Kristen Gyles | Born without my consent

In 2019, a man in the western Indian city of Mumbai threatened to sue his parents for giving birth to him without his consent. He also refused to work because, well, being forced to live in this world was apparently pressuring enough.

His name is Raphael Samuel and he is an antinatalist. Antinatalism is a belief system that questions the morality of procreation since it involves bringing children into a world of suffering and hardship without their consent.

Samuel said he had a great relationship with his parents but that they had him for their joy and pleasure and so he owes them nothing. Actually, his position is that “If we are born without our consent, we should be maintained for our life.”

You might think this man is a nut job, but much of the rhetoric used today by people who have become sceptical about having children, sounds similar.

Samuel’s sentiment that children owe their parents nothing has actually become quite popular in recent times. One man posted a video of himself on social media saying he owes his kids everything and that they owe him “absolutely nothing – not even love, not even respect” because he chose to bring them into this world. Sounds like Samuel might be his cousin.

And Samuel has many cousins. Increasingly, people are starting to reason that they should not have children because life today is too uncertain for them to know for sure that they will be able to provide a good life for their children. For many people, deciding whether to have children is more of a judgement about the future itself than it is a personal milestone.

INCREASINGLY AWARE

People have become increasingly aware of global risks and uncertainties, and that awareness makes the decision to bring a child into the world feel heavier and more consequential. The question is no longer “Do I want to have a child?” but “What kind of world would my child inherit?”

Within the past ten years, we experienced a global pandemic, which killed millions and traumatized even more, we watched Russia invade Ukraine and are still witnessing that war unfold, we watched Israel and Hamas attempt to destroy each other, and now Donald Trump wants to take over the world. Throughout all this, there has been ongoing starvation in parts of the world like Sudan, Yemen and Somalia and perennial civil conflict in places like Haiti. Everyday some other crazy thing happens, and we are all witnesses to it because everything is being televised. Even for people living in relatively peaceful environments, the steady stream of troubling news can shape their perception of the future.

Economic uncertainty adds another layer of hesitation. Even people who are financially stable now doubt whether that stability will last. The modern economy is changing rapidly. The increasing cost of living, shifting job market, and the growing influence of automation make the future seem bleak, and it is reasonable for people to ask themselves whether it is fair, ethical, or responsible to have children under these uncertain conditions. For a growing community of people, the answer is to delay or opt out of having children, entirely.

But for others, life is still worth living and children are still worth having. Regardless, no one needs to give consent to being born to assume responsibility to the world that they live in.

INVOLUNTARILY

Going by Samuel’s logic, if we were all involuntarily brought into this world and therefore owe our parents nothing, then to whom do we owe anything? And do our parents owe us anything when they themselves were brought into the world without consent? Perhaps we should all adopt this totally chaotic and self-centred mindset and resign ourselves to this life of victimhood and see where it leads.

The idea that children owe their parents nothing might be legally sound but morally bankrupt, and it stems from a conflation between bare minimum parental responsibility and a parent’s genuine love, care and support. Yes, it is a parent’s responsibility to feed their child. But if your parents ever took interest in your specific food preferences and/or nutritional needs, they did more than the bare minimum. Yes, it is a parent’s responsibility to clothe their child. But if they examined your school uniforms at the end of each year to see if they needed changing or gave you anything more than a ‘scandal’ bag for your books, they did more than the bare minimum. Yes, it is a parent’s responsibility to put a roof over their child’s head. But if they made it their point of duty to put you in your own room when you became a teenager, they did more than the bare minimum. Let’s not even waste time talking about the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, that many spend on tuition.

So, if a parent exceeds obligation on several counts, why shouldn’t their child do the same? Parents need not be applauded for simply having a child, but the vast majority of parents do more than simply contribute a sperm or egg cell. Most parents make meaningful contributions and sacrifices in the lives of their children, and these contributions are deserving of gratitude no matter how small they are.

And then there’s the difficult part of the conversation. Some parents really never did a great job. Some made financial sacrifices to support their children but simultaneously tore them down with their words and actions. Some parents were themselves children when they had children and did not have a proper concept of what responsible parenting looked like. And unfortunately, that’s life. None of us are perfect. We too will make mistakes with our children, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have them.

Kristen Gyles is a free-thinking public affairs opinionator. Send feedback to kristengyles@gmail.com and columns@gleanerjm.com