Natalist stalemate

When some antinatalists argue from the idea that
There was NOBODY who wanted to come into existence.

Pronatalists may claim with the same right that
There was NOBODY who did not want to come into existence.

While antinatalists speak of existence as being imposed on non-existers, pronatalists conceive of a deprivation of existence with respect to non-existers.

Both arguments seem to be wrong for ontological (semantic) reasons.




3 thoughts on “Natalist stalemate

  1. Hello Francois, I see where you’re coming from. However, things seem to look different if we delve into the ontology of the expression COMING INTO EXISTENCE. I admit that it is somewhat odd: Consider that an entity cannot be affected by its coming into existence, that is to say: by its very beginning. It needs to be there in order to be affected. If an elementary particle begins to exist it is not affected by its beginning; once it exists it can be affected. In a similar manner there was no (pre-existing) ME that was done harm to when I began to exist. The harm followed only later when I (the sentient foetus) had the first negative sensations.
    For the above mentioned reasons I prefer saying: If people procreate or breed they act in such a way that one more sentient being will have negative sensations. There might even have been some sentient beings that never had negative experiences. Think for example of a foetus that had gained proto-consciosness. It perhaps experienced a trance-like feeling of warmth or a reddish colour or a sugary taste. Then the foetus died in the fraction of a second. At no point was there any harm being done to that foetus.
    Let’s think of a second foetus whose first sensation was heat or a garish light or a bitter taste. Was this foetus harmed by its own coming into existence? No. Its very existence (and in this case: sentience) was a precondition for any harm to be there.

    • Seriously? You’re going to use the Non-Identity Problem on ME? The guy who wrote the best takedown of it? You might as well just come out and admit you’re a natalist. I’m disgusted with you.

  2. No… there is one thing missing from YOUR argument, and that is the necessity of consent. We don’t need consent to NOT harm someone or affect them in any way. We DO need consent to harm someone.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.