someone is created, they are created without their consent.
Before someone is created, it is impossible to know whether their life will be good, bad, or in between. One would have to see the future to know how their life will turn out, and one cannot do that.
Consequently, in creating someone, one is taking a chance on what their life will be like, or, as I have previously expressed it in this thread, one is gambling with their life.
Now, the moral principle I have suggested is that it is wrong to gamble with someone's life without their consent. One can, of course, disagree with this, and given the preliminary comments leading up to this, I rather expect people to do so as they do not like the conclusion that follows from applying this principle to the present instance. However, the consequences of rejecting it means that it would be okay for me to gamble with your life without your consent. Or for anyone to gamble with your life without your consent. Do you think that is okay?
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
