Libertarians and Pregnancy - Page 7 - Politics and Economics

**tomdemaine** · 06-04-2012, 11:22 AM

Also disclaimer my views do not neccesarily represent the views of libertarians (or maybe of anyone else in the world) and I'm very liable to change my mind if you're convincing enough.

AlexM · 06-04-2012, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Case Closed

It's a decent question IMO. It can be aggressive and it does show that the NAP is a silly bit of nonsense

No, it can't. You might as well call saving someone's life aggressive.

sards · 06-04-2012, 04:56 PM

OP, even if your claims that saddling future generations with debt and environmental pollution are aggression are taken as given, your claim that conceiving a child is aggression is laughable.

Vael · 06-04-2012, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluffsOften

I don't understand this part.. a child that is riddled with disease and infection, destined to die at a young age, would clearly be better off not existing in the first place.

No, it would not. It can't be better off not existing. It might be better off with a smooth and painless transition to non-existence, if the life is truly not worth living, however.

If you don't see why, basically every issue you raise is addressed here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonidentity-problem/

Especially relevant now that the conversation seems to have moved on to the joy that is the ethics of future people.

pvn · 06-04-2012, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluffsOften

Also, i note that PVN semi-trollingly brought forward the "but they can just kill themself" argument. This is conceeding my point with the qualfier that there is an exit option (therefore lessening or even neutralizing any aggressive action that took place).

I don't think I'm conceding the point. I'm saying it could be decided just as we would decide any question of potential damages, try it in court.

If there are damages, the offending party can (quite cheaply) make the complaining party whole (in a manner of speaking).