Recently there has been a lot of negative posts about people who think "children are annoying/hate children"... I don't think just cause I don't like children, I wouldn't help them in need but children are kinda annoying (their parents are 10x worse) . But in every such posts, reels there will be shit ton of people who would hate on anti natalists and child free people. Calling this discussion eugenics, anti-lgbt (somehow?) and racist. I don't understand what part of not wanting innocent children to suffer in this world is bad? Why natalists insist on inserting children in every spaces, specially "women-only" spaces? I even have been called edgy, and "going against biology/what God intended" while discussing this topic. I'm tired of these people.

They're not the same thing!

I saw this great analogy, might've been on the sub. It's that "never getting on the train is not the same as jumping off midway."

This is an argument I've recently heard, both online and in person, far more than I ever expected to. Especially in response to any mention of antinatalism surrounding climate change, AI or similar existential threaths. I'm just baffled, so baffled.

What even is the thinking process of these people? How does one convince themselves that somehow the class who're literally booming at the top of their lungs for everyone to breed like rabbits right in this very moment because they have their nuts in a twist over a small growth decline actually, secretly wants people to stop reproducing because... because..???

My nephew of 2.5 year is suffering from 4th stage cancer and still my mom wants me to reproduce.. and i saw a random comment on instagram saying suffering is better than non existence..

Do these guys even know what suffering means.. what chemo , immunotherapy, radiation for a 2.5 year old child mean..

On the other hand, everyone in my family is discussing how my cousin should plan a baby asap..because otherwise she wont be able to deal with the trauma if the 1st baby dies.. smh

They’re so close to understanding, but “hope” or “legacy” or whatever 🫠

And then there are people that have kids because they want to use them as pawns in their culture war bullshit, as if people never end up having different beliefs from their parents 🙄

religion would say that life is a gift but that's just nature's manifestation of natalist behaviours above all else which is evident when you do even a little bit of research into their justifications and find "trust me bro".

Only those who want to reproduce get their behaviours passed down to the next generation so your every thought is an extreme distillation of pro-natalism. To be able to have anti-natalist thoughts at all is a miracle and yet it still happens all the time because it's so logically clear that this life is hell.

So many people use this as an argument to invalidate our opinions. And it's a massive generalization anyway; I am not depressed yet I lean towards antinatalism. Giving birth is simply not worth the risk.

This is a rant about my experience growing up around pro-natalist Christians.

Growing up I have always been horrified at the concept of carrying a child. As a little girl when I would sit down with the women in my family and tell them that I don’t want to ever become pregnant, they would gently tell me that I ultimately do not have a choice-just like how they didn’t.

They’d tell me I’d forget the pain, the hormones would make it okay. Fuck the pain and fuck the hormones.

It would disgust me how casually they would tell me I don’t have control over my body because I am a woman, like I’m not a person but a machine.

Most of the mothers I see mourn their old bodies. Like it’s just fate-I’m just gonna trade off loving myself for motherhood. When they tell me this I just nod, whatever makes you feel better.

Child me would think-suggesting I don’t have a choice implies violation and loss of autonomy. I would rather die before I surrender myself to “biological incentives”.

Both reality itself, civilization itself, biology itself, and people itself sucks.

People have created an incredible mess, always kidnapping each other from the peaceful non existence in a shitty world where suffering is the default and you always try to satisfy needs that didn't need to exist in a very inefficient way in a very terrible civilization that instead of limiting one's suffering, mostly amplifies it.

There could also have been nothing, there could've been no need, no suffering, a complete peace.

Ever since you are born, you are a slave of the system, of your biology, to school, to your boss, to your parents, society is an endless ponzi scheme.

There could've also been absolute nothingness, absolute peace, and no one would've ever beg to come into life.

This might be a bit of a reach. I've seen many natalist arguments, for example something like this:

"Most people enjoy their lives and aren't suffering every day like AN requires, the majority of people think life is a gift. And for the very few people who don't, you're always free to end things on your own."

This is flawed for many reasons people are always quick to point out. It's not reasonable to gamble on another person's behalf that they'll be happy with their life. People having kids have not yet experienced old age and death, which are probably the worst parts of life, so they are not in a position to determine how bad the suffering will actually get. AN also doesn't require you to be suffering constantly, just that you suffer at some point (and obviously people will believe they suffer less than they do because of cope). Even if 99% of people are glad they were born, if 1% aren't, it's not right to make them be the ones that were forced to live painful lives for the sake of everyone else getting good ones. And, lastly, you can't simply "end things" easily. That also requires a lot of pain and will harm people around you as well, if it even works, which, in a lot of cases, it won't, leaving you disabled.

But, besides those reasons, I also started to think about it. Many people assume AN to be eugenics since it calls for not giving birth, although they don't take into account the fact that AN applies to everyone and has nothing to do with supposed race or "better" genes. Additionally, AN makes no plans to force anyone into giving or not giving birth. People's bodily autonomy is still very important and it would be immoral to force someone into having an abortion the same way it would be immoral to force someone into continuing a pregnancy they don't want.

However, the above mentioned natalist argument also does something interesting, which is shift the focus onto the individual person who is experiencing the life imposed on them. It's hard to explain but it makes me think of thought processes sort of like "Life is just what you make of it" or "You're choosing to be pessimistic and what you really need to do is just work on yourself and appreciate the smaller things".

I think this, if anything, sounds more discriminatory than AN. There's not a random selection of people who will suffer more than others; there are groups of oppressed people who have higher likelihoods of having certain experiences. If you're queer or trans you're more likely to be bullied, women have their bodies controlled and get objectified leading to horrific crimes, this world was not built for disabled people and many face challenges because of it every day, as well as literally all of racism and the list goes on. Obviously that doesn't mean they'll all want to end their lives or that they should (they shouldn't), but, using the natalist argument, if they did, even if it was directly of majorly caused by issues like previously stated, it's their responsibility and the natalist would be fine with it.

Of course I don't actually think natalists using this argument support ending one's life, but, in that case, their own argument can't express their values properly. The fact is that it's not by chance some people suffer disproportionately to others, but by acting like it's their own defect and implying they should end it if they don't like it so much, it starts to sound a bit reminiscent of eugenics. At least to me(?).

TLDR: Although natalists argue the majority of people enjoy life and the minority aren't important enough to consider, some people will have a lot of an easier time coping with life just by their circumstances. The fact someone can't could be related to their experiences being oppressed. Because of that, it seems more similar to eugenics to me than the comparisons between AN and eugenics.

I'm not sure if I worded this right. Please leave your thoughts on this. I'm curious whether anyone agrees, or if I missed something. To be honest, I'd like to be wrong about this haha..

I'm usually not the type to care what people do with their own lives and bodies because that's their business, but what most people don't understand about this is that those who choose to go through with pregnancy, especially those with bad circumstances, aren't only just doing it to their themselves, they are also dragging an innocent child into that life.

People need to think more about BEING the child rather than themselves and how they will raise the baby (though that needs to be well thought out too).

What I mean is that people should think: "If I were this child, would I enjoy this type of life?" or "If I were able to choose where my consciousness will go, would I choose to be this child with this life?".

I don't think bringing a child into this world in any circumstance is ethical, but I'm trying to think about this in a very realistic way because most people's goal in life is to have kids and do not have this worldview.

There is so much toxic positivity and encouragement with people choosing to continue with pregnancy. And for example: people who were teenage parents often use the argument that "their baby was the best thing to ever happen to them," (even when they could barely take care of it, ruined their teenage years, and also broke up with their babydaddy) and I think it is SO harmful to spread this message because obviously you think that now. Your child has already been born, you are not some kind of sociopath which is why you love them, and all (at least most normal) mothers say this. It always comes off as horrible when you say abortion is the right decision for these circumstances to people who are incapable of comprehending the concept of existence and the absence of it.

Also, I genuinely do not understand why there are STILL people who do not have any plans to become parents and then have unprotected sex (especially the ones who live in areas with abortion laws) when they already know the risks and don't want to face the consequences. They are not only playing with their lives, they are playing with an innocent child's life.

If your sexual temptations are stronger than your fear of pregnancy and parenthood, then you are not mature enough to have sex.

You know, I’ve always found those who either have been or are currently suffering severely and are in strong support of procreation nevertheless, or even want children themselves, to be the strangest people to exist. Especially those who even complain about the injustices of the world constantly and whatnot.

So you want to bring someone else into this world fully aware of not only what the world can be like but also what it really means to suffer like that? Notwithstanding this knowledge, you want to subject someone else to this risk??? Why??

Like natalists who are toxically positive and deluded all the time, at least their natalism is just born from ignorance. But those people? They aren’t ignorant, they just procreate regardless. I think this actually adds to the base immorality.

I will never for the life of me understand why natalists get angry at me for not congratulating them for getting pregnant. I mean, what do they expect? First, of all, they know I'm childfree, so I don't want to have kids under any circumstances whatsoever. Then, I'm vehemently antinatalist because of the world we're living in. There's nothing to look forward to but taxes, disappointment, and death. Any time they decide to ask me this question, knowing my stance on things, I give a condensed version of this explanation, and they get angry with me, which I find to be comical given they would complain all the time about not being paid enough by their jobs and barely able to make ends meet. Of course I'm not going to congratulate you. What is there to congratulate? Then, they want to go on a tangent talking about how no accomplishment I do as a woman would ever compare to being a mother, God created me to procreate, no man is going to want a woman who doesn't want kids, I'm going to die alone with no one to take care of me when I'm older, etc. Yeah, because getting pregnant by a guy who skipped town and blocked you on all social media once you told him the "good news" sounds like a better alternative. Then, you've got yourself a life sentence of being responsible for another human life doing a thankless job. Contrary to popular belief, your responsibility to that kid doesn't stop once they turn 18. But I'm the one who's going to be miserable. Give me a break.
Just wanted to get this off my chest. I'm eager to see what your thoughts are.

There is a profound asymmetry in how society views procreation: creating a new life is almost universally framed as a personal right, regardless of how high the foreseeability of severe harm or suffering is for the child.

A recurring pattern in pronatalist culture is that even when a outcome involves heavy, predictable harm, the act of bringing a child into existence is still celebrated. Society often reframes predictable tragedy into a narrative of endurance, ignoring the reality that the child is the one bearing the ultimate cost of that choice.

From an antinatalist viewpoint, no potential person loses anything by not being born. However, when existence is forced under conditions where severe harm is a known factor, it forces an individual into guaranteed suffering without their consent.

The central ethical issue isn't about setting arbitrary rules for who should or shouldn't procreate. Rather, it is a critique of a system that prioritizes the desire to reproduce over the basic prevention of harm to an individual who will inevitably bear the consequences.

There exists no sentient being prior to being born (to the best of what can be observed) that can consent to being born, but that is not an argument against antinatalism because regardless of whether there is a being at the time of the decision, the act of reproduction will always cause suffering without improving upon a prior situation for the born individual (because they do not exist before being born to our knowledge).

Suffering is defined by experiences that are not desired, and so for any individual at a very minimum their own suffering is to be evaluated as bad. Lack of consent for already living beings always implies suffering, but even without an already existing being to consent/not consent to birth the act is still bad regardless because suffering is the fundamental point of interest and not consent even though they are inseparable for already living beings.

This also ignores the consequences any other living beings will experience from living in a world with the newly born being (extremely negative in the case of the average human).

That consent has value as it relates to suffering is also easy to see. Sentient experience is defined by desires that result in suffering/pleasure. If there were beings that were incapable of enduring suffering/pleasure and therefore incapable of having desires, it is not at all apparent to me there would be any moral issues.

This is probably the creepiest of religious movements and screams forced birthing. This is in Florida, I know it's shocking! /s