A 27-Year-Old Raphael Samuel sues his parents for giving birth to him without consent
A 27-year-old businessman from Mumbai, India, named Raphael Samuel has reignited global discussions on existential philosophy after publicly declaring his intention to sue his parents for bringing him into existence without his prior consent.
Rooted in antinatalism—the belief that procreation is morally wrong due to inevitable human suffering, pain, and life's hardships—Samuel argues that individuals are born into obligations like work and societal contributions without ever agreeing to participate. In a viral YouTube video and various interviews, he emphasized: “I want everyone in the world to realize that they are born without their consent,” and asserted that “We do not owe our parents anything. If we are born without our consent, we should be maintained for our life.” He clarifies that his stance is not about resentment toward his family—he maintains a good relationship with them—but a broader protest against the assumption of implied consent to life.
Samuel acknowledges the practical impossibility of obtaining consent from an unconceived person, yet he uses this paradox to challenge societal norms around parenthood, responsibility, and purpose. His parents, both practicing lawyers, have responded with a mix of humor and incredulity; his mother previously noted she would accept responsibility if anyone could explain how pre-birth consent could realistically be sought. No formal lawsuit has been filed in court, and reports indicate the "suit" serves primarily as a philosophical statement rather than a viable legal claim—most experts agree such a case would likely be dismissed. Samuel has not pursued conventional employment, viewing it as an unjust imposition on someone who did not choose existence.
The story, originally making headlines in 2019 and resurfacing in recent Kenyan media coverage on February 23, 2026, continues to polarize opinions online. Supporters praise Samuel for boldly questioning deep ethical issues around reproduction and consent, while critics see it as impractical or attention-seeking. The renewed attention highlights ongoing debates in antinatalist circles about the morality of having children in a world of inequality and suffering, though no legal proceedings have advanced, and the focus remains on sparking reflection rather than courtroom victory.
