Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Saturday February 09 2019, @12:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the sound-crazy-but-hear-me-out dept.

A 27-year-old Indian man plans to sue his parents for giving birth to him without his consent. Mumbai businessman Raphael Samuel told the BBC that it's wrong to bring children into the world because they then have to put up with lifelong suffering. Mr Samuel, of course, understands that our consent can't be sought before we are born, but insists that "it was not our decision to be born". So as we didn't ask to be born, we should be paid for the rest of our lives to live, he argues.

Mr Samuel's belief is rooted in what's called anti-natalism - a philosophy that argues that life is so full of misery that people should stop procreating immediately. This, he says, would gradually phase out humanity from the Earth and that would also be so much better for the planet.

[...] In a statement, his mother Kavita Karnad Samuel explained her response to "the recent upheaval my son has created". "I must admire my son's temerity to want to take his parents to court knowing both of us are lawyers. And if Raphael could come up with a rational explanation as to how we could have sought his consent to be born, I will accept my fault," she said.

BBC:
Indian man to sue parents for giving birth to him

Mr. Samuel's argument sounds a bit entitled but there are philosophical grounds in support of anti-natalism:
Having children is not life-affirming: it's immoral


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday February 09 2019, @04:12AM (6 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday February 09 2019, @04:12AM (#798697) Homepage Journal

    See, this is why I do not need to be a judge. I'd have the bailiff load up with blanks beforehand and order him to shoot him in the head right in the middle of court. Then dismiss the case.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 4, Touché) by Nerdfest on Saturday February 09 2019, @04:59AM (5 children)

    by Nerdfest (80) on Saturday February 09 2019, @04:59AM (#798709)

    Blanks? Fucking liberal.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 09 2019, @07:13AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 09 2019, @07:13AM (#798740)

      Shooting people with blanks, in the head, if you are close enough, is fatal. Let not your ignorance of firearm physics cause you to inadvertantly kill someone, especially your boyfriend in the chest [cnn.com]. Too late for a Darwin Award, she was already preggers.

      So here, hold my beer, while I prove how awesome these kevlar vests are, by stabbing you with a knife that kevlar does not even slow down [reddit.com]. My bad.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 09 2019, @07:16AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 09 2019, @07:16AM (#798742)

        Build a wall, deport the anchor baby!

      • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Sunday February 10 2019, @04:33AM

        by Nerdfest (80) on Sunday February 10 2019, @04:33AM (#799006)

        Sorry, I'm very aware of that. It was actually an obviously poor attempt at a joke.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday February 10 2019, @06:34AM

        by sjames (2882) on Sunday February 10 2019, @06:34AM (#799035) Journal

        In that first one, it wasn't a blank. The couple thought a thick book would stop the bullet.

        On a related note, it appears that the prosecutor accepts that story as the truth, but for some reason figured the guilt of accidentally killing her boyfriend and the father of her child somehow isn't enough to pay for an undisputed unintentional death that he was fully complicit in. So she's going on trial and facing 10 years in prison (and bizarrely, $20,999 in fines!) because that will obviously make it all better.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday February 09 2019, @01:07PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday February 09 2019, @01:07PM (#798801) Homepage Journal

      I figure it would be worse to embarrass the shit out of him publicly and let him live given the nature of his suit. Real bullets should be reserved for putting down mad dogs, politicians, and lawyers. You know, folks who it's better to just make dead than to inflict well deserved misery upon.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.