Why do articles almost never present their sources at all, be it research or not? That makes it so much harder to evaluate them.
Zacryon
Mostly they like wear black, true. But that's not being "a dark messenger for Satanism", which seems to be implied by your previous comment.
I like to think so too. Humans have a lot of potential, for the good and the bad. It's important to nurture the good and diminish the bad.
That seems like incredibly callous and unnecessary pain for all involved.
Which is - at least to some extent - a culturally formed perception. We know cultures where suicide was not frowned upon nor was seen as an inherently bad thing. For example:
- Harakiri / Seppuku: ritual suicide commited by Samurais (and later officers during WWII) (lazily taken from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku ) as a way to restore or uphold their or their families' honour.
- Ättestupa, sites with cliff-like rock formations in Sweden where old people threw themselves off in order to not burden their community. (There are quite a number of examples regarding such kinds of senicides in different cultures. Currently this is also a topic regarding assisted suicide for (old) people who are severly ill with no realistic hopes of improvement.)
This proves that it can be possible to embrace such decisions of mature adolescents, be it for life or against it.
Consent 101: If you’re unsure about whether or not someone would consent, the answer is no. And since we can’t ask the unborn, people who don’t want kids assume the answer is no.
We can turn this easily around: If you're unsure whether someone would consent to not being born, the answer is no and therefore they should be born.
But more importantly, to ask that question at all is already built on a erroneous premise, in my opinion: The unborn child has no sufficient agency to form an opinion about this question. It is therefore pointless to ask it. The ability to make such decisions comes with time and maturity of the child. Until this level is reached, you could also deny plants and even stones their existence because you are not able to ask them whether they want to exist at all. They have about the same level of agency as an unborn child.
Who are also not like that. My goodness. Let's throw in another round of prejudices, shall we?
They are mere tools for power-hungry egomaniacs, who have no regard for the well-being of others. Tools which make it especially easy for them.
Replace religion and capitalism by something else and you get a similar picture.
Hell is other people. It's humanity itself which is the bane of human existence.
India: "I need many children to support my everyday life and me when I'm old."
Germany: "wtf are children?"
(A bit exaggerated of course, but should illustrate your point.)
The child can still consider taking the one-way exit as soon as it is able to make such considerations and thereby gets a choice.
You could ask in a similar manner:
Wouldn't it be immoral to disallow this decision making process by leaving the child no choice by not having it?
Asking for consent of an unborn is paradoxial and inherently impossible. It's almost like asking a plant whether it consents into being planted and eaten afterwards. It has no agency. Is it immoral though to plant it and eat it anyway?
Having a child is similar. Get it, let it grow and develop its agency. Then it can decide for itself.
Haha oh no. xD I am having a different conversation here in under this post about Satisfactory and assumed your reply was regarding that one. I'm sorry. :'D
Yes I think so. Alright, I'll try to get through that. ^^
At least they asked for further opinions on this by other researchers: