>anti-natalism is not anti-humanism
>when most anti-natalists share the same generic, pessimistic and misanthropic beliefs
How about YOU adopt those orphans, you obviously know what it's like to be selfless. Hell, you'd probably think burying your body is selfless because you aren't donating your cadaver to science, or living is selfish because there are so many people out there who need spare parts and organs. No, choosing to have your own child over adopting an orphan is not selfish.
Perhaps the anti-natalists should contribute a little, too.
>you are selfish
>no, I don't want children; I want spare money, time, and to pursue my dreams like I'm having a midlife crisis
>no, I don't want to adopt either, because I don't want children, and I gain from not having children
Sentience is the ability to feel and sense, and is what should be used to measure if something is alive, otherwise you would have to argue it's immoral to kill plants, or germs, or anything that has any simulation response
I disagree, the capacity for sentience is what should be taken into account. We'd be able to kill lobotomized or otherwise brain-dead individuals, too, right? Humans should not be murdered not because they are sentient, but because they have the capacity to be sentient, including those who's capacity is hampered (because they're sleeping or brain-dead or what have you).
You are killing a living creature. Is it sentient? No. But what is sentience? Brain waves? Then specify- if someone has no brain waves, it is moral to kill them.
That would be incorrect, a cancerous tumor has the DNA of the host, while the offspring has a unique genetic combination. It has the capacity to develop sentience, whatever that means. It better be something related to brain activity, otherwise we can kill all non-human life without compunction.
If sentience is "the ability to perceive things and feel," then that is too lax of a criterion for a worthy life (that, if taken, would be considered murdered).
I agree, consequentialism is idiotic if taken to its illogical conclusion (which it never is, for the sake of people actually acting). This is why Utilitarians need a big sky daddy AI to tell them what actions they should perform and which would not increase maximum pleasure. I still think it would be immoral to abort a human fetus because it is a human being, sentient or not. If you think its species is an arbitrary thing to get caught up on, see my point on capacity.
I am inclined to agree (knowing how most AN arguments are rooted in Utilitarianism), but there is a point beyond which consequences can't be taken into account if you want to be effective.
China bought Lucasfilm?