I stumbled across this today. I feel like this guy could have taken the words right out of my mouth: http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Wish-I-Was-Never-Born/393907.
This is the kind of thing I wish people would take into account before engaging in the act of reproduction. Of course, selfish ass breeders don’t give a shit.
Procreation is the supreme act of evil.
If only we could all move to Belgium. Suicide is a civil right, period, end of story. As none of us were given any choice as to whether or not to come into this world (and the fact that it would have been better never to have been born), we all have the right to leave if we so choose. I’m glad to see a government somewhere out there honoring this right.
Procreation can only be described as the supreme act of evil. Bringing so much as one new sentient being into existence is an action exponentially more evil than the actions of all the serial killers, mass murderers, serial rapists, etc. combined, and that’s if you bring a healthy individual without any genetic or congenital health defects into the world.
However, when you bring a new individual into the world who you KNOW will be permanently disfigured, that takes that evil to a whole new level. Case in point this worthless fuck who forced existence upon a new individual with the EXACT SAME facial deformity as him into the world to have to endure probably worse suffering than him (because females take more offense to those kinds of things than males). Read more about this sick fucker here.
What’s even WORSE is most people are praising his decision. Like WTF? People are so fucking delusional it makes me fucking sick to my stomach. NO, this was NOT a good thing and she will NOT have a (comparatively) good life.
Quit justifying the unjustifiable. This person’s actions were downright evil at BEST. No rational person could ever excuse such a thing, and if you excuse such things you are part of the fucking problem yourself.
It seems that most monotheistic religions (and interestingly enough, even most atheists I’ve met) deem suicide as an evil action. Alas, any claim deeming suicide immoral is defective.
Monotheistic religions claim that it’s an offense to god as we are the god’s creation and therefore have no right to destroy ourselves as it would be destroying god’s creation. Well, that’s OK if you’re working under the assumption that a god even exists and have sufficient evidence that god exists, but it’s still not immoral to remove something which is a harm to someone. As (1) our lives are a harm to us and (2) it would have been better never to have existed, it thus follows that if god created creation he did an evil action. Therefore god, if god exists, is evil. As such, no entity that is inherently evil has any right dictating anything about general morality.
In terms of the “new” atheism, they have all sorts of unfounded claims. They reject god or a driving uniting force but somehow make up some bullshit claim that there’s a purpose for our existence and that we should not terminate our lives because of it. Truth be told they have no more evidence for their claims of a transcendental purpose than theists have for the existence of god. As such, this claim can be dismissed as nonsense right along with the god theory.
Both atheists and theists argue that committing suicide is selfish because of the devastation left behind. I would counter this argument by saying the devastation over someone’s death is the selfishness of the grieving and is entirely their problem. They grieve because they wanted said deceased person (who died of suicide or other means, it matters not) to remain alive to please them. Let’s be honest, we never grieve a person actually dying. We grieve because they will no longer be there for us.
Lastly, psychologists will claim that suicide is a result of mental illness. Well, even if it was that’s not even relevant, but the real disturbing thing about this is what the general consensus is about mental illness, namely that we should forfeit our bodily autonomy upon being diagnosed with one of the plethora of mental illnesses people have made up out of thin air without any evidence backing them up whatsoever. That’s a slippery slope I don’t think anyone wants to go down, because what’s next? Left handers losing their bodily autonomy? I don’t even want to think about the potential implications.
Now that we’ve effectively destroyed every anti-suicide argument, we see that suicide is not an immoral action. This is not to claim that suicide is moral. Such action has a morally neutral value (i.e. it is neither moral nor immoral to commit suicide). However, suicide must be recognized as a right. As none of us were given any choice in whether or not to come into this world (rather, we were all selfishly forced into it by our parents), we should at least have the free choice to leave if we deem it the appropriate course of action for ourselves.
Which brings me to the closing point: if we want to talk about true immorality and selfishness, let’s talk about the breeder scumbags that force new people into existence and the ones who try to force people to remain alive against their wills. That’s true selfishness and immorality. Nobody has a kid for their kid’s benefit; they have them for their own. Likewise, nobody keeps someone alive against his/her will for that person’s benefit. They do so because they don’t want to have to say goodbye. It’s a fucked up world we live in, for sure.
Interesting discussion with my sister.
It’s no secret I’m morally opposed to the creation of new life. Everyone who knows me and even most who don’t know me but have read my letters to the editor and such know that. The way I see it it’s better to never exist at all than to exist and have any part of that existence, however small, be unpleasant (for the record: I also disagree with Tennyson, I believe it’s better never to have loved at all).
That’s when it occurred to me, however, that the burden of proof doesn’t lie with me or any of the other antinatalist philosophers or lay people. The burden of proof lies upon the pronatalist camp. It’s not up to us to definitively prove that non-existence is better than existence, but rather it is their task to definitively prove that it is better to exist and therefore justify the imposition of life upon another new living being (life is an imposition since we were given no choice in the matter).
Alas, that is a burden of proof that is impossible to meet. Simply being Pollyanna-ish and saying “well I’m glad to be alive” doesn’t cut it. That’s not definitive proof. That’s emotional appeal. There are just as many (if not more) people out there who don’t particularly enjoy being alive, and further even if you do enjoy being alive that’s no guarantee your offspring will.
It seems to me the safest course of action is not to impose life upon any new beings. Non-existence can’t possibly be bad. At worst non-existence has a completely neutral value. On the other hand, existence can’t be definitely proven to have any sort of positive value.
.,.why rapists in Belgium apparently have more rights than law-abiding citizens?
So a brutal rapists who by all means deserves prolonged suffering for his transgressions gets to be euthanized, but someone like me who’s done nothing wrong and is tired of existing can’t be? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME, BELGIUM????
Oh well, I say give him what he wants anyway. Life is shit and I believe it’s the right of all individuals, regardless of what kind of life they’ve lived, to die a peaceful and painless death. It’s not this man’s euthanasia I oppose, but rather the fat that they won’t grant the same thing to law-abiding citizens.