>>1
2010's called they want their antinatalist reddit atheism back

>>1

a basic ethical test: it introduces risk and harm where none previously existed.

I disagree that introducing risk/harm is intrinsically unethical. Sometimes that is a good thing. Reproduction may have benefits that are valuable enough within a person or culture's moral system to justify those risks and harms.

Disclaimer: I got a vasectomy years ago so I can pump loads into pretty women without worrying about pregnancy. One of the top five best decisions of my life. So I am anti-reproduction (for me, at least) enough to let a doctor cut into my ball sack. Take that bias for whatever you will.

>>1

If you disagree, identify the exact premise you reject: that non-existence harms no one, that suffering is unavoidable, or that imposing irreversible risk without consent is unethical. Argue it.

All of these place minimizing suffering as the highest priority, which I just don't think is justified. I don't think either that we all must universally maximize for pleasure, or something like that; i don't find these sorts of reductive utilitarian arguements very compelling.

I'm not extremly pro-natalist or anything, I don't have a particular desire to 'breed'; in fact if voluntary human extinction were achieved it'd almost definetly be man-kind's greatest feat; I do find this manner of arguing for it to be flawed and kind of 'gay and retarded', so to speak.

Every argument for reproduction relies on post-hoc justification (“life can be good”)

If i were to give a justification for reproduxion it'd probably be culture and bueaty, which are rewards we absolutely have reaped and aren't just things that 'may be good'. 'The Conspiracy Against The Human Race', a pessimissitic masterpiece which rails agaist human life would never have been w/o Ligotti and his nihlistic predecessors; reading 'Mimi-Mix' and listening to 'The Shape of Jazz to Come' it feels very foreign to me that I'd be better off asleep. Can you read Yukio Mishima's works and read of his suicide and of the conquests of Alexander and tell me that reproduxion has not produced greatness?

>>17
I don't see why one's electromagnetic delusions couldn't be exubarant and affirmitive of life.

>>1
I don't think this is a very important point but i do think there is a contradiction in your argument.

Before birth, there is no person deprived of pleasure.

I think if you accept this than you would also have to say that before birth there is no person who's consent you couldn't aquire. I reject both of these ideas, I don't think that before birth these people don't matter; when someone is created there will be unavoidable suffering and it doesn't matter that they didn't exist before birth, they still had no way to opt out, & conversely if you terminate a pregnancy or do not conceive there were experiences of joy, comfort, or pleasure that there was no oppurtunity to turn down, but will not occur. I don't think it's immoral to deprive this pleasure but just as non-existence prevents suffering, it too prevents all that is good.
On that basis I would disagree that:

No deprivation occurs

To whatever extent someone's consent is violated when they are created they also have no ability to consent to never have been.