Man to sue parents for giving birth to him(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Man to sue parents for giving birth to him
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-47154287
55 comments
> So leave.
This is like being unwillingly thrust on the top antenna of a skyscraper, barely hanging on, and you saying "Don't like it here? Then jump."
This is like being unwillingly thrust on the top antenna of a skyscraper, barely hanging on, and you saying "Don't like it here? Then jump."
> So leave.
Yeah, that's the point. Once we're here, we generally don't want to die either. In fact, we have to endure the terror of knowing that we have to die at some point. That does mean it's a dick move to create a new existence.
> None of us asked to be born.
So? You do not justify why his parents don't owe him support for their desire to have a family. "Your suffering is tradition, child. Now, help your old man to the potty."
For me the really hairy discussion would be about what's to be said about unwanted pregnancies. But for the narcissistic self-fulfillment fantasy in a modern family, the answer is pretty clear in my opinion.
Yeah, that's the point. Once we're here, we generally don't want to die either. In fact, we have to endure the terror of knowing that we have to die at some point. That does mean it's a dick move to create a new existence.
> None of us asked to be born.
So? You do not justify why his parents don't owe him support for their desire to have a family. "Your suffering is tradition, child. Now, help your old man to the potty."
For me the really hairy discussion would be about what's to be said about unwanted pregnancies. But for the narcissistic self-fulfillment fantasy in a modern family, the answer is pretty clear in my opinion.
Of course this particular instance is just humourous, but I can imagine a real and reasonable case:
Imagine a child that was born with birth defects that reduce their life expectancy and quality of life. If they can prove their parents knew of the high likelihood of their condition, and still chose to go ahead and birth them, they might have a case.
Imagine a child that was born with birth defects that reduce their life expectancy and quality of life. If they can prove their parents knew of the high likelihood of their condition, and still chose to go ahead and birth them, they might have a case.
You can also argue that it would be wrong to deem a life with disabilities not worth living, meaning that a fetus shouldn’t be killed if it is certain that the child will live with birth defects.
Abortions are a very difficult topic.
Abortions are a very difficult topic.
>A demand like this could cause a rift within any family, but Mr Samuel says he gets along very well with his parents (both of whom are lawyers) and they appear to be dealing with it with a lot of humour.
Wouldn't there be a lot of court fees associated with this?
Seems like an expensive joke.
Wouldn't there be a lot of court fees associated with this?
Seems like an expensive joke.
Oh my god. I love when I find wiki articles for something I had on my mind, but couldn't name yet. Here it's anti-natalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism
Hallelujah! Armed with this knowledge, I will lose sooo many friends now!
Hallelujah! Armed with this knowledge, I will lose sooo many friends now!
Also popular on Reddit:
/r/antinatalism
/r/childfree
/r/antinatalism
/r/childfree
Thanks. I was more interested in the philosophical argument.
Not having children is wildly popular in gen-Z folks. And I get them. To be honest, I cannot really do the mental gymnastics to see bringing a natal child into this world, at this moment in time, as an act of love. It's actually rather cruel.
Not having children is wildly popular in gen-Z folks. And I get them. To be honest, I cannot really do the mental gymnastics to see bringing a natal child into this world, at this moment in time, as an act of love. It's actually rather cruel.
Agreed. I donate to a charity that covers medical expenses of those who elect permanent birth control but have a balance after whatever their insurance picks up. Defaults are important, and kids are expensive. Younger folks need every advantage they can get (in a world drastically different than decades prior), and I don’t see much support in helping them in this regard.
There is so much to do, indeed. It's not even money, for women it's really, really hard to get their tubes tied. In Germany, it's hard to find a surgeon who does it for women under 30 and with no prior child... Horror stories with surgeons wanting the approval of the husband, or even boyfriend, can be found in most "developed" nation, as of today. Of course, at the same time men can do it no questions asked. So fucked up. I really can't believe women's bodily autonomy is still a major issue in Europe and North America.
[deleted]
> "There's no point to humanity. So many people are suffering. If humanity is extinct, Earth and animals would be happier. They'll certainly be better off. Also no human will then suffer. Human existence is totally pointless."
The path towards Enlightenment is not unlike the five stages of grief. The realization of pain and suffering, the anger towards it, the desire to change it, the depression resulting from realizing our inability to change it, and finally the acceptance of life as it is and the ability to find joy in what we can.
Many of us have been through it and survived, coming out a tad bit wiser. Let's hope that he, too, will be able to find at least something that'll make him realize that it's not so bad after all.
The path towards Enlightenment is not unlike the five stages of grief. The realization of pain and suffering, the anger towards it, the desire to change it, the depression resulting from realizing our inability to change it, and finally the acceptance of life as it is and the ability to find joy in what we can.
Many of us have been through it and survived, coming out a tad bit wiser. Let's hope that he, too, will be able to find at least something that'll make him realize that it's not so bad after all.
From the article, it doesn't seem that life being bad is the point:
"But it's not that I'm unhappy in my life. My life is good, but I'd rather not be here. You know it's like there's a nice room, but I don't want to be in that room"
"But it's not that I'm unhappy in my life. My life is good, but I'd rather not be here. You know it's like there's a nice room, but I don't want to be in that room"
His parents should respond with an Anti-SLAPP suit.
Having children is a form of public participation.
--
That would also add a data point for: "All unhappy families are unhappy in their own ways."
Having children is a form of public participation.
--
That would also add a data point for: "All unhappy families are unhappy in their own ways."
This case just seems to be obvious trolling, but it does bring up interesting ethical questions. Why, for example, is it not OK to kidnap a newborn and raise it as your own, if you give it a much better life than its biological parents would have been able to give it?
> if you give it a much better life than its biological parents would have been able to give it?
Because you have no right to kidnap someone else’s child. Because the human rights of the parents to raise their child and the rights of the child to be raised by their parents both determine that you shouldn’t. Because you have no authority to determine what is better for the child. Because the ends don’t justify the means. Take your pick.
Because you have no right to kidnap someone else’s child. Because the human rights of the parents to raise their child and the rights of the child to be raised by their parents both determine that you shouldn’t. Because you have no authority to determine what is better for the child. Because the ends don’t justify the means. Take your pick.
Every reason you provided besides the last one is void in my opinion.
> Because you have no right to kidnap someone else’s child. Humans also have a right to live. Parents with better opportunities(whether through a better lifestyle or through better medicine) will be able to grant a better life expectancy for the child than the biological parents. This means that while there's no defined right to "kidnap" someone's children, the non-existence does infringe on an existing right.
> Because the human rights of the parents to raise their child and the rights of the child to be raised by their parents both determine that you shouldn’t. Ditto.
> Because you have no authority to determine what is better for the child And who does exactly? The people bringing the child to this world without consent? The government? Hypothetical better parents? Once a child grows up to a sufficient age we assume that the person has gained enough sufficient mental capacity to decide for themselves(which is also debatable but let's leave that for another day). That line gets only more blurry the younger the child is and how do we know who exactly has this "authority" to determine this?
Modern family structure gave this authority to the biological parents due to the complexity of the question above but this is still a debatable point in my opinion. I heavily doubt that the status quo will be challenged in the near future.
> Because the ends don’t justify the means. I agree with this as taking children of people can cause significant distress for reasons I assume evolution related. And moving whether ends justify the means or not aside, no one has the authority know whether an outcome is the "better" outcome for a child or not so the ends are also blurry.
> Because you have no right to kidnap someone else’s child. Humans also have a right to live. Parents with better opportunities(whether through a better lifestyle or through better medicine) will be able to grant a better life expectancy for the child than the biological parents. This means that while there's no defined right to "kidnap" someone's children, the non-existence does infringe on an existing right.
> Because the human rights of the parents to raise their child and the rights of the child to be raised by their parents both determine that you shouldn’t. Ditto.
> Because you have no authority to determine what is better for the child And who does exactly? The people bringing the child to this world without consent? The government? Hypothetical better parents? Once a child grows up to a sufficient age we assume that the person has gained enough sufficient mental capacity to decide for themselves(which is also debatable but let's leave that for another day). That line gets only more blurry the younger the child is and how do we know who exactly has this "authority" to determine this?
Modern family structure gave this authority to the biological parents due to the complexity of the question above but this is still a debatable point in my opinion. I heavily doubt that the status quo will be challenged in the near future.
> Because the ends don’t justify the means. I agree with this as taking children of people can cause significant distress for reasons I assume evolution related. And moving whether ends justify the means or not aside, no one has the authority know whether an outcome is the "better" outcome for a child or not so the ends are also blurry.
> Humans also have a right to live. Parents with better opportunities(whether through a better lifestyle or through better medicine) will be able to grant a better life expectancy for the child than the biological parents.
The right to life doesn't confer an obligation on or a right to another person to interfere to maximize the length or quality of someone else's child's life. Kidnapping would be a grossly unreasonable means to achieve that end!
> And who does exactly?
For the sake of this argument the only thing necessary to establish is that an individual has no authority to decide what is best for someone else's child save for instances of grave and imminent danger which this scenario of merely longer life span does not describe. Whether it's the parents, the state, or the tribal leaders, etc, it is never random individuals!
> Modern family structure gave this authority to the biological parents
The authority of a mother and a father over their child predates civilization let alone modern society. There is an extremely high bar for denying natural rights.
> I agree with this as taking children of people can cause significant distress for reasons I assume evolution related.
It causes distress because the parents love their child and they have no idea what is happening to them or if they're safe. It's an absolutely heinous crime and it's why kidnapping is treated to seriously in all just societies.
The right to life doesn't confer an obligation on or a right to another person to interfere to maximize the length or quality of someone else's child's life. Kidnapping would be a grossly unreasonable means to achieve that end!
> And who does exactly?
For the sake of this argument the only thing necessary to establish is that an individual has no authority to decide what is best for someone else's child save for instances of grave and imminent danger which this scenario of merely longer life span does not describe. Whether it's the parents, the state, or the tribal leaders, etc, it is never random individuals!
> Modern family structure gave this authority to the biological parents
The authority of a mother and a father over their child predates civilization let alone modern society. There is an extremely high bar for denying natural rights.
> I agree with this as taking children of people can cause significant distress for reasons I assume evolution related.
It causes distress because the parents love their child and they have no idea what is happening to them or if they're safe. It's an absolutely heinous crime and it's why kidnapping is treated to seriously in all just societies.
> The right to life doesn't confer an obligation on or a right to another person to interfere to maximize the length or quality of someone else's child's life.
It absolutely does. This is why various child welfare social services exist in various countries, precisely so that someone can interfere to maximize the length and quality of someone else's child's life.
It absolutely does. This is why various child welfare social services exist in various countries, precisely so that someone can interfere to maximize the length and quality of someone else's child's life.
> child welfare social services
Firstly child welfare services aren’t there to give another few years of average lifespan to poorer kids. They’re there to protect children from neglect or danger. Secondly they’re not acting as mere individuals but as agents of the government which gives them that authority.
Firstly child welfare services aren’t there to give another few years of average lifespan to poorer kids. They’re there to protect children from neglect or danger. Secondly they’re not acting as mere individuals but as agents of the government which gives them that authority.
> Firstly child welfare services aren’t there to give another few years of average lifespan to poorer kids. They’re there to protect children from neglect or danger.
Huh? What do you think is the result of protection from neglect and danger? It's like you're saying, doctors aren't there to extend lifespan either, just to protect from danger.
Huh? What do you think is the result of protection from neglect and danger? It's like you're saying, doctors aren't there to extend lifespan either, just to protect from danger.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This article is several years old. I could swear I heard about this happening even before 2019 though, but all I can dig up through web searches is this case.
Have there been any updates?
Have there been any updates?
> I could swear I heard about this happening even before 2019 though, but all I can dig up through web searches is this case.
To be fair, it's been a long couple of years.
To be fair, it's been a long couple of years.
It is an interesting argument. I take exception to the suggestion that the earth and animals would be happier if we were gone. Happiness seems to be a purely human concept. Without humans there would be no happiness. It is true that animals would almost certainly be better off without us. But I’m not sure it’s possible to say that the earth would be. The earth doesn’t care one way or another if life thrives.
And concepts like justice are only meaningful in the context of intelligent life so it’s hard to argue that justice requires the elimination of the only known life-form that has a concept of justice.
And concepts like justice are only meaningful in the context of intelligent life so it’s hard to argue that justice requires the elimination of the only known life-form that has a concept of justice.
There's a string holding his beard.
There's a line in the article that mentions that the beard is fake.
At this time of year it’s in vogue
(2019)
> So as we didn't ask to be born, we should be paid for the rest of our lives to live, he argues.
So, basic income would solve it.
So, basic income would solve it.
Basic income also means taxing everyone, so you also have to pay to live.
You don't have to tax everyone for basic income.
Thought Experiment: Let's say we eventually have a super robot, which can build other robots which can produce all the goods and services the humanity can consume sustainably.
Now, You(Government representing the people) can print money and give it to all of humanity to buy the goods and services from this Super Robot. At the end of the year, this 'super robot' (or the owner of the super robot) will have all the money that is printed.
Next year, you can
a) Print a fresh set of money and distribute, leading to this super robot accumulating all the money (but really who cares, you can make laws that limit how much non-renewable assets a single person or robot can own)
b) Tax this 'super robot' 99.9999% and redistribute it again.
Repeat (a) or (b) forever
Thought Experiment: Let's say we eventually have a super robot, which can build other robots which can produce all the goods and services the humanity can consume sustainably.
Now, You(Government representing the people) can print money and give it to all of humanity to buy the goods and services from this Super Robot. At the end of the year, this 'super robot' (or the owner of the super robot) will have all the money that is printed.
Next year, you can
a) Print a fresh set of money and distribute, leading to this super robot accumulating all the money (but really who cares, you can make laws that limit how much non-renewable assets a single person or robot can own)
b) Tax this 'super robot' 99.9999% and redistribute it again.
Repeat (a) or (b) forever
The most far fetched part of this story is a “Govt representing the people” that would tax the robot.
Facts on ground prove the point.
https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-pays-more-taxes-bott...
Don't let your bias or brainwashing go against facts. It is inevitable that the top 1% will be bearing most of our taxes
Donald Trump was elected by a populist movement, not by the donor class.
Government also printed $10 Trillion in the last two years and gave it away to mostly poor
https://taxfoundation.org/top-1-percent-pays-more-taxes-bott...
Don't let your bias or brainwashing go against facts. It is inevitable that the top 1% will be bearing most of our taxes
Donald Trump was elected by a populist movement, not by the donor class.
Government also printed $10 Trillion in the last two years and gave it away to mostly poor
> Government also printed $10 Trillion in the last two years and gave it away to mostly poor
Incorrect. QA/corporate bonds have been out of control, PPE etc loans that will be forgiven en masse after being given to the best and coziest customers of the large banks, etc.
Incorrect. QA/corporate bonds have been out of control, PPE etc loans that will be forgiven en masse after being given to the best and coziest customers of the large banks, etc.
> It is inevitable that the top 1% will be bearing most of our taxes
[posts a graph that shows top 1% bears about 35%, not most, of income taxes, ignoring payroll and other regressive taxes]
Compare to https://i.imgur.com/KLmRsY8.png , which indicates that the top 1% have about 20.9% of income and pay about 24.1% of taxes.
[posts a graph that shows top 1% bears about 35%, not most, of income taxes, ignoring payroll and other regressive taxes]
Compare to https://i.imgur.com/KLmRsY8.png , which indicates that the top 1% have about 20.9% of income and pay about 24.1% of taxes.
I can’t actually figure out the point being made here…
Right, or if you don't have an abundance-robot, you could tax other non-human resources, such as oil reserves or land.
Only if you have other income.
"In the beginning the Universe was created.
This had made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
Don't forget your towel.
It seems that somebody wants to pay litigation costs
(2019)
There's a Lebanese film with a similar premise: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capernaum_(film)
> Your parents had you instead of a toy or a dog, you owe them nothing, you are their entertainment.
As cringy as this may be, it's depressing how many people I can name off the top of my head who had children because they wanted a pet. Subsequently they figured out that having a kid is hard and instead of facing the consequences, they resorted to buying expensive toys in order to keep them quiet and not have to deal with them. Needless to say it didn't end well for the kids.
As cringy as this may be, it's depressing how many people I can name off the top of my head who had children because they wanted a pet. Subsequently they figured out that having a kid is hard and instead of facing the consequences, they resorted to buying expensive toys in order to keep them quiet and not have to deal with them. Needless to say it didn't end well for the kids.
When you have kids instead of a pet, it can lead to having a vacation home instead of a divorce. Seen that too.
[deleted]
> "I wish I was not born. But it's not that I'm unhappy in my life. My life is good, but I'd rather not be here. You know it's like there's a nice room, but I don't want to be in that room"
So leave.
Camus famously said "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy"
Every teenager goes through an angsty "I didn't ask to be born!" phase. Part of become a thinking adult involves fully accepting that you are here, that can leave at any time, but looking inside yourself to fully understand why you don't want to.
Camus called this "absurdism" but a lot of people have written about it.
> So as we didn't ask to be born, we should be paid for the rest of our lives to live
None of us asked to be born. You owe the rest of us just as much as we owe you. How much that is exactly, is left as an exercise for the reader.