The first paragraph says:

> "whether the Minister for the Environment owes Australian children a duty of care "

I read that as not future generations. I read it as the children alive today.

I think its fair to note, but its still consistent in my mind - existing people have rights, we acknolwedge virtual people have some rights, and that there's consequentially going to be a category of virtual people that are unrealizeable people due to rights we grant current people.

That's consistent with the fact that we allow current people to use resources future people could possibly use, but we are trying to strive a balance between those who do and those who might exist.

They aren’t scientifically unrealizable though, which is a flaw in this argument.

I don't understand the connection to abortion at all - just because they somehow both concern 'future humans' doesn't mean there is a logical connection here, in the sense that A leads to B or B leads to A. Could you explain?

Both involve potentially realizable persons.

No? One applies to any future person that has been "realized", the other is about whether people are being "realized" or not. People that never existed in the first place don't need to be protected, but generally the two questions are just not related at all.

I think the confusion relies on whether one asserts that ‘realized’ is a persistent state variable.

I think what you are getting at is the question of when "being realized" begins, and while I know that we could be discussing that aspect for days and I would not sway you, what remains either way is the fact that there is no analogy to the topic at hand here.

If you assert that "realization" begins very early, then legislation such as this one applies to the embryo as well. If you do not assert that, then legislation that applies to living humans does not apply here.

Both situations can be seen as preserving the rights of the current generation. In one case the right is deciding to not have a child, in the other case the right is deciding to have a child (and the required environment for them). Not protecting the environment is taking away from the rights of those who wish to create future generations.

Interesting; in terms of your first point, e.g. preserving the rights of the current generation, I have heard people argue that we should continue to do what we want with regards to the environment because it is within ‘our’ rights (which is the exact opposite conclusion from your premise).

I don't see how their argument makes sense, it somehow implies that "our" generation won't see any ill effects yet. That is just trivially wrong if you talk about the environment in general, because whether you think that climate change will be noticeably during "our" lifetime or not, there are things we could do to the environment to make life bad for everyone within a few years. So there needs to be at least some limit to what "we" can do to the environment, assuming we follow that premise in the first place.

Going back to climate change specifically, we can accelerate or decelerate that as well. Are the people you have heard arguing saying that legislation should keep climate change in check, but only in so far as it only affects generations after the current, however that may be defined? Even going with that ridiculous premise, I am not sure how that could be implemented.

How is a federal Australian court able to pass on ruling on abortion when, in Australia, those cases relating to state law would be heard at state courts?

Why are you doing this here?

It's perfectly reasonable to be okay with other people having the occasional termination, shit happens ya know, and wanting stronger environmental protection.

Millions of Australians hold both beliefs at the same time every day and we're okay with that.

Stop fetishising other people's reproductive organs.

> but it is philosophically interesting

... very.-

I appreciate the downvote :)

... buy I for one find it interesting.-