Venting The person who pays the consequences is not the one who made the decision

[Darkover]

Imagine any other situation where someone commits another to decades of labor, pain, struggle, loss, and eventual death—without permission. In most contexts, we'd call that coercion, maybe even abuse. But when it's wrapped in the culturally sacred narrative of "parenthood," it becomes normalized, even celebrated.


Consent and the Gamble of Life

no one consents to be born. It's a one-sided gamble where someone else rolls the dice, hoping the outcome is favorable. And even if that hope comes from love or longing, it doesn't change the fact that the person being born will bear all the consequences—good or bad. That's a massive ethical consideration that rarely gets discussed in mainstream culture. Most people parent because it feels natural, fulfilling, or expected—not because they've deeply considered the risks to the child they're bringing into a complex, often painful world.


What Do They Lose If They Aren't Born?

if you never exist, you never suffer. There's no loss in non-existence, only the absence of potential. But once you're born, you're in the game, for better or worse. And the worse can be very, very bad.

And yes, it's a possibility that life could turn out okay—or even beautiful. But it's also true that life could be filled with isolation, chronic illness, war, poverty, violence, or any number of heartbreaks. That's not cynicism—that's statistical realism.


The Emotional Double Standard

This is one of the most insidious contradictions in our cultural logic:

Creating life with no consent? Acceptable—even noble.

Ending one's own life due to suffering? Selfish, weak, immoral.

Parents often expect their children to withstand immense pain, grief, disillusionment, and loss—because "that's life." But if the child later says, "I didn't sign up for this, and I want out," they're met with guilt, moral lectures, or even institutionalization.

Why is one act (creating life) seen as sacred, while the other (choosing to leave it) is seen as shameful?

Because the former flatters the parents' choices. The latter threatens them.

The phrase "We did it out of love" is offered as a shield, but love without consent is still control. True love considers the full weight of its impact—not just the intentions behind it.

parents expect their children to endure the deaths of loved ones, the inevitability of their own death, and all the grief along the way. Yet many would label you as selfish for trying to make an autonomous choice to escape that very chain of suffering. There's a hypocrisy in that expectation that often goes unchallenged because love is used to justify it all: "We did it out of love."

 

[Forever Sleep]

I feel like my resentment at being given life is bubbling up so high now that, it's bound to overflow soon. All it really takes will be a prod at my work situation. Every conversation, it's: Are you working? Have you heard about work? I know part of it is genuine, kind concern. People will know it's bothering me. Plus, they'll be concerned for my future. Some of it however, is a fear and reminder that I musn't rely on them though. That it's unfair to rely on them.

All I really want to say is- the 'unfair' part is that you brought me here, expected me to thrive in this environment (some of which you yourself made very unpleasant) and now, you think it's reasonable to ask me to work to pay for something I don't want for 50-60 years!

I agree. It's so weird to see that as a reasonable thing to do and expect of someone. I guess the problem though is- that they did presumably accept it themselves from their parents. Maybe with less resistance so, they don't see it as such an issue.

I also want to try to reassure them that they don't need to worry about my future because, I don't intend to have one!

The: 'But, we were so much in love.' I've also witnessed to sugarcoat a whole lot of outright selfish decisions. It's kind of weird, isn't it? It happens in films too. Some character brings about something catastrophic but, when they reveal that they did it 'for love', all is forgiven. It's kind of weird- why? Why is it assumed 'love' makes something pure and good?

Surely, we express love towards another person very often to solely benefit that other person and us. It may not benefit others at all. It may even cause damage to others but it's all good because, it was an expression of love.

People will also say that they're blinded by love. Are they though- really? They'll also say they realise that other people are against the match for instance. So- they're not in fact blind at all to the possible pitfalls. They simply accept them- even when it affects others negatively because ultimately- it's what they want. Love is so often selfish so, why is it portrayed as something pure?

The more tricky part is- I don't think parents necessarily have children with malicious intent. Especially bearing in mind that good parenting will be an enormous drain on their finances, time and emotions. It's therefore often portrayed almost as a charitable and giving thing to do. I'm sure they see it that way too. The best ones are willing to dedicate a lot of their lives to try to ensure their children are well taken care of and, happy.

The more insiduous part to it is that, while all of this appears kind and well meaning, it creates a co-dependent relationship. Which I think are renown for being unhealthy.

We have no choice but to be utterly dependent on parents or care givers as infants. Which I assume is part of the appeal really. A vulnerable, helpless being who so desperately needs its parents. It will very likely want a strong bond with them because it's so vulnerable. A kind of unconditional love that I assume the would-be parent longs for. That in itself seems morally dubious. Create a being so weak, needy and afraid that it will simply have to love you. That's an absolute trap to begin with.

Beyond that though, we learn to understand they are co-dependent on us. If life really does become so intolerable for us that we want to leave it, we have to consider suicide, knowing it will devastate and possibly destroy them. It's such a cruel possition to put someone in to emotionally blackmail them so strongly. The parents don't actually even need to be manipulative for it to work either. Their children just need to have enough love and concern for them so as to not want to upset them. Then, the trap is complete.

Obviously, that won't be the case for perhaps the majority of people. Their children likely won't grow up so unhappy and/ or suicidal. I suppose I'm kind of glad I realised that possibility/ probability early on though- that they could suffer. I used to think all was well with my friend's children but now, I'm starting to hear snippets that all is not perfect. Fairly serious health issues, struggling emotionally. It does give me relief that I spared my would- be children that risk.