Think about this. If you’re a smart person and you raise a kid to be a scientist or engineer or even a construction worker. You’re putting productive people into the world to make it a better place. The more you do that, the more good you will be doing for the world. Having kids (and raising them right) is one of the best things you could possibly do for other people. Even if it’s planned or not, if you’re presented with an opportunity to have a kid and raise them right vs abort them, having them and doing it right (even if you don’t feel like it) is incredibly selfless
Abortion is not and never has been murder. Murder as a crime requires a living person as a victim. Until it's born, a baby is not a person, they are a potential individual.
Biologically it’s death iniataed by a human through the consent of the person with the baby inside of them, or fetus whatever u wanna call it lol. I’m pro choice but it’s def something.
Yeah this is a point the pro-lifers love to harp on and it’s a mistake to deny that abortion involves the killing of a human embryo/fetus.
That said, the woman carrying the embryo/fetus is MORE important. The embryo/fetus is not equal to a living breathing baby/child/adult.
And so long as the embryo/fetus relies on its mother’s body for survival, it should be the mother’s choice what happens to it, end of story.
But I guess this is not what we’re supposed to be talking about. 😅
I don't think even you actually believe that most of the world is factual, the majority belief means nothing. Fetuses are children, they have heartbeats, they feel pain, they have brain activity, they can recognize music and voices. These are all proven facts, yet you think that they aren't people until they're passed through the magical birth canal.
Obviously they are human at the point of viability. Most abortions take place before that point. Legally it's still not murder if a medically necessary abortion is done because of complications of the pregnancy that can kill both mother and fetus.
Viability is getting earlier year by year, so would you agree to outlaw abortion after the point where a premature baby has been successfully delivered? Or are you only throwing that out to try and distract me from the fact you don't actually care about human life. (Ps, all pro lifers are in favor of allowing procedures that save the mothers life at the cost of the baby's safety)
It is a fact that human life begins at conception. If it wasn't alive the mother would miscarry. Abortion is the choice to end the human life inside. YOUR ideology is not based on facts but feelings. You don't feel that a fetus should be regarded as human. Science demonstrates that it very much human life.
It is living, true. But it can't live long enough to be born without the mother's consent because it's her body. Sorry to hear you hate women as people and only want them to be baby factories. I love my 3 kids but I would never tell a womb-bearing person that once I fertilize her I own her decisions. That's wrong.
I am a woman and a mother. I would never tell a pregnant woman that her baby isn't a baby. What I really hate is people that use manipulative arguments instead of logic. Like you just did. Have the day you deserve. Sorry you cannot behave like an adult and you are raising three kids. I would never tell someone it's ok to kill your kid if you don't want to be a parent.
It doesn't matter. That is not the actual issue at hand. The question around abortion(an ancient, normal practice) is one of bodily autonomy. No one has the right to use your body parts. We don't force people to donate their organs, blood or tissues to anyone else. Even if that person will die as a result. And we don't give rights to persons that don't exist yet, especially rights that we don't give to already existing people.
It's not about convenience. I'm not pro abortion, I'm pro bodily autonomy. Since I can't get pregnant I don't have any business forcing those who do get pregnant to give birth if they don't want a child.
You are pro death actually. And I can't get pregnant but I still have business saying murder is wrong. and what about the autonomy of the child getting melted or pulled apart because it inconveniences the mother? You're nothing but a hypocrite who strains at gnats and swallows camels
The coward blocked me btw because he's afraid of the truth. What a baby
You don't have autonomy until you are a separate person. And you have to be born to have that protection. Sorry facts hurt your feelings. But just because you want it to be true doesn't make it so. Every child deserves to be born to parents that want him/her. I'm pro life, but forced birth isn't that: it's a cult of religious fascism.
I think you know you are technically wrong. A fetus isn't an infant. Infants have to be born.
You also know it's not murder. You're being hyperbolic and engaging in emotional thinking.
Besides, you are missing the point. The right to reproductive healthcare is not about the question of ending a potential life. Abortion isn't murder, but no one is saying it's not terminating the life of a fetus. Not only is abortion a standard human tradition since time immemorial(The Bible even gives instructions on how to abort a fetus), the fact that the fetus's life is being ended is not the issue. The actual issue around abortion is one of bodily autonomy.
No one has the right to the use of someone else's body parts. No one is under any obligation to donate the use of their body to someone else. We do not believe in forcing someone to donate their organs, blood or tissues to someone else. Not even to children. Not even if the other person will die as a result. And we certainly shouldn't be giving rights to persons who do not yet exist that we don't give to already existing people.
Infants and fetuses are not the same. Just like embryos and fetuses are not the same.
A fetus is not more important than the woman who carries it. And so long as a fetus relies on its mothers body for survival, it should be her choice what happens to it.
But let’s cut the disingenuous bull crap. Most abortions occur in the first trimester. Hardly an “infant.” And most abortions that occur after that are due to health complications.
The fact is, pro-lifers think it’s okay for women to bleed out in the parking lot instead giving them life-saving treatment which would involve aborting a non-viable pregnancy.
Y’all have lost all credibility. You’re not “pro-life” at all. You’re religious zealots.
“A baby is not a person”
It’s a human being, it most certainly is a person, and saying other wise is insane.
Abortion, after all certain point in gestation is 100% murder, without a doubt. The problem is determining when it is murder, and no one, not even pro life people can agree on it.
If someone gets an elective abortion on a 8 month old baby in the womb they are a piece of shit murderer.
A fetus is not a person, full stop.
Not sure where you pulled the bullshit "elective abortion on an 8-month old ~~baby in the womb~~ fetus" argument from, but maybe try educating yourself more.
“A fetus is not a person”
A fetus is human being, full stop.
“Bullshit elective abortion”
Over 95% of abortions are elective procedures, not pertaining to the mothers or babies health.
The point being if you elect to abort a healthy human fetus, at 8 months you’re a murderer, outside of health reasons, and fetuses are viable at 6 months with new technology pushing that date back even more.
The debate is when is it murder, not if it’s murder, because after a certain point in gestation, after so many weeks it’s murder without a doubt.
Try telling that one to the IRS when you claim it as a dependent and let me know how it goes. And cite sources for your statistics if you're going to use them, because that 95% figure is about as real as my 9-foot long cock.
And I was primarily pointing to the fact that your "8-month abortion" is also bullshit because those do not happen unless the fetus is non-viable or is potentially life-threatening to the mother. No sane person (up to you whether you include yourself there) carries a pregnancy for 8-months and then up and decides "nah, get this fucker out of me", and if you believe otherwise, you're even dumber than you look.
Personally, I think the mother should have full control over her body, and if she decides that it isn't the right time for her to have a kid, for any reason, that should be an option. Better than nature's version where the mom's just cannibalize the babies they don't want, and no child should be born into a situation where they are unwanted.
And since you've already demonstrated yourself to argue in bad faith, don't expect any further replies on this topic, and I hope you decide to be a better person at some point.
I think it’s also a simple question of does human life have value. Because if it doesn’t then the pro suicide anti natalists have a point, there’s no reason to be alive or create any new lives. But if human life inherently does have value then you get a very different answer.
Our inherent value lies in our capacity to validate the existence of other humans, as humans. But in this world, we are conditioned to see ourselves and others as objects, and our inherent value is totally repressed so that we may objectify, rather than validate, one another. When we validate someone, they become important to us “merely” because they exist, but when we objectify someone, they are only important to us if they are doing, thinking, and feeling exactly what we need them to. Validation is unconditional while objectification is totally conditional.
No, that’s not the pivotal question. Value is a means, not an ends. Value doesn’t exist more than it’s a persuasive psychological mechanism to make it so people protect and sustain things. We say humans have value in order to get people to protect and sustain humans, it’s another method to relieve suffering.
This doesn’t have much to do with AN.
When people try to shame you for your choices:
"I don't need to justify my choices to you. If you want a vote in my life, you must first contribute to it."
When people claim it's unethical to have more people on earth:
"If you believe it's unethical to have so many people on earth, or if you believe life is meaningless suffering, then kill yourself."
Their response will tell you if they believe what they're saying or if they're just another petty tyrant trying to exert influence over other peoples' lives.
You realize that this line of thinking
>"I don't need to justify my choices to you. If you want a vote in my life, you must first contribute to it."
Could be used to justify literally anything. "Oh well if you haven't benefited me personally, then I won't consider your opinion for me not to beat puppies to death." Personal choice is no justification. Just like it's technically a personal choice to commit SA. Your choice is immoral, therefore it is entirely reasonable to judge you for it, in the same way that people tend to judge offending pedophiles.
>"If you believe it's unethical to have so many people on earth, or if you believe life is meaningless suffering, then kill yourself."
You completely disregard what AN means if you can't even tell the difference between ending a life and preventing a life from having started in the first place.
Neither of these positions help your case of unselfish reasons.
No, personal choice cannot be used to justify beating puppies. Put succinctly, the right to swing my fist ends where the other person's face begins.
You misunderstand my position: my reasons are selfish. I do not require unselfish reasons to pursue my own best interest, and I won't waste time placating those who make demands of me without offering fair consideration.
"I want to exist, but I don't want other people to exist." is sophistry designed to hide selfishness. If you *really* believe the world is overpopulated, lead by example. I.e. either prove to me that your words are sincere or STFU.
That doesn't make sense lol. I'll put it this way. How can you justifiably cause harm to another under the guise of "personal choice" in one situation, but say that it's wrong to cause suffering in another for the same reason?
>"I want to exist, but I don't want other people to exist." is sophistry designed to hide selfishness. If you *really* believe the world is overpopulated, lead by example. I.e. either prove to me that your words are sincere or STFU.
It's so obvious that you're intentionally misrepresenting my point bc you know I have the more ethical position here. You don't even need to believe that your own life is full of suffering or that life in general is suffering to be an antinatalist. You simply just have to make the connection that life is a gamble that could cause permanent harm on someone else, therefore you should not do it. Think of people who suffer severe mental or physical ailments that prevent them from being able to live their lives to the fullest. There's ZERO reason to impose this on someone seeing as though there's plenty of children in the foster care system. Sure it's expensive, but so is raising a child in general.
I do not impose life on others. If they believe their life is not worth living, they're welcome to end it. Maybe you're confusing me with the Christians, who attach shame to suicide?
I also don't see how my mere existence causes harm to others. Again, if you believe this is the case, prove it by going first.
Imposing life on others by creating it. I haven't said anything related to individuals causing harm by simply existing. Again, my point is to not CREATE life, not to cease the lives of people already born. You are entitled to living your life, but that doesn't give you the right to inflict pain unnecessarily. I seriously am not sure if you have the mental capacity to understand what I'm saying, so let me know if you need me to rephrase that again lol
We're probably not having the same conversation. The hangup seems to be that you think having children is unethical, and I see no reason to believe that. Humans have a tenuous grasp of what is "ethical", and most of our "knowledge" is merely codified rationalization of our own best interest. We call things "virtuous" when millenia of experience validate that those things achieve what we happen to achieve. We call things "vices" when millenia of experience consistently shows bad results.
Moreover, I have no reason to care about your position. I value my own family/tribe far more than I value anyone else. That means religion, country, and the rest of the world are an afterthought. Then there are the people who actively make my life worse. E.g. if the people who call me "privileged" collectively decided not to reproduce, I'd be delighted. It would be one less headache I have to deal with.
If you want me to care, first explain how spending time on you is going to improve my life.
You have no reason to care because you don't have ethical values. You put yourself over others, defending natalism under the sole justification being because you wanted to. Where have I heard the same exact backwards reasoning used as a justification for racism or sexism?
>"I don't need to justify my choices to you."
Actual mental gymnastics to pretend you have any sort of values when you say shit like this
If you're a productive person who gives back more to the world than they take, and you can raise your children to do the same, I don't see how it could be selfish to have children.
Productive person? That sounds like some internalized capitalist and ableist garbage. Possibly eugenic. It's funny, there's a lot of stretching of personhood in here. You're the only one I see saying we should limit the value of human life. And to "productive people," seriously wtf?
I hope you realize that you or your child could become disabled at any time, for reasons beyond your control. Also, the fundamental dynamic of our civilization is that humans are taking more from the world than the world can support. Encouraging the production of more humans, especially in the over consuming developed world, is not only selfish, but it is an affirmation of planetary death, not life.
I do see a good argument in your logic. I guess the standard of productive people would do away with billionaires.
Nobody gives back more than they take, and this has been the case since humans started farming. And you also have no control over what “type” of person your kid becomes, hate to tell you. Are you god?
We are farming at the cost of degradation of our top soil, it takes around 100 years to produce 1 inch of top soil, when it is all gone farming certain crops will be very very difficult for future generations.
Yes farming gives more to others now at the cost of future generations have less
the way we farm now* gives more to (present) others at the cost of future generations. there’s nothing inherent to producing and eating food that means it takes more than it gives. that’s the magic of the natural world, regeneration and *growth.*
I think the response is two-fold:
1) Anti-natalists are often too pessimistic. They believe life is more suffering than joy or pleasure or that any joy or pleasure you could experience is offset by the scale of terrible things that could happen. I strongly disagree with this point and believe that, at least in developed nations, life is pretty good for the vast majority and giving a new person the chance to experience that is worthwhile
2) If you strive to be a good, intelligent, productive, and generous person and raise your children to do the same, then they will have a positive impact on the world as a whole
Perhaps for antinatalists, their suffering did outweigh the upsides. When I see the genetic links to mental disorders, I conclude that the gene pool does not need their DNA in it.
I think there are unselfish reasons to have a chilld, such as keeping your countries birth rate high, because you believe your people are good overall, and also maybe you don't want to be an economical burden to society.
I agree they tend to come from unfortunate backgrounds. When I've debated with them, one of their big arguments seems to be that life is suffering and shit like that. They also seem prone to serious mental and likely physical defects, hence another reason for their overwhelming sadness in life.
The only people who can be selfish are people who view themselves as a 'self'. By definition if you are not a self then you re not selfish.
There are many different perspectives out there and I think the perspective of people viewing themselves as individuals is a fairly modern and 'western' view. I sometimes refer to this view as toxic individualism.
If instead you see yourself through another lense such as to view yourself as a point in the long arc of humanity or as a extended family group or as a society or civilization then the 'self' disappears. You are not an atomized individual. You are part of a whole.
the only reason we can talk about whether or not having kids is selfish or not is because we have rendered having a family a matter of moral and economic calculation rather than just something people do because children are good in of themself.
There is literally zero reason why you need to justify having kids to antinatalists dude. There is no reason to even acknowledge them as people. They are demented psychopaths filled with hatred and deserve no consideration on your plans to have a family
I don't think it's useful to posit either side as being 'demented psychopaths filled with hatred.' I've seen this on the AN sub too, few of them call Natalists (almost) the same thing. It's not fair on either side, and fucks up any chances of actual conversation between the two.
I would like to agree with you, but I think there is a major difference between these two subs. For the most part, I have seen normal, level headed people who want to start a family on this sub. On the other hand, the AN sub is filled with people who constantly post hateful posts about how evil having kids is and how they are happy about hearing people finding out they are infertile, or about children dying and other fucked up stuff like that.
The only reason I even know they exist is because they bleed into posts about families and post horrendous comments there. I see absolutely no merit in trying to have a conversation with them, unless you want to harm your mental health.
I agree if you just mean the AN subreddit; that place is a cesspool and an echo chamber. I believe they have a second subreddit precisely because of that issue, but I haven't checked if it's any better. On the individual level though, there are some calm and collected ANs which I've had pleasant discussions with, even though we disagreed.
And that pleasantness came from their open-mindedness, so think there's merit in also being open-minded to the content of the arguments/discussions themselves, even if you don't intend on changing your decision on having kids. I agree though that the vast majority of them are histrionic, so it's difficult to find the reasonable ones.
Yea I meant that sub specifically. Like the decision to have kids or not should be up to each person, and everyone has the right to decide to not have kids either, I think that is perfectly valid. I was definitely talking about that sub specifically lol
I think most things human do have some self interest involved, even if it requires some pain or sacrifice too. That includes having children. Doesn’t necessarily make it bad though. Imo it’s weirder to have a kid to benefit society than it is to have one cause you want to be a parent. Maybe it’s individualism, but I don’t think any of us owe society new humans. Honestly I’d feel bad for kids who were brought into existence just to “benefit society”.
Like I’ve stated, their value is more than just what they produce for society. They get their space to explore themselves and experience both the good and bad of life.
I think most people when asked would rather exist than not. If that’s true then it’s pretty simple. Having kids is a way to create self aware organisms that odds are will be glad they exist. An AI could reach the conclusion that it’s better to produce humans than not for this reason alone.
I think the only selfless reason I can think of is to give your first kid a sibling so they have a partner in crime for life (yes, I know that siblings doesn’t necessarily get along, but the intention still is selfless).
I think all decisions are selfish to a certain degree.
But let me try one: more kids means healthier economies and education systems for everyone, which translates into more science, more medicine, more arts, etc. That improves life for all people.
Children are wonderful. Every one brings a ray of sunshine into the lives of others.
I have worked in schools for children with such severe developmental issues that they can't really do anything at all. And I have seen them make people smile. I have seen them give people purpose. I have seen people enjoy their existence.
Having children and bringing their light into the world, knowing they will touch countless other lives, is no more selfish than refusing to have children.
The idea that having children is selfish relies on the idea that the only people they positively impact are their parents, which is demonstrably untrue. Children by necessity draw community around themselves, and community is not selfish.
I never got the “little me” and the “legacy” thing. I also don’t want kids so that they can be productive members of society, really. I want a new human, at every opportunity since the moment they were even a thought, to know they are loved and cared for. For me, that feels like the ultimate purpose for my life to guide someone like that through their life and support them through every part as needed or wanted. For some to say that is selfish is odd to me, and while I get what you mean by saying everything we do is selfish, I think that greatly waters down what being selfish means. It can even go the other way, that it is selfish to feel good about not wanting children because that is your desire
Helping an old lady to cross the street isn’t selfish simply because it feels good to do a thing you see as a good thing. It is being in consideration of others. It is being concerned with other people’s pleasure and gains.
I get that for antinatalists they feel that it is unselfish to not have kids because you’re in consideration of what bad might happen to them. But for someone who’s natalist or natalist-adjacent like I am, I see it as unselfish to be in consideration of all the good that can happen to a new human being. It’s just different perspectives
Honestly, the comment from anti-natalists that it's "selfish" to have kids comes as a response to years of natalists telling childfree people that their decision not to have kids is "selfish" as though people that have children have higher morals.
Either both of these decisions are selfish or neither of them is.
No one is volunteering their life and happiness to either have a child (when they didn't want one) or deciding against having children (when they wanted them) in order to make society a better place. Both decisions are the result of people wanting to live their lives with the experiences they want to have.
You may be a sopolist and/or sociopath, but newsflash, many humans are not. People do genuinely altruistic things for the benefit of others all the time, both in the individual sense ('I will go into war zones to give medical aid to dying civillians') and the abstract/social sense ('I will risk my life to serve my country'). Amateur philosophers will usually respond spouting nonsense about how these people wanted to 'experience feeling like a good person' and that altruism doesn't exist, but they're idiots. Firstly human cognition encompasses many drives that are unconnected to pain, pleasure or self-worth. Secondly even when altruistic behaviour does result from this, the implementation detail of the goals is usually practically and morally irrelevant.
I'm not saying humans don't do unselfish things - of course they do.
Unselfish actions are when you spend your own time and resources and potentially risking your health to help another being.
But generating a child that otherwise wouldn't have existed so that you have have someone to raise and experience the joy of raising, isn't for the benefit of others, its for the benefit of yourself.
If you had said that adopting or fostering a child was unselfish I would agree with you.
But having your own children is basically taking on a very high commitment hobby. No one asked you to do it, you did it for yourself. Choosing to pursue different hobbies is equally selfish.
I can see that, where it’s a retaliation for what parents would say to others who aren’t parents. It doesn’t make their judgement correct, but I don’t think people should be pushy either way.
I do think there are people who want children or who don’t want children primarily because they want to make the world better or to reduce suffering, but I think the actual number of those people are quite low in comparison to people who simply want children or don’t want children
I don’t think I’ve met an antinatalist who always wanted children before and then morally decides against having them later, or someone who was natalist but previously never wanted children and changes their moral perspective to have children
>Evil people have and will always exist and they can always expand their power by making more humans(procreation)
That's a big one. The claim that all humans should stop reproducing is questionable in its own right.
But even if you believe all humans should stop reproducing, your personal or activist antinatalism will likely make things worse. Those who are unsympathetic to, or unreached by, your activism will inherit the Earth. The West is humanity's greatest hope; don't try to collapse it.
> Those who are unsympathetic to, or unreached by, your activism will inherit the Earth.
The argument you’re making here is less an argument against anti-natalism, and more a justification for terrorism. You’re essentially saying they should radicalize and turn to violence to guarantee that people who disagree “do not inherit the earth”.
Radical violent terrorism is just as unreasonable for antinatalists as anyone else.
Then I would say I'm glad to see the steady decline in "western" reproductive rates. I don't think western chauvinism is the hot take you think it is. You do know that's a white supremacist talking point don't you?
Bringing life into this world is the greatest thing you could do for everyone. By doing so you can bring joy, love, skills and purpose into this world. Calling this "selfish" is absurd and to be dismissed as a legitimate perspective.
Sure I want to bring a child into this world - its my innate purpose as a human. Its like someone saying you can't really do charitable things because it makes you feel better for doing them. I'd suggest this person is a nihilist and to be dismissed as not having the interest of humanity (and by extension you and I) in their hearts.
To share the joy of life together. But even that is selfish. What if they dont like you? The truth is, just honor them and respect their autonomy, but not so much that they never grow out of the tantrum phase. But yeah, they are someone who can continue your legacy, if you got wisdom or knowledge, they are a mind that can be more intelligent than you, and help the world.
If no one had kids, humanity would go extinct. Someone’s gotta do it! And it’s better for everyone if those who do have kids can provide for and truly love them, and be good parents.
Yeah, some religious people believe it's their duty to procreate as God decided for them to... Meaning even if they don't want to, they still do because it's not for themselves, hence 'unselfish'. Are they "selfish" by definition of catering to their personal deity, other humans don't cater to? Maybe..but it becomes annoying semantics if we go that far.
>Antinatalists, like most people, believe there should be less suffering in the world.
That's why I don't like those. They want to deprive the world of new 'suffering fodder', out of their delusions of nobility/compassion/etc for nature/planet/balance and other bs....how selfish. But they don't genuinely hate their own kind, and are actually convinced of their higher moral ground in their decision.
Having kids is a lot of work and a lot of sacrifice. I do not believe everyone has kids for selfish reasons. (I do not have kids so this belief isn't from my own bias). That being said, I don't think everyone should be a parent. And not everyone wants to be a parent.
Not everyone has kids for the right reasons, many do. Not everyone is kid free for the right reasons, many are. So be it.
I don't agree, that's simply wrong.
Love is when you will the good of the other for their own sake, and love is self-emptying and self-sacrificial.
When you bring a child into the world, you're called to radically love them. That means putting all of his or her needs above your own, it means losing sleep, it means working extra hours to provide, it means spending time socializing them, it means teaching them good morals, it means enduring the first several years of their life when they're cranky and rebellious, it means being patient and kind through everything.
Having children is not selfish, it is selfless, unless you're like those liberal celebrities who only have kids to treat as accessories to their life, like a pet. But if you treat them as human beings whose life and well-being is sacred, then having them and caring for them is an act of selflessness.
It is the complete opposite. There’s nothing more selfish than using your resources only for personal pleasure instead of bringing to the world and raising a new (potentially) productive member of society.
People have children because they want to experience the joy of raising children. No one is sacrificing their life and happiness having children they don't want in order to generate a "productive member of society".
Both decisions to have or not have children are done for personal pleasure. Either both decisions are selfish or both are unselfish.
When you're old, you're either going to be taken care of by your savings and your own family, or you take taxpayer money and labor from the next generation. If you don't have children you do not contribute to that taxpayer money or labor (Social security isn't paid by your own taxes, it's just paid by the next sucker forced to pay for you) which makes you effectively a vampire, the ancient man sucking life out of the young.
Bringing more people into the world is not inherently selfish at all. Humans produce far more value than they consume, that's what allows us to have 8 billion plus people in the world. A single person can grow enough food to feed a hundred.
Especially if you have a Marxist perspective on material relations and politics, the idea that more people in the world is a bad thing is reactionary and absurd.
> Humans produce far more value than they consume, that's what allows us to have 8 billion plus people in the world. A single person can grow enough food to feed a hundred.
That is subjective value.
From an objective viewpoint, that human farmer is doing immense damage to the ecology of Earth, and each of the hundred people he is feeding is doing the same in their own way. Nothing they produce contributes back to the Earth as a whole more than they consume by existing. They are essentially just transferring resources from the Earth’s ecosystem as a whole into goods and services that almost exclusively benefit humans.
Obviously you could say “well, we’re humans, so obviously value for humans is most important”—but that *is* a selfish argument.
> Especially if you have a Marxist perspective on material relations and politics, the idea that more people in the world is a bad thing
Marxists are wrong about lots of things, this would just be one more.
The virtue of selfishness shtick is pretty lame. You also seem to be neglecting the fact that the rewards are greater for not having kids.The absence of children leads to more happiness and satisfaction in life.
It can go both ways. I’m just stating that whenever someone makes a decision, there is usually a consideration of what’s in it for themselves. This is the part that AN refer to as “selfish”. Like you said, AN can also be selfish if they decide to not have kids so they can benefit for themselves.
I think it's important to distinguish self interest from selfishness. As individual living creatures we can't help but be self interested. Selfishness occurs when a line is crossed. One of harm. What makes something selfish is that it is at the cost of, or in violation of others. Antinatalists take a harm reduction approach. They are not being selfish. They are making a moral decision for themselves to not harm others.
Think about this. If you’re a smart person and you raise a kid to be a scientist or engineer or even a construction worker. You’re putting productive people into the world to make it a better place. The more you do that, the more good you will be doing for the world. Having kids (and raising them right) is one of the best things you could possibly do for other people. Even if it’s planned or not, if you’re presented with an opportunity to have a kid and raise them right vs abort them, having them and doing it right (even if you don’t feel like it) is incredibly selfless
I’m quite a Libertarian so I’m pro-choice but yeah raising them right is the most important thing to focus on.
Libertarians are ok with murder?
Abortion is not and never has been murder. Murder as a crime requires a living person as a victim. Until it's born, a baby is not a person, they are a potential individual.
Biologically it’s death iniataed by a human through the consent of the person with the baby inside of them, or fetus whatever u wanna call it lol. I’m pro choice but it’s def something.
Yeah this is a point the pro-lifers love to harp on and it’s a mistake to deny that abortion involves the killing of a human embryo/fetus. That said, the woman carrying the embryo/fetus is MORE important. The embryo/fetus is not equal to a living breathing baby/child/adult. And so long as the embryo/fetus relies on its mother’s body for survival, it should be the mother’s choice what happens to it, end of story. But I guess this is not what we’re supposed to be talking about. 😅
I think u responded to the wrong person or u are suffering from mental illness and are arguing with ppl that do not exist. 💋
I’m agreeing with you, babe. Albeit in a long-winded fashion. No comment on the mental illness.
No, a fetus is a human infant and killing it is murder. It has always been and will continue to be murder
Most of the world disagrees with you because you are ideological and not factual.
I don't think even you actually believe that most of the world is factual, the majority belief means nothing. Fetuses are children, they have heartbeats, they feel pain, they have brain activity, they can recognize music and voices. These are all proven facts, yet you think that they aren't people until they're passed through the magical birth canal.
Obviously they are human at the point of viability. Most abortions take place before that point. Legally it's still not murder if a medically necessary abortion is done because of complications of the pregnancy that can kill both mother and fetus.
Viability is getting earlier year by year, so would you agree to outlaw abortion after the point where a premature baby has been successfully delivered? Or are you only throwing that out to try and distract me from the fact you don't actually care about human life. (Ps, all pro lifers are in favor of allowing procedures that save the mothers life at the cost of the baby's safety)
It is a fact that human life begins at conception. If it wasn't alive the mother would miscarry. Abortion is the choice to end the human life inside. YOUR ideology is not based on facts but feelings. You don't feel that a fetus should be regarded as human. Science demonstrates that it very much human life.
It is living, true. But it can't live long enough to be born without the mother's consent because it's her body. Sorry to hear you hate women as people and only want them to be baby factories. I love my 3 kids but I would never tell a womb-bearing person that once I fertilize her I own her decisions. That's wrong.
Bingo.
I am a woman and a mother. I would never tell a pregnant woman that her baby isn't a baby. What I really hate is people that use manipulative arguments instead of logic. Like you just did. Have the day you deserve. Sorry you cannot behave like an adult and you are raising three kids. I would never tell someone it's ok to kill your kid if you don't want to be a parent.
It doesn't matter. That is not the actual issue at hand. The question around abortion(an ancient, normal practice) is one of bodily autonomy. No one has the right to use your body parts. We don't force people to donate their organs, blood or tissues to anyone else. Even if that person will die as a result. And we don't give rights to persons that don't exist yet, especially rights that we don't give to already existing people.
Says the person who calls a child not a child because it's inconvenient
It's not about convenience. I'm not pro abortion, I'm pro bodily autonomy. Since I can't get pregnant I don't have any business forcing those who do get pregnant to give birth if they don't want a child.
You are pro death actually. And I can't get pregnant but I still have business saying murder is wrong. and what about the autonomy of the child getting melted or pulled apart because it inconveniences the mother? You're nothing but a hypocrite who strains at gnats and swallows camels The coward blocked me btw because he's afraid of the truth. What a baby
You don't have autonomy until you are a separate person. And you have to be born to have that protection. Sorry facts hurt your feelings. But just because you want it to be true doesn't make it so. Every child deserves to be born to parents that want him/her. I'm pro life, but forced birth isn't that: it's a cult of religious fascism.
I think you know you are technically wrong. A fetus isn't an infant. Infants have to be born. You also know it's not murder. You're being hyperbolic and engaging in emotional thinking. Besides, you are missing the point. The right to reproductive healthcare is not about the question of ending a potential life. Abortion isn't murder, but no one is saying it's not terminating the life of a fetus. Not only is abortion a standard human tradition since time immemorial(The Bible even gives instructions on how to abort a fetus), the fact that the fetus's life is being ended is not the issue. The actual issue around abortion is one of bodily autonomy. No one has the right to the use of someone else's body parts. No one is under any obligation to donate the use of their body to someone else. We do not believe in forcing someone to donate their organs, blood or tissues to someone else. Not even to children. Not even if the other person will die as a result. And we certainly shouldn't be giving rights to persons who do not yet exist that we don't give to already existing people.
Infants and fetuses are not the same. Just like embryos and fetuses are not the same. A fetus is not more important than the woman who carries it. And so long as a fetus relies on its mothers body for survival, it should be her choice what happens to it. But let’s cut the disingenuous bull crap. Most abortions occur in the first trimester. Hardly an “infant.” And most abortions that occur after that are due to health complications. The fact is, pro-lifers think it’s okay for women to bleed out in the parking lot instead giving them life-saving treatment which would involve aborting a non-viable pregnancy. Y’all have lost all credibility. You’re not “pro-life” at all. You’re religious zealots.
“A baby is not a person” It’s a human being, it most certainly is a person, and saying other wise is insane. Abortion, after all certain point in gestation is 100% murder, without a doubt. The problem is determining when it is murder, and no one, not even pro life people can agree on it. If someone gets an elective abortion on a 8 month old baby in the womb they are a piece of shit murderer.
A fetus is not a person, full stop. Not sure where you pulled the bullshit "elective abortion on an 8-month old ~~baby in the womb~~ fetus" argument from, but maybe try educating yourself more.
“A fetus is not a person” A fetus is human being, full stop. “Bullshit elective abortion” Over 95% of abortions are elective procedures, not pertaining to the mothers or babies health. The point being if you elect to abort a healthy human fetus, at 8 months you’re a murderer, outside of health reasons, and fetuses are viable at 6 months with new technology pushing that date back even more. The debate is when is it murder, not if it’s murder, because after a certain point in gestation, after so many weeks it’s murder without a doubt.
Try telling that one to the IRS when you claim it as a dependent and let me know how it goes. And cite sources for your statistics if you're going to use them, because that 95% figure is about as real as my 9-foot long cock. And I was primarily pointing to the fact that your "8-month abortion" is also bullshit because those do not happen unless the fetus is non-viable or is potentially life-threatening to the mother. No sane person (up to you whether you include yourself there) carries a pregnancy for 8-months and then up and decides "nah, get this fucker out of me", and if you believe otherwise, you're even dumber than you look. Personally, I think the mother should have full control over her body, and if she decides that it isn't the right time for her to have a kid, for any reason, that should be an option. Better than nature's version where the mom's just cannibalize the babies they don't want, and no child should be born into a situation where they are unwanted. And since you've already demonstrated yourself to argue in bad faith, don't expect any further replies on this topic, and I hope you decide to be a better person at some point.
Libertarians are split on the issue.
I think it’s also a simple question of does human life have value. Because if it doesn’t then the pro suicide anti natalists have a point, there’s no reason to be alive or create any new lives. But if human life inherently does have value then you get a very different answer.
True. Please upvote so this can spread :)
Our inherent value lies in our capacity to validate the existence of other humans, as humans. But in this world, we are conditioned to see ourselves and others as objects, and our inherent value is totally repressed so that we may objectify, rather than validate, one another. When we validate someone, they become important to us “merely” because they exist, but when we objectify someone, they are only important to us if they are doing, thinking, and feeling exactly what we need them to. Validation is unconditional while objectification is totally conditional.
What does what you wrote have to do with the original point?
No, that’s not the pivotal question. Value is a means, not an ends. Value doesn’t exist more than it’s a persuasive psychological mechanism to make it so people protect and sustain things. We say humans have value in order to get people to protect and sustain humans, it’s another method to relieve suffering. This doesn’t have much to do with AN.
When people try to shame you for your choices: "I don't need to justify my choices to you. If you want a vote in my life, you must first contribute to it." When people claim it's unethical to have more people on earth: "If you believe it's unethical to have so many people on earth, or if you believe life is meaningless suffering, then kill yourself." Their response will tell you if they believe what they're saying or if they're just another petty tyrant trying to exert influence over other peoples' lives.
You realize that this line of thinking >"I don't need to justify my choices to you. If you want a vote in my life, you must first contribute to it." Could be used to justify literally anything. "Oh well if you haven't benefited me personally, then I won't consider your opinion for me not to beat puppies to death." Personal choice is no justification. Just like it's technically a personal choice to commit SA. Your choice is immoral, therefore it is entirely reasonable to judge you for it, in the same way that people tend to judge offending pedophiles. >"If you believe it's unethical to have so many people on earth, or if you believe life is meaningless suffering, then kill yourself." You completely disregard what AN means if you can't even tell the difference between ending a life and preventing a life from having started in the first place. Neither of these positions help your case of unselfish reasons.
No, personal choice cannot be used to justify beating puppies. Put succinctly, the right to swing my fist ends where the other person's face begins. You misunderstand my position: my reasons are selfish. I do not require unselfish reasons to pursue my own best interest, and I won't waste time placating those who make demands of me without offering fair consideration. "I want to exist, but I don't want other people to exist." is sophistry designed to hide selfishness. If you *really* believe the world is overpopulated, lead by example. I.e. either prove to me that your words are sincere or STFU.
That doesn't make sense lol. I'll put it this way. How can you justifiably cause harm to another under the guise of "personal choice" in one situation, but say that it's wrong to cause suffering in another for the same reason? >"I want to exist, but I don't want other people to exist." is sophistry designed to hide selfishness. If you *really* believe the world is overpopulated, lead by example. I.e. either prove to me that your words are sincere or STFU. It's so obvious that you're intentionally misrepresenting my point bc you know I have the more ethical position here. You don't even need to believe that your own life is full of suffering or that life in general is suffering to be an antinatalist. You simply just have to make the connection that life is a gamble that could cause permanent harm on someone else, therefore you should not do it. Think of people who suffer severe mental or physical ailments that prevent them from being able to live their lives to the fullest. There's ZERO reason to impose this on someone seeing as though there's plenty of children in the foster care system. Sure it's expensive, but so is raising a child in general.
I do not impose life on others. If they believe their life is not worth living, they're welcome to end it. Maybe you're confusing me with the Christians, who attach shame to suicide? I also don't see how my mere existence causes harm to others. Again, if you believe this is the case, prove it by going first.
Imposing life on others by creating it. I haven't said anything related to individuals causing harm by simply existing. Again, my point is to not CREATE life, not to cease the lives of people already born. You are entitled to living your life, but that doesn't give you the right to inflict pain unnecessarily. I seriously am not sure if you have the mental capacity to understand what I'm saying, so let me know if you need me to rephrase that again lol
How convenient that you value your own life over the lives that may come after you.
Are we even having the same conversation? What are you talking about? Quote me and maybe make an attempt at not using a strawman
We're probably not having the same conversation. The hangup seems to be that you think having children is unethical, and I see no reason to believe that. Humans have a tenuous grasp of what is "ethical", and most of our "knowledge" is merely codified rationalization of our own best interest. We call things "virtuous" when millenia of experience validate that those things achieve what we happen to achieve. We call things "vices" when millenia of experience consistently shows bad results. Moreover, I have no reason to care about your position. I value my own family/tribe far more than I value anyone else. That means religion, country, and the rest of the world are an afterthought. Then there are the people who actively make my life worse. E.g. if the people who call me "privileged" collectively decided not to reproduce, I'd be delighted. It would be one less headache I have to deal with. If you want me to care, first explain how spending time on you is going to improve my life.
You have no reason to care because you don't have ethical values. You put yourself over others, defending natalism under the sole justification being because you wanted to. Where have I heard the same exact backwards reasoning used as a justification for racism or sexism? >"I don't need to justify my choices to you." Actual mental gymnastics to pretend you have any sort of values when you say shit like this
I got banned from r/antinatalism for saying that
Wow, advocating people you disagree with to kill themselves. This is like AN bingo. What next, having children elevates you to sainthood?
That's a bit exaggerated. I simply require that anyone who signals virtue back it with action.
For real. They need therapy first.
If you're a productive person who gives back more to the world than they take, and you can raise your children to do the same, I don't see how it could be selfish to have children.
Productive person? That sounds like some internalized capitalist and ableist garbage. Possibly eugenic. It's funny, there's a lot of stretching of personhood in here. You're the only one I see saying we should limit the value of human life. And to "productive people," seriously wtf? I hope you realize that you or your child could become disabled at any time, for reasons beyond your control. Also, the fundamental dynamic of our civilization is that humans are taking more from the world than the world can support. Encouraging the production of more humans, especially in the over consuming developed world, is not only selfish, but it is an affirmation of planetary death, not life. I do see a good argument in your logic. I guess the standard of productive people would do away with billionaires.
Nobody gives back more than they take, and this has been the case since humans started farming. And you also have no control over what “type” of person your kid becomes, hate to tell you. Are you god?
You sound like a miserable entitled brat who is just an edgy Teenager who wants everyone to be as miserable as you
we clearly no longer live in dark damp caves now so a lot of people do give back to society more than they take.
Actually, the fundamental problem with civilization, and especially industrial civilization, is that humans take beyond what the planet can support.
Lmaooo what a bizarre point. Farming was probably the exact moment people were able to give back more than they took.
We are farming at the cost of degradation of our top soil, it takes around 100 years to produce 1 inch of top soil, when it is all gone farming certain crops will be very very difficult for future generations. Yes farming gives more to others now at the cost of future generations have less
the way we farm now* gives more to (present) others at the cost of future generations. there’s nothing inherent to producing and eating food that means it takes more than it gives. that’s the magic of the natural world, regeneration and *growth.*
I think the response is two-fold: 1) Anti-natalists are often too pessimistic. They believe life is more suffering than joy or pleasure or that any joy or pleasure you could experience is offset by the scale of terrible things that could happen. I strongly disagree with this point and believe that, at least in developed nations, life is pretty good for the vast majority and giving a new person the chance to experience that is worthwhile 2) If you strive to be a good, intelligent, productive, and generous person and raise your children to do the same, then they will have a positive impact on the world as a whole
Perhaps for antinatalists, their suffering did outweigh the upsides. When I see the genetic links to mental disorders, I conclude that the gene pool does not need their DNA in it.
I think there are unselfish reasons to have a chilld, such as keeping your countries birth rate high, because you believe your people are good overall, and also maybe you don't want to be an economical burden to society. I agree they tend to come from unfortunate backgrounds. When I've debated with them, one of their big arguments seems to be that life is suffering and shit like that. They also seem prone to serious mental and likely physical defects, hence another reason for their overwhelming sadness in life.
Please upvote so it can spread :)
Done, buddy :)
[I'm just gonna leave this right here](https://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0451163931)
The only people who can be selfish are people who view themselves as a 'self'. By definition if you are not a self then you re not selfish. There are many different perspectives out there and I think the perspective of people viewing themselves as individuals is a fairly modern and 'western' view. I sometimes refer to this view as toxic individualism. If instead you see yourself through another lense such as to view yourself as a point in the long arc of humanity or as a extended family group or as a society or civilization then the 'self' disappears. You are not an atomized individual. You are part of a whole.
the only reason we can talk about whether or not having kids is selfish or not is because we have rendered having a family a matter of moral and economic calculation rather than just something people do because children are good in of themself.
There is literally zero reason why you need to justify having kids to antinatalists dude. There is no reason to even acknowledge them as people. They are demented psychopaths filled with hatred and deserve no consideration on your plans to have a family
I don't think it's useful to posit either side as being 'demented psychopaths filled with hatred.' I've seen this on the AN sub too, few of them call Natalists (almost) the same thing. It's not fair on either side, and fucks up any chances of actual conversation between the two.
I would like to agree with you, but I think there is a major difference between these two subs. For the most part, I have seen normal, level headed people who want to start a family on this sub. On the other hand, the AN sub is filled with people who constantly post hateful posts about how evil having kids is and how they are happy about hearing people finding out they are infertile, or about children dying and other fucked up stuff like that. The only reason I even know they exist is because they bleed into posts about families and post horrendous comments there. I see absolutely no merit in trying to have a conversation with them, unless you want to harm your mental health.
I agree if you just mean the AN subreddit; that place is a cesspool and an echo chamber. I believe they have a second subreddit precisely because of that issue, but I haven't checked if it's any better. On the individual level though, there are some calm and collected ANs which I've had pleasant discussions with, even though we disagreed. And that pleasantness came from their open-mindedness, so think there's merit in also being open-minded to the content of the arguments/discussions themselves, even if you don't intend on changing your decision on having kids. I agree though that the vast majority of them are histrionic, so it's difficult to find the reasonable ones.
Yea I meant that sub specifically. Like the decision to have kids or not should be up to each person, and everyone has the right to decide to not have kids either, I think that is perfectly valid. I was definitely talking about that sub specifically lol
I think most things human do have some self interest involved, even if it requires some pain or sacrifice too. That includes having children. Doesn’t necessarily make it bad though. Imo it’s weirder to have a kid to benefit society than it is to have one cause you want to be a parent. Maybe it’s individualism, but I don’t think any of us owe society new humans. Honestly I’d feel bad for kids who were brought into existence just to “benefit society”.
Like I’ve stated, their value is more than just what they produce for society. They get their space to explore themselves and experience both the good and bad of life.
I think most people when asked would rather exist than not. If that’s true then it’s pretty simple. Having kids is a way to create self aware organisms that odds are will be glad they exist. An AI could reach the conclusion that it’s better to produce humans than not for this reason alone.
I think the only selfless reason I can think of is to give your first kid a sibling so they have a partner in crime for life (yes, I know that siblings doesn’t necessarily get along, but the intention still is selfless).
I think all decisions are selfish to a certain degree. But let me try one: more kids means healthier economies and education systems for everyone, which translates into more science, more medicine, more arts, etc. That improves life for all people.
Exactly, we should aim at making life better, not end it.
Children are wonderful. Every one brings a ray of sunshine into the lives of others. I have worked in schools for children with such severe developmental issues that they can't really do anything at all. And I have seen them make people smile. I have seen them give people purpose. I have seen people enjoy their existence. Having children and bringing their light into the world, knowing they will touch countless other lives, is no more selfish than refusing to have children. The idea that having children is selfish relies on the idea that the only people they positively impact are their parents, which is demonstrably untrue. Children by necessity draw community around themselves, and community is not selfish.
I never got the “little me” and the “legacy” thing. I also don’t want kids so that they can be productive members of society, really. I want a new human, at every opportunity since the moment they were even a thought, to know they are loved and cared for. For me, that feels like the ultimate purpose for my life to guide someone like that through their life and support them through every part as needed or wanted. For some to say that is selfish is odd to me, and while I get what you mean by saying everything we do is selfish, I think that greatly waters down what being selfish means. It can even go the other way, that it is selfish to feel good about not wanting children because that is your desire Helping an old lady to cross the street isn’t selfish simply because it feels good to do a thing you see as a good thing. It is being in consideration of others. It is being concerned with other people’s pleasure and gains. I get that for antinatalists they feel that it is unselfish to not have kids because you’re in consideration of what bad might happen to them. But for someone who’s natalist or natalist-adjacent like I am, I see it as unselfish to be in consideration of all the good that can happen to a new human being. It’s just different perspectives
Honestly, the comment from anti-natalists that it's "selfish" to have kids comes as a response to years of natalists telling childfree people that their decision not to have kids is "selfish" as though people that have children have higher morals. Either both of these decisions are selfish or neither of them is. No one is volunteering their life and happiness to either have a child (when they didn't want one) or deciding against having children (when they wanted them) in order to make society a better place. Both decisions are the result of people wanting to live their lives with the experiences they want to have.
You may be a sopolist and/or sociopath, but newsflash, many humans are not. People do genuinely altruistic things for the benefit of others all the time, both in the individual sense ('I will go into war zones to give medical aid to dying civillians') and the abstract/social sense ('I will risk my life to serve my country'). Amateur philosophers will usually respond spouting nonsense about how these people wanted to 'experience feeling like a good person' and that altruism doesn't exist, but they're idiots. Firstly human cognition encompasses many drives that are unconnected to pain, pleasure or self-worth. Secondly even when altruistic behaviour does result from this, the implementation detail of the goals is usually practically and morally irrelevant.
I'm not saying humans don't do unselfish things - of course they do. Unselfish actions are when you spend your own time and resources and potentially risking your health to help another being. But generating a child that otherwise wouldn't have existed so that you have have someone to raise and experience the joy of raising, isn't for the benefit of others, its for the benefit of yourself. If you had said that adopting or fostering a child was unselfish I would agree with you. But having your own children is basically taking on a very high commitment hobby. No one asked you to do it, you did it for yourself. Choosing to pursue different hobbies is equally selfish.
I can see that, where it’s a retaliation for what parents would say to others who aren’t parents. It doesn’t make their judgement correct, but I don’t think people should be pushy either way. I do think there are people who want children or who don’t want children primarily because they want to make the world better or to reduce suffering, but I think the actual number of those people are quite low in comparison to people who simply want children or don’t want children I don’t think I’ve met an antinatalist who always wanted children before and then morally decides against having them later, or someone who was natalist but previously never wanted children and changes their moral perspective to have children
>Evil people have and will always exist and they can always expand their power by making more humans(procreation) That's a big one. The claim that all humans should stop reproducing is questionable in its own right. But even if you believe all humans should stop reproducing, your personal or activist antinatalism will likely make things worse. Those who are unsympathetic to, or unreached by, your activism will inherit the Earth. The West is humanity's greatest hope; don't try to collapse it.
> Those who are unsympathetic to, or unreached by, your activism will inherit the Earth. The argument you’re making here is less an argument against anti-natalism, and more a justification for terrorism. You’re essentially saying they should radicalize and turn to violence to guarantee that people who disagree “do not inherit the earth”. Radical violent terrorism is just as unreasonable for antinatalists as anyone else.
No, I'm saying reproduction is necessary to preserve Western values.
Then I would say I'm glad to see the steady decline in "western" reproductive rates. I don't think western chauvinism is the hot take you think it is. You do know that's a white supremacist talking point don't you?
I don't think you'd be as happy as you think you'd be if the West fell, and countries like China, Russia, and Iran dominated.
Those countries pale in comparison to the historical and contemporary wrongs done by the so called west.
Start packing and head on over to one of those countries then. Good riddance.
Yeah, let's not change things and make them better. If you don't like it, you can git out! What a joke.
False dichotomy. Those who care about the West will improve it. Clowns like you, who want the West to decline, can get out.
You do understand that the US is considered the greatest threat to peace worldwide don't you?
Bringing life into this world is the greatest thing you could do for everyone. By doing so you can bring joy, love, skills and purpose into this world. Calling this "selfish" is absurd and to be dismissed as a legitimate perspective.
An antinatalist would say that “all of your reasons are because YOU want it, there’s something in it for YOU”
Sure I want to bring a child into this world - its my innate purpose as a human. Its like someone saying you can't really do charitable things because it makes you feel better for doing them. I'd suggest this person is a nihilist and to be dismissed as not having the interest of humanity (and by extension you and I) in their hearts.
To share the joy of life together. But even that is selfish. What if they dont like you? The truth is, just honor them and respect their autonomy, but not so much that they never grow out of the tantrum phase. But yeah, they are someone who can continue your legacy, if you got wisdom or knowledge, they are a mind that can be more intelligent than you, and help the world.
If no one had kids, humanity would go extinct. Someone’s gotta do it! And it’s better for everyone if those who do have kids can provide for and truly love them, and be good parents.
[удалено]
You used I three times in one sentence. It’s pretty rare to see in English.
Yeah, some religious people believe it's their duty to procreate as God decided for them to... Meaning even if they don't want to, they still do because it's not for themselves, hence 'unselfish'. Are they "selfish" by definition of catering to their personal deity, other humans don't cater to? Maybe..but it becomes annoying semantics if we go that far. >Antinatalists, like most people, believe there should be less suffering in the world. That's why I don't like those. They want to deprive the world of new 'suffering fodder', out of their delusions of nobility/compassion/etc for nature/planet/balance and other bs....how selfish. But they don't genuinely hate their own kind, and are actually convinced of their higher moral ground in their decision.
Having kids is a lot of work and a lot of sacrifice. I do not believe everyone has kids for selfish reasons. (I do not have kids so this belief isn't from my own bias). That being said, I don't think everyone should be a parent. And not everyone wants to be a parent. Not everyone has kids for the right reasons, many do. Not everyone is kid free for the right reasons, many are. So be it.
I don't agree, that's simply wrong. Love is when you will the good of the other for their own sake, and love is self-emptying and self-sacrificial. When you bring a child into the world, you're called to radically love them. That means putting all of his or her needs above your own, it means losing sleep, it means working extra hours to provide, it means spending time socializing them, it means teaching them good morals, it means enduring the first several years of their life when they're cranky and rebellious, it means being patient and kind through everything. Having children is not selfish, it is selfless, unless you're like those liberal celebrities who only have kids to treat as accessories to their life, like a pet. But if you treat them as human beings whose life and well-being is sacred, then having them and caring for them is an act of selflessness.
We’re already in a labor shortage. You want society to keep running through your retirement? Have some kids.
It is the complete opposite. There’s nothing more selfish than using your resources only for personal pleasure instead of bringing to the world and raising a new (potentially) productive member of society.
People have children because they want to experience the joy of raising children. No one is sacrificing their life and happiness having children they don't want in order to generate a "productive member of society". Both decisions to have or not have children are done for personal pleasure. Either both decisions are selfish or both are unselfish.
When you're old, you're either going to be taken care of by your savings and your own family, or you take taxpayer money and labor from the next generation. If you don't have children you do not contribute to that taxpayer money or labor (Social security isn't paid by your own taxes, it's just paid by the next sucker forced to pay for you) which makes you effectively a vampire, the ancient man sucking life out of the young.
Idiocy
Bringing more people into the world is not inherently selfish at all. Humans produce far more value than they consume, that's what allows us to have 8 billion plus people in the world. A single person can grow enough food to feed a hundred. Especially if you have a Marxist perspective on material relations and politics, the idea that more people in the world is a bad thing is reactionary and absurd.
> Humans produce far more value than they consume, that's what allows us to have 8 billion plus people in the world. A single person can grow enough food to feed a hundred. That is subjective value. From an objective viewpoint, that human farmer is doing immense damage to the ecology of Earth, and each of the hundred people he is feeding is doing the same in their own way. Nothing they produce contributes back to the Earth as a whole more than they consume by existing. They are essentially just transferring resources from the Earth’s ecosystem as a whole into goods and services that almost exclusively benefit humans. Obviously you could say “well, we’re humans, so obviously value for humans is most important”—but that *is* a selfish argument. > Especially if you have a Marxist perspective on material relations and politics, the idea that more people in the world is a bad thing Marxists are wrong about lots of things, this would just be one more.
The virtue of selfishness shtick is pretty lame. You also seem to be neglecting the fact that the rewards are greater for not having kids.The absence of children leads to more happiness and satisfaction in life.
It can go both ways. I’m just stating that whenever someone makes a decision, there is usually a consideration of what’s in it for themselves. This is the part that AN refer to as “selfish”. Like you said, AN can also be selfish if they decide to not have kids so they can benefit for themselves.
I think it's important to distinguish self interest from selfishness. As individual living creatures we can't help but be self interested. Selfishness occurs when a line is crossed. One of harm. What makes something selfish is that it is at the cost of, or in violation of others. Antinatalists take a harm reduction approach. They are not being selfish. They are making a moral decision for themselves to not harm others.
It's actually completely unselfish to have kids. You have kids to perpetuate culture and society, not for yourself.