Spanish Forum User Demands €1M From Parents for Being Born

€1 Million for Birth: The Compensation Demanded by a Forum User

One million euros. That is the amount claimed by a forum user who calls himself the "lunar child" against his parents for having brought him into the world without his consent. The thesis, presented on a current affairs forum, argues that every person born has a right to economic compensation for the imposition of consciousness. If the parents cannot pay, the proposal is that they surrender their own organs. The debate has turned into a clash between those who defend this compensation as an ontological right and those who consider it a legal aberration.

The Lunar Child's Thesis: Life as Compensable Damage

The initial argument, signed by a character presenting himself as "Nando el Hispano, the most intelligent child on this blue planet," starts from a radical premise: being born is a unilateral act that throws an innocent consciousness into an environment of suffering, hunger, thirst, and perpetual desire. Therefore, he demands a minimum compensation of one million euros, an amount he considers "quite poor" compared to what the State steals daily from parents. The argument relies on a supposed "jurisprudence of flesh": whoever opens the cage of existence must assume the total maintenance costs of the prisoner or pay with their organs.

According to its author, the figure is not arbitrary. One million euros is what it would cost to maintain a being of such "sensitivity" in a state of "semi-placid calm and lethargy." He insists it is not forgiveness, but a "punitive tribute" for the damage caused. Imposing consciousness on a physical body would be an unpayable debt.

The Legal Response: Finish the Crime First, Then Compensate

The strongest counterargument comes from a legal analogy. If a rapist cannot compensate his victim while the crime continues, it makes no sense to compensate someone for being born while they remain alive. The conclusion, delivered with dry wit, is that first the victim should be removed from this world, and then leave the million at the foot of the tombstone. The author of this reply presents himself as "your parents' lawyer," who may not be the smartest on the planet, but "knows how to add two and two."

The claimant rejects the analogy as "conceptually illiterate." Confusing the cessation of harm with the physical elimination of the victim is, in his view, an aberration. If someone becomes quadriplegic due to negligence, justice does not demand euthanasia for payment; it demands lifetime compensation to cover the maintenance of the "broken machine." What the lawyer proposes, he argues, is not dispute resolution, but a confession that the procreator is a incivil.

The Aporia Problem: No Possible Consent Before Existence

The most repeated argument against the thesis is logical in nature. Permission to be born is aporetic because at the moment of birth there is no one to ask. There is no prior consciousness capable of accepting or rejecting the contract. For this same reason, the claim could not have been filed at that time; years had to pass until that consciousness emerged, which now rationalizes the aporia. Even in cases of unwanted resuscitation, courts tend to consider that being kept alive by force does not constitute compensable damage in itself.

The claimant responds that imposed consciousness is absolute coercion, the worst of all conceivable aggressions, because the victim completely lacks the capacity for defense. A slave, a prisoner, or a rape victim already inhabit the world and retain the biological power of resistance or flight. The unborn, however, are a defenseless nothingness metaphysically assaulted and dragged into the confinement of flesh. There is no possible rebellion against the trauma of origin.

From the Forum to Neuroscience: Attempting to Justify the Unjustifiable

In the evolution of the debate, attempts appear to ground procreation in biology and neuroscience. Concepts such as fetal microchimerism, mirror neurons, limbic resonance, or the biological clock of trauma are mentioned. The idea is that a real, non-mystical connection exists between parents and children. The claimant rejects these arguments as "the last and most sophisticated painkiller" to adorn biological slaughter. For him, the human being is an exogenous and monstrous agent, "The Thing" that destroys everything in its path.

The discussion shifts toward parental responsibility. Some argue that parents live their lives, where reproduction is a basic function of living beings, not their children's. The opposing side demands that parents assume the consequences of bringing a consciousness into the world. The exchange turns sourer when the argument is introduced that only someone with "a messed-up head" renounces life.

The Unexpected Twist: "I Am a Lesbian Woman Pretending to Be Nando"

Towards the end of the thread, the most striking revelation: the author of the lunar child thesis confesses that he is actually a lesbian woman pretending to be Nando. The confession, launched without further explanation, disorients those who had dedicated entire paragraphs to refuting the character. It is not the only twist. Another participant provides curious data: there is a version circulating that the "beach bum" who tried to sue his parents found no lawyer to represent him, and that his parents were precisely lawyers. Another version claims he formalized the lawsuit and the judge dismissed it.

The thread also drifts toward penal comparisons: in Spain, killing both parents can cost twenty years in prison, whereas if someone kills you, the State protects the killer until he is free in less than two decades. The "trick," irony suggests, is to kill them while underage.

The Closing: Life as Gift or Condemnation

Against the compensation thesis, testimonies of gratitude emerge. One participant recalls that one million euros would be little to return all the material goods and affection given by his parents, who died before the end of the 20th century. He only hopes souls endure so he can tell them how grateful he is. Another, a father, declares his intention that his son has nothing to reproach him for and much to thank him for. The claimant's response is inflexible: children are tools of parental hypocrisy, and being a parent is inherently being a creature devoid of sarracena and ethics.

The discussion ends, as it began, with the claimant bumping his own thread in the early hours. How much is a life worth? One million euros, according to its author. Or perhaps nothing, if the gift is existence itself. The debate remains open, with the question floating: is procreation an act of love or the imposition of a sentence?