Is the anti-natalist movement the latest thing in birth-prevention? The idea that “it is wrong to put an unwilling child through the bother of life for the pleasure of its parents.” Raphael Samuel thinks so. He says things like, ” I don’t see why I should put another life through the rigamarole of school and finding a career, especially when they didn’t ask to exist.'”
So, don’t.
No, it’s not that simple. According to the UK Daily Mail, he has considered suing his parents.
Raphael Samuel said he had a ‘great relationship’ with his parents but has compared having children to ‘kidnapping and slavery.’
Parents who want babies are wrong for letting “that want” force a person to have to live and deal with all the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. That none of the problems they inevitably face would happen were they never born.
Planned Parenthood could make a fortune on this. Intrauterine consulting Services. Unborn baby psychics or life-control specialists. Women who commune with your child to determine if they even want to be born. And much like their so-called screening and adoption services, the outcome is predictable.
They don’t want to live. Will you pay by cash, cashiers check, credit card, or are the taxpayers taking care of this for you?
Samuel has attracted a small following that includes all the likely suspects. Environmentalists who want fewer people on the planet. The overpopulation stresses resources crowd. Those who believe more people apply unnecessary pressures on others (the end welfare/poverty mopes).
I’m sure he’s even got some “fans” who also want to sue parents for sharing DNA that resulted in them arriving in the world with sex parts they consented too either.
A Dangerous Idea Whose Time Came and Went
To their credit, Samuels and his brave band are “combatting” social pressure to procreate. They see their nation (India) as in need of fewer future participants. His culture promotes having children as necessary for a complete life. And while he is certainly welcome to his ideas to the contrary who benefits from this? Lawyers and Eugenicists (see also National Socialists, leftists, and soon to be former governors of Virginia, i.e.; Democrats).
The deliberate self-exclusion of segments of the population from life by any means is a dangerous idea. It was Maggie Sanger’s dream. Darwin, Keynes, and the Malthusians were all about leveraging their ideas to optimize the quality of people at the expense of the lives of others. They, naturally, decided who was worthy. And they were happy to allow the government to use whatever force was necessary to exercise the plan.
Bad idea.
Samuels is welcome to his anti-natalist cult. It’s not exactly a new idea to refuse to follow in your parent’s cultural footsteps. But suing them because you didn’t ask to be born is stupid. There are no known means of communication and no legal standard by which to measure it. So, he’s pumping his potential lawsuit to attract attention. No crime there either. But this anti-natalist idea invites avenues of inquiry that in the past has lead to justifications for genocide.
That’s when large groups of people are killed without their consent. Traditionally by governments or a ruling class that prefers they never lived. Or lived long enough to have more children.
