• Tedesche@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    24 days ago

    Just a reminder to people: if you remove anyone who has (or will have) children, from a certain moral perspective you’re responsible for them never existing, which could be considered akin to murder. Just take that into account in your considerations. Might make this a much thornier question, ethically, for some.

    • u/lukmly013 💾 (lemmy.sdf.org)@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      24 days ago

      Murder is taking someone’s existing life without their consent.

      This is just preventing further life existing in the first place. Basically same as abortion. The fetus could have grown up, had kids, grandkids,… It’s still just someone else making that decision.
      Hell, perhaps I could even say it’s the same as using a condom. Same thing, someone could have been born, etc.

      Can’t murder someone who doesn’t exist.

    • kitnaht@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      24 days ago

      Some of us are fine with murder when it comes to the relative outcomes. If I can murder someone to save 100 lives (and there’s no doubt at all that it would), I wouldn’t even flinch before driving the knife into their skull.

      In this hypothetical, we already know our targets body-count. So it’s easy to make the math work.

      Personally, I’d remove Ronald Regan.

    • rtxn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      24 days ago

      That’s just sophistry. You can’t kill people who never existed in the first place.