Venting I despise parents refusal to take accountability for the harm they cause.

[Darkover]

If they bring a child here knowing horrible acts of violence may be forced upon them and it actually happens then it's always of course 100% the abuser's fault and the parent is innocent. Yet anyone would recognize if you pick up a child and throw them into the lion's den in the zoo then that's evil but birthing a child knowing what exists in this world is literally the exact same.

many parents refuse to take responsibility for the suffering they expose their children to, and society tends to excuse them by focusing only on the direct perpetrators of harm. Yet, as i pointed out, if someone knowingly places a child in extreme danger, they would be seen as culpable.

the difference seems to be that society normalizes birth, treating it as a neutral or even positive act, despite the inherent risks. Parents often justify it by saying, "I didn't know this would happen" or "I hoped for the best," but that doesn't change the reality that they made a choice on behalf of someone who had no say in it.

it's frustrating because accountability is so selective. Parents want credit for their children's successes but distance themselves from their children's suffering, as if their role was only passive. it's easier for them to say, "Life is just like that," instead of admitting they played a part in exposing their child to pain.

 

[davidtorez]

If a couple get told by their doctor that their prospective child will have an incurable disease due to some genetic defect of some sort that will impact the child's life , would it be moral to still have that child? Most people's intuition would agree that it would be immoral to bring that child into existence. But when we bring children into existence without this information given by a doctor people think its ok to procreate . I find this absurd. If you calculate all the diseases etc that happen to people at any point in their lives statistically speaking the child /person will definitely get a serious disease at some point . Cancer is almost a 30% rate in some countries , in Australia 60% of people get skin cancer for example. Then you have diabetes, joint problems , mental health problems , this is not including the things that can be done by external factors such as murder rape etc. The safest and most moral choice i see is to not procreate. Prevention is better than cure after all ?

 

[Unspoken7612]

Parents simply aren't accountable for every bad thing that happens to their children, in the same way that they don't deserve credit for every good thing that happens to their children.

It is fairly obvious that birth is generally a positive event. Most humans value their lives and are glad they were born. This even applies to most people with birth defects. Frankly it's shocking to see people say that it's immoral to give birth to disabled people. Life is a good thing, and we should encourage people to have as many children as they want to.

Blaming your parents for every piece of pain you experience, for no other reason than "they conceived me and life sucks", is the mindset of a thirteen-year-old. It isn't rational or fair. Guess what, you have the power to improve your life. Take some responsibility for yourself rather than constantly trying to pass blame onto other people.

And yeah, people eventually die. That sucks. That doesn't mean it's better to never be alive at all.

 

[Darkover]

Parents simply aren't accountable for every bad thing that happens to their children, in the same way that they don't deserve credit for every good thing that happens to their children.

It is fairly obvious that birth is generally a positive event. Most humans value their lives and are glad they were born. This even applies to most people with birth defects. Frankly it's shocking to see people say that it's immoral to give birth to disabled people. Life is a good thing, and we should encourage people to have as many children as they want to.

Blaming your parents for every piece of pain you experience, for no other reason than "they conceived me and life sucks", is the mindset of a thirteen-year-old. It isn't rational or fair. Guess what, you have the power to improve your life. Take some responsibility for yourself rather than constantly trying to pass blame onto other people.

And yeah, people eventually die. That sucks. That doesn't mean it's better to never be alive at all.

This argument completely ignores the fact that birth is a forced event. The whole "most people are glad they were born" stance doesn't actually justify anything—it's just a majority opinion, not a moral argument. Plenty of people aren't glad they were born, and their suffering is real, so why should a majority's feelings override the reality of those who suffer?

And acting like life is objectively good is just wishful thinking. People say, "You can improve your life!" as if suffering is always within someone's control. But what about those born into extreme poverty, war zones, or with incurable illnesses? What about the people who try to improve their lives but fail because of circumstances beyond their control? Pretending suffering is just a personal failure is naïve at best and cruel at worst.

If parents want credit for the good things in their child's life, then they should also take responsibility for the bad. You can't say, "Parents aren't accountable for their child's suffering" while also celebrating them for bringing life into the world. You don't get to claim credit for the good while shrugging off the bad. Life isn't some guaranteed gift—it's a gamble, and the ones rolling the dice aren't the ones who have to live with the consequences.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Parents simply aren't accountable for every bad thing that happens to their children, in the same way that they don't deserve credit for every good thing that happens to their children.

It is fairly obvious that birth is generally a positive event. Most humans value their lives and are glad they were born. This even applies to most people with birth defects. Frankly it's shocking to see people say that it's immoral to give birth to disabled people. Life is a good thing, and we should encourage people to have as many children as they want to.

Blaming your parents for every piece of pain you experience, for no other reason than "they conceived me and life sucks", is the mindset of a thirteen-year-old. It isn't rational or fair. Guess what, you have the power to improve your life. Take some responsibility for yourself rather than constantly trying to pass blame onto other people.

And yeah, people eventually die. That sucks. That doesn't mean it's better to never be alive at all.

Except, it is better to have never been alive in the first place. You can't suffer if you never existed in the first place. I feel like giving birth is only seen as a positive event because we are taught that it is rather than encouraged to think about the ramifications of it more critically. When you decide to procreate, you are making one of the most selfish decisions out there and risking the potential suffering of another for the sake of your own wants.

To add insult to injury, children are generally treated like trash. The same people who gave birth to you also end up being the same people to dehumanize you and treat you as lesser than you. Most parents will talk down to you the minute you mention treating children with basic respect and actually trying to talk to them. So now, not only are you forced into the world but now you also have to put up with a world and with parents who essentially view you more like a thing rather than a person. As a result, most people are traumatized in at least some capacity by their parents.

I would go as far as to blame parents for the bad experiences that every person had gone through because this all could have been avoided if they had decided to not act so selfishly. Hell, they are usually responsible for part of those negative experiences that most people go through because of the standards for parenting being so low.

People want children because they don't view them as humans who are capable of suffering. They view them as toys they can play around with and project their bullshit onto.

It's easy to spend your time talking about responsibility but you can take responsibility while also acknowledging the role your parents played in all of this. Why is it only we have to take responsibility but the ones who created us in the first place don't?

I don't like being alive yet I'm expected to stay alive just because of the desires of my parents. I'm not a person in their eyes, I am a piece of property. I'm honestly sick of hearing bullshit about taking "responsibility" when I never wanted to be alive to begin with and I'm only stuck here because of them and their selfish actions. It's not like I don't even love them or anything, but I should be allowed to hold a bit of resentment towards them for this. I have no respect for people who decide to have children, let alone for those who work to defend the selfish and heartless actions of others.

Just look at your post. The entire thing hinges on the feelings of the parents but not on the well-being of the offspring. "We should encourage people to have as many kids as they want to"? Okay, cool. Let's ignore the many cases of people who have talked about having a lot of siblings and it screwing up their childhood and leading to them being parentified. Let's ignore how shit like this generally tends to impact children negatively because it makes the parents happy.

Life isn't good. It isn't bad either. Life is in itself neutral, however, life does tend to come with suffering. That is a near guarantee for everyone. If preventing more suffering is as simple as not giving birth then I don't see what is wrong here.

 

[Unspoken7612]

This argument completely ignores the fact that birth is a forced event. The whole "most people are glad they were born" stance doesn't actually justify anything—it's just a majority opinion, not a moral argument. Plenty of people aren't glad they were born, and their suffering is real, so why should a majority's feelings override the reality of those who suffer?

Nonsense. Why should your feelings override everyone else's? The world doesn't revolve around you. You don't get to tell everyone else that they're wrong for being glad that they're alive. You can choose for yourself whether you want to live, you don't get to say "actually it's wrong to conceive in the first place".

And acting like life is objectively good is just wishful thinking.

Well, it is.
That doesn't mean you have to value your own life, but you do have to value everyone else's.

People say, "You can improve your life!" as if suffering is always within someone's control. But what about those born into extreme poverty, war zones, or with incurable illnesses? What about the people who try to improve their lives but fail because of circumstances beyond their control? Pretending suffering is just a personal failure is naïve at best and cruel at worst.

Most of those people do, in fact, enjoy their lives.

It's really bizarre to make all these excuses for why individuals aren't responsible for their suffering, without also extending the same to parents. Either you believe in personal responsibility or you don't.

If a parent has been a bad parent, then yes, they deserve criticism. One of my parents was evil and abusive. But it's obviously laughable to claim that birth is inherently negative and irresponsible.

If parents want credit for the good things in their child's life, then they should also take responsibility for the bad. You can't say, "Parents aren't accountable for their child's suffering" while also celebrating them for bringing life into the world. You don't get to claim credit for the good while shrugging off the bad. Life isn't some guaranteed gift—it's a gamble, and the ones rolling the dice aren't the ones who have to live with the consequences.

You get both credit and responsibility for the things you are directly responsible for.

Parents are directly responsible for their children being alive in the first place, so that's a point in their favour; being born is preferable to not being born, as almost every is glad they're alive; being alive gives you the option to choose whether to live, whereas people who are never born do not have that option. When they make mistakes, they're responsible for the suffering that arises. They are not responsible for things that are not inevitable consequences of their actions, regardless of whether those are positive or negative.

If you actually think birth is a negative thing, or a gamble, then four years on SaSu has warped your mind. Get out of this hellhole and engage with people in the real world. If nothing else, the logical conclusion of antinatalism is promortalism; as you haven't killed yourself despite years on a pro-suicide website that gives clear instructions on multiple reliable and accessible methods of suicide, there seems to be a degree of contradiction there.

 

[Darkover]

Nonsense. Why should your feelings override everyone else's? The world doesn't revolve around you. You don't get to tell everyone else that they're wrong for being glad that they're alive. You can choose for yourself whether you want to live, you don't get to say "actually it's wrong to conceive in the first place".

it's not about overriding anyone's feelings—it's about acknowledging that forced existence comes with risks, and those risks should be taken seriously. No one is saying that people who are happy to be alive are wrong for feeling that way. The point is that some people don't feel that way, and their suffering is entirely preventable. If avoiding unnecessary suffering is possible, why wouldn't we prioritize that?

And no, you don't always get to "choose for yourself whether you want to live." Many people are trapped in circumstances where leaving isn't an option—whether due to legal restrictions, survival instincts, or the immense difficulty of carrying out that decision. Saying "just choose" ignores the reality of those who suffer but can't escape it.

No one consents to being born. No one is given a choice in the matter. That alone makes it completely reasonable to question whether procreation is an ethical act. It's not about controlling what others do—it's about asking people to think critically instead of acting purely on instinct or social conditioning.

Well, it is.
That doesn't mean you have to value your own life, but you do have to value everyone else's.

Why should anyone be required to value everyone else's life when no one was required to value theirs before forcing them into existence? Respecting people's right to live is one thing, but demanding that everyone value life as an absolute good ignores the reality that life is filled with suffering, and not everyone experiences it the same way.

If someone finds life unbearable, why should they be obligated to pretend otherwise just because others find it worthwhile? That's just prioritizing the majority's comfort over the minority's suffering. Real respect means acknowledging that some people genuinely wish they were never born and recognizing that their perspective is just as valid as anyone else's.

Most of those people do, in fact, enjoy their lives.

It's really bizarre to make all these excuses for why individuals aren't responsible for their suffering, without also extending the same to parents. Either you believe in personal responsibility or you don't.

If a parent has been a bad parent, then yes, they deserve criticism. One of my parents was evil and abusive. But it's obviously laughable to claim that birth is inherently negative and irresponsible.

The issue isn't about denying personal responsibility—it's about recognizing that some suffering is beyond anyone's control. Yes, individuals can take responsibility for certain aspects of their lives, but they can't be responsible for the fact that they were put into existence in the first place. That decision was made for them, without their consent, by parents who chose to create life despite the risks.

The difference is that parents are making a choice that affects another person permanently. The person being born is not making a choice at all. If a decision carries the potential for extreme suffering, and the person affected has no say in it, then the decision-maker should be held accountable.

It's not about claiming birth is always negative. It's about acknowledging that the risks of suffering are real, unavoidable, and sometimes catastrophic. If someone values life, that's fine—but that doesn't justify forcing it onto someone else, knowing that suffering is part of the deal.

You get both credit and responsibility for the things you are directly responsible for.

Parents are directly responsible for their children being alive in the first place, so that's a point in their favour; being born is preferable to not being born, as almost every is glad they're alive; being alive gives you the option to choose whether to live, whereas people who are never born do not have that option. When they make mistakes, they're responsible for the suffering that arises. They are not responsible for things that are not inevitable consequences of their actions, regardless of whether those are positive or negative.

If you actually think birth is a negative thing, or a gamble, then four years on SaSu has warped your mind. Get out of this hellhole and engage with people in the real world. If nothing else, the logical conclusion of antinatalism is promortalism; as you haven't killed yourself despite years on a pro-suicide website that gives clear instructions on multiple reliable and accessible methods of suicide, there seems to be a degree of contradiction there.

This argument still assumes that being born is inherently good, but that's a biased perspective based on majority opinion, not objective fact. Just because most people claim to be glad they were born doesn't mean that birth is universally preferable to nonexistence. The ones who aren't glad they were born matter just as much, and their suffering is real. Dismissing them as statistical outliers ignores the core issue: birth is a forced risk, and someone will inevitably lose that gamble.

Also, the idea that life is "good because you can choose to die" is flawed. Existence isn't a neutral state—it's an imposed condition that comes with suffering. Nonexistence doesn't need options because there's no suffering to escape from in the first place.

And bringing up suicide as a counterpoint is not only callous but also completely misses the argument. People can be deeply miserable and still hesitate to die because of survival instincts, fear of pain, or lack of an easy way out. That doesn't mean their lives are worth living—it just means nature has rigged the game to keep people from checking out too easily.

So no, rejecting antinatalism doesn't prove anything except that people are attached to the status quo. Just because most people accept life doesn't mean it's a gift worth giving.

 

[grapevoid]

I think this view point is hypocrisy. The view that parents knowingly brought kids to the world to suffer assumes they experience life the same way you do. Which is exactly what you're upset with the parents for… assuming their child will experience life the same way they have, and be happy to have lived. That's just a pretty cut and dry fact of this overall view of procreation.

That being said, if I knew when I had children what I know now would I have had children? Absolutely not. But I was young and naive and believed the world gets better. I don't regret having children either, really. My kids are almost adults and none of them are unhappy. I think they'll lead normal happy successful lives. I devoted my entire life to protecting my children from trauma and being the parent they needed to not experience undue suffering. None the less, you can't change the world so they're bound to experience hard times.

In either belief the reality is no one experiences the world the exact same way. I believe my parents also believed I would experience the world the same way THEY do which is why my dad not only procreated but encouraged me to. We only know what we know.

I have a hard time believing that "most" parents (most because some people are just not good people parents or not) would bring a child into the world if they KNEW they would suffer and hate being alive. As previously stated, if I knew then what I know now I wouldn't have taken that risk. And like the other message in this thread pointed out, if you knew your child would have a serious issue you'd probably terminate the pregnancy.

Though I have some serious moral conflict and would love to hear the reasoning behind prolife beliefs that there is no good reason to end a pregnancy. Does an argument even exist besides "life is precious" because idk… is it? My younger brother committed suicide at age 24 and it was excruciatingly painful to lose him but even I can admit my pain came from a selfish place, of wanting him here for me, that he knew what was best for him, and even though it hurt, I'm also happy that he no longer suffers. Life and death are very multifaceted and complicated. Just something to ponder I suppose.

Anyway, before blaming your parents- consider the way they experience life. They may not know any better. I'm sure my dad still believes he did us all a favor and can't begin to understand my brothers death outside of "he was ill" and he's a good dad. May not be the case for your parents of course. Maybe they knew and did it anyway, or maybe, like you, they assumed everyone would experience life the same way they do.

 

[Unspoken7612]

Except, it is better to have never been alive in the first place. You can't suffer if you never existed in the first place. I feel like giving birth is only seen as a positive event because we are taught that it is rather than encouraged to think about the ramifications of it more critically. When you decide to procreate, you are making one of the most selfish decisions out there and risking the potential suffering of another for the sake of your own wants.

Nonsense. Please think about this for a second. Not only can you not suffer if you are not born, but you also can't benefit. As most people believe their lives are worth living, clearly any utilitarian should support childbirth. There is no rational basis to antinatalism - it is a position which falls apart the second one thinks about it critically at all.

To add insult to injury, children are generally treated like trash. The same people who gave birth to you also end up being the same people to dehumanize you and treat you as lesser than you. Most parents will talk down to you the minute you mention treating children with basic respect and actually trying to talk to them. So now, not only are you forced into the world but now you also have to put up with a world and with parents who essentially view you more like a thing rather than a person. As a result, most people are traumatized in at least some capacity by their parents.[...] People want children because they don't view them as humans who are capable of suffering. They view them as toys they can play around with and project their bullshit onto.

While bad parents are an issue, I'm not sure your characterisation of most parents as bad parents is evidence-based.

It's easy to spend your time talking about responsibility but you can take responsibility while also acknowledging the role your parents played in all of this. Why is it only we have to take responsibility but the ones who created us in the first place don't?

It's fair to ask your parents to take responsibility for bad parenting. It isn't fair to ask them to take responsibility for conceiving you. (Similarly, it would be unfair to say that you should "accept responsibility" for reasonable actions you took that just didn't work out for unforeseeable reasons)

I don't like being alive yet I'm expected to stay alive just because of the desires of my parents. I'm not a person in their eyes, I am a piece of property. I'm honestly sick of hearing bullshit about taking "responsibility" when I never wanted to be alive to begin with and I'm only stuck here because of them and their selfish actions. It's not like I don't even love them or anything, but I should be allowed to hold a bit of resentment towards them for this. I have no respect for people who decide to have children, let alone for those who work to defend the selfish and heartless actions of others.

If you're not an adult then you shouldn't be posting here.
If you are an adult then you can choose to die.
As you haven't chosen to die, economists would call that a "revealed preference".

Just look at your post. The entire thing hinges on the feelings of the parents but not on the well-being of the offspring. "We should encourage people to have as many kids as they want to"?

This is a bizarre reading of my post, which actually said that more people existing is good because people value their own existence, not because parents value their children's existences.

I don't, however, think it would be moral to force people to have more children than they want to. Personal autonomy trumps the rights of hypothetical people. Yes, ideally there would be billions more people, but not at the cost of freedom of those who actually exist. Real people are more important than hypothetical people.

Life isn't good. It isn't bad either. Life is in itself neutral, however, life does tend to come with suffering. That is a near guarantee for everyone. If preventing more suffering is as simple as not giving birth then I don't see what is wrong here.

A monomaniacal focus on "preventing suffering" is evil, to be frank. For instance, look at programs of euthanasia of the disabled without their consent. You can't disregard the majority of human existence and still make more decisions. You don't get to decide that other people's lives are not worth living. If someone is born and decides that they don't want to be alive, then that's fine, it is their decision. People should be free to weigh up life's positives and negatives for themselves. Choosing on their behalf is evil. Every person who hasn't had the opportunity to decide for themselves is a minor tragedy.

 

[Darkover]

I think this view point is hypocrisy. The view that parents knowingly brought kids to the world to suffer assumes they experience life the same way you do. Which is exactly what you're upset with the parents for… assuming their child will experience life the same way they have, and be happy to have lived. That's just a pretty cut and dry fact of this overall view of procreation.

That being said, if I knew when I had children what I know now would I have had children? Absolutely not. But I was young and naive and believed the world gets better. I don't regret having children either, really. My kids are almost adults and none of them are unhappy. I think they'll lead normal happy successful lives. I devoted my entire life to protecting my children from trauma and being the parent they needed to not experience undue suffering. None the less, you can't change the world so they're bound to experience hard times.

In either belief the reality is no one experiences the world the exact same way. I believe my parents also believed I would experience the world the same way THEY do which is why my dad not only procreated but encouraged me to. We only know what we know.

I have a hard time believing that "most" parents (most because some people are just not good people parents or not) would bring a child into the world if they KNEW they would suffer and hate being alive. As previously stated, if I knew then what I know now I wouldn't have taken that risk. And like the other message in this thread pointed out, if you knew your child would have a serious issue you'd probably terminate the pregnancy.

Though I have some serious moral conflict and would love to hear the reasoning behind prolife beliefs that there is no good reason to end a pregnancy. Does an argument even exist besides "life is precious" because idk… is it? My younger brother committed suicide at age 24 and it was excruciatingly painful to lose him but even I can admit my pain came from a selfish place, of wanting him here for me, that he knew what was best for him, and even though it hurt, I'm also happy that he no longer suffers. Life and death are very multifaceted and complicated. Just something to ponder I suppose.

Anyway, before blaming your parents- consider the way they experience life. They may not know any better. I'm sure my dad still believes he did us all a favor and can't begin to understand my brothers death outside of "he was ill" and he's a good dad. May not be the case for your parents of course. Maybe they knew and did it anyway, or maybe, like you, they assumed everyone would experience life the same way they do.

You make some fair points, especially about how people only know what they know at the time. Many parents don't intentionally bring a child into the world knowing they'll suffer—it's more that they assume their child will experience life as they do or as they hope they will. But that's precisely the problem: procreation is a gamble, and parents make that bet on behalf of someone else.

If someone wouldn't roll a die where a bad outcome means lifelong suffering, why is it okay to roll that die when the stakes are someone else's entire existence? Even if most people turn out relatively okay, the fact remains that some don't, and those who suffer have no way to undo their existence.

I also think your reflection on your brother's suicide is really thoughtful. The pain of losing someone is real, but so is the pain of being alive when you no longer want to be. That's why I think discussions on life and death should acknowledge suffering honestly, rather than just defaulting to "life is precious" without considering for whom and under what conditions.

 

[davidtorez]

Nonsense. Please think about this for a second. Not only can you not suffer if you are not born, but you also can't benefit. As most people believe their lives are worth living, clearly any utilitarian should support childbirth. There is no rational basis to antinatalism - it is a position which falls apart the second one thinks about it critically at all.

While bad parents are an issue, I'm not sure your characterisation of most parents as bad parents is evidence-based.

It's fair to ask your parents to take responsibility for bad parenting. It isn't fair to ask them to take responsibility for conceiving you. (Similarly, it would be unfair to say that you should "accept responsibility" for reasonable actions you took that just didn't work out for unforeseeable reasons)

If you're not an adult then you shouldn't be posting here.
If you are an adult then you can choose to die.
As you haven't chosen to die, economists would call that a "revealed preference".

This is a bizarre reading of my post, which actually said that more people existing is good because people value their own existence, not because parents value their children's existences.

I don't, however, think it would be moral to force people to have more children than they want to. Personal autonomy trumps the rights of hypothetical people. Yes, ideally there would be billions more people, but not at the cost of freedom of those who actually exist. Real people are more important than hypothetical people.


A monomaniacal focus on "preventing suffering" is evil, to be frank. For instance, look at programs of euthanasia of the disabled without their consent. You can't disregard the majority of human existence and still make more decisions. You don't get to decide that other people's lives are not worth living. If someone is born and decides that they don't want to be alive, then that's fine, it is their decision. People should be free to weigh up life's positives and negatives for themselves. Choosing on their behalf is evil. Every person who hasn't had the opportunity to decide for themselves is a minor tragedy.

Most of your objections are dealt with in the books written by David Benatar "Better to have never been " and "The Human Predicament ". They're not new objections.

 

[SilentSadness]

Blaming your parents for every piece of pain you experience, for no other reason than "they conceived me and life sucks", is the mindset of a thirteen-year-old. It isn't rational or fair. Guess what, you have the power to improve your life. Take some responsibility for yourself rather than constantly trying to pass blame onto other people.

"Take some responsibility for yourself rather than passing blame onto other people"? So what are you doing, hmm? Was it the child's responsibility that their parents bred them? No, not everyone has "the power to improve their life". This reads like a pro-life platitude.

It is fairly obvious that birth is generally a positive event. Most humans value their lives and are glad they were born. This even applies to most people with birth defects. Frankly it's shocking to see people say that it's immoral to give birth to disabled people. Life is a good thing, and we should encourage people to have as many children as they want to.

It's unsurprising if most people are glad they are born, due to natural selection, but that doesn't change much. It's wrong to gamble with someone's life even if you win. And how can you say that birth is generally a positive event when most babies cry the moment they are born.

Parents simply aren't accountable for every bad thing that happens to their children, in the same way that they don't deserve credit for every good thing that happens to their children.

Parents might not be personally responsible for the bad things that happen, but they are irresponsible for ignoring the risks. This is misunderstanding the original poster's point.

If you actually think birth is a negative thing, or a gamble, then four years on SaSu has warped your mind. Get out of this hellhole and engage with people in the real world. If nothing else, the logical conclusion of antinatalism is promortalism; as you haven't killed yourself despite years on a pro-suicide website that gives clear instructions on multiple reliable and accessible methods of suicide, there seems to be a degree of contradiction there.

Bwahahaha. This is just a pro life argument at this point. If you haven't killed yourself yet then you want to live? Are you serious?

It's fair to ask your parents to take responsibility for bad parenting. It isn't fair to ask them to take responsibility for conceiving you. (Similarly, it would be unfair to say that you should "accept responsibility" for reasonable actions you took that just didn't work out for unforeseeable reasons)

So they didn't conceive me. That's good to know. I will go on an adventure to find the people that really conceived me and hold them accountable.

 

[Darkover]

David Benatar's The Human Predicament expands on his earlier arguments from Better Never to Have Been, but with a broader focus on the challenges of human existence rather than just antinatalism. In this book, he lays out a deeply pessimistic but rational view of life, covering suffering, death, and the meaning (or lack thereof) of existence.

Benatar argues that suffering is an inevitable part of life. Even in the best circumstances, we experience pain, disappointment, illness, aging, and ultimately death. He sees life as fundamentally flawed because suffering is guaranteed, while pleasure is neither sufficient nor lasting enough to justify existence.

He acknowledges that most people fear death, but he argues that dying is also the only true escape from suffering. The fact that we will all die makes life absurd, but the alternative—immortality—wouldn't necessarily be better because it would only prolong suffering indefinitely.

While people often search for meaning in religion, relationships, achievements, or personal growth, Benatar believes these are ultimately distractions from the grim reality of existence. He argues that humans construct meaning to cope with the harshness of life, but no objective meaning exists.

Benatar discusses how humans are naturally biased toward optimism. Most people think their lives are better than they actually are, and they underestimate how much suffering they endure. He calls this self-deception the "Pollyanna Principle"—a cognitive bias that makes people view life more positively than it truly is.

Building on his antinatalist arguments, Benatar suggests that if we had the choice before birth, knowing all the suffering we would endure, we would likely choose non-existence. Since we cannot obtain consent before bringing someone into the world, procreation is a morally problematic act.

Benatar does not advocate for suicide, but he acknowledges that in some cases, people may rationally choose it as a way to end unbearable suffering. However, he also recognizes that most people, despite their suffering, continue living due to fear, hope, or societal pressure.

The book ultimately argues that human existence is a tragic predicament. While life is not always unbearable, it is inherently flawed, and most people live in denial about how much suffering it contains. The rational response, he suggests, is to acknowledge this reality rather than cling to comforting illusions.

 

[GuppyBoyo]

I don't think people should not be denied the right to give birth, but it should come with the obligation of providing the means to effective suicide
if you drag somebody somewhere you should be forced to drive them back if they don't wanna stay

 

[Unspoken7612]

it's not about overriding anyone's feelings—it's about acknowledging that forced existence comes with risks, and those risks should be taken seriously. No one is saying that people who are happy to be alive are wrong for feeling that way. The point is that some people don't feel that way, and their suffering is entirely preventable. If avoiding unnecessary suffering is possible, why wouldn't we prioritize that?

As said in my other post, prioritising "avoiding suffering" over all other considerations, like maximising pleasure or maximising autonomy, results in evil outcomes.

Those of us who are pro-choice, rather than pro-death, prioritise allowing people to make their own decisions. Denying them existence means that they can't make those decisions.

And no, you don't always get to "choose for yourself whether you want to live." Many people are trapped in circumstances where leaving isn't an option—whether due to legal restrictions, survival instincts, or the immense difficulty of carrying out that decision. Saying "just choose" ignores the reality of those who suffer but can't escape it.

It isn't hard to kill yourself.

No one consents to being born. No one is given a choice in the matter. That alone makes it completely reasonable to question whether procreation is an ethical act. It's not about controlling what others do—it's about asking people to think critically instead of acting purely on instinct or social conditioning.

It's incoherent to talk about "consenting to being born", because the unborn don't exist, and therefore aren't having their consent violated when they're born. It also logically necessitates that every potential person should be given a choice about whether they should exist, and that all of those people who would have enjoyed being alive but never got the chance should be viewed as tragically as those who were born and wished they weren't.

Why should anyone be required to value everyone else's life when no one was required to value theirs before forcing them into existence? Respecting people's right to live is one thing, but demanding that everyone value life as an absolute good ignores the reality that life is filled with suffering, and not everyone experiences it the same way.

This is incoherent.

If someone finds life unbearable, why should they be obligated to pretend otherwise just because others find it worthwhile? That's just prioritizing the majority's comfort over the minority's suffering. Real respect means acknowledging that some people genuinely wish they were never born and recognizing that their perspective is just as valid as anyone else's.

This has no bearing on the conversation at hand. It hasn't been suggested that anyone should pretend they find life bearable.

The issue isn't about denying personal responsibility—it's about recognizing that some suffering is beyond anyone's control. Yes, individuals can take responsibility for certain aspects of their lives, but they can't be responsible for the fact that they were put into existence in the first place. That decision was made for them, without their consent, by parents who chose to create life despite the risks.

The idea that anyone should be "responsible" for existence presupposes that existence is negative. That's not a rational position.

If a decision carries the potential for extreme suffering, and the person affected has no say in it, then the decision-maker should be held accountable.

That's not reasonable.

It's not about claiming birth is always negative. It's about acknowledging that the risks of suffering are real, unavoidable, and sometimes catastrophic. If someone values life, that's fine—but that doesn't justify forcing it onto someone else, knowing that suffering is part of the deal.

This is an argument in favour of access to suicide, it is not an argument against life.

This argument still assumes that being born is inherently good, but that's a biased perspective based on majority opinion, not objective fact. Just because most people claim to be glad they were born doesn't mean that birth is universally preferable to nonexistence. The ones who aren't glad they were born matter just as much, and their suffering is real. Dismissing them as statistical outliers ignores the core issue: birth is a forced risk, and someone will inevitably lose that gamble.

I don't think the sort of mental illness we suffer is inevitable. I don't think it makes sense for our suffering to be prioritised over the lives of other people.

Also, the idea that life is "good because you can choose to die" is flawed. Existence isn't a neutral state—it's an imposed condition that comes with suffering. Nonexistence doesn't need options because there's no suffering to escape from in the first place.

Nonsense. This isn't a remotely rational position. Please try to think critically about this topic. This sort of reflexive pessimism might work on a subset of severely depressed people who have had their reasoning impaired by the fog of their mental illness, but it isn't actually a rational, intelligent position that could convince anyone else.

It is transparently stupid and immoral to ignore the advantages of existence, like autonomy and pleasure.

The reason most people disagree with you on this issue isn't because they're stupid and not able to think critically, it's because you're wrong and not thinking clearly. You can't coherently claim to care about consent while also being anti-natalist, because being anti-natalist inherently strips people of their right to consent. The reason we care about consent is because we value human autonomy, and anti-natalism advocates for the removal of autonomy in exchange for forced non-existence. As a pro-choice person, while I accept that total autonomy is impossible, I also want to maximise it as much as possible - that means giving people the choice about whether to keep living or not.

And bringing up suicide as a counterpoint is not only callous but also completely misses the argument. People can be deeply miserable and still hesitate to die because of survival instincts, fear of pain, or lack of an easy way out. That doesn't mean their lives are worth living—it just means nature has rigged the game to keep people from checking out too easily.

You can't separate people from nature, or their survival instincts, or their fear of a few seconds of pain. If people decide that they'd rather stay alive than endure a few seconds of pain, they've made the choice that their life is worth living.

 

[tiredoflife2]

People don't tend to think that deeply before they have children. Also, not everyone believes that life is negative. Some people enjoy their lives. I know when I was younger, life was better and it never occured to me that I was doing a bad thing by bringing a child into this world.

It's only as I've got older and since society has declined that I've now realised the issues that you talk about. But not everyone lives in a depressive state of mind so they can't put themselves into that depressive mind set. They will still see the goodness in life.

 

[grapevoid]

You can't separate people from nature, or their survival instincts, or their fear of a few seconds of pain. If people decide that they'd rather stay alive than endure a few seconds of pain, they've made the choice that their life is worth living.

This.

 

[Unspoken7612]

Most of your objections are dealt with in the books written by David Benatar "Better to have never been " and "The Human Predicament ". They're not new objections.

Benatar is a laughing stock whose arguments don't stack up very well.

I'd recommend Elizabeth Harman's critical review of Better to Never Have Been for a thorough debunking. https://www.princeton.edu/~eharman/Benatar.pdf <- unsure if this link will work, if not, you can find it on Google fairly easily. I also think Rivka Weinburg's work is much more rigorous.

 

[grapevoid]

You make some fair points, especially about how people only know what they know at the time. Many parents don't intentionally bring a child into the world knowing they'll suffer—it's more that they assume their child will experience life as they do or as they hope they will. But that's precisely the problem: procreation is a gamble, and parents make that bet on behalf of someone else.

If someone wouldn't roll a die where a bad outcome means lifelong suffering, why is it okay to roll that die when the stakes are someone else's entire existence? Even if most people turn out relatively okay, the fact remains that some don't, and those who suffer have no way to undo their existence.

I also think your reflection on your brother's suicide is really thoughtful. The pain of losing someone is real, but so is the pain of being alive when you no longer want to be. That's why I think discussions on life and death should acknowledge suffering honestly, rather than just defaulting to "life is precious" without considering for whom and under what conditions.

Actually the last message I received from my brother was a scheduled message that said "everything is always exactly how it was meant to be"

I think about it a lot. We were very close. I always knew he would commit, I just didn't know when. We had a lot of very candid conversation about suicide and life. I always told him I was scared because I loved him but that I understood his pain, too. Anyway, I believe he was telling me that grief would make me feel like something was wrong but that he knew this was his path so I needed to to remember that and not let grief trick me into self loathing. It's always on my mind… everything is always exactly how it was meant to be, like a mantra. LOL. Him ending his suffering, shouldn't cause me suffering. I wish it didn't, but I try not to let it.

Side note: I have a lot of siblings and I am the only one who had children. I guess I was born naturally optimistic. Sigh.

 

[davidtorez]

Benatar is a laughing stock whose arguments don't stack up very well.

I'd recommend Elizabeth Harman's critical review of Better to Never Have Been for a thorough debunking. https://www.princeton.edu/~eharman/Benatar.pdf <- unsure if this link will work, if not, you can find it on Google fairly easily. I also think Rivka Weinburg's work is much more rigorous.

Cool thanks! I'll have a read! Gives me something to do

 

[Unspoken7612]

This reads like a pro-life platitude.

This is just a pro life argument at this point.

Using pro-life as a pejorative...


In an abortion context, I'm pro-choice. My opponents call themselves "pro-life". I don't accept that framing, and instead, I call them "anti-choice". Not only do I not think that "pro-life" people tend to actually be pro-life (they do not object to taking antibiotics, for example, or the cheek cells that die every time you swallow), but I also think that anti-abortion policies lead to preventable death and suffering.

In a suicide context, again, I'm pro-choice. People who are anti-suicide rarely describe themselves as "pro-life" because of the connotations around abortion. My objection to absolutist anti-suicide people is not that they're "pro-life", it's that they don't value my autonomy.

If you actually think that the problem with people you disagree with on the internet is that they're too pro-life, I'd politely suggest that you could stand to benefit from reevaluating your own ethical stances.

 

[grapevoid]

Using pro-life as a pejorative...


In an abortion context, I'm pro-choice. My opponents call themselves "pro-life". I don't accept that framing, and instead, I call them "anti-choice". Not only do I not think that "pro-life" people tend to actually be pro-life (they do not object to taking antibiotics, for example, or the cheek cells that die every time you swallow), but I also think that anti-abortion policies lead to preventable death and suffering.

In a suicide context, again, I'm pro-choice. People who are anti-suicide rarely describe themselves as "pro-life" because of the connotations around abortion. My objection to absolutist anti-suicide people is not that they're "pro-life", it's that they don't value my autonomy.

If you actually think that the problem with people you disagree with on the internet is that they're too pro-life, I'd politely suggest that you could stand to benefit from reevaluating your own ethical stances.

I keep laughing about the banner of a rats anus.

 

[Namelesa]

Agreed. I hate my parents for creating me and not feeling any guilt over it, especially as they don't try to fix their mistake by allowing me to die but instead prevent my suicides by trapping me making me suffer more. I don't care if their intention wasn't for me to suffer more than feel good about life, they should of realized that has a possibility. We shouldn't be forced into anything and that should include life itself. I shouldn't had to go through all this torture for me in the first place but because of their selfish actions I had to and if I could I would then had to put more effort and go through more pain to leave this place but I don't even have that choice. While yes there are others to blame for this, I think the creator of someone should also take blame in this as if they didn't create them, non of the suffering would have happened. I could have of not existed in the first place and been absolutely fine with that as in non existence I can't desire to live but with existence I can desire death. There is imbalance here and while some people may desire to live when they exist, others may not when if nothing existed no would be suffering and have their desires be met as they literally can't have desires in nothingness.