Support NeoGAF

[chillybright]

When someone's born that person didn't consent to being born because they were incapable of consenting as prior to conception they were just a concept in the minds of parents who sought to make that concept a reality.
It doesn't take believing in souls to think that parents should take the moral implications of that into consideration.

OK op, if you do not believe in souls then answer me this:

Who or what does your "moral implication" affect?

According to you it only affects the concept in the parents mind, right?

 

[Septimius]

I don't believe in objective morality, so it's just a personal guideline I abide by, but I so believe that within the commonly agreed on spectrum of western morality that most posters here align with, that it's arguable an "immoral act".

You'd be justified in calling me edgy if I attacked those who do have children.
But I didn't, and I have no ill will towards those who do have kids, so please, chillax.

I'm not sure what's exactly crazy about this, it's a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

I normally like to apply normative ethics to ideas someone says have reached a reasonable conclusion. Let's apply three normative ethic ideas to your conclusion:

- Virtue ethics
- Deontological ethics (here via the Categorical Imperative by Kant)
- Consequentialism/Teleology (here via Utilitarianism)

- What if everyone didn't have children: (Categorical Imperative)
The categorical imperative says that for something to be ethical, it should be so that everyone should do it, since it is the better thing to do. If no one had children, today's generation would not be able to get new doctors, new people to uphold the infrastructure of the world. When they get older, they would all have a terrible time of it, as people who would need care wouldn't get it. No one would get nurses home to look after them, while no one at the same time would take away their garbage. Humankind would decay in a horrifying way, and ultimately mankind would die. While it is arguable that mankind is a blithe on the earth, it is not say that the only conclusion is to eradicate mankind. This is really only a trite sci-fi plot. It would be ethical instead to be responsible people not ruining the earth, while at the same time ensuring seven billion people would wither away, some of them in excruciating pain. Since not everyone could stop having children, it is not ethical to implore such a thing

- Are you making more good in the world by not having children? (Utilitarianism)
Utilitarianism isn't that general, it is rather looking at if you're maximizing happiness by the action you're suggesting. I would say that if "reasonable people" came to your conclusion, you'd start the plot of the movie Idiocracy, or continue down the path where the US is today, where they have a president that believes global warming is a hoax, at the most crucial pivot point in global weather history. If it is a logical conclusion to not have children, then you'd be damned sure that less logical people would continue to have children, which would bias the populous towards being less educated, which in turn would bring lower income, worse living conditions, and shorter lives. This is but one of about fifty ways I could examine your proposition in a Utilitarian way, and show that it is not ethical by Utilitarianism to not have children

- Is it virtuous to not have children?
Virtues are defined as courage, wisdom, proper ambition and more. At the face of the issues you cast, I would say it is cowardly to hide behind a "conclusion" that it is best not to have children. I see nothing virtuous in such an action. This is, however, the biggest criticism of Virtue ethics, that it's too relative.

I'm completely overlooking your consent argument, but that's because it's a logical fallacy. Consent by non-beings is not a paradox, but something that completely halts the entire world. It is the foundation of anxiety, it is the antonym of being free and it ties us all up in a recursive loop of non-decision. If we could be allowed to use an argument of consent of non-existing things, we could never do anything. It would be like needing consent of your apartment's next owners to live there, before you can live there. It halts our entire decision making process, as when we start to decide, we are lucky that we don't have to decide if we are going to make a decision. If we had to, we would have to decide if we wanted to decide if we were going to make a decision, ad nauseam. It is not ethical to demand a consent of the non-existing. By the same logic, you'd have to get consent of every woman you meet if you can have sex with them - if that were to happen some time in the future - as the thing you have to do before you engage in a conversation, and much like a child never born, because of a lack of consent, that conversation with that woman would also never happen because of them being freaked the fuck out.

It is a logical fallacy, because at the conclusion of your own idea, you should never have existed. At the face of you saying you enjoy being born, you would actually have yourself never be born, which your parents would not have the consent to do. You can't just say you need consent for the one side, because you would also need the consent to never have all the children you would have, from the children you would have. You can't assume they don't want to be born. You can't assume they want to be born. You've reached a conclusion that brings with it no value. You impede on all action, you attribute things where they don't fit, and you call it a moral code. I have shown that there are no normative ethics wherein your idea is ethical, and I'd say it's immoral to bring with you all these issues.

Luckily, you aren't tied down by your moral code, because if you actually were to follow your line of thought when it comes to consent, you would never do anything. You couldn't live in your apartment, because you lack the consent of future owners. You couldn't eat anything, because you don't have the consent of even a tomato to eat it. You wouldn't make a decision, because you spin around the object driven indo-european language we have to do immoral backflips for your in the face of basically a linguistic loophole. You can't affix a concept to something that doesn't exist. When you say you need consent by an unborn, you violate even causality. You upset every Buddha by ruining the spontaneous nature, you upset Aristotle in ways of causality and virtue. You piss on even quantum mechanics. Your idea is so far out of whack that you even validate epistemology.

There is nothing moral about your code. It is a linguistic loophole, brought on by a notion of taking things to the absurd, by ideas ruining all human interactions, and leaving us all with analysis paralysis. The sun will explode in four billion years. It is immoral to impose that on our greatest grand children. Let's all just kill ourselves apparently.

 

[Atrophis]

Terrible thread. Not because of the OP but because of the shitposts. I guess the OP didn't really help as he is mischaracterising antinatalism somewhat. Consent is a part of it but there are many justifications for it, just read the antinatalism wiki page.

It basically boils down to not bringing another being into existence because its a certainty that they will suffer. Choosing to do so is an immoral act. This is a much stronger argument than the non-consent of a being that doesn't exist.

I don't consider myself an antinatalist but I am sympathetic towards the philosophy and I have chosen not to have children (I have a vasectomy booked so don't even try and suggest I'll be changing my mind).

I think it might have been The Conspiracy Against the Human Race, but I'm super sleep deprived so I can't remember and my Nook battery is dead so I can't check.

I haven't read it yet but I think thats what you're talking about.

 

[thetrin]

This is like giving someone a surprise gift, and then the other person says it's immoral becuase you didn't get their consent to receive a gift.

I'm sorry OP. That's idiotic.

 

[Mendrox]

@OP, they give consent by swimming towards the egg.
If they didn't want to be born they'd swim elsewhere.

Good point? There is your answer OP. Now do something worthwile with your thoughts. I would also recommend you to not act like an smart ass 100% of the time in discussions.

Terrible thread. Not because of the OP but because of the shitposts. I guess the OP didn't really help as he is mischaracterising antinatalism somewhat. Consent is a part of it but there are many justifications for it, just read the antinatalism wiki page.

It basically boils down to not bringing another being into existence because its a certainty that they will suffer. Choosing to do so is an immoral act. This is a much stronger argument than the non-consent of a being that doesn't exist.

I don't consider myself an antinatalist but I am sympathetic towards the philosophy and I have chosen not to have children (I have a vasectomy booked so don't even try and suggest I'll be changing my mind).



I haven't read it yet but I think thats what you're talking about.

He only points out the consent thing - nothing else.

 

[Greddleok]

Can you explain why consent is necessary?

Do you give consent for everything? Is the wind immoral because you didn't consent to it blowing your hair? Is the sea immoral when someone doesn't consent to drowning?

What things (yes things, because non-existent people aren't people, they're concepts) need to give consent? Am I immoral because the apple didn't consent to being eaten? Am I immoral because the stone didn't consent to being thrown into the lake?

 

[NoblesseOblige]

OP judges other people as immoral but probably doesn't even stop to think about the untold suffering his consumption has caused.

 

[The Pope]

"I don't mean to be an ass, but you seem like someone who is convinced they're the smartest person they know."
He came at me first.
I didn't insult anyone else in this thread.

When someone's born that person didn't consent to being born because they were incapable of consenting as prior to conception they were just a concept in the minds of parents who sought to make that concept a reality.
It doesn't take believing in souls to think that parents should take the moral implications of that into consideration.

I never thought I was going to do this but I am going to use a pro-life argument. Who are you to judge your offsprings future happiness and potential? Shouldnt that be a moral consideration? Look OP if life is really shitty atm for you...I sort of understand your stance, and hope things get much better for you. If you believe humans are a cancer upon the earth, then raise your children to be environmentally aware etc. We need more concentised people, not less.

 

[Windtrick]

It is a logical fallacy, because at the conclusion of your own idea, you should never have existed. At the face of you saying you enjoy being born, you would actually have yourself never be born, which your parents would not have the consent to do. You can't just say you need consent for the one side, because you would also need the consent to never have all the children you would have, from the children you would have. You can't assume they don't want to be born. You can't assume they want to be born. You've reached a conclusion that brings with it no value. You impede on all action, you attribute things where they don't fit, and you call it a moral code. I have shown that there are no normative ethics wherein your idea is ethical, and I'd say it's immoral to bring with you all these issues.

Excellent post, especially this paragraph.

 

[Kevtones]

- Present evidence and or arguments (in your OP).
- Don't pre-jump the people that will jump your position in your opening statement
- I disagree with your basic belief on many levels and find it to be Darwinian

 

[Speely]

This seems like a topic that is not ripe for an easy, civil discussion here.

I think that's a shame, because even though I disagree with the OP, I think this conversation is one worth having and I am open to being talked to about it.

 

[Sulik2]

I don't think anyone should have kids because human civilization is going to crash hard in your kids lifetime and they should be spared that suffering. But violating the consent of a person who doesn't exist yet is a bit strange.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

I've never even heard the term before. I have three kids and I think being a parent is the most rewarding thing in the world.

 

[manueldelalas]

@OP, they give consent by swimming towards the egg.
If they didn't want to be born they'd swim elsewhere.

What if they end up in the wrong path, like throat, ass, condom or paper towel? That's immoral, you are taking away from them the possibility to choose.

What if you have sex on a non fertile day? What about the ones that wanted to get to the egg but were beaten by a faster/more durable one?

The ramifications!

 

[Airola]

@OP, they give consent by swimming towards the egg.
If they didn't want to be born they'd swim elsewhere.

:O


/thread?

 

[Steve.1981]

It's totally cool if someone doesn't want to have kids, but the whole consent issue is a non-starter.

This is it, perfectly reasoned,

@OP, they give consent by swimming towards the egg.
If they didn't want to be born they'd swim elsewhere.

There's no arguing with this.

 

[Iriscomeback]

Well, I kind of understand what you're saying.

I know a girl that feels exactly the same way. Why? Because she had a terrible life and a terrible childhood filled with traumatic, sexual, experiences and parents that were absolutely unfit for parenthood.

When reflecting on those experiences she often asks herself a question: why am I here? Just to get raped and assaulted? What's the point?

Why would I do this to a child willingly? When I say to her that there is also a chance (a big one) that her child won't go through that she is sceptical.

'I never thought it would happen, but it did.'

So, yeah. In her case I get it, but she has a reason to think this, to be scared.

 

[Speely]

:O


/thread?

Yeah pretty much, as it's sort of infallible, but I want to hear more about the OP's reasoning. This kind of shit is really fascinating to me,but it seems like everyone else just wants to shut it down and "win" without understanding where it comes from.

 

[Greddleok]

There's no arguing with this.

There is arguing against the, very easily. Cells don't consent or not consent to anything.

 

[Charles Brandon]

The OP basically amounts to "life itself is immoral", which is a fairly extreme point of view.

 

[Atraveller]

There is arguing against the, very easily. Cells don't consent or not consent to anything.

Neither could non-existence, but that didn't stop OP.

 

[Nozem]

@OP, they give consent by swimming towards the egg.
If they didn't want to be born they'd swim elsewhere.

This is so stupid that it makes sense.

 

[Speely]

This is so stupid that it makes sense.

Err, it's not stupid at all. That's literally what happens.

 

[Future]

Are people supposed to have a rational discussion about this? My mind is blown reading OP. How can this be taken seriously? Is this being taken seriously?

 

[Greddleok]

Err, it's not stupid at all. That's literally what happens.

Except it's not. Cells do not have the ability to give or not give permission, nor do they "want" anything.

 

[GhostWriter24]

You're free to choose not to procreate, and that's perfectly fine. But when you're on your deathbed in your time of need -- wondering why you never had a son, or daughter, or grandchild -- and fade into eternal darkness with nought but a sterile heart rate monitor by your side...that's when you'll realize your philosophy is utter folly.

Have fun with that.

 

[Septimius]

Err, it's not stupid at all. That's literally what happens.

They just swim at random. That's why there's literally five hundred million sperm cells per ejaculation, so that they can be completely random, and then perhaps a single one can find the egg.

 

[Speely]

Are people supposed to have a rational discussion about this? My mind is blown reading OP. How can this be taken seriously? Is this being taken seriously?

Well.

In one sense, it's VERY easy to take what the OP is saying and dismiss it in sound fashion (because it's sillt, tbh,) but it's also a fascinating question to address imo, and one that I feel GAF purged a bit too swiftly, merely because I think it could have lead to more interesting conversations had so many people not been falling over themselves to call out the OP.

 

[Bounceounce]

I normally like to apply normative ethics to ideas someone says have reached a reasonable conclusion. Let's apply three normative ethic ideas to your conclusion:

- Virtue ethics
- Deontological ethics (here via the Categorical Imperative by Kant)
- Consequentialism/Teleology (here via Utilitarianism)

- What if everyone didn't have children: (Categorical Imperative)
The categorical imperative says that for something to be ethical, it should be so that everyone should do it, since it is the better thing to do. If no one had children, today's generation would not be able to get new doctors, new people to uphold the infrastructure of the world. When they get older, they would all have a terrible time of it, as people who would need care wouldn't get it. No one would get nurses home to look after them, while no one at the same time would take away their garbage. Humankind would decay in a horrifying way, and ultimately mankind would die. While it is arguable that mankind is a blithe on the earth, it is not say that the only conclusion is to eradicate mankind. This is really only a trite sci-fi plot. It would be ethical instead to be responsible people not ruining the earth, while at the same time ensuring seven billion people would wither away, some of them in excruciating pain. Since not everyone could stop having children, it is not ethical to implore such a thing

- Are you making more good in the world by not having children? (Utilitarianism)
Utilitarianism isn't that general, it is rather looking at if you're maximizing happiness by the action you're suggesting. I would say that if "reasonable people" came to your conclusion, you'd start the plot of the movie Idiocracy, or continue down the path where the US is today, where they have a president that believes global warming is a hoax, at the most crucial pivot point in global weather history. If it is a logical conclusion to not have children, then you'd be damned sure that less logical people would continue to have children, which would bias the populous towards being less educated, which in turn would bring lower income, worse living conditions, and shorter lives. This is but one of about fifty ways I could examine your proposition in a Utilitarian way, and show that it is not ethical by Utilitarianism to not have children

- Is it virtuous to not have children?
Virtues are defined as courage, wisdom, proper ambition and more. At the face of the issues you cast, I would say it is cowardly to hide behind a "conclusion" that it is best not to have children. I see nothing virtuous in such an action. This is, however, the biggest criticism of Virtue ethics, that it's too relative.

I'm completely overlooking your consent argument, but that's because it's a logical fallacy. Consent by non-beings is not a paradox, but something that completely halts the entire world. It is the foundation of anxiety, it is the antonym of being free and it ties us all up in a recursive loop of non-decision. If we could be allowed to use an argument of consent of non-existing things, we could never do anything. It would be like needing consent of your apartment's next owners to live there, before you can live there. It halts our entire decision making process, as when we start to decide, we are lucky that we don't have to decide if we are going to make a decision. If we had to, we would have to decide if we wanted to decide if we were going to make a decision, ad nauseam. It is not ethical to demand a consent of the non-existing. By the same logic, you'd have to get consent of every woman you meet if you can have sex with them - if that were to happen some time in the future - as the thing you have to do before you engage in a conversation, and much like a child never born, because of a lack of consent, that conversation with that woman would also never happen because of them being freaked the fuck out.

It is a logical fallacy, because at the conclusion of your own idea, you should never have existed. At the face of you saying you enjoy being born, you would actually have yourself never be born, which your parents would not have the consent to do. You can't just say you need consent for the one side, because you would also need the consent to never have all the children you would have, from the children you would have. You can't assume they don't want to be born. You can't assume they want to be born. You've reached a conclusion that brings with it no value. You impede on all action, you attribute things where they don't fit, and you call it a moral code. I have shown that there are no normative ethics wherein your idea is ethical, and I'd say it's immoral to bring with you all these issues.

Luckily, you aren't tied down by your moral code, because if you actually were to follow your line of thought when it comes to consent, you would never do anything. You couldn't live in your apartment, because you lack the consent of future owners. You couldn't eat anything, because you don't have the consent of even a tomato to eat it. You wouldn't make a decision, because you spin around the object driven indo-european language we have to do immoral backflips for your in the face of basically a linguistic loophole. You can't affix a concept to something that doesn't exist. When you say you need consent by an unborn, you violate even causality. You upset every Buddha by ruining the spontaneous nature, you upset Aristotle in ways of causality and virtue. You piss on even quantum mechanics. Your idea is so far out of whack that you even validate epistemology.

There is nothing moral about your code. It is a linguistic loophole, brought on by a notion of taking things to the absurd, by ideas ruining all human interactions, and leaving us all with analysis paralysis. The sun will explode in four billion years. It is immoral to impose that on our greatest grand children. Let's all just kill ourselves apparently.

I agree with your first two points on the long term effects of active anti-natalism, but still don't see the issue on consent.
I'm not arguing from the perspective of the concept of an unborn child, I'm arguing that consideration should be taken into the fact that the born child would have had no choice in choosing to be here, and that parents have the capability of considering that fact just like they consider everything else about their potential child life, and thus could choose not to have the kid and avoid that moral issue down the lane.

Good point? There is your answer OP. Now do something worthwile with your thoughts. I would also recommend you to not act like an smart ass 100% of the time in discussions.



He only points out the consent thing - nothing else.

How the hell am I the one being the smart ass here?

 

[Iriscomeback]

You're free to choose not to procreate, and that's perfectly fine. But when you're on your deathbed in your time of need -- wondering why you never had a son, or daughter, or grandchild -- and fade into eternal darkness with nought but a sterile heart rate monitor by your side...that's when you'll realize your philosophy is utter folly.

Have fun with that.

Not having children doesn't mean you'll die alone, or have regrets.

 

[Bounceounce]

You're free to choose not to procreate, and that's perfectly fine. But when you're on your deathbed in your time of need -- wondering why you never had a son, or daughter, or grandchild -- and fade into eternal darkness with nought but a sterile heart rate monitor by your side...that's when you'll realize your philosophy is utter folly.

Have fun with that.

I don't prescribe to the "Have children as a long term investment for in home health care workers when you're elderly" school of thought.

 

[msdstc]

They just swim at random. That's why there's literally five hundred million sperm cells per ejaculation, so that they can be completely random, and then perhaps a single one can find the egg.

Ok and non existent beings also can't consent so... What are we doing?

 

[Greddleok]

I don't prescribe to the "Have children as a long term investment for in home health care workers when you're elderly" school of thought.

No, you subscribe to the things that don't exist need to give consent school of "thought."

 

[Charles Brandon]

Breeding is a biological imperative that, within reasonable limits, exists beyond morality.

 

[msdstc]

I don't prescribe to the "Have children as a long term investment for in home health care workers when you're elderly" school of thought.

Not sure how you took that as what he was implying the perks of having children are.

Either way I never want to have kids personally, but has nothing to do with theoretical people giving consent or not.

Edit- this argument is a classic case of philosophical skepticism/paradox. Frankly imo the overwhelming majority of these arguments are a huge waste of time, and those presenting them are going to far with basic concepts.

 

[jerd]

I agree with your first two points on the long term effects of active anti-natalism, but still don't see the issue on consent.
I'm not arguing from the perspective of the concept of an unborn child, I'm arguing that consideration should be taken into the fact that the born child would have had no choice in choosing to be here, and that parents have the capability of considering that fact just like they consider everything else about their potential child life, and thus could choose not to have the kid and avoid that moral issue down the lane.

Wait could not should? Are you just saying that maybe people should not rush into having kids when they aren't ready because that makes much more sense and you chose a really convoluted way to say that

Spoiler

and I'm offering you an out take it take it

 

[KO Traveling Hobo]

You're free to choose not to procreate, and that's perfectly fine. But when you're on your deathbed in your time of need -- wondering why you never had a son, or daughter, or grandchild -- and fade into eternal darkness with nought but a sterile heart rate monitor by your side...that's when you'll realize your philosophy is utter folly.

Have fun with that.

There are these things called "friends". I'm not sure if you've heard about them.

 

[Nemesis121]

OP and the rest Antinatalists forgot where they came from, I can understand that, I don't remember learning how to read, I just know I can read, learning to talk, walk, eat, or take a shit and clean myself, all of these things were taught to me at a young age..how can one ask for existence when the day of birth you just a lump of flesh that eats, sleep, and shit?

 

[Septimius]

I agree with your first two points on the long term effects of active anti-natalism, but still don't see the issue on consent.
I'm not arguing from the perspective of the concept of an unborn child, I'm arguing that consideration should be taken into the fact that the born child would have had no choice in choosing to be here, and that parents have the capability of considering that fact just like they consider everything else about their potential child life, and thus could choose not to have the kid and avoid that moral issue down the lane.

You shouldn't call that consent. You should call that "the implications of having a child". And to be stark, most people do have a say in if they want to go on living. However, it's a moral cop-out to say "my child might not enjoy living, so I'm just not going to have one", instead of being virtuous and fighting for giving your child the loving environment to have good life, and to fight to make the world a place you want them to grow up in. There's nothing moral about simply not dealing with that issue, which is the main problem I have with what you're saying. What is an actual issue, the thing that so many fight an uphill battle to improve, is the thing you just say "I think it's best just not to do it". I wish all children can grow up in a world that makes them joyous, and I am personally motivated by that since I'm going to have children myself some day. Not being strong and courageous in fighting to make a place for your children in the world is not moral. It's the path of least resistance in making sure no one is unhappy. You forget that happiness is a contrast, and that without pain, you can't have joy. It isn't to say that everyone should feel pain, it just means that when you have heart ache after a break up, it's because you had happiness before that. It is to say that eliminating all things bad at all costs isn't moral, because it also means eliminating all things good.

Without accepting that there will be some bad in the world, you won't be able to fight to make things better. I don't know about you, but despite the pain I've experienced in my life, I'm really happy I can be here to marvel at all of this, and I especially know it's worth fighting to make the world a place for my children to be able to marvel too.

 

[Audioboxer]

You're free to choose not to procreate, and that's perfectly fine. But when you're on your deathbed in your time of need -- wondering why you never had a son, or daughter, or grandchild -- and fade into eternal darkness with nought but a sterile heart rate monitor by your side...that's when you'll realize your philosophy is utter folly.

Have fun with that.

Man what utter nonsense. An almost attempt at shaming/scaring someone into having kids for completely selfish reasons lol.

Sure dying alone is a fear of many humans, but being alone is always a fear. We are largely a social species and mentally we struggle with complete isolation. Life isn't about being born and then fast forwarding to your deathbed. There is 95% of life in the middle where you get to experience, enjoy and meet many people. We all have to check out at some point so it is coming no matter what. Make the most of what comes in the middle and then dying is but a small price to pay for living.

As for OP, anyone can choose not to have kids, but you need not chase down silly theories such as consent. Just don't have kids and don't worry the rest of your reproducing brothers and sisters will more than cover anyone choosing not to have offspring. Humans aren't going anywhere until the world ends or earth becomes inhabitable for us.

Also if you continue to be caught up on consent just make sure to never have sex or masturbate. Every time you ejaculate your sperm go finding an egg. That is what they do. So don't be upsetting the poor fellows by leading them to think they are serving a purpose.

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

Having children is the most natural thing in humanity.

It's how we raise them sometimes which could be immoral.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

How is the concept of consent relevant to non-existing beings? What harm have I done against them if they don't exist?

 

[H.Protagonist]

This...seems like the kind of navel-gazing that people with too much time on their hands do. A kind of aimless wandering of thoughts to give some feeling of superiority to an otherwise uneventful life that lacks real conflict or struggle. But, you be you if that makes you happy, OP.

 

[Mendrox]

I don't prescribe to the "Have children as a long term investment for in home health care workers when you're elderly" school of thought.

No, but you will be an emotional empty back. You don't seem to like yourself very much. :|

Don't you love your family? Love to hang around with friends? Someday they won't be there anymore and you will be happy to have a family.

Man what utter nonsense. An almost attempt at shaming/scaring someone into having kids for completely selfish reasons lol.

Sure dying alone is a fear of many humans, but being alone is always a fear. We are largely a social species and mentally we struggle with complete isolation. Life isn't about being born and then fast forwarding to your deathbed. There is 95% of life in the middle where you get to experience, enjoy and meet many people. We all have to check out at some point so it is coming no matter what. Make the most of what comes in the middle and then dying is but a small price to pay for living.

As for OP, anyone can choose not to have kids, but you need not chase down silly theories such as consent. Just don't have kids and don't worry the rest of your reproducing brothers and sisters will more than cover anyone choosing not to have offspring. Humans aren't going anywhere until the world ends or earth becomes inhabitable for us.

Also if you continue to be caught up on consent just make sure to never have sex or masturbate. Every time you ejaculate your sperm go finding an egg. That is what they do. So don't be upsetting the poor fellows by leading them to think they are serving a purpose.

I've worked at a retirement home. Number one reason that old people regreted? Not having a family or children.

 

[Bounceounce]

You shouldn't call that consent. You should call that "the implications of having a child". And to be stark, most people do have a say in if they want to go on living. However, it's a moral cop-out to say "my child might not enjoy living, so I'm just not going to have one", instead of being virtuous and fighting for giving your child the loving environment to have good life, and to fight to make the world a place you want them to grow up in. There's nothing moral about simply not dealing with that issue, which is the main problem I have with what you're saying. What is an actual issue, the thing that so many fight an uphill battle to improve, is the thing you just say "I think it's best just not to do it". I wish all children can grow up in a world that makes them joyous, and I am personally motivated by that since I'm going to have children myself some day. Not being strong and courageous in fighting to make a place for your children in the world is not moral. It's the path of least resistance in making sure no one is unhappy. You forget that happiness is a contrast, and that without pain, you can't have joy. It isn't to say that everyone should feel pain, it just means that when you have heart ache after a break up, it's because you had happiness before that. It is to say that eliminating all things bad at all costs isn't moral, because it also means eliminating all things good.

Without accepting that there will be some bad in the world, you won't be able to fight to make things better. I don't know about you, but despite the pain I've experienced in my life, I'm really happy I can be here to marvel at all of this, and I especially know it's worth fighting to make the world a place for my children to be able to marvel too.

It's not an issue of whether the child enjoys life or not, it's just the state of having been born.
Also I gave an answer to the bolded/how I feel about life on page 2, and on page 4 or 5.

 

[Speely]

Except it's not. Cells do not have the ability to give or not give permission, nor do they "want" anything.

Right, but they (some) still swim "toward" the egg even if it's random. I wasn't implying motive... just regularity.

 

[Charles Brandon]

To be honest, the more I think about this point of view, the more offensive and asinine I find it. OP, go and find a cause that actually matters.

 

[LotusHD]

Except it's not. Cells do not have the ability to give or not give permission, nor do they "want" anything.

I dunno, Stewie seemed to want it pretty badly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M14uQ44xBvE

Spoiler

Too bad it was a trap!

 

[msdstc]

This...seems like the kind of navel-gazing that people with too much time on their hands do. A kind of aimless wandering of thoughts to give some feeling of superiority to an otherwise uneventful life that lacks real conflict or struggle. But, you be you if that makes you happy, OP.

Its a fairly typical argument you have with somebody who just took a crash course in philosophy. These types of arguments are mostly worthless.

 

[Bounceounce]

This...seems like the kind of navel-gazing that people with too much time on their hands do. A kind of aimless wandering of thoughts to give some feeling of superiority to an otherwise uneventful life that lacks real conflict or struggle.But, you be you if that makes you happy, OP.

Oh for christ's sake.