[zimablue]

There are two big problems with your argument.

One: Your parents taking time off benefits them a lot more than you. It might benefit you a bit but it doesn't benefit you to see your dad from 0-3 months and not your mum, you're too young to know. People assume that it's a big benefit but actually I'd imagine having your parents somewhat around from the ages of 1-3 is far more important than constantly around from 0-1.

The other flaw is bigger really, basically it's a logical fallacy. Read my point to the other comment with this argument, it doesn't actually make sense. You can't expect people to be in favour of the conditions that lead to their existence, if you were the product of rape you should be pro rape? What if we were a species where all birth was via the rape and murder of the father, you'd still be telling people they're ethically obliged to be in favour of reproduction? Just because someone has benefited from something which had something else in the chain of causation doesn't mean that they have to be in favour of that thing. I benefitted massively from the colonial history of my country, for example.

[wpietri]

Oh, well if your best evidence is you imagining things, you can see how I'm not going to invest a lot in this reply.

I'll clear up one misunderstanding, though. The point isn't that one should be in favor of the particular conditions of one's birth. It's that one should be in favor of the continued existence of humanity, and do so such that the conditions for future humans are at least as good. Basically, Rawls' veil of ignorance.

By the way, I don't think your misunderstanding was an honest one. If you get to the point that you're suggesting your opponents must be pro-rape, maybe that's a sign you're too wound up to have a good discussion.