For me, a simple answer to the question of how much suffering is too much is given by animals I have loved. I had a cat that adopted me in Texas, and we lived and traveled together for 15 years. He became ill and was unable to eat, despite his best efforts. When I took him to a vet, I was told he had cancer in the bones of his head, and his jaw could no longer serve to feed him. I then began to feed him with a turkey baster, and, while he did not like the process, continued to desire food enough to tolerate it. After a year, however, he began to refuse food.

That was when I realized he had suffered enough, and did not want to continue to live. I have been unwilling to eat, even for extended periods of time, once going 30 days without eating. I eventually became willing to eat again, as the grief had been wrestled into something I could accommodate. In his condition he would not make it a month without food, but after several days I became convinced he was certain in his decision, and I was unwilling to force feed him.

That is my answer: when an animal refuses food determinedly for an extended period they clearly do not want to continue to suffer anymore. This cannot be determined for them, and certainly not before they are given the opportunity to decide for themselves. Anti-natalists are intolerably arrogant, and consider themselves all the god anyone or anything should be availed. I have no respect for that conceit, nor those that have it. They are not only incompetent to determine whether the lives of others are worthwhile to them, they are incapable to understand all the ways in which life enables us to benefit from it. I am certain none of us is, and for this reason will decide for myself what I will bear and what I will not. I clearly have the responsibility to daily continue my life in constant danger from all that would take it from me, and that authorizes me to do so.

Thanks!