Darkover

Darkover

Angelic
Jul 29, 2021
4,361
Do you hate it or think it's unfair to be born, first of all, against our will because nobody asked us if we wanted to be born, having to do everyday things just to survive, working hard, torturing ourselves to make money, and just to die in the end?


I also think being alive is empty, exhausting, lonely, miserable to the point I don't see any reason to continue on existing and pursuing anything
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Hugs
Reactions: sovcat, YandereMikuMistress, sserafim and 7 others
coolgal82

coolgal82

she/her, terminally silly :3
Sep 10, 2024
136
honestly probably a hot take but i disagree. i'm not saying like having a child is a good thing but its not a bad thing either, its a morally neutral act. what matters is how you treat the child after really. plenty of people can be and are happy, and can manage fine in this world. just because others cant doesnt make life objectively a bad thing for everyone else. like yeah i really would've rather not been born, but its not fair to assume/impose that on everyone and try and argue that having a child is therefore bad idk.

the important thing to me is that my experience is not universal and trying to assume any kind of experience is universal is rather silly so you cant define something like this objectively really
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 3/4Dead, WhiteRabbit, lxci and 5 others
Darkover

Darkover

Angelic
Jul 29, 2021
4,361
i'm not saying like having a child is a good thing but its not a bad thing either, its a morally neutral act.
the act of birth isn't neutral because it introduces the possibility of suffering where there previously was none.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: YandereMikuMistress, sserafim, ijustwishtodie and 4 others
coolgal82

coolgal82

she/her, terminally silly :3
Sep 10, 2024
136
the act of birth isn't neutral because it introduces the possibility of suffering where there previously was none.
it also introduces the possibility of joy where previously there was none (both for that person and others around them) thus it about evens out therefore neutral.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deadliftEnjoyer, 3/4Dead, Emeralds and 4 others
Darkover

Darkover

Angelic
Jul 29, 2021
4,361
it also introduces the possibility of joy where previously there was none (both for that person and others around them) thus it about evens out therefore neutral.
birth is considered immoral because it brings someone into existence without their consent, inevitably subjecting them to suffering. The key argument here is that life is filled with hardship, pain, and suffering—whether emotional, physical, or existential. Since non-existence avoids these experiences altogether, bringing someone into existence exposes them to the potential for suffering without any guarantee of happiness or fulfillment.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: sserafim, ijustwishtodie, Adûnâi and 2 others
D

Dayrain

Arcanist
Feb 3, 2023
416
I didn't sign up for this.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: sserafim, ijustwishtodie, Adûnâi and 2 others
coolgal82

coolgal82

she/her, terminally silly :3
Sep 10, 2024
136
birth is considered immoral because it brings someone into existence without their consent, inevitably subjecting them to suffering. The key argument here is that life is filled with hardship, pain, and suffering—whether emotional, physical, or existential. Since non-existence avoids these experiences altogether, bringing someone into existence exposes them to the potential for suffering without any guarantee of happiness or fulfillment.
It's also filled with joy though. plenty of people are able to be happy, and the hapiness they experience can outweigh the negativeness, plus they also positively affect other people. that positive affect wouldnt be present if that person wasnt present. i think its good for someone to be able to experience the joys of this world if they are able to, and bring joy to other people (maybe if the person existed in a vacuum that would be valid, but people exist together and affect eachother, not just themselves.). I'm rather sad that i can't but that doesnt mean other people cant or shouldnt.

The only thing i will agree with is yes, you are bringing someone into existence without their consent, but my solution to this is that people should be free to leave if they want. the main issue that existing without your consent brings is that you're unable to leave easily because everyone around you will try to stop you, but if you can leave just as easily as you came in if you decide it isnt for you then you can return to that non existence. obviously its more complicated than that but still, people should be allowed to end their life any time they choose.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Adûnâi, lxci, derpyderpins and 2 others
Darkover

Darkover

Angelic
Jul 29, 2021
4,361
It's also filled with joy though. plenty of people are able to be happy, and the hapiness they experience can outweigh the negativeness, plus they also positively affect other people. that positive affect wouldnt be present if that person wasnt present. i think its good for someone to be able to experience the joys of this world if they are able to, and bring joy to other people (maybe if the person existed in a vacuum that would be valid, but people exist together and affect eachother, not just themselves.). I'm rather sad that i can't but that doesnt mean other people cant or shouldnt.

The only thing i will agree with is yes, you are bringing someone into existence without their consent, but my solution to this is that people should be free to leave if they want. the main issue that existing without your consent brings is that you're unable to leave easily because everyone around you will try to stop you, but if you can leave just as easily as you came in if you decide it isnt for you then you can return to that non existence. obviously its more complicated than that but still, people should be allowed to end their life any time they choose.
Life, by its very nature, is full of needs and challenges that are inescapable. From the moment we are born, we are thrust into a world where survival requires constant effort. Hunger, thirst, pain, illness, and emotional suffering are inherent parts of existence. While moments of joy and pleasure do exist, they are often fleeting, and their intensity rarely matches the depth or duration of suffering.

The problem lies in the asymmetry between suffering and pleasure. Suffering can be intense, chronic, and devastating, sometimes leaving deep, lasting scars on a person's physical and mental well-being. One severe illness, the loss of a loved one, a traumatic event, or prolonged emotional pain can overshadow years of happiness. In contrast, pleasure tends to be short-lived, often requiring constant maintenance or chasing after goals that bring temporary relief rather than lasting satisfaction.

One key argument is that suffering is guaranteed in life, whereas happiness is not. We all experience physical pain, loss, aging, and death. Emotional suffering, like loneliness, anxiety, and depression, can strike without warning. Even in the best circumstances, no one is immune from the grief of losing loved ones or the fear of life's uncertainties. The fact that suffering is an unavoidable part of life makes it difficult to justify bringing new life into existence, where that being is bound to face these hardships.

For many, the constant struggle to meet basic needs—working long hours, battling illness, or enduring mental anguish—feels like a treadmill of survival. The satisfaction of needs is temporary, but the pain of not meeting them can be relentless. Once a need is met (such as eating when hungry or finding shelter), another arises. The cycle repeats endlessly until death, with no permanent resolution to the inherent vulnerabilities of human existence.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: YandereMikuMistress, sserafim, ijustwishtodie and 3 others
cantThinkOfName

cantThinkOfName

Member
Sep 12, 2024
12
Life, by its very nature, is full of needs and challenges that are inescapable. From the moment we are born, we are thrust into a world where survival requires constant effort. Hunger, thirst, pain, illness, and emotional suffering are inherent parts of existence. While moments of joy and pleasure do exist, they are often fleeting, and their intensity rarely matches the depth or duration of suffering.

The problem lies in the asymmetry between suffering and pleasure. Suffering can be intense, chronic, and devastating, sometimes leaving deep, lasting scars on a person's physical and mental well-being. One severe illness, the loss of a loved one, a traumatic event, or prolonged emotional pain can overshadow years of happiness. In contrast, pleasure tends to be short-lived, often requiring constant maintenance or chasing after goals that bring temporary relief rather than lasting satisfaction.

One key argument is that suffering is guaranteed in life, whereas happiness is not. We all experience physical pain, loss, aging, and death. Emotional suffering, like loneliness, anxiety, and depression, can strike without warning. Even in the best circumstances, no one is immune from the grief of losing loved ones or the fear of life's uncertainties. The fact that suffering is an unavoidable part of life makes it difficult to justify bringing new life into existence, where that being is bound to face these hardships.

For many, the constant struggle to meet basic needs—working long hours, battling illness, or enduring mental anguish—feels like a treadmill of survival. The satisfaction of needs is temporary, but the pain of not meeting them can be relentless. Once a need is met (such as eating when hungry or finding shelter), another arises. The cycle repeats endlessly until death, with no permanent resolution to the inherent vulnerabilities of human existence
And why are so many people not just OK with living but actively happy and want to live? It's easy to project your own beliefs onto people but I think we just need to accept some people hate existing, but most don't. Not that people dont suffer, but most dont want to die and still view life as decent enough to be worth living.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3/4Dead, coolgal82, derpyderpins and 1 other person
R

Reflection

Lost
Sep 12, 2024
121
You can't force someone to exist against their will, because before existence they had no will to begin with. But I do think it is up to the parents to judge whether to bring someone to this world or not, and I despise people who do it just because they want to, regardless of the quality of life they can provide, or whether they can even provide a decent enough life to being with. With that said, forcing someone to still live against their will when life is showing no promises for things to get better time and time again is definitely abuse, there's only so much you can do to salvage a life and people need to realize that more.
 
  • Love
  • Informative
Reactions: Adûnâi and derpyderpins
EvisceratedJester

EvisceratedJester

|| What Else Could I Be But a Jester ||
Oct 21, 2023
2,787
it also introduces the possibility of joy where previously there was none (both for that person and others around them) thus it about evens out therefore neutral.
Not that I necessarily agree with the OP's sentiment, but I feel like just because there are positives to something doesn't mean it evens things out, making them neutral. For example, if a relationship is abusive but said couple also had a lot of moments of joy and happiness during their time together, that doesn't make the relationship neutral all of a sudden. It's still a bad relationship. The good and bad in something isn't necessarily equal, so something having positive and negative elements to it doesn't make it neutral. Most things are not just good or bad. How we assess where to categorize said things depend on more than just that, such as the degree of suffering they cause or if benefits outweighs the cons.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: sserafim, ijustwishtodie, BoulderSoWhat and 2 others
F

Forever Sleep

Earned it we have...
May 4, 2022
8,777
It's a lottery. They could win big or lose everything and become destitute. Is it fair to put someone else's entire life savings into the lottery- then, when they loose it all- tell them- it's ok. You'll take care of them for the next 16-18 years? (Depending on you staying alive and having the money to do that.) I'd say that still wasn't a very fair thing to do. Making such a massive decision on their behalf.

Birth is the start of a journey that could be good, average or utterly terrible but- not only will that person be conscripted to it with no say in the matter. They will be expected to fulfil their full term here and comply to a lot of rules. They'll find it very difficult to leave if they want to. Plus, certain unpleasant things are guaranteed- taxes, deaths of others and their own death. Probably some illness along the way too.

What's more, their parents can't protect them from a whole ton of bad- sometimes incredibly bad things happening. They can only prevent certain things up to a point- illness, bullying, rape, substance abuse, financial destitution, failing in life generally. They can't even give their promise to always be there for them. My Mum died when I was 3.

Or- another way I see it. You're a genius and you've worked out how to create sentient AI. Do you do it? Bearing in mind that it will be 'born' into a world where- for the time being- it will largely be controlled by us. There could also be a great deal of hatred towards it. It will be smart enough and sensitive enough to know its own limitations- imposed upon it by us. To my mind, it would be incredibly unfair to bring a sentient lifeform here. Any form of sentient life, so- myself, I lean very much towards antinatilism.

That said, I don't hate parents. I just have concern for their children. I hope they'll be ok but the pessimist in me worries that they won't be.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 3/4Dead and Adûnâi
-Link-

-Link-

Deep Breaths
Aug 25, 2018
390
Labelling this "abuse" and "immoral" I think is a stretch... Certainly, parents should consider many factors before deciding to bring a child into the world, and ideally among those factors would be a risk assessment as to how likely that child could wind up struggling and suffering in their life, and to what degree.

Should human beings collectively decide to passively allow our extinction? If everyone was to buy into this, then that's what would end up happening, isn't it? But even if we were to do that, we would return... unless we want to eradicate every other form of life on the planet before allowing ourselves to die off. "Life finds a way."

The only thing i will agree with is yes, you are bringing someone into existence without their consent, but my solution to this is that people should be free to leave if they want. the main issue that existing without your consent brings is that you're unable to leave easily because everyone around you will try to stop you, but if you can leave just as easily as you came in if you decide it isnt for you then you can return to that non existence. obviously its more complicated than that but still, people should be allowed to end their life any time they choose.
This seems like the simplest answer here. Account for the fact that some of us suffer horribly in life, and allow people to choose a peaceful exit if that's what they'd prefer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: permanently tired, ijustwishtodie, coolgal82 and 1 other person
derpyderpins

derpyderpins

Normie Life Mogs
Sep 19, 2023
1,693
Is making a child eat their vegetables a form of abuse? They really don't want to. The vegies also don't taste as good as candy and the unpleasant taste is a form of suffering. In outlier cases, the vegetables could have bacteria that gives them bad stomach issues, although most of the time it's good for a child to eat their vegies. So . . . would that be abuse?

It's typically adults who have observed life and the world making what they consider to be the choice with the best range of outcomes. Couldn't call it abuse.

Although I agree with those saying suicide for adults should be legal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3/4Dead
uniqueusername4

uniqueusername4

died a long time ago
Aug 13, 2023
182
Do you hate it or think it's unfair to be born, first of all, against our will because nobody asked us if we wanted to be born, having to do everyday things just to survive, working hard, torturing ourselves to make money, and just to die in the end?


I also think being alive is empty, exhausting, lonely, miserable to the point I don't see any reason to continue on existing and pursuing anything
I absolutely agree. I dont understand how people can try so hard to make sure you're alive but forget about making life livable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sserafim and ijustwishtodie
L

Life'sA6itch

Student
Oct 29, 2023
101
honestly probably a hot take but i disagree. i'm not saying like having a child is a good thing but its not a bad thing either, its a morally neutral act. what matters is how you treat the child after really. plenty of people can be and are happy, and can manage fine in this world. just because others cant doesnt make life objectively a bad thing for everyone else. like yeah i really would've rather not been born, but its not fair to assume/impose that on everyone and try and argue that having a child is therefore bad idk.

the important thing to me is that my experience is not universal and trying to assume any kind of experience is universal is rather silly so you cant define something like this objectively really
Like another person said, I did not sign up for this effed up life and agree with OP. Further, OP didn't state or imply their statement to be universal and I did not take it that way. I don't find anything about creating human life to be neutral & even for those lucky enough to be treated well by their families, there is no shortage of others who could make their lives very, very challenging to say the least. Each of our life experiences differ but the fact is happiness, survival and even some minimum level of comfort are never guaranteed to any of us even when you've worked the entirety of your life for it/them. Which brings me back to OP's statement, my life experiences make me fully agree with it. But, that's just me.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: sserafim, ijustwishtodie and Adûnâi
coolgal82

coolgal82

she/her, terminally silly :3
Sep 10, 2024
136
Life, by its very nature, is full of needs and challenges that are inescapable. From the moment we are born, we are thrust into a world where survival requires constant effort. Hunger, thirst, pain, illness, and emotional suffering are inherent parts of existence. While moments of joy and pleasure do exist, they are often fleeting, and their intensity rarely matches the depth or duration of suffering.

The problem lies in the asymmetry between suffering and pleasure. Suffering can be intense, chronic, and devastating, sometimes leaving deep, lasting scars on a person's physical and mental well-being. One severe illness, the loss of a loved one, a traumatic event, or prolonged emotional pain can overshadow years of happiness. In contrast, pleasure tends to be short-lived, often requiring constant maintenance or chasing after goals that bring temporary relief rather than lasting satisfaction.

One key argument is that suffering is guaranteed in life, whereas happiness is not. We all experience physical pain, loss, aging, and death. Emotional suffering, like loneliness, anxiety, and depression, can strike without warning. Even in the best circumstances, no one is immune from the grief of losing loved ones or the fear of life's uncertainties. The fact that suffering is an unavoidable part of life makes it difficult to justify bringing new life into existence, where that being is bound to face these hardships.

For many, the constant struggle to meet basic needs—working long hours, battling illness, or enduring mental anguish—feels like a treadmill of survival. The satisfaction of needs is temporary, but the pain of not meeting them can be relentless. Once a need is met (such as eating when hungry or finding shelter), another arises. The cycle repeats endlessly until death, with no permanent resolution to the inherent vulnerabilities of human existence.
Idk what else to say other than i disagree with all of this. I think you place too much weight on suffering purely baded on your own experiences, which is just wrong. I literally know one guy who has basically not suffered at all in his life (atleast from what hes said), the worst that happened to him was his dog dying. people like that do exist. plenty of people have enough happiness to outweigh the potential suffering in their life, and they then bring happiness to others as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3/4Dead
Adûnâi

Adûnâi

Little Russian in-cel
Apr 25, 2020
925
I enjoy your posts, @Darkover! Of course, begetting life is akin to paedophilia, rape and torture. It's obvious.

like yeah i really would've rather not been born, but its not fair to assume/impose that on everyone and try and argue that having a child is therefore bad idk.
Human happiness is held on inflicting suffering - either on other humans, or on animals. So it's still a net negative.

I do have an impression that the majority are fine with suffering overall. But they just don't seem like sentient beings to me. Or cope sufficiently well with religious fanaticism - with the added bonus of sex and drugs (see Afghanistan, they chew and fuck).

birth is considered immoral because it brings someone into existence without their consent
Exactly! This could only be alleviated with the right to painless suicide - yes, even to small children (the prevention of suicide among kids boggles my mind, it's like you can rape them until they're 18, and only then they can kill themselves? Disgusting.)

Not that people dont suffer, but most dont want to die and still view life as decent enough to be worth living.
But life ends anyway, so their not acknowledging this clear fact is an obvious case of cope, blindness and stupidity.

Should human beings collectively decide to passively allow our extinction?
This is why I'd be a militant anti-natalist, and pro-mortalist, and would support ASI in releasing a virus that would painlessly destroy all lifeforms on planet Earth.

I dont understand how people can try so hard to make sure you're alive but forget about making life livable.
It's because life is not made for the individual. The individual belongs to the collective, is nothing but a resource, a slave. This is why suicide is prohibited - the collective would suffer, obviously.

I literally know one guy who has basically not suffered at all in his life (atleast from what hes said), the worst that happened to him was his dog dying. people like that do exist
But he still has to shit, get tired, and sleep. And his end is still going to be death - possibly painful. To me it feels rather humiliating and revolting. Finding solace in it is just eating a meal in Auschwitz, surrounded by filth.
 
cantThinkOfName

cantThinkOfName

Member
Sep 12, 2024
12
But life ends anyway, so their not acknowledging this clear fact is an obvious case of cope, blindness and stupidity.
why do people need to acknowledge it? Every living thing dies, its not a unknown fact or a complex philosophical question. It's as plain cut and simple as it gets. You die. People still think it's worth living despite death, most do. You can make all the cases you want about now bad it is, but most people alive disagree. Those who suffer deserve the right to die if they wish, but if people still think life is good despite suffering and death, what's your argument then? They are wrong? That we shouldn't listen to people who want to live despite knowing they will die, but instead only listen to suicidal people? It's wrong to have kids because you don't like life, despite knowing the majority of kids will still enjoy life enough for them to want to keep living?
 
Downdraft

Downdraft

Alive and kicking btw
Feb 6, 2024
619
I literally know one guy who has basically not suffered at all in his life
That is... exaggerated.

Regardless how happy one can be, it's virtually impossible to not cry as a baby, or as a kid, or not facing an inevitable twist in a relationship, loss or one of the million things that are intrinsic on life. Hormones are a thing, they counter-balance themselves.

I don't like anti-natalism at all and I've been vocal about it. Consent arguments are dumb, but lying to the other extreme isn't better.

Not saying he isn't content on life, one can be, but claiming he never suffered is like he laughing at your face. Does he have C.I.P and absolutely no hormones? Could he do absolutely all he wanted since young, and didn't it affect him in any way? Or he still does whatever he wants without worrying about money and no one got tired around him a single time on his life? Because good feelings wear off, you know? It's like proven many times before. Even if one copes perfectly fine.
 
Last edited:
coolgal82

coolgal82

she/her, terminally silly :3
Sep 10, 2024
136
That is... exaggerated.

Regardless how happy one can be, it's virtually impossible to not cry as a baby, or as a kid, or not facing an inevitable twist in a relationship, loss or one of the million things that are intrinsic on life. Hormones are a thing, they counter-balance themselves.

I don't like anti-natalism at all and I've been vocal about it. Consent arguments are dumb, but lying to the other extreme isn't better.

Not saying he isn't content on life, one can be, but claiming he never suffered is like he laughing at your face. Does he have C.I.P and absolutely no hormones? Because good feelings wear off, you know? It's like proven many times before. Even if one copes perfectly fine.
no he is actually just an anomaly i don't fully believe it myself but like, he literally just has no like majorly bad incidents lmao other than his dog dying. ofc theres minor bad stuff but i was only really counting major stuff as "suffering" for these purposes, like if you fell and scraped your knee as a kid or whatever i dont think that type of thing would count. but like atleast according to him he's had like no abuse, no betrayals, no deaths (other than the dog), nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3/4Dead
Downdraft

Downdraft

Alive and kicking btw
Feb 6, 2024
619
no he is actually just an anomaly i don't fully believe it myself but like, he literally just has no like majorly bad incidents lmao other than his dog dying. ofc theres minor bad stuff but i was only really counting major stuff as "suffering" for these purposes, like if you fell and scraped your knee as a kid or whatever i dont think that type of thing would count. but like atleast according to him he's had like no abuse, no betrayals, no deaths (other than the dog), nothing.
Well that's way more realistic lol. It's much easier to simply not being abused or never grieving, and I know those cases exist. Although there's more to a happy life than that, but I don't know him at all.
 
BoulderSoWhat

BoulderSoWhat

Member
Aug 29, 2024
57
I was reading an article the other day that fleshed out some of my thinking better than I could articulate:

"If we can feel compassion for potential beings we are thinking of bringing into existence (based on the compassion we already feel for existing beings), and we want to prevent further unnecessary suffering, then antinatalism would appear to be a natural extension of compassion. I think it's also worth mentioning here that antinatalism does not preclude having children per se, only bringing new sentient life into existence. For this reason, adoption still persists as an option for those who find the antinatalist arguments convincing and who are adamant about giving up the potential meaning to be found in parenthood. This is a point that Benatar is keen to underline. Making this sort of decision as an antinatalist will be a further way of reducing human suffering in the world, considering the countless number of children desperate for homes.

There are many reasons we should be wary about dismissing antinatalism based on presumptions about someone's mental health. The possibility that depression could support the philosophical position is one such reason, which I hope this discussion has helped to elucidate. At the same time, the arguments for and against antinatalism should be dealt with in their own right. Appeals to mental health aren't necessary to either defend or refute the position. Furthermore, assessing the arguments for antinatalism, in and of themselves, will better guide decisions about bringing new people into the world, which, as the antinatalists rightly argue, is a serious choice. It's serious, not because it will affect the lives of the parents, but because it involves bringing a new being into the world, a sentient being who will likely live out more than 80 years of existence on the planet – and in the society – we are leaving them with."

 
  • Like
Reactions: sserafim
EvisceratedJester

EvisceratedJester

|| What Else Could I Be But a Jester ||
Oct 21, 2023
2,787
I know one guy who has basically not suffered at all in his life (atleast from what hes said), the worst that happened to him was his dog dying.
Just because somebody says that they have never suffered before doesn't mean that is the case. There is a good chance that he has suffered before but he is just invalidating his own experiences because he feels like they do not compare to the issues that others go through. I don't think you can just blindly take his word for it. Suffering doesn't always equate to some big horrible event. Some people do suffer as a result of smaller things, including the death of their beloved pet.

Even going by the idea that people who have never suffered before do exist, they would be the minority. Most people suffer to varying degrees throughout life.

again, not saying that I agree with the OP's sentiment, just wanted to point this out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sserafim
3/4Dead

3/4Dead

Peace, Love, Empathy
Feb 27, 2024
390
Yeah I disagree that its necessarily abusive. I won't regurgitate other's points as i feel others have explained this better than I can, but everything is up in the air, and its up to the parents to ensure that their children are able to live satisfying, enjoyable lives. plenty of people are generally happy, even if the negatives of life still exist.

just because im miserable doesnt mean everyone is miserable, nor is it cruel to want others to have the opporotunity to not be miserable (rather, to be alive, and to have the option to find things that bring them joy and peace.)
 
sserafim

sserafim

brighter than the sun, that’s just me
Sep 13, 2023
9,009
It's because life is not made for the individual. The individual belongs to the collective, is nothing but a resource, a slave. This is why suicide is prohibited - the collective would suffer, obviously.
This is so true. We were all born to be slaves to the system. There was an infographic posted on here about how suicide results in economic and monetary losses (how much suicide cost the economy) and I believe that this is the main reason why suicide is prevented and and looked down upon
 
ijustwishtodie

ijustwishtodie

death will be my ultimate bliss
Oct 29, 2023
4,154
I think that I've been abused by being forced into existence against my consent. I perpetually get abused by life itself being too harsh and cruel
 
permanently tired

permanently tired

I know you're laughing
Nov 8, 2023
173
just because others cant doesnt make life objectively a bad thing for everyone else. like yeah i really would've rather not been born, but its not fair to assume/impose that on everyone and try and argue that having a child is therefore bad idk.

the important thing to me is that my experience is not universal and trying to assume any kind of experience is universal is rather silly so you cant define something like this objectively really
The inverse is why we're here yet they continue to be ignorant af. Why are we not given the same courtesy 🤨😒
 
  • Like
Reactions: sserafim
D

Dayrain

Arcanist
Feb 3, 2023
416
There was an infographic posted on here about how suicide results in economic and monetary losses (how much suicide cost the economy)
Would you maybe be able to find this again?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sserafim
sserafim

sserafim

brighter than the sun, that’s just me
Sep 13, 2023
9,009
Would you maybe be able to find this again?
I can't find the original comment where it was first posted but I found the picture because I reposted it

Sanctioned suicide
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dayrain

Similar threads

ijustwishtodie
Replies
4
Views
218
Suicide Discussion
locked*n*loaded
locked*n*loaded
bloomingdahlia_
Replies
0
Views
158
Suicide Discussion
bloomingdahlia_
bloomingdahlia_
I
Replies
5
Views
438
Suicide Discussion
ihateearth
I
Darkover
Replies
5
Views
311
Offtopic
athiestjoe
A