Should children be paid €1 million for being born? The debate over birth compensation
A forum debates the claim that children should be compensated for being brought into the world. Procreation as harm and parents' debt under discussion.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
One million euros for being born: the bill some are demanding from their parents
One million euros. That is the figure that, according to a user who claims to champion a school of thought, everyone born should demand from those who brought them into the world. The thesis is as simple as it is uncomfortable: if nobody asked your permission to be born, someone should pay for it. The argument, which starts from a radical antinatalist premise, holds that procreation is a unilateral act that imposes consciousness on a being that cannot consent, and that this act creates an economic and sarracena debt to the child.
According to its defender, the figure is not arbitrary; it is presented as a "metaphysical tariff": a punitive levy parents must pay as recognition of the harm caused, not as forgiveness. And if there is no liquidity, he argues that "flesh justice" establishes that the debt is settled with the debtors' own innards.
From philosophy to the forum: how the right not to be born is debated
The matter has jumped from the realm of philosophical speculation to the everyday conversation of a forum, and it has done so with a mix of provocation and arguments that, at times, take themselves seriously. The starting premise of the claimant is that life is a wasteland of hunger, thirst and perpetual desire, and that bringing someone into that wasteland without their consent constitutes an aggression. The conclusion is that parents are "original executioners" and that true dissent consists of cutting ties with the lineage — but only after extracting the financial entrails from one's creators.
The reasoning has its own internal logic, even if it clashes with the most basic intuition. If a unilateral act causes harm, shouldn't it be compensated? The problem, critics point out, is that the premise is aporetic: at the moment of birth there is no consciousness to ask permission from, because consciousness arises afterwards. Permission to be born is impossible by definition. And if there is no subject capable of consenting, there is no grievance comparable to compensable harm.
The legal analogy that doesn't fit
The attempt to take the matter into legal territory runs into an insurmountable obstacle: the law does not recognize birth as harm. Courts, in fact, have dealt with cases of forced resuscitation — patients who did not want to be resuscitated and were anyway — and the general trend is that staying alive against one's will does not in itself constitute compensable harm, according to one participant in the debate. The comparison with a rapist compensating his victim while still committing the crime, put forward as a counterargument, serves to illustrate the absurdity: first the harm must end, then compensation trinc. If life is the harm, the logic would lead to extinguishing it before collecting. And that is where things get uncomfortable.
The defender of compensation flatly rejects that way out. He argues that the victim remains alive, shielded behind their blinds, and that physical elimination is not an option: the survival instinct imposes an intolerable biological friction. The only way is payment. One million euros, not a cent less.
The gratitude counterargument
Against the harm thesis, the opposite position emerges: that of those who consider life, hardships included, a gift deserving gratitude. "One million euros would be little to repay all the material things and the affection they gave me," one contributor argues. The same person admits their parents died before the end of the 20th century and that all they can do is love them and thank them for what they did. Another voice, a parent, is clear: their intention is for their child to have nothing to reproach them for and much to thank them for.
The contrast is the heart of the matter. For some, procreation is an insurmountable imposition; for others, it is an act of generosity that requires no bill. And in between, a question hangs over the whole discussion: can civil liability be claimed for an act that, at the moment it is committed, has no conscious victim?
The unexpected twist: life as paradise
The conversation takes a turn when the claimant of the million euros states, without missing a beat, that he lives in a paradise. The contradiction is evident: if life is a wasteland, how is the paradise explained? The answer offered is that paradise is personal and non-transferable, and that nobody knows anything about anyone else's life. But the argument wobbles. If one lives in a paradise, the debt to one's parents changes sign: instead of compensation, perhaps gratitude is due. The discussion then drifts into more personal territory, with mutual recriminations and the occasional outburst.
The economic dimension: a million is not enough
Beyond philosophy, the one-million-euro figure invites economic analysis. Is it a reasonable amount to compensate for an entire life? For the claimant, it is a ridiculous sum: "One million euros is a ridiculous amount for what Nando deserves," it is even said. The amount is presented as a minimum to maintain a "strict state of calm and semi-placid torpor," cushioning the friction of matter. In other words, the million is not a conventional damages award, but a kind of lifetime income so the victim can afford to do nothing, according to his reasoning.
Comparison with the labor market or with severance payments is inevitable. One million euros equals several years of average salary, but for the claimant it is only the starting point. The debt is "unpayable," and the million is merely the explicit recognition of the harm.
The background: a movement gaining trinc
The matter is not an isolated eccentricity, according to the person raising it. In his view, it is part of a current of thought that has questioned procreation for years and has recently found megaphones on social media and forums. The idea that bringing children into the world is a selfish — or outright incivil — act has defenders who argue it vehemently. And although most of the population does not share it, the mere fact that it is debated with this intensity says something about the discontent of part of society.
The question left hanging is whether this claim has any legal prospects. The answer, for now, is no. But the debate remains alive, mixing philosophy, law, economics and, of course, provocation.
Does it make sense to demand compensation for having been born? The answer is not simple. What is clear is that the debate has ceased to be a curiosity and has become a mirror of the tensions of a society that, at times, seems to doubt whether it is worth continuing to bring people into this world.
One million euros. That is the figure that, according to a user who claims to champion a school of thought, everyone born should demand from those who brought them into the world. The thesis is as simple as it is uncomfortable: if nobody asked your permission to be born, someone should pay for it. The argument, which starts from a radical antinatalist premise, holds that procreation is a unilateral act that imposes consciousness on a being that cannot consent, and that this act creates an economic and sarracena debt to the child.
According to its defender, the figure is not arbitrary; it is presented as a "metaphysical tariff": a punitive levy parents must pay as recognition of the harm caused, not as forgiveness. And if there is no liquidity, he argues that "flesh justice" establishes that the debt is settled with the debtors' own innards.
From philosophy to the forum: how the right not to be born is debated
The matter has jumped from the realm of philosophical speculation to the everyday conversation of a forum, and it has done so with a mix of provocation and arguments that, at times, take themselves seriously. The starting premise of the claimant is that life is a wasteland of hunger, thirst and perpetual desire, and that bringing someone into that wasteland without their consent constitutes an aggression. The conclusion is that parents are "original executioners" and that true dissent consists of cutting ties with the lineage — but only after extracting the financial entrails from one's creators.
The reasoning has its own internal logic, even if it clashes with the most basic intuition. If a unilateral act causes harm, shouldn't it be compensated? The problem, critics point out, is that the premise is aporetic: at the moment of birth there is no consciousness to ask permission from, because consciousness arises afterwards. Permission to be born is impossible by definition. And if there is no subject capable of consenting, there is no grievance comparable to compensable harm.
The legal analogy that doesn't fit
The attempt to take the matter into legal territory runs into an insurmountable obstacle: the law does not recognize birth as harm. Courts, in fact, have dealt with cases of forced resuscitation — patients who did not want to be resuscitated and were anyway — and the general trend is that staying alive against one's will does not in itself constitute compensable harm, according to one participant in the debate. The comparison with a rapist compensating his victim while still committing the crime, put forward as a counterargument, serves to illustrate the absurdity: first the harm must end, then compensation trinc. If life is the harm, the logic would lead to extinguishing it before collecting. And that is where things get uncomfortable.
The defender of compensation flatly rejects that way out. He argues that the victim remains alive, shielded behind their blinds, and that physical elimination is not an option: the survival instinct imposes an intolerable biological friction. The only way is payment. One million euros, not a cent less.
The gratitude counterargument
Against the harm thesis, the opposite position emerges: that of those who consider life, hardships included, a gift deserving gratitude. "One million euros would be little to repay all the material things and the affection they gave me," one contributor argues. The same person admits their parents died before the end of the 20th century and that all they can do is love them and thank them for what they did. Another voice, a parent, is clear: their intention is for their child to have nothing to reproach them for and much to thank them for.
The contrast is the heart of the matter. For some, procreation is an insurmountable imposition; for others, it is an act of generosity that requires no bill. And in between, a question hangs over the whole discussion: can civil liability be claimed for an act that, at the moment it is committed, has no conscious victim?
The unexpected twist: life as paradise
The conversation takes a turn when the claimant of the million euros states, without missing a beat, that he lives in a paradise. The contradiction is evident: if life is a wasteland, how is the paradise explained? The answer offered is that paradise is personal and non-transferable, and that nobody knows anything about anyone else's life. But the argument wobbles. If one lives in a paradise, the debt to one's parents changes sign: instead of compensation, perhaps gratitude is due. The discussion then drifts into more personal territory, with mutual recriminations and the occasional outburst.
The economic dimension: a million is not enough
Beyond philosophy, the one-million-euro figure invites economic analysis. Is it a reasonable amount to compensate for an entire life? For the claimant, it is a ridiculous sum: "One million euros is a ridiculous amount for what Nando deserves," it is even said. The amount is presented as a minimum to maintain a "strict state of calm and semi-placid torpor," cushioning the friction of matter. In other words, the million is not a conventional damages award, but a kind of lifetime income so the victim can afford to do nothing, according to his reasoning.
Comparison with the labor market or with severance payments is inevitable. One million euros equals several years of average salary, but for the claimant it is only the starting point. The debt is "unpayable," and the million is merely the explicit recognition of the harm.
The background: a movement gaining trinc
The matter is not an isolated eccentricity, according to the person raising it. In his view, it is part of a current of thought that has questioned procreation for years and has recently found megaphones on social media and forums. The idea that bringing children into the world is a selfish — or outright incivil — act has defenders who argue it vehemently. And although most of the population does not share it, the mere fact that it is debated with this intensity says something about the discontent of part of society.
The question left hanging is whether this claim has any legal prospects. The answer, for now, is no. But the debate remains alive, mixing philosophy, law, economics and, of course, provocation.
Does it make sense to demand compensation for having been born? The answer is not simple. What is clear is that the debate has ceased to be a curiosity and has become a mirror of the tensions of a society that, at times, seems to doubt whether it is worth continuing to bring people into this world.
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (194 replies).
More summaries
-
Nando, the online character who declares himself the sharpest mind on the planet
A character proclaims himself the sharpest mind on the planet, demands a million euros per child from every parent and calls for the collective euthanasia of the human species.
-
Sol Bells Ring Every 15 Minutes During Madrid Protest Camp
Debate erupts in Madrid over whether the Puerta del Sol clock chimes every quarter-hour during a protest camp, or if it is a routine sound people only now notice.
-
Comuns councillor confronts residents praying at Sant Cugat town hall
A Comuns councillor shouted at residents praying an Our Father after a minute of silence for the 69 victims of the Urda rail crash in Sant Cugat, Spain. Vox has called for his censure.
-
Russia vetoes US resolution to fast-track Western Sahara handover to Morocco
Russia blocks a US-backed Security Council resolution to accelerate the handover of Western Sahara to Morocco. Here's what's behind it.
-
Puente digs in after Urda rail crash as ministry becomes Sánchez's shield
The Urda rail crash has triggered calls for Óscar Puente's resignation: political responsibility, the chain of command and broken trust in trains, according to the debate.
-
Spanish isn't the language with the most words: Tamil leads with 1.5 million
The RAE records 93,000 words compared with Tamil's 1.5 million or English's 600,000. The myth of Spanish as the richest language falls apart under scrutiny.