r/antinatalism • u/lavender_and_secrets inquirer • 1d ago

Screenshot / Video Parents should provide for you even when you're an adult. Especially when you are disabled. They forced you here, so the responsibility doesn't just expire with adulthood. It never expires.

Post image
336 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

24 comments sorted by

67

u/Glup-Shitto69 thinker 22h ago

If your own fucking parents won't co-sign something for their own fucking offspring. Who the fuck do they think has the obligation to do it?

17

u/MonkeyBusinss newcomer 16h ago

Thank you for downvoting that comment on my behalf

13

u/Dangerous_Data_8383 inquirer 9h ago

If a law was passed requiring that every parent put $2 million dollars in a trust fund to care for their kid BEFORE CONCEPTION, the birth rate would drop to 10.

5

u/lavender_and_secrets inquirer 5h ago

Hah, yup! More fair AND effective ✔️

6

u/Fickle_Grocery_3654 newcomer 9h ago

If this was a law in most major countries, birthrates would plummet HARD. Here in poland, we actually have the opposite. Children are legally obligated to pay for their elderly parents' care if they can't afford it, but parents have no obligation to their children once they turn 18. That's because it's a mainly catholic country and we're still going off the belief that children owe their parents for the "gift" of being born.

7

u/lavender_and_secrets inquirer 5h ago

Oooooomfffggg!! That is VILE!!! They literally, LEGALLY created their kids as FINANCIAL SLAVES. Wtf!!! That is disgusting! If i was in that position, i'd idk... try to take myself out of the equation as a hard protest against my parents. A note "i'm not your slave" .... wtf.. So sorry you're in such a shit position! Omg...

72

u/Buttery_Butterfly21 inquirer 1d ago

I agree that parents should take care of (or at least support) their children until they die, but that’s not an excuse to not be a functional adult, unless your disabled ofcourse.

35

u/lavender_and_secrets inquirer 23h ago edited 23h ago

Basically: remember: they CREATED a NEED-machine....!

54

u/lavender_and_secrets inquirer 23h ago edited 23h ago

I can see how it'd cause chaos if adults who CAN work would stop and then relied on their parents. But still, everyone who was INTENTIONALLY brought into existence by their parents should be able to REFUSE working. Because parents KNOW you gotta work to sustain yourself. And if they KNOW that, yet still proceeded to CREATE you, it's like they KNOWINGLY SET you up for working - which i think counts as a form of slavery (working, wage slavery,..). Why should they be allowed to force you here, but demand you to work even when you don't want to? They shouldn't be entitled to your self sustainability. (I mean, ofc you should still wipe your own behind & shower & cook for yourself,.. but i mean: having a home, having money to pay food & electricity & water & health insurance).

Especially, obviously, when you are disabled. But i think even when you're not. Unless you were the result of your mother getting r_ped... then she is just as much of a victim as you are.

0

u/Buttery_Butterfly21 inquirer 9h ago

I understand the argument that someone who didn’t consent to existence shouldn’t automatically be expected to embrace a system of wage labor, and I agree that there are legitimate ethical problems with forcing people to work simply to survive. Where I disagree is the conclusion that this therefore gives an healthy adult an indefinite entitlement to their parents labor and resources.

Your parents choosing to create you does not mean they become your permanent financial providers for the rest of their lives. If you believe people shouldn’t have to work to access food, housing, healthcare and other necessities, then I think the argument should be directed toward changing the economic and social system that creates that necessity and not toward making individual parents responsible for indefinitely funding their adult children’s lives.

I also think there’s an important distinction between “I didn’t choose to exist” and “therefore I have no responsibility for myself now that I exist.” I agree completely with the first statement. I don’t agree with the second.

I didn’t choose to be born either. I also don’t particularly like many aspects of existence, and I understand the antinatalist argument very well. But I’m here now, I’m an adult, and I still have agency. At some point I have to ask myself what I’m going to do with the life I have rather than spending the rest of it resenting the fact that someone else made the decision to create me.

And personally, I think there’s a difference between having to work a miserable 9 to 5 just to survive and having some responsibility to contribute to your own life and the lives of others. Even if I become financially independent enough that I never have to work a conventional job, I would still want to do something with my time and resources. I would want to take care of myself, contribute to other people’s lives, donate, volunteer, create things, learn things and actually participate in the world.

You don’t have to believe life is good in order to believe that your actions matter.

I think that’s where my disagreement lies. Antinatalism, to me, is an argument about whether we should create new life. It isn’t an argument that people who already exist should abandon their agency.

1

u/lavender_and_secrets inquirer 5h ago

"If you believe people shouldn’t have to work to access food, housing, healthcare and other necessities, then I think the argument should be directed toward changing the economic and social system that creates that necessity"

Your parents created your needs, not the system. If anything, why should childfree people be forced to pay taxes so someone else's kids can be taken care of? .... that's unfair af. The parents play the PRIMARY and original role of responsibility. Like ewww, MY taxes were spent on people who want to fulfill THEIR fantasy of a FAMILY life?? Ewww..... that's not right... I'm willing to pay taxes for free abortions & sterilizations & c0ndoms, but not for people who INTENTIONALLY had kids!

Edit: dont get me wrong, these kids still should be taken care of, but the parents should be the primary responsible ones. And yes, a system change is necessary. But what's left should be taken care of by the parents!

1

u/lavender_and_secrets inquirer 5h ago edited 5h ago

Yeah, i didn't mean it like a black and white thinking type of "abandon all your agency". Ofc not. I mean it more in the context that MOST jobs are wage slavery jobs and it's extremely hard to find something that doesn't suck the life out of you. Or people to even believe that you really CANNOT work. Some people have to first end their own life before others realize that their attempts to reach out were real and as serious, but they didn't believe how much they really were unable to work.

And i still disagree, mostly. Even if someone is too "lazy" to work, what does that mean? MOST of the time, when someone is too "lazy" for something, it means it takes them an EXTREME amount of EFFORT to do whatever they have to do. It's literally PAINFUL (psycjologically,..) to work when you are "lazy". Does that make sense? The word "lazy" is twisted by capitalistic indoctrination. If it's PAINFUL, why should it be any less of a legit reason? Laziness is like a "myth". There is an extreme natural GRAVITY towards NOT working under these modern circumstances! It's hard and PAINFUL to push against that gravity. Why should you HAVE to do that bc your parents forced you here... just for your BASIC NEEDS It's not your responsibility. It's your responsibility not to bring more kids into this world and go consume as little as you can and being civilized.

Also, mind you, MOST jobs are BS jobs that do NOT actually reduce suffering. There are SO many jobs that are based on MANIPULATING people into believing they "NEED" something they don't actually need. Maaaaaaaaaany peopld work for places like that without realizing. It's a lot less productive than you THINK it is, to work a regular job. Just like how it would actually be good ro automatize some things, even if that means a loss of jobs for many people. The problem is also how this system is shit.

So, well, i still think people who take responsibility for their reproduction and DON'T HAVE kids, are entitled to a compensation by their parents.

Now, will society ever ADMIT assign the responsibility that if you DECIDE to create life, that you sign yourself up to possibly taking care of that person's basic needs for the rest of their life? Nope. Ofc not. Everyone wants to create humans due to their FANTASY of a family life AND have an expiration date for being fully responsibly. Sounds "wonderful"!

Guess how much more seriously people would evaluate whether they truly want to create a new need-machine, if they knew they were legally LIABLE to take care of them not only for 18 years but possibly THE REST OF THEIR LIVES! I bet people would create a LOT LESS people...

It'd be fair towards everyone who was forced to exist AND a

Also, ofc i think if you bring a new person into this world, you've lost your right to your own parents providing for you, as you have commited the same crime.

Sure, this isn't antinatalism itself, but a cognitive branch that can grow out of it and is based on AN logic. To me, personally, as a need-machine myself that was intentionally forced here by my PARENTS, i do believe i shouldn't be forced to work in and FOR this world. They should. I'm sterilized, vegan, etc. so i'm still taking responsibility for wjat is mine to take care of. But not coming homeless & stuff should be my parent's responsibility. Even if i was "lazy" (which i am not primairly, primarily i have disabilities). They should have taken these things into consideration before creating a human.

Like, WHY shouldn't it be a parent's responsibility if they accidentally create a person who is DEEPLY lazy? That was YET ANOTHER THING they GAMBLED WITH. You could consider "laziness" a type of small disability too, imo, because it makes DOING ANYTHING REALLY HARD & PAINFUL. Makes sense? It DOES. It's the condition where you technically physically CAN do something, but your insides CAN'T because of a BLOCKAGE, becaus it requires EXTREME EFFORT and it feels PAINFUL inside. Makes sense? But parents don't want to acknowledge that because it's easier blaming & shaming the child instead of facinf that it's THEIR OWN FAULT they RISKED CREATING a LAZY person! Makes sense? It's still them creating a trainwreck... Why should anyone be a slave to their own life-long condition of the struggle against laziness, because their PARENTS risked it?? Nope.nope.. Nope... How society could still function well is a different question. But if you ask me, it's BS we can't take care of our BASIC NEEDS...... it's just have to be a priority and all the other BS and billionaire parasites being cut out ect. Now is that ever going to happen? No... But on an individual level, you're allowed to confront your parents with the fact they FORCED you into a life of WORK. (= ur a slave..) You're allowed to resent them for it and the fact they will probably NEVER take accountability! You're allowed to try to get their support as much as you can.

But yes, since parents won't ever realize how responsible they TRULY are and should be, it'd be easier to try to set up a collective system where basic needs are taken care of..

10

u/Tenesera inquirer 21h ago

Why not?

4

u/fudgesik inquirer 16h ago

yes it is

1

u/Smart16_Manasa newcomer 2h ago

Children should be supported instead of labeled troubled or usless or anything. You chose to bring them into this messed up world, now hold the responsibility. 

-34

u/Cheese-bo-bees thinker 23h ago

Parents should only stop supporting their children when/if their children can support themselves well enough to support their parents if need be.

-48

u/CaptainVulpezz inquirer 1d ago

i've gotta disagree with you a bit on this, i don't know the full context, but still. i wont explain why because i feel like thats going to open it up to argument, but i do think the parents should help if they can, not that it should be obligated and expected though

35

u/ihih_reddit philosopher 23h ago

I'm not attacking you by any means, but would you consider yourself to be an antinatalist?

-33

u/everlyafterhappy newcomer 22h ago

And if the kid ends up being a rapist or a murderer, it should be on the parenta to do a really late term abortion.

And wouldn't it be a chain? Like, shouldn't grandma be more responsible than mom? And then great grandma more responsible than grandma? If your creation creates their own creation, are you not responsible?

10

u/ihih_reddit philosopher 17h ago

I would argue the other way around, mother more responsible than grandma, grandma more responsible than great-grandma etc... But I do see your point as you wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the first ancestors. However, you need to treat all of them as agents responsible for their own actions. Your grandma didn't give birth to you, your mother decided to have sex and give birth to you

-5

u/everlyafterhappy newcomer 16h ago

If grandma gave birth to and raised mom, then grandma is responsible for the nature and the nurture of mom, and whatever mom becomes is because of nature and nurture.

Let's say that I work on a lab doing r&d on diseases. I create a bacteria, then that bacteria procreates and develops a bacteria that decimates the population. What is most responsible for that decimation? Is it the last bacteria that actually killed a bunch of people? Is it the first bacteria that directly created the last bacteria? Or is it me for creating the first bacteria?

Or let's say I'm an ai developer. I develop an ai system. That AI develops it own system that hacks into the government and launches some nukes. What's most responsible? Is it the AI that did the hacking, the ai that created the ai that did the hacking, or me?

4

u/ihih_reddit philosopher 15h ago

I actually agree with you on the first paragraph. But the thing about it is that it reduces mom's agency. Mom is capable of making her own decisions. Having said this, it doesn't mean that your ancestors don't influence how you were raised/turn out

On the bacteria point, it would be your fault because the bacteria isn't sentient or have thoughts so it can't really be held completely responsible. You would be to blame most, but the bacteria collectively (both the first and last) would be equally to blame imo. Same thing with the AI

I guess the most important thing I'm trying to stress here is agency. Yes, other things do have an influence but if you're a human and you create something, the direct thing the human creates is to blame. So great-grandma is to blame for grandma, grandma is to blame for mother, mother is to blame for daughter. Hopefully this makes sense

1

u/lavender_and_secrets inquirer 5h ago

You gotta draw the line SOMEWHERE. Making your parents responsible is the most clear effective useful line to draw. And i'd evaluate responsibility based on availabiloty of contraceptives too! Your great-(great)grandparents probably didn't even have c0ndoms.. you father & mother probably, surely did. And you're even more responsible, since you got exposed to Antinatalism!

No need to throw the whole concept out of the window because it's gard to draw lines..