As for AN, every single person can contribute and do what is necessary to achieve its very goal. This is not true for a future perfect society, say communism. Countless people have devoted their lives to making communism a reality, to little avail. Someone who abstains from procreation has basically done all that can be done to bring about the ebbing away of humanity.
Month: January 2024
From BO to AN
Anti-natalist
So you definitely want to have a child.
Birth-oriented
Well, yes, I am definitely unwavering in my stance.
AN
But you certainly wouldn’t consider having children if you knew that your child would inevitably be born with an extremely painful condition, with pain that is not amenable to medical treatment?
BO
If I knew that my child would suffer I would most certainly abstain from procreation.
AN
Consider, if the unspeakable suffering of your child did not begin at birth, but a week (a month, a year) after birth, would you change your mind about having a child?
BO
Most certainly I would then revise my decision.
AN
As an ethical person, would you refrain from procreation if you knew that your child would start to suffer unspeakably 10 years after birth?
BO
Of course I am not prepared to see my child suffer. Therefore, I would refrain from procreation if it were a proven fact, or more or less certain, that it would suffer terribly from the age of ten.
AN
You seem to be an ethically responsible person. As an ethically responsible person, would you also refrain from procreation if it were more or less certain that your child would start to suffer unspeakably at some point in the future when you weren’t around anymore, let’s say 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 or even more years from now?
BO
Yes, definitely. My child will still be my child, even at the age of 95!
AN
Now brace yourself for a perhaps unwelcome conclusion: You have moved from being in favour of procreation to an antinatalist position. From a certain age on a vast majority of older people is assailed by various physical or psychological problems. Let me just mention cancer and loneliness here.
BO turning AN
Let me think about this.
Slumber of non-existence
Metaphorically, there is often talk of the sweet sleep of non-existence, from which “we” were roused when our creators acted in such a way that we began to exist. Now, if it is true that our brain does not produce consciousness in phases of deepest sleep, then this metaphor – in a different context – has an ontologically accurate core. Essentially, we are the consciousness produced by our brain. Against this background, we do not exist as long as our brain does not produce any consciousness. If I am now awakened from unconscious sleep, what happened at the very beginning of my existence only metaphorically takes in fact place. It is entirely possible that the temporary non-existence of countless people was and is brutally ended by all kinds of wake-up mechanisms.
Antinatalism, Abortion and Existence by J. Cabrera and K. Akerma
Content
ALGO, NADA, NADIE (From antinatalism to antiabortion: an ontological-existential approach), by Julio Cabrera. ………………………………………………………………………………… 3
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
EMBEDDING ANTI-ABORTIONISM INTO ANTINATALISM? ON EMBRYONIC EXISTENTIALISM, by Karim Akerma ……………………………………………………………… 15
A mentalistic definition of “living being” ………………………………………………………… 15
A few objections to my mentalistic definition of “living being”: ………………………… 18
The problem of killing and of homicide …………………………………………………………… 19
Autonomy versus sentience ……………………………………………………………………………. 23
KILLING, MANIPULATION AND SUICIDE (Replies to Karim Akerma), by Julio Cabrera……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 28
(I). DO NOT KILL ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
(II). DO NOT MANIPULATE ……………………………………………………………………….. 30
(III). DO NOT KILL YOURSELF ………………………………………………………………….. 36
SECOND REPLIES TO JULIO CABRERA, by Karim Akerma ……………………………. 38
BETTER NEVER TO HAVE ARGUED? By Julio Cabrera ………………………………….. 44
Introduction: Return to the primary intuitions …………………………………………………… 44
PART I. Recovering the initial argument. ………………………………………………………… 45
(1). Ontological difference revisited: something and nothing. …………………………. 45
(2). What does it mean “to exist”? ……………………………………………………………….. 46
(3). Life and existence do not coincide. ……………………………………………………….. 48
(4) Avoiding academic disputes. …………………………………………………………………. 49
(5). We are born by others; we are aborted by others. …………………………………….. 50
(6). Abortion is not a scientific question. ……………………………………………………… 52
(7). Why shouldn’t an existent be aborted? …………………………………………………… 53
(8). A decision neither logical nor arbitrary. …………………………………………………. 55
(9). Who makes the decision? About women suffering. …………………………………. 56
(10) The anti-abortion argument recovered. ………………………………………………….. 58
(11). Between legality and morality. ……………………………………………………………. 59
(12). Not reaching the abortive situation. ……………………………………………………… 61
PART II. AA without or within AN ………………………………………………………………… 61
PART III. Argumentation in a pessimistic environment. …………………………………… 64
Concluding remarks and proposals………………………………………………………………….. 71
FINAL REPLY TO JULIO CABRERA, by Karim Akerma ………………………………….. 75
antinatalismblog 