Posts: 17,198
Threads: 10,773
Joined: Oct 2014
C C
May 17, 2018 06:02 PM
(This post was last modified: May 17, 2018 06:09 PM by C C.)
Story been in play for 2 or 3 or days. Since my interest in it is at a very superficial or perfunctory level, this kind of automated balance applies: The original context may or may not have mutated considerably as it has gone angrily viral in reaction. She's in the typical "receiving death threats" stage of the "shock and outrage" cycle in social media.
Video: Deanne is a sexuality expert who believes that parents should ask their infants for consent to change its diaper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aRzkThPL8s
- - -
EXCERPT: . . . Deanne Carson was being interviewed by ABC News when she said teaching a "culture of consent" should begin from birth. She said to tell babies, "I'm going to change your nappy now - is that okay?" and then wait for a response. "Of course a baby's not going to respond, 'Yes mum, that's awesome - I'd love to have my nappy changed.' But if you leave a space and wait for body language and wait to make eye contact, then you're letting that child know that their response matters."
MORE: http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2018...xpert.html
~
Posts: 805
Threads: 178
Joined: Oct 2014
elte
May 18, 2018 01:24 AM
(May 17, 2018 06:02 PM)C C Wrote: Story been in play for 2 or 3 or days. Since my interest in it is at a very superficial or perfunctory level, this kind of automated balance applies: The original context may or may not have mutated considerably as it has gone angrily viral in reaction. She's in the typical "receiving death threats" stage of the "shock and outrage" cycle in social media.
Video: Deanne is a sexuality expert who believes that parents should ask their infants for consent to change its diaper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aRzkThPL8s
- - -
EXCERPT: . . . Deanne Carson was being interviewed by ABC News when she said teaching a "culture of consent" should begin from birth. She said to tell babies, "I'm going to change your nappy now - is that okay?" and then wait for a response. "Of course a baby's not going to respond, 'Yes mum, that's awesome - I'd love to have my nappy changed.' But if you leave a space and wait for body language and wait to make eye contact, then you're letting that child know that their response matters."
MORE: http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2018...xpert.html
~
Another notion of the culture of consent involves how since unborn aren't abe to consent, reproduction is unethical. If the prospective child were given the information and were able to process how the outcome likely is first suffering and then complete demise, few might give the go ahead.
Posts: 8,532
Threads: 178
Joined: Aug 2016
Syne
May 18, 2018 01:57 AM
Or better yet, consent to be killed, via abortion.
Most mentally healthy people come to find life to be worth living.
Posts: 805
Threads: 178
Joined: Oct 2014
elte
May 18, 2018 02:04 AM
Abortion works if early enough. On the other end of the chronological age graph, lack of mental health, so to speak, is quite common.
Posts: 8,532
Threads: 178
Joined: Aug 2016
Syne
May 18, 2018 02:21 AM
(This post was last modified: May 18, 2018 02:39 AM by Syne.)
(May 18, 2018 02:04 AM)elte Wrote: Abortion works if early enough.
If you're talking about consent for reproduction, there is no such thing as an "early enough" abortion to sidestep that same consent.
Posts: 805
Threads: 178
Joined: Oct 2014
elte
May 18, 2018 02:32 AM
Saying the options are preventing conception or early abortion before a nervous system develops. The notion of getting consent is to illustrate how reproduction is unethical.
Posts: 8,532
Threads: 178
Joined: Aug 2016
Syne
May 18, 2018 02:41 AM
(This post was last modified: May 18, 2018 02:44 AM by Syne.)
(May 18, 2018 02:32 AM)elte Wrote: Saying the options are preventing conception or early abortion before a nervous system develops. The notion of getting consent is to illustrate how reproduction is unethical.
Actually, reproduction is a necessary prerequisite to a baby's consent, and abortion violates it. There is no consent possible without existence. Talking about apriori consent to your own existence is temporally incohenrent.
Posts: 805
Threads: 178
Joined: Oct 2014
elte
May 18, 2018 06:00 AM
(May 18, 2018 02:41 AM)Syne Wrote: Actually, reproduction is a necessary prerequisite to a baby's consent, and abortion violates it. There is no consent possible without existence. Talking about apriori consent to your own existence is temporally incohenrent.
A child can't even give consent, much less a baby. Concerning that last sentence, that's the point. It doesn't make sense to think of getting consent from the nonexistent. That's why that leaves only the proper option of no reproduction.
Posts: 8,532
Threads: 178
Joined: Aug 2016
Syne
May 18, 2018 06:56 AM
(May 18, 2018 06:00 AM)elte Wrote: (May 18, 2018 02:41 AM)Syne Wrote: Actually, reproduction is a necessary prerequisite to a baby's consent, and abortion violates it. There is no consent possible without existence. Talking about apriori consent to your own existence is temporally incohenrent.
A child can't even give consent, much less a baby. Concerning that last sentence, that's the point. It doesn't make sense to think of getting consent from the nonexistent. That's why that leaves only the proper option of no reproduction.
Of course a child can't give consent, that's why the OP article is so ridiculous. Preemptively denying existence is preemptively denying consent, because the former is necessary for the latter.
Why don't antinatalists just kill themselves? Wouldn't that solve both problems? They would both end their own suffering and any potential for them to reproduce. Or is that they are on a mission to induce enough suffering in an attempt to validate their flawed reasoning and thereby convert others?
Posts: 805
Threads: 178
Joined: Oct 2014
elte
May 18, 2018 07:08 AM
(May 18, 2018 06:56 AM)Syne Wrote: Of course a child can't give consent, that's why the OP article is so ridiculous. Preemptively denying existence is preemptively denying consent, because the former is necessary for the latter.
Why don't antinatalists just kill themselves? Wouldn't that solve both problems? They would both end their own suffering and any potential for them to reproduce. Or is that they are on a mission to induce enough suffering in an attempt to validate their flawed reasoning and thereby convert others?
How does that justify bringing people into the world so later they can be asked if they wanted it?
Why don't they? The genetic programming includes a very strong survival instinct. So strong that it tends to get stronger as the struggle increases.
Suffering from uncomfortable information being given? Suffering from pointing out the default state of human existence is one of hardship or suffering?
|
