Darkover
Archangel
- Jul 29, 2021
- 5,116
Life is the only experience forced upon us without our consent. No one asks to be born, yet we are thrust into existence with its inevitable suffering, responsibilities, and uncertainties. Given that we had no say in our creation, we should at least have the right to decide whether we wish to continue living. The inability to consent to birth makes it ethically imperative that people have a real choice to opt out of life without unnecessary suffering or societal barriers.
In virtually every ethical framework, forcing someone into a situation without their agreement is considered wrong. We acknowledge consent in medicine, contracts, and relationships, yet birth—arguably the most consequential event of all—is imposed upon us without consideration of whether we would want it. The argument that "no one can consent before existence" does not absolve this issue; it only highlights the unilateral nature of birth. If consent were impossible, the ethical approach would be to avoid forcing life upon anyone, rather than gambling on their potential happiness.
Many claim that life is a "gift," but a true gift is something given freely and can be accepted or declined. Life, on the other hand, is an imposition with no return policy. The idea of life as a gift assumes that existence is inherently good, yet for many, life is filled with suffering, hardship, and a constant struggle to meet needs that wouldn't exist without birth in the first place. We are born into a system where survival requires effort, where pain is inevitable, and where happiness is fleeting at best.
If life were truly a gift, people wouldn't be driven to escape it through suicide, nor would the world be filled with misery, inequality, and suffering. The fact that some people enjoy life does not make it a universal good—it only highlights that life is an unpredictable lottery, where some are fortunate while others suffer immensely.
Since no one consents to be born, the least society could do is respect an individual's choice to leave. However, suicide is stigmatized, criminalized, or made as difficult as possible, trapping people in a life they never asked for. Assisted dying should not be limited to the terminally ill but should be available to anyone who rationally concludes that they do not wish to continue. To deny this choice is to force people to endure suffering against their will, perpetuating the very lack of consent that began with their birth.
Ultimately, if life is truly a gift, it should come with the freedom to return it. And if we never agreed to receive it in the first place, we should at least have the right to opt out without unnecessary suffering.
Not only are we forced into existence without consent, but we are also denied the right to leave. Governments around the world restrict suicide, either through criminalization, forced medical intervention, or the refusal to offer humane assisted dying. Even in places where assisted suicide is legal, it is only available to the terminally ill—those suffering from mental anguish are expected to endure it indefinitely.
This creates a cruel paradox: we are brought into life against our will and then trapped here, forced to continue suffering because society deems our existence necessary. Governments enforce this control not out of compassion, but because they need workers, taxpayers, and consumers to sustain their economies. The system does not care about individual suffering; it only cares about maintaining itself.
In virtually every ethical framework, forcing someone into a situation without their agreement is considered wrong. We acknowledge consent in medicine, contracts, and relationships, yet birth—arguably the most consequential event of all—is imposed upon us without consideration of whether we would want it. The argument that "no one can consent before existence" does not absolve this issue; it only highlights the unilateral nature of birth. If consent were impossible, the ethical approach would be to avoid forcing life upon anyone, rather than gambling on their potential happiness.
Many claim that life is a "gift," but a true gift is something given freely and can be accepted or declined. Life, on the other hand, is an imposition with no return policy. The idea of life as a gift assumes that existence is inherently good, yet for many, life is filled with suffering, hardship, and a constant struggle to meet needs that wouldn't exist without birth in the first place. We are born into a system where survival requires effort, where pain is inevitable, and where happiness is fleeting at best.
If life were truly a gift, people wouldn't be driven to escape it through suicide, nor would the world be filled with misery, inequality, and suffering. The fact that some people enjoy life does not make it a universal good—it only highlights that life is an unpredictable lottery, where some are fortunate while others suffer immensely.
Since no one consents to be born, the least society could do is respect an individual's choice to leave. However, suicide is stigmatized, criminalized, or made as difficult as possible, trapping people in a life they never asked for. Assisted dying should not be limited to the terminally ill but should be available to anyone who rationally concludes that they do not wish to continue. To deny this choice is to force people to endure suffering against their will, perpetuating the very lack of consent that began with their birth.
Ultimately, if life is truly a gift, it should come with the freedom to return it. And if we never agreed to receive it in the first place, we should at least have the right to opt out without unnecessary suffering.
Not only are we forced into existence without consent, but we are also denied the right to leave. Governments around the world restrict suicide, either through criminalization, forced medical intervention, or the refusal to offer humane assisted dying. Even in places where assisted suicide is legal, it is only available to the terminally ill—those suffering from mental anguish are expected to endure it indefinitely.
This creates a cruel paradox: we are brought into life against our will and then trapped here, forced to continue suffering because society deems our existence necessary. Governments enforce this control not out of compassion, but because they need workers, taxpayers, and consumers to sustain their economies. The system does not care about individual suffering; it only cares about maintaining itself.
