"As I recall well, no one asked me if I liked to exist or not. In other words, I had no free-will, at all, concerning my birth in this world."

"As I recall well".............you did? Stranger and stranger.
"No-one asked me"..........that would be a tad difficult before you existed?
"I had no free will, at all, concerning my birth in this world".............not surprising considering you weren't born.

"As I recall well".............you did? Stranger and stranger.
"No-one asked me"..........that would be a tad difficult before you existed?
"I had no free will, at all, concerning my birth in this world".............not surprising considering you — david plumb

Thank you for your interesting remarks.
You are right, I had to say instead: "As far as I can recall..." :)
But, I wonder why you said 'that would be a tad difficult before I existed'. Right after my birth, no-one asked the human baby, I was (I existed here, right? :) ), if he likes or not to live in this world :)
Obviously, no one did it because it was very clear to all that the baby, I was, didn't have yet any sort of free-will :)

Mystical psychologies deal fundamentally with the meaning of the individual’s life, of the individual before his ultimate moral responsibility, something that is above the character, something that Humanity itself does not know. It is fundamentally the individual as Universal Man, as Christ, as pastor and responsible for all humanity.

The Christ’s model represents the action of the individual as a function of the ultimate purpose of all things. For Gandhi — who is a prototype of Christ— only his relationship with a purpose that transcends the biological life and life of the human species is of interest. When both were over, God would be left, and it is waiting for this moment that his action is guided.

In Gandhi’s case, not even the political objective explains his behavior, since he did not accept India’s independence in any way, placing moral demands far above what humans usually imagine. Gandhi acted just the opposite of political reasoning, appealing to the center of the issue and offering as a guarantee not only his own life, but his postmortem fate. In Jesus’s life all actions were guided by the following rule: “What will God think of this?” Such is the subject who, walks before God and knows what He is thinking. Normally, even an exceptional person does not submit all acts to this criterion. The confrontation with God presupposes that man must be able to conceive his every act in an eternal light.

Duty fulfillment regarding a social role presupposes the existence of people who have an expectation regarding the occupant of that role. To act on the coherence of one’s own biography presupposes that it must continue. Acting toward goals dictated by the culture and intelligence presupposes that there are achievable ends within the time frame of a historical existence. But if the individual acts solely on the basis of an end, he is acting precisely on the inexistence of a world around him. With or without the world, he would act the same way. Acts then acquire a supra-temporal, supra-historical meaning, that is, eternally man should do so before the world exists or when it ceases to exist. Here action is taken as the direct expression of a divine quality that acts without the existence of the world.

Anyone who believes in God eventually proceeds from the eternal, though it is difficult to understand someone who acts permanently, such as Gandhi, for whom we must use another key to behavior. It’s as if he knows what God wants, as if he is talking to God all the time.

An accomplished holy man acts on the eternal sense of existence, has no other motive, not even History

In the divine, the actions of the individual seem too complex and enigmatic. To understand the actions of a saint just believing in him. Then everything falls into place, we begin to realize a coherence, an explanatory principle of actions. This occurs regardless of vocational motivations that have arisen in the course of biography, related to the previous goals in life (social approval), that may have contributed to put the subject in a certain way, but are not enough to clarify the unfolding of his history.

We can speak of holiness only when one’s relationship with an eternal God motivates each of his actions. Not only accidental acts, but all, one by one, there is no single act that can be explained outside this dialogue. Who does the guy talk to, who does he respond to? If we erase this connection, his life becomes a collection of meaningless acts. There are individuals who are already born in this eternal realm, so much so that as they go through the antecedents they are quickly absorbed.

In a word: A life that is not guided by the question: "What will God think of this?", is an unfulfilled life.

" no one did it because it was very clear to all that the baby, I was, didn't have yet any sort of free-will :)"

You had free will as a baby but it wasn't of much use to you at the time. A baby has the free will to cry as
they do.
What puzzles me is this almost resentful feeling you have about not being asked beforehand about whether you wanted to be born. As if your human right not to be born was abused.
Surely there is a difference between resentment about not having a choice about being born which is simply your hurt feelings on the matter ( never come across anyone wishing they had been asked before being conceived or straight after the birth but ) and stating that you had no free will on the subject. Free will is not being able to control events outside yourself but about the freedom to do whatever you like. Existentially free will must be difficult to activate.

Please don't be puzzled, this thread is not about resentment or like :)
I deliberately used the word 'forced' (instead of any 'softer' one) to justify, to myself in the least since I was teenager (many decades ago), the initial personal search of whatever or whoever could be behind my existence, so that I could discover the reason (the end purpose) for which I was brought temporarily into this life (into the realm which is defined/limited by time/space).
In my OP, I mentioned in {N} that I got the answer, I was looking for, already. This answer was the first step to what I may call 'science of life reality'. So, as you see, it is not suitable to be explored and discussed in a forum about philosophy :)

But aren't our foresight and thought also the fruit (the result) of some electrochemical reactions :) — KerimF

Yes! Fantastic! I did not want to add such details until I find people are willing to think on them. Some find such details "annoying", but philosophers enjoy them.

Yes, we are no different from the atoms around us, we ARE the atoms around us. Our brains are the result of these chemical reactions. So why are brains special? Because a brain is essentially "life". Look at the universe and watch any chemical reaction. It does not regulate itself, it simply burns out eventually. Life however seeks to renew its own chemical reaction. When it is running out of energy, it actively seeks to obtain more.

This is the beginning of sentience. An awareness of the world beyond your own personal chemical combination. Humans have the evolutionary height of this awareness. We can recognize far more then food vs not food like basic life does. We can see how chemical processes happen, and manipulate them for our use.

I guess you mean... we, humans, are given the ability to discover what are still unknown to us of its rules (of ‘The Existence’), so that we can add new forms of existence, inert and/or living things. — KerimF

Yes, exactly.

In a word: A life that is not guided by the question: "What will God think of this?", is an unfulfilled life. — Lokii

Thank you for summarizing your philosophical post above in this rather simple sentence.
By the way, one of my personal axioms (on which my knowledge is based) is that the nature of which I am made should have clearly something crucial in common with the Will/Energy behind my existence (or God, if you like).

Your question "What will God think of this?" implies that the person in question refers to the God he used hearing of. But, as you know, a faithful Jew, a faithful Muslim, a faith believer of a Christian doctrine or a faithful Pagan tries his best to fulfil, what, he thinks/believes, pleases 'his' God, not 'the' God..
So every believer of those is supposed to observe the Law which is, in turn, supposed being inspired by the God he worships. We end up having many God's Laws, not just one God's Law. Even in the same religion, and no matter if it is Judaism, Islam, Christian or Pagan, God's Law may also differ from one sect to another.

In reality, we like it or not, the question which guides a human could be one (or more) of the followings:
"Will what I will do let me have peace and joy in me?"
"Will what I will do let (some others) be proud of me?"
"Will what I will do help me deserve a special reward or position (civil, religious or political)?"
"Will what I will do give me, my family and/or my friends a better chance to survive?"
"Will what I will do please my leader (my boss)?"
..
and, as you mentioned already:
"Will what I will do please 'my' God?"

On my side, I asked first the first question on the list above but updated a little:
"Will what I will do let me have a permanent peace and joy in me?"
Then, it became
"Will what I will do help me keep and protect my permanent inner peace and joy?

I am afraid that going on further to talk about the path that suits my nature and how I found it is not a philosophical topic to be discussed here :)

I liked comparing what I heard from you and what a typical theist believes.
It seems to me there is a common point. But, let us see if I will be able to explain it:

A typical theist doesn't mind believing that he can control remotely the state of his supernatural Creator (or God). He has a list of actions by which he can let his God be in a good mood or angry. Such interaction may occur between two beings having about the same level of sentience (I got this word from you :) ) A human may control, deliberately, the state of another human. But an ant cannot control, deliberately, the state of a human. Therefore, a typical theist believes that he and his God could also be rivals; making himself at the same level of his God who is supposed being... super of super... in many aspects.

Back to what I understood from you, we, humans, are chosen by 'The Existence' to be the ultimate creators in it, if not for it.

I can't fool myself and say that one of these two scenarios can be suitable to my nature.
How do I know this?
I simply can't relate, speaking logically, the set of the various action/reaction rules that defines my nature/being... with such scenarios :(

Fortunately, I found the one I was looking for. And this is why it is no more hard for me to understand and even respect all other human natures; no matter how they are.

You shouldn’t focus on happiness. There is a time when the individual realizes that if he really wants to stabilize certain feelings, the first thing he has to do is to feel good about himself, and that is no longer the same as seeking happiness.

Happiness is always something that comes from outside: it is a situation, a state, any gift you receive. For example, if you fall in love with a girl, your happiness depends on her repaying you, and the most unhappiness will be her indifference. There comes a time when the succession of these emotional experiences is over and the individual realizes that in some ways he is the author of his own states, that much of what he feels does not depend on what is happening or what others do, but his own. It is the moment when he needs to take possession of himself, in the total existential sense. That is, he has to show that he is the master of his own destiny.

From then on the criterion is no longer happiness versus unhappiness, but victory versus defeat. The individual has to win and prove to himself first — not to others — that he is something. It may have some coefficient of exhibitionism as well, but the key is to take possession of its strength, to feel like a creator of situations that depend solely on it. During this period, the coefficient of happiness or unhappiness received from outside is no longer so important, because even the factors that can depress him are seen as challenges that he has to overcome. In this period the individual has to come out on top in everything but is just trying to prove something to himself. What matters is subjective victory, being able to look at yourself and feel a certain pride. Being proud of yourself is important during this time.

I am no longer seeking my happiness. The axis has now moved elsewhere. That is, I understood that happiness is a more or less accidental result. Happiness is like pleasure, said St. Thomas Aquinas. Pleasure is a side effect resulting from something that worked. It is not a goal. It is never a goal. After all, pleasure is an abstract term that designates a constellation of feelings that can differ greatly from one person to another. The pleasure is too evanescent for you to pick it up. You will have to look for something concrete.

For example, what is gastronomic pleasure? Can you eat the gastronomic pleasure? Of course you can’t. You will have to eat something concrete. This thing can give you pleasure or displeasure. Saint Thomas Aquinas is absolutely right. You ate, that worked, so you say you’re happy. Pleasure is the name you give to the subjective side effect of something. With happiness the same thing happens.

Seeking happiness is the most useless thing in the world because you never know what will make you happy or not.

Admittedly, some things make you happy and some things make you unhappy, so these are the things you will have to look for. Our endeavor is always to do something, to achieve something, not something abstract called happiness. These days there is a kind of material view of happiness. Happiness is like something that can be guaranteed to this or that person, as some kind of right.

But this I have understood for a long time: to seek happiness is to make a hole in the water. If you seek happiness you will be unhappy, so it is better to seek victory, self-assertion, strength, etc. At this point, you are past the stage of the pursuit of happiness.

There is no peace and happiness in this world, it is a valley of tears. There is no perfection or anything that is complete, sometimes you can get close to these things, but it never comes, as if it were an asymptote. To seek happiness in prestige, fame or money is to make a hole in the water, because one day you will die and all this will remain there on earth, that is, it was all vanity. Even something like history is vanity, because one day it will end, the human species will cease to exist.

In my view, we as human beings, essentially seek two things: to be perennial and satisfaction. With these two things in mind, the only search that makes sense is that of religion, there is no other. But you asked a good question about which of the countless gods to serve, I can give you a general outline and suggest that you read some authors.

Frithjof Schuon and René Guénon note brilliantly that all religions start from the same basic metaphysics. It is clear that the symbols and archetypes of pagan myths are the same and they all condense and articulate in the person of Jesus Christ. These symbols were not in vain, they were not nonsense. The difference is that they were imaginary, and the life of Jesus actually happened, I mean, his life has a mythical scope, and it is a historical myth. Our biographies are copies of copies of his true biography.

Another point that differentiates the Christian religion from the others is the miraculous events that are abundant. The true God is the one who acts in his religion. There are people who say that God stopped talking to us, that the last time he appeared was in the Bible and it was over; it couldn't be further from the truth. The Marian apparitions during the 20th century are historical facts, which already predicted both Russian imperialism (in Fatima) and the corruption of the Catholic clergy (in Garabandal) without counting the miracles proper to these apparitions. And the lives of the saints too, who are full of miracles, and bleeding wafers, etc. Such things don't even come close to happening in any other religious tradition.

It is perfectly possible to reach God through reason. To believe in miracles you don't need faith, because they are well documented facts with countless testimonies, even if you were not fortunate enough to have witnessed them personally. Also, to understand the structure of the universe, I recommend Plato, Louis Lavelle and Saint Thomas Aquinas, who prove the need for an uncaused first cause, among other things.

You shouldn’t focus on happiness. — Lokii

I am far from being a good writer (in any language). So I am sorry to give you the impression that I am looking for the happiness you elaborated (on your first reply above), thinking I am talking about the temporary feelings of certain pleasures which are pre-programmed in one's body.

But this I have understood for a long time: to seek happiness is to make a hole in the water. If you seek happiness you will be unhappy, so it is better to seek victory, self-assertion, strength, etc. At this point, you are past the stage of the pursuit of happiness. — Lokii

Naturally, I also didn't need to seek victory or strength to deserve living temporary certain pleasant sensations (the main stimulus that lets most humans around the world work hard without complain :) ).

There is no peace and happiness in this world, it is a valley of tears. — Lokii

You are right.
Real peace and joy may exist in one's inner only. On the other hand, a permanent fear of someone or something is somehow always due to lack of knowledge.

Another point that differentiates the Christian religion from the others is the miraculous events that are abundant. The true God is the one who acts in his religion. — Lokii

Miracles may let a person having faith in someone else (not gaining knowledge) and this is just the first step, at best, to get knowledge from THIS someone.
Having faith, by itself, has, therefore, no real value other than seeing it perhaps a path to a certain magical/mythical ending (which differs from one religion to another).

Finally, I bet you never imagined that, someday, someone will tell you that his best perfect teacher of 'life reality' is Jesus Christ only; not anyone else throughout history, not even those who talked in his name or on his behalf... as prophets, apostles, saints... etc.
But discussing the knowledge of this branch of science is not appropriate in a philosophical section as here, ‘Philosophy of Religion’.

I can't fool myself and say that one of these two scenarios can be suitable to my nature.
How do I know this?
I simply can't relate, speaking logically, the set of the various action/reaction rules that defines my nature/being... with such scenarios :( — KerimF

There is nothing wrong with this. Every one of us has our own path to walk, and outlook on life. At the end of the day, it is about whether our outlooks make us be better or worse people in life. You seem to be a fantastic individual KerimF, so it seems to work for you.

But our own personal views for what works for us do not necessarily work for others. I think you realize that too. It has been great to converse with you. =)

But our own personal views for what works for us do not necessarily work for others. I think you realize that too. It has been great to converse with you. =) — Philosophim

Oh, thanks, by the way, you are the first one, in my rather long life (71 so far), who says this, directly and clearly :)
Our conversation has been great because of you too.
A plane to fly well should have two similar strong wings though they could be painted differently :)

"In a word: A life that is not guided by the question: "What will God think of this?", is an unfulfilled life."

That's an interesting comment to make. It's more than a word though.
Equally there are so many in this world who would say : " A life that is guided by the question: "What will God think of this?" is an unfulfilled life. Hence the problems that "we" get ourselves into due to selfish needs and behaviours.

Equally there are so many in this world who would say : " A life that is guided by the question: "What will God think of this?" is an unfulfilled life. Hence the problems that "we" get ourselves into due to selfish needs and behaviours. — david plumb

If this question refers to certain rules imposed by a god (or God), I am afraid it refers simply to some man-made rules (this reminds me Pharaoh :) ) which were cleverly attributed to a certain supernatural being (as God).

It happens that Jesus only revealed clearly (on the today’s Gospel) that God is 'lawless'. This truth had to be cleverly deformed in ALL Christian doctrines; let us say, for practical reasons.

"It happens that Jesus only revealed clearly (on the today’s Gospel) that God is 'lawless'. This truth had to be cleverly deformed in ALL Christian doctrines; let us say, for practical reasons."

Where did Jesus reveal that God is lawless? Are you talking about Satan?

Where did Jesus reveal that God is lawless? Are you talking about Satan? — david plumb

Sorry, what could I add if you tell me that, in your life and environment, living the unconditional lawless love (no rule can impose it) towards all others, as revealed and lived by Jesus, has to be seen as an evil act? (By the way, I didn't know you believe in the existence of Satan as formal Christians are supposed to do... because I don't).

{Matthew 5:45}
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Do you see any law or justice here :)

As a side note only, my God, I perceive, is not only my Father in Heaven (Heaven denotes the realm which is beyond this temporary realm, limited by time/space). As I said, it is just a side note, not directed to anyone... because it is just me, a realistic spiritual man :)

"Sorry, what could I add if you tell me that, in your life and environment, living the unconditional lawless love (no rule can impose it) towards all others, as revealed and lived by Jesus, has to be seen as an evil act? (By the way, I didn't know you believe in the existence of Satan as formal Christians are supposed to do... because I don't).

{Matthew 5:45}
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Do you see any law or justice here :)

As a side note only, my God, I perceive, is not only my Father in Heaven (Heaven denotes the realm which is beyond this temporary realm, limited by time/space). As I said, it is just a side note, not directed to anyone... because it is just me, a realistic spiritual man :)"

Matthew 5:45 is about love, unlimited love. When it rains we all get wet, rain falls on everyone. There is no marking out of some but not all. God loves everyone as we should too.
How often do you hear of Christians forgiving the person who has murdered their son, for example.
Lawless is Satan who obeys no-one other than himself and he is the lawless one.
Vengeance is mine saith the Lord.
You're confusing the human laws to right a wrong, which would not be needed were we all to love each other as God commands, with God urging us to be righteous and love each other regardless.

How often do you hear of Christians forgiving the person who has murdered their son, for example. — david plumb

This is why I call such Christians formal ones. In this respect, they are not supposed to react differently from how a Jew, Muslim or Pagan (if not atheist) is supposed to do.

Lawless is Satan who obeys no-one other than himself and he is the lawless one. — david plumb

Let us suppose that Satan does exist as a being (not just a mere notion). Actually, he also follows a law; his law. The essence of his rules is simply disobeying the rules which are imposed by another; in this case the god of a religion (Yes, I am afraid that, as there are different images of God, there are different images of Satan).

Vengeance is mine saith the Lord. — david plumb

Oh, did Jesus say this?!

You're confusing the human laws to right a wrong, which would not be needed were we all to love each other as God commands, with God urging us to be righteous and love each other regardless. — david plumb

By the way, it was impossible for me to live the unconditional love, if God didn't also create humans to play evil roles against me. But, we don't need to be worried about those actors (to play evil) because they are also made to be happy the way they are... till they return back to the state of void; their state before birth (as it is the case of all other non-human living things).

I think I have good reason to believe it makes no sense to speak of us as if we existed before we exist,. Because, I hope it doesn't surprise you to learn, we don't exist until we exist. We exist only when we exist. So there is no me, nor is there a you, pondering or deciding whether or not we should exist until we exist. Nor is there a me or a you that can be forced exist when neither you nor I exist. — Ciceronianus the White

If a being will be made that will exist if X, Y, Z actions are taken, why can that not be considered "forcing" an existence of another? In other words, can you be caught up on semantics that actually don't align with the intended meaning here? If I have parts of a chair, and intend to make one, am I not in a way, making a chair exist where there was only its potential parts? Now, when the "making X exist" outcome will be a living being, forcing does indeed become an appropriate word as there is a being that will experience that results from another person's actions. So "forced" here doesn't need to imply that the actual person born has to exist prior to the actions, but rather, that actions taken by someone else can make that experiential being come about as a result. That is the sentiment being conveyed. The "forcing" is implying an action which results in a person (an experiential being) being caused to exist by another person's action that was not their own.

All the reasons you give can be more really about the attitudes of people who want to maintain society. You exist because at some level, people think it is okay to bring more people into the world and thus, de facto, work at maintaining the institutions to maintain society and bring about more people who will do so. It is just that over and over. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant, unfortunately. You either get with the program, try to hack it in the wilderness and die a slow death or die a fast death through suicide. Getting with the program means using the institutions of a given society to get your deprivation needs met of survival, comfort, entertainment.

All the reasons you give can be more really about the attitudes of people who want to maintain society. You exist because at some level, people think it is okay to bring more people into the world and thus, de facto, work at maintaining the institutions to maintain society and bring about more people who will do so. It is just that over and over. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant, unfortunately. You either get with the program, try to hack it in the wilderness and die a slow death or die a fast death through suicide. Getting with the program means using the institutions of a given society to get your deprivation needs met of survival, comfort, entertainment. — schopenhauer1

You are totally right in describing a human being who perceives that he is made of a human living flesh 'only'. In this case, he has no choice but to take care of it (if not his family, friends and species as well), at any cost, while being guided by his pre-programmed instincts; mainly of survival.
To achieve this goal properly, he just needs (as you mentioned) to render, as possible, unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; that is whatever the ruling system, he chose or imposed on him, expects from him to do (and say). This ruling system could be social, religious or political.

It happens that I perceived in me, since I was teenager (now 71), another being than my living flesh. But it is not easy at all, for me in the least, to explain clearly my case. It is like perceiving first what a radio set is as a generator of sound (voice, music or noise) coming out from its speaker(s). But this is also a receiver/detector of electromagnetic waves. These waves are defined by rules that are different from the ones of sound waves. These waves have existed since always and humans lived in the past without the need to believe in their existence.
This is the closest analogy in the physical world (I was able to think of) to what could be called spiritual sentience :(

I think there is a problem that arises from the improper use of words, but that problem is that "forced" is being used in an unusual manner here. We may speak of something being caused. But when we speak of something being caused, we're not referring to something being forced. You may cause a chair to be made, but you don't force a chair to be made. You make a chair, you don't force, or compel the components of a chair to become a chair.

Similarly, a man and a woman may make a baby, or "cause" a baby (though that would be an unusual way of putting it). But they don't force a baby. There is nothing being compelled. Parents don't say "Let's force (or compel) a baby to exist" or "I want to force a baby to come into the world."

As the OP seems to acknowledge, "force" is being used in an strange manner in this case, for effect. I don't know why, and I don't think it works.

But they don't force a baby. There is nothing being compelled. Parents don't say "Let's force (or compel) a baby to exist" or "I want to force a baby to come into the world."

As the OP seems to acknowledge, "force" is being used in an strange manner in this case, for effect. I don't know why, and I don't think it works. — Ciceronianus the White

I'm not sure about the OP but I think I have sufficiently explained why force can be used when what is being caused is indeed an experiential being. I've seen it used in these forums in this way besides just me, so if your criteria is use (and not just Ciceronianus' hangup with this kind of use) I think it would be valid as people know what the sentiment means without the perplexity you are attaching to it. So either case, use, or just definitially (that an experiential being that is caused to exist from actions that are not from their actions) it works.

Obviously, the mere fact I might understand the words you use doesn't mean you're using them as they're commonly used. I know what someone is saying when they say that a pencil in a glass of water appears bent, but the pencil obviously doesn't appear bent at all--it doesn't look like it's curved. Thus are misconceptions created, especially in philosophy. Many philosophers aren't inclined to use words as commonly understood. If they were they wouldn't refer to things like "the nothing."

To say someone is "forced" to exist is an exercise in rhetoric. The word is used in an effort to persuade others that it's wrong to reproduce, or characterize reproduction as evil. To say someone's existence was caused doesn't have the same negative connotations. That's what I think. Perhaps, though, I was forced to think by my parents. I certainly could not think if I didn't exist.

o say someone is "forced" to exist is an exercise in rhetoric. The word is used in an effort to persuade others that it's wrong to reproduce, or characterize reproduction as evil. To say someone's existence was caused doesn't have the same negative connotations. That's what I think. Perhaps, though, I was forced to think by my parents. I certainly could not think if I didn't exist. — Ciceronianus the White

I think this is a case of (most likely) double standard on things you don't like to hear. I mean someone's death could have simply been caused to happen, or it could have been forced to happen. Force implies no consent was obtained. Just because in the case of procreation, can never be obtained, doesn't mean this isn't true. You were forced to exist, because you had no say and it was not you who caused your own existence. Caused doesn't get at the notion either.

We exist where prior we did not exist. No one can ask us this, and to take ourselves out of the game is surely suicide and death. So, what does one call this scenario? I contend that force is the word that captures the meaning conveyed here. It might not be "violently" done (though maybe birth can be seen somewhat that way), but certainly it is something that is happening to someone else that is physically happening to them.

This has similar themes to what I was discussing before. If it was known someone would be 100% known to be tortured if they were born, and everyone KNEW that was going to happen to the baby, should that person that will be born not be considered? If you think yes it should be considered, then certainly in the same sense, "FORCE" is applying here to the same sentiment. In other words, it would certainly be wrong to say, "No, the baby has to be born to be tortured, so that we can then consider that the baby not be tortured". That would indeed be crazy talk.

So I propose this anti-usage of "FORCE" is a rhetorical tool, to show disdain for the idea that birth is indeed something not caused by the individual it is happening to, and without consent because it indeed does imply negative connotations. But so it is.

I can also argue at another angle that the instant, Time T that someone is born, THAT indeed is the force in question. You don't even need anything prior to that. The instant a human exists and that human had something as serious as a whole lifetime of living upon them, that indeed counts as "forced".

You were forced to exist, because you had no say and it was not you who caused your own existence. — schopenhauer1

For me, it makes no sense to bemoan the fact I had no say when I necessarily couldn't have any say in any case. Similarly, it makes no sense to me to claim I should have had some say when I couldn't possibly have a say, or that it's wrong that I had no say in that case.

But we've been down this road before