Lately I've become quite sympathetic to #antinatalism.
And yet I have two kids, and if I were to start over again I think I would decide to have kids again.
How's that possible?
(thread)
Really? I always thought antinatalism was nonsensical. You can't compare non-living because you can't experience it, being by definition the absence of conscious experience. For me it's the morality equivalent of mathematics "divide by zero", it's simply not valid, or a category error. I understand being in such a situation of absolute torture with no silver lining or possibility of escape that's it's better to stop experiencing that, but that's extremely rare.
> _“You can't compare non-living because you can't experience it, being by definition the absence of conscious experience.”_
I think that's evidently false. ie, you _have_ to be able to compare existence with non-existence. If you throw your hands in the air and refuse to compare, you end up in very strange places, ethically.
Someone who commits suicide is doing that comparison (for themselves).
A couple who ends the pregnancy of a fetus who is known to carry an important incurable disease is doing that comparison (for someone else).
A family authorising euthanasia for a relative in a vegetative state is doing that comparison (for someone else).
The whole field of [population ethics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_ethics) needs that comparison to be feasible, at least in certain cases. Public health policy, too.
@tripu
Not sure how we can say nonexistence "feels" better than existence, when it's the absence of feeling (as far as we know). We need to compare conscious feelings; non-conscious beings don't have those.
A suicidal person simply wants to stop feeling... bad. Why is not-feeling the only other option?
I suspect parents that abort fetuses do it more for selfish reasons - perhaps the child would have claimed life was wonderful.
People in vegetative state are already not consciously feeling...
> _“I suspect parents that abort fetuses do it more for selfish reasons - perhaps the child would have claimed life was wonderful”_
So, according to you, the most resourceful, generous and selfless parents, those who would not mind sacrificing for the rest of their lives to care for a child living in agony, those people would have no tools, no arguments, to inform their decision to abort or not. Since they can't possibly compare the (conscious) life of their child against the (non-existent) child who is never born in the first place, it'll be a coin toss. Right?
Notice that you don't have to get to the extreme (misery and pain for life) to hit _reductio ad absurdum_: you can play the game with any expectation of a future life, and according to your “division by zero theory” you are hopeless in trying to decide as a parent whether that child should exist or not. Turn the dial to “life barely worth living” or “moderate unhappiness in the aggregate” or any other level, and you have no arguments against or in favour of terminating that pregnancy (or getting pregnant in the first place). Isn't that weird?
@tripu
Not sure I understand your point. If they don't mind sacrificing everything for their child's life, then they will probably not abort, obviously. That's the decision of many extreme christian parents, and they take it quite happily.
I meant I think most parents decide to abort because they think a child with a birth defect will be more hassle and less enjoyable for them, and the worth of the child's life is an excuse, since they can't ask the child and they're simply assuming.
Yes, I don't deny that prospective parents will consider their own well-being, too.
But I think you're minimising the extent to which that decision (to abort or not) will be made thinking of the well-being (or lack thereof) of that child who could be born.
To me, fundamentalist Christians who would not abort under any circumstances, and 100% selfish parents who would terminate pregnancy when faced with the tiniest of inconveniences, are equally morally wrong, because both fail to compare the two scenarios for that child (existence vs non-existence).
@tripu
Agreed, there are states in which it's probably better for a being not to try to keep it alive, and to force it out of zealotry is morally wrong. I'm not talking about the parents that abort in those situations.