Discussion I did not consent to this.

[yunzzzk]

I did not consent to being born into this world.

If consent truly matters, then existence itself is the first violation. None of us asked to be here — our birth was a decision made by someone else.

We enter this world in a state where consent is not even possible. We lack the mental, emotional, and physical maturity to agree to anything, yet we are immediately subjected to the full weight of life.

If consent is not possible at birth, then it should at least be honoured in death — yet even that is denied. When someone chooses to end their own life, society intervenes and strips that autonomy away. We never truly have autonomy — only the illusion of it.

The entire system is flawed from the start. It's a mess, and we're left to make sense of it.

Such pathetic and tragic creatures…

 

[EvisceratedJester]

I feel like the consent argument is poor since you did not exist when your parents decided to have a kid, so consent wouldn't even matter. There is no one else's consent to consider outside of both parties deciding to have a kid. I am saying this as someone who doesn't like procreation and who hates being alive, btw. Consent doesn't matter when the person does not exist.

 

[yunzzzk]

I feel like the consent argument is poor since you did not exist when your parents decided to have a kid, so consent wouldn't even matter. There is no one else's consent to consider outside of both parties deciding to have a kid. I am saying this as someone who doesn't like procreation and who hates being alive, btw. Consent doesn't matter when the person does not exist.

I get what you're saying — that consent can't apply before someone exists, because there's no person to give it. And I'm not arguing that I literally could've been asked before birth.

My point is more about the morality of creating life at all, knowing that the person will have no say in it, but will still be forced to deal with everything that comes after — pain, responsibility, trauma, and the pressure to keep going.

So even if consent doesn't technically apply before birth, it still feels wrong that someone else made such a huge decision for me — one that I now have to live with for an entire lifetime. That's where the frustration comes from.

It's not about technical definitions of consent. It's about how unfair it feels to be given life without ever asking for it, only to be told I'm not allowed to leave it either.

 

[zardoz]

100%.
This is at the core of antinatalism (from my laymans underatanding of it).

 

[Ashu]

<Did I request thee, maker, from my clay
To mold me man? Did I solicit thee
From darkness to promote me?>

 

[wham311]

Absolute horseshit. And then, even when knowing how absolutely miserable you are they fucking send you to a hospital or call the cops on you because you want out.

This means your job is ruined, and you can't escape. And it strains your relationship with them so you're basically out on your ass without any way of providing for yourself.

 

[yunzzzk]

100%.
This is at the core of antinatalism (from my laymans underatanding of it).

Ya exactly. The inevitability of suffering is a strong argument in antinatalist thinking, and it's hard to argue with when you look at things objectively

<Did I request thee, maker, from my clay
To mold me man? Did I solicit thee
From darkness to promote me?>

Thank you, I think that is a great quote….the tragedy is that consciousness comes after. We awaken into a story already in motion, without a say in its beginning.

 

[chudeatte]

I feel this deeply. you're not only not consenting to exist, but also to all the expectations you're supposed to live up to. work, be successful, educated etc. living in general. from birth you're expected to contribute and keep going where its impossible for some, and the pressure to continue is overwhelming. not one soul asked to be born, yet people continue to reproduce anyway knowing how difficult life is. it feels endless

 

[dearlydeparted44]

Well, consent can't possibly be given. So, it's not a moot point, but just a simple flawed perspective. However, I do agree that this has more to do with the morality and consideration. I think it's wrong, and should be illegal, to have children without having most (if not all) of the proper considerations addressed. Are the two people engaging in procreation in physical, mental, emotional, and financial shape to take care of the coming life? What is the state of their community? What is the state of society? Things like that should be considered before just squirting out another flesh bag for the twisted societal system to feed on. None of this is ever going to be considered, though.

 

[FuneralCry]

The fact that this existence was imposed causing all this harm and suffering with no limit as to how much one can be tortured really is the most terrible, dreadful tragedy to me especially as there were never any disadvantages to never existing at all.

I wish I never existed more than anything and I see so much cruelty in how we exist in this reality where the suffering and torture of existing is seen as to force and prolong no matter what even know nobody chose any of this in the first place, existence really is an abomination to me, I see it as the most torturous, futile burden to exist.

 

[Saponification]

I feel like the consent argument is poor since you did not exist when your parents decided to have a kid, so consent wouldn't even matter. There is no one else's consent to consider outside of both parties deciding to have a kid. I am saying this as someone who doesn't like procreation and who hates being alive, btw. Consent doesn't matter when the person does not exist.

Well, consent can't possibly be given. So, it's not a moot point, but just a simple flawed perspective. However, I do agree that this has more to do with the morality and consideration. I think it's wrong, and should be illegal, to have children without having most (if not all) of the proper considerations addressed. Are the two people engaging in procreation in physical, mental, emotional, and financial shape to take care of the coming life? What is the state of their community? What is the state of society? Things like that should be considered before just squirting out another flesh bag for the twisted societal system to feed on. None of this is ever going to be considered, though.

Missing the point. Sure, when considering procreation there is no current subject to give consent, but you are creating a future being who, once developed, may resent their imposed predicament. To put it in another way, even though there is no subject in the present, you are taking an unnecessary (since we arguably have no duty to create more lives in most cases) gamble with someone else's life, in the sense that there is no way to know whether they'll appreciate the existence imposed upon them or if they will resent it. Thus, saying consent doesn't matter merely by virtue of being non-existent in that moment seems short-sighted.

When talking about consent we usually use it in the context of doing something that may cause someone else's future wellfare to be affected. So, I think its appropiate to bring up a consent argument when we consider that, while the subject is non-existent, the action of procreating has the possibility of creating a being unhappy with a life they didn't consent to.

 

[kunikuzushi]

Consent doesn't matter when the person does not exist.

But they exist now. It's even worse that existence was forced onto them without consent while they were incapable of giving consent.

 

[fedup1982]

<Did I request thee, maker, from my clay
To mold me man? Did I solicit thee
From darkness to promote me?>

Very nice quote.

Anyway...

I find it upsetting when people say that not being asked to be born is a moot point because we weren't born. I find that in itself a moot point because the fact that we couldn't be asked concent is precisely the point.

Since it would be impossible to be asked concent before were born, it should be a fair compromise that we'd be entitled to end our lives given some safeguards, since the alternative to counter the problem of lack of consent is antinatalism which to many would be a more extreme position.

I can understand how people who enjoy life would fiercely protect the right to bring more life into the world, but society should protect people on both sides of the argument, and not taking blanket ban attitude on suicide would be taking a more balanced position. Right now we're stuck in the knee jerk reaction of nobody wanting to take responsibility for the decision that would let some people have the choice to end their lives.

I do think suicide is a mistake when there's an option for euthanasia, but if there isn't, it's ... ugly. Yes, some people are suicidal, and then they're not. For whatever reason. But it's not the rule. There are exceptions and societies don't want to admit or confront that.

 

[yunzzzk]

Very nice quote.

Anyway...

I find it upsetting when people say that not being asked to be born is a moot point because we weren't born. I find that in itself a moot point because the fact that we couldn't be asked concent is precisely the point.

Since it would be impossible to be asked concent before were born, it should be a fair compromise that we'd be entitled to end our lives given some safeguards, since the alternative to counter the problem of lack of consent is antinatalism which to many would be a more extreme position.

I can understand how people who enjoy life would fiercely protect the right to bring more life into the world, but society should protect people on both sides of the argument, and not taking blanket ban attitude on suicide would be taking a more balanced position. Right now we're stuck in the knee jerk reaction of nobody wanting to take responsibility for the decision that would let some people have the choice to end their lives.

I do think suicide is a mistake when there's an option for euthanasia, but if there isn't, it's ... ugly. Yes, some people are suicidal, and then they're not. For whatever reason. But it's not the rule. There are exceptions and societies don't want to admit or confront that.

I am with you. If existence is imposed unasked, and the imposed party suffers as a result, then surely the ethical thing is to allow for an exit that is equally dignified and voluntary.

This is not a moot point———it is central.

 

[Pluto]

 

[ididnotconsent]

Ditto.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I totally agree with this- that it's morally questionable to create a sentient being in this world and expect it to comply to the rules and expectations placed upon it. Plus, to hold the thing hostage here- even if it desperately wants to leave.

I'm largely undecided when it comes to the existence of a God but, I think as a religious (Christain at least) concept, it'a also bizarre. We got into a discussion about the importance of free will the other day. In terms of- yes, there is 'evil' in the world but, we can't blame God for it because it is a part and parcel of having free will and, that being chose to do something unpleasant.

Personally- I don't even think that argument holds water. Some creatures literally can't survive without maiming others- take a certain parasitical worm that lives off of other creatures but can turn them blind as a reault. I doubt even the most perverse human could come up with something as horrific as that.

But anyway, the capacity to do even the most heinous things- child molestation, rape, murder clearly shows that God does indeed prize free will over everything else.

But- we don't have free will in coming here to begin with! (That we remember anyway.) Surely, that's the most fundamental choice of all. If all this is some sort of test too- to ensure we used our free will to make the 'correct,' religiously approved choices in life, that's even more unfair. We didn't agree to be a part of this test. It's even weirder if hell is real and that's the punishment for getting things wrong. Do parents even consider that aspect?

Parent: Good news darling- I may have entered you into a trial where, if you win, you get to go to heaven. Of course, if you lose, you may go to hell.

Child: Oh shit. Ok then- which God/ religion do I need to follow?

Parent: I'm sure it's this one. But, there isn't any proof.

Really? So- if religion is also real, by procreating, parents also expose their children to the risks of an extremely unpleasant afterlife.

Truthfully, my antinatilsm has become so intense that, when my Dad tells me he loves me, I want to respond that- if that was true, he wouldn't have brought me here to begin with. Surely, the definition of love is a desire to protect something from harm. That's impossible in this world.

 

[ididnotconsent]

Truthfully, my antinatilsm has become so intense that, when my Dad tells me he loves me, I want to respond that- if that was true, he wouldn't have brought me here to begin with. Surely, the definition of love is a desire to protect something from harm. That's impossible in this world.

This so much. I would feel sick to my stomach if a son of mine was walking this minefield.

 

[Nightfoot]

From a biological perspective, creating new life sustains the species. The true Prime Directive.