Why I'm NOT an antinatalist (but still support the right to die)

[paredler]

I am empathetic towards this kind of philosophy, and I am a pessimist and I do encourage critical thinking when it comes to dogmas and social norms in general and having children in particular. However, antinatalism, as a philosophy, has some serious holes it doesn't address, and has some contradictions I can't just put up with.

I'll start by saying that antinatalism is a retrospective philosophy. It says "I shouldn't have been born" but it doesn't offer any solutions to what to do once you are born. Many, if not most antinatalists, are against the right to die, which I think is not only cowardly, but also contradicting and hypocritical. I think antinatalists should shift their focus from antinatalism to right to die philosophy, because I think those who do exist and are suffering are more important than potential people.

The premise of antinatalists is that everyone hates being alive. While it's true that most people are destitute, come from abusive households, are rape victims, suffer from some kind of disability or chronic illness, suffer from some sort of PTSD, have been homeless once in their lifetime, which means their lives are objectively bad, they, for some reason, don't regret being born and are actually against the right to die because they hope for a better future. Their hope is not necessarily rational, but they still genuinly want to be here. My point is, juat because antinatalists hate their lives doesn't mean everyone else does, even if their lives are objectively bad and hating your life is the only rational response.

The third reason is the gamble argument. It's true that having a child is a gamble, but since you don't know the future of that child, natalists can rightfully conclude that the child is going to have a fine future and antinatalists can't really prove that wrong. They can only say "you don't know your child's future, so he might as well be miserable", but none of the sides wins the argument. Natalists would prefer to give a chance while AN's would rather avoid potential harm.

The fourth reason is antinatalists obsession with people who adopt children. According to them, a parent who gave birth to a child, despite being a supportive parents, both financially and mentally, who planned everything and thought about everything and is prepared for whatever that comes at his child's way, he's still an asshole compared to a someone who adopted his child, despite this adoptive parent can be abusive, dysfunctional, kicking the child out of home at 18 and not give a damn about his well being. Most people who adopt are racist. How do I know that? Because there are long lines of people who want to adopt a white, blonde hair blue eyed child from eastern europe, but almost zero parents who want to adopt black children from Africa. Also, there's this case of that asshole singer, Tim Lambesis, who adopted three children from ethiopia and he was very neglectful towards them.

All in all, having been to the AN subreddit, I have mostly encountered people who just screamed words and weren't interested in engaging a thoughtful discussion about the philosophy, about what works and what doesn't. Many, if not most, users on this subreddit were just NPC's who didn't have anything meaningful to add to the discussion.

I am not an antinatalist, but a conditional natalist. I think that having a child IN POVERTY is immoral, because that's a prison sentence for the child. You already know your child's future is going to be bleak, he's going to suffer a lot, he's going to be targeted for humiliation and harassment. It's irresponsible to have a child in poverty, because that child joins to the cruel journey of your own life of poverty and after you're gone he's just going to have it worse. I know too many cases of people.coming from poverty who have had terrible lives and aren't able to escape the very undesirBle fate of poverty.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I'd say one of the main reasons I have antinatalist views is because we don't have a 'right to die.' If assisted suicide was permitted for more people (strictly regulated of course to make sure people aren't doing it impulsively, or while they're psychotic, or being coerced- murdered,) then, I'd possibly feel differently.

Attitudes towards suicide would have to change too. None of this- it's selfish, you can't do it to your family. No more emotional blackmail forcing people to stay here. It would need to be accepted that a person born here didn't get the choice so- they get to make that choice when they are able to understand it.

But- when is that ever going to happen?!! I doubt assisted suicide will ever be available to (relatively) healthy people who simply don't want to be here. We'll continue to be born into wage slavery and not allowed to leave until officials decide we're too old and ill to contribute anymore. Parents aren't suddenly going to be ok with their children wanting to die.

So realistically, for the worse case scenarios, we're still being born into a hostage scenario! And it's not always that easy to predict. Some people even here will openly admit their lives aren't objectively terrible but they still feel terrible enough to want to risk killing themselves. Personally, I don't think it's fair to expose a being to that risk.

Maybe once we see a world like that, ask antinatilists to reconsider their views but realistically- do you ever think we will see a world like that? Even if they all start campaigning now. All the while, babies are still being born into this.

Put it this way- would many parents be willing to obtain Nembutal for their children if they'd had enough? I doubt many would.

 

[Jarni]

the problem (and "irony" if you will) is that if we start sorting out who can give birth morally or not, it will be fa*cism... for example, people who have genetic diseases, autoimmune diseases, handicapped diseases etc...
So it's all or nothing....

 

[martinso67]

I'd say one of the main reasons I have antinatalist views is because we don't have a 'right to die.' If assisted suicide was permitted for more people (strictly regulated of course to make sure people aren't doing it impulsively, or while they're psychotic, or being coerced- murdered,) then, I'd possibly feel differently.

Attitudes towards suicide would have to change too. None of this- it's selfish, you can't do it to your family. No more emotional blackmail forcing people to stay here. It would need to be accepted that a person born here didn't get the choice so- they get to make that choice when they are able to understand it.

But- when is that ever going to happen?!! I doubt assisted suicide will ever be available to (relatively) healthy people who simply don't want to be here. We'll continue to be born into wage slavery and not allowed to leave until officials decide we're too old and ill to contribute anymore. Parents aren't suddenly going to be ok with their children wanting to die.

So realistically, for the worse case scenarios, we're still being born into a hostage scenario! And it's not always that easy to predict. Some people even here will openly admit their lives aren't objectively terrible but they still feel terrible enough to want to risk killing themselves. Personally, I don't think it's fair to expose a being to that risk.

Maybe once we see a world like that, ask antinatilists to reconsider their views but realistically- do you ever think we will see a world like that? Even if they all start campaigning now. All the while, babies are still being born into this.

Put it this way- would many parents be willing to obtain Nembutal for their children if they'd had enough? I doubt many would.

I think if the right to die would implemented in a country, then it would be done with bureaucracy. It would be like in Switzerland with Pegasus and it would be expensive and take many months and if not years. They Pegasus charge about 10.000 USD

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think if the right to die would implemented in a country, then it would be done with bureaucracy. It would be like in Switzerland with Pegasus and it would be expensive and take many months and if not years. They Pegasus charge about 10.000 USD

Yes, I agree. I suspect it will always be extremely restricted unless the world changes dramatically.

 

[paredler]

the problem (and "irony" if you will) is that if we start sorting out who can give birth morally or not, it will be fa*cism... for example, people who have genetic diseases, autoimmune diseases, handicapped diseases etc...
So it's all or nothing....

I support eugenics. It contributes to the health of a populaton. Right now, humanity is a cesspool full of chronically ill and disabled people who can't contribute anything significantly. I'm chronically ill myself and I'd rather be dead.

I'd say one of the main reasons I have antinatalist views is because we don't have a 'right to die.' If assisted suicide was permitted for more people (strictly regulated of course to make sure people aren't doing it impulsively, or while they're psychotic, or being coerced- murdered,) then, I'd possibly feel differently.

Attitudes towards suicide would have to change too. None of this- it's selfish, you can't do it to your family. No more emotional blackmail forcing people to stay here. It would need to be accepted that a person born here didn't get the choice so- they get to make that choice when they are able to understand it.

But- when is that ever going to happen?!! I doubt assisted suicide will ever be available to (relatively) healthy people who simply don't want to be here. We'll continue to be born into wage slavery and not allowed to leave until officials decide we're too old and ill to contribute anymore. Parents aren't suddenly going to be ok with their children wanting to die.

So realistically, for the worse case scenarios, we're still being born into a hostage scenario! And it's not always that easy to predict. Some people even here will openly admit their lives aren't objectively terrible but they still feel terrible enough to want to risk killing themselves. Personally, I don't think it's fair to expose a being to that risk.

Maybe once we see a world like that, ask antinatilists to reconsider their views but realistically- do you ever think we will see a world like that? Even if they all start campaigning now. All the while, babies are still being born into this.

Put it this way- would many parents be willing to obtain Nembutal for their children if they'd had enough? I doubt many would.

I support illegal sellng and buying of Nembs. Governments and large corporation owners are never going to let their slaves out, so we have no choice but build an underground network of slaves who help each other run away.

 

[Jarni]

I support eugenics. It contributes to the health of a populaton. Right now, humanity is a cesspool full of chronically ill and disabled people who can't contribute anything significantly. I'm chronically ill myself and I'd rather be dead.

I'm chronically ill too and disabled because of Covid, I'd prefer the same for me (I'm here only because of this).

I was not very clear because I didn't want to go deeper into what was fa*cist considerations. Just to explain better this idea: if you are black, can you be happy? Or asian? or from other populations? If for poors it's immoral (by the way cf. the great film Capernaum on the subject) to give birth, what other limits should be instaured? What degree of health, beauty, mental state? Psychopaths? BDP? And what degree of poor? And if middle class parents become poor after birth? Who decides this? Everyone only wants to be very intelligent, reach, healthy and beautiful. There are not lots of people like this....

 

[Forever Sleep]

I support illegal sellng and buying of Nembs. Governments and large corporation owners are never going to let their slaves out, so we have no choice but build an underground network of slaves who help each other run away.

It's not that easy to get though- surely? And illegal means are totally unregulated. Plus, if you're unfortunate enough to get caught, there's the danger of getting a criminal record and ending up in the psyche ward. And those who supply end up going to jail. (eg. Kenneth Law who ran IC and sold SN and other suicide aides.)

Not sure why it's still ok to be brought into a situation that's so difficult to escape from. I guess the argument will be that the majority of people won't become suicidal. Not fabulous for those who do though! Personally, I still don't think it's worth exposing a non consenting being to the risk. But, I'm a pessimist!

Also- best case scenario- they do bring in assisted suicide for a larger demographic of people. I still expect the age limit will be 18+ unless there are extenuating circumstances. I actually do agree with that too. Still it means- if someone hates their life from early on, they still have 18 years to endure before they can even be considered. Or, they risk all the brutal and unreliable methods we're stuck with at the moment.

It also still won't change people's attitudes towards suicide. Families and parents will still put pressure on people to stay. Maybe it will work out in all their favour- maybe they will recover but, perhaps they won't too. Again, I wouldn't want to expose a child to that risk but that's also a personal fear that no child of mine would escape ending up unhappy (most likely.)

 

[Deleted member 8119]

I am not an antinatalist, but a conditional natalist.

Agree with absolutely everything you've said except this last point. I dislike all life since it's a fundamentally bad idea, but the way anti-natalism addresses it is horrendously, hilariously bad. It's mostly a result of outcasts philosophies who know they won't be taken seriously anywhere else, migrating to this particular philosophy (vegans, utilitarians, specially negative ones), and as result, you have this incoherent mess of idealistic, self-opposing ideas with 0 relation or testing in the real world.

I've been saying it for a long time, so you have my utmost agreement on everything else for speaking against it. I'd also add the consent argument being flawed tho.

 

[disabledlife]

So basically being born into poverty is immoral (and I agree), but being born disabled (with parents who knew the risk) is moral? For what?

I think, and this is simply my opinion, a opinion of a person born incurably disabled, a progressive illness, full of suffering, worse and worse, which has no outcome but death in suffering, agony!

Being born disabled, sick, or becoming disabled, mistreated, etc., is much worse than poverty. There is trauma (case of violence, or abandonment if parents fail, for example). To be disabled, dwarf, ugly, sick, especially if it is incurable, or expensive if there are solutions, is to be condemned to a life much worse than poverty, considered a burden on society, rejected by everyone, put in an institute (or on the street if he doesn't have the means to pay!), be placed under guardianship, deprived of liberty, in addition to being deprived of autonomy, of an intellectual future, of good health, of traveling, deprived of sensory freedom, such as seeing well, visually admiring landscapes, listening to music, etc. Disability can deprive you of the freedom to find love, friends, start a family (a much worse kind of eugenics, called natural selection!) etc.

The worst thing is that if the child is aware of his suffering, especially if it is incurable, and even progressive, ending in agony, etc., it is a form of torture. Again this is my opinion. I say this because it jumps out at me, it's perfectly obvious.

Personally, I would never want to see this happen to children who have not asked for it, especially from parents who know what they are going to do.

You should know that there are countries, schools, professions, clubs, diplomas, visas, stores, etc., which are completely closed to disabled people, and that the world is essentially inaccessible to disabled people (sidewalks, access to care, transport, driving license, financial access, adapted schools, administrations, bank loans, bank accounts, financial investments, marriage, etc.). This is even the case in France for example for many prohibitions and inaccessibilities!

In addition, foreign disabled people are prohibited from traveling to Canada and Australia, because they are considered excessive burden!
You should know that there are countries, schools, jobs, clubs, diplomas, visas, stores, etc., that are totally forbidden to the disabled, and that the world is essentially inaccessible to the disabled (sidewalks, access to care, transportation, driving licenses, financial access, adapted schools, administrations, bank loans, bank accounts, financial investments, marriage, etc.). This is even the case in France for example for many prohibitions and inaccessibilities!

There are even still countries that authorize torture on disabled people, ugly, with rare diseases, albinos, too much hair, deformations, etc. Some believe in witchcraft, in 2024! There are still, in this world, disabled people chained and put in cages, by their own parents. And even, without going to extremes, many disabled people, if they are placed under guardianship, or placed in institutions, interned in psychiatric hospitals, are there for life! They are mistreated, sedated, robbed of their property, their money is stolen by their institutions, and even by their own parents! I have seen it, I have witnessed it!

Being ugly deprives you of access to careers as misses, models, etc.

Being small in height deprives you of military careers (the guards who protect the South Korean border, facing North Korea, must be at least 1m77), of security, of the possibility of driving certain vehicles, of access to sports requiring height or strength such as basketball or rugby, to name a few examples. Little ones are paid much less, are infantilized, despised, looked down upon, etc., it is a scientific observation (see the sources below, 2 examples, but there are an infinite number). Moreover, being a dwarf deprives one of the possibility of sitting at normal chairs, eating at normal tables, riding a bike, etc.

Being mentally retarded deprives one of access to professions requiring higher education, and even to certain professions that are nevertheless easy to access (example, secretary).

Being color blind deprives one of access to many artistic professions in engineering, railway, driving.

Being in a wheelchair, or even on a cane, crutch, walker, deprives one of access to most housing (stairs, narrow doors, switches that are too high, inaccessible taps, inaccessible kitchen), streets, cities, transportation, especially in less advanced or poor countries!

These professional deprivations lead to deprivations of access to social and financial status, respect from others, etc.

An exemple: https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/soc4.13178 , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4342156/

 

[paredler]

So basically being born into poverty is immoral (and I agree), but being born disabled (with parents who knew the risk) is moral? For what?

I think, and this is simply my opinion, a opinion of a person born incurably disabled, a progressive illness, full of suffering, worse and worse, which has no outcome but death in suffering, agony!

Being born disabled, sick, or becoming disabled, mistreated, etc., is much worse than poverty. There is trauma (case of violence, or abandonment if parents fail, for example). To be disabled, dwarf, ugly, sick, especially if it is incurable, or expensive if there are solutions, is to be condemned to a life much worse than poverty, considered a burden on society, rejected by everyone, put in an institute (or on the street if he doesn't have the means to pay!), be placed under guardianship, deprived of liberty, in addition to being deprived of autonomy, of an intellectual future, of good health, of traveling, deprived of sensory freedom, such as seeing well, visually admiring landscapes, listening to music, etc. Disability can deprive you of the freedom to find love, friends, start a family (a much worse kind of eugenics, called natural selection!) etc.

The worst thing is that if the child is aware of his suffering, especially if it is incurable, and even progressive, ending in agony, etc., it is a form of torture. Again this is my opinion. I say this because it jumps out at me, it's perfectly obvious.

Personally, I would never want to see this happen to children who have not asked for it, especially from parents who know what they are going to do.

You should know that there are countries, schools, professions, clubs, diplomas, visas, stores, etc., which are completely closed to disabled people, and that the world is essentially inaccessible to disabled people (sidewalks, access to care, transport, driving license, financial access, adapted schools, administrations, bank loans, bank accounts, financial investments, marriage, etc.). This is even the case in France for example for many prohibitions and inaccessibilities!

In addition, foreign disabled people are prohibited from traveling to Canada and Australia, because they are considered excessive burden!
You should know that there are countries, schools, jobs, clubs, diplomas, visas, stores, etc., that are totally forbidden to the disabled, and that the world is essentially inaccessible to the disabled (sidewalks, access to care, transportation, driving licenses, financial access, adapted schools, administrations, bank loans, bank accounts, financial investments, marriage, etc.). This is even the case in France for example for many prohibitions and inaccessibilities!

There are even still countries that authorize torture on disabled people, ugly, with rare diseases, albinos, too much hair, deformations, etc. Some believe in witchcraft, in 2024! There are still, in this world, disabled people chained and put in cages, by their own parents. And even, without going to extremes, many disabled people, if they are placed under guardianship, or placed in institutions, interned in psychiatric hospitals, are there for life! They are mistreated, sedated, robbed of their property, their money is stolen by their institutions, and even by their own parents! I have seen it, I have witnessed it!

Being ugly deprives you of access to careers as misses, models, etc.

Being small in height deprives you of military careers (the guards who protect the South Korean border, facing North Korea, must be at least 1m77), of security, of the possibility of driving certain vehicles, of access to sports requiring height or strength such as basketball or rugby, to name a few examples. Little ones are paid much less, are infantilized, despised, looked down upon, etc., it is a scientific observation (see the sources below, 2 examples, but there are an infinite number). Moreover, being a dwarf deprives one of the possibility of sitting at normal chairs, eating at normal tables, riding a bike, etc.

Being mentally retarded deprives one of access to professions requiring higher education, and even to certain professions that are nevertheless easy to access (example, secretary).

Being color blind deprives one of access to many artistic professions in engineering, railway, driving.

Being in a wheelchair, or even on a cane, crutch, walker, deprives one of access to most housing (stairs, narrow doors, switches that are too high, inaccessible taps, inaccessible kitchen), streets, cities, transportation, especially in less advanced or poor countries!

These professional deprivations lead to deprivations of access to social and financial status, respect from others, etc.

An exemple: https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/soc4.13178 , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4342156/

Agreed wholeheartedly, it's just that most people are none of the above, so they think their children also won't suffer from these problems. But if you know your children are going to have at least one charectaristic of the above, then yes, it's immoral to have them. Poverty was just one example.

 

[SilentSadness]

This post doesn't make sense to me. First of all, pretty much all of the antinatalists on this forum support the right to die. The premise of antinatalists is not that everyone hates being alive, that wouldn't make any sense because it's clearly not true. The premise of antinatalists is that it's immoral to force someone else into existence who will undoubtedly experience suffering. Pretty much everyone is guaranteed significant amounts of suffering. But even if that wasn't true, you can't take someone else's money to gamble with, so you can't gamble with someone else's life. I have never heard someone say it's okay to abuse a child, that's obviously wrong. To me antinatalism seems like an obvious truth, I think it would prevent more suffering than suicide.

 

[paredler]

This post doesn't make sense to me. First of all, pretty much all of the antinatalists on this forum support the right to die. The premise of antinatalists is not that everyone hates being alive, that wouldn't make any sense because it's clearly not true. The premise of antinatalists is that it's immoral to force someone else into existence who will undoubtedly experience suffering. Pretty much everyone is guaranteed significant amounts of suffering. But even if that wasn't true, you can't take someone else's money to gamble with, so you can't gamble with someone else's life. I have never heard someone say it's okay to abuse a child, that's obviously wrong. To me antinatalism seems like an obvious truth, I think it would prevent more suffering than suicide.

This a Su!כ!de forum, of course all antinatalists here supprt the right to die. Go to r/antinatalism or watch any youtube video about it and you'll see they're explicitly against the right to die. For you to say it's immoral to have children because they'll inevitably suffer, you have to state first that all suffering is bad and that everyone would like to dispose life as a whole because of their suffering. The gambling argument isn't a good argument since you can't quantify your chances to win or to lose the gamble. This isn't the lottery where there's statistics that prove you your winning success chance, it's a lot more complicated than that.
Even if antinatalism is the way to go, you'd have to market it differently from "a bunch of outcasts made a philosophy so they'd feel better with themselves".

 

[coolgal82]

personally i believe in the right to die because i'm not antinatalists, all their arguments are based on their emotions and subjective experiences and not eveyone suffers. some people have happy lives. and can make others lives happy. antinatalism only applies in a world where you're forced to suffer without being able to end it, as soon as you have the choice to end it whenever you want it falls apart

 

[davidtorez]

I am empathetic towards this kind of philosophy, and I am a pessimist and I do encourage critical thinking when it comes to dogmas and social norms in general and having children in particular. However, antinatalism, as a philosophy, has some serious holes it doesn't address, and has some contradictions I can't just put up with.

I'll start by saying that antinatalism is a retrospective philosophy. It says "I shouldn't have been born" but it doesn't offer any solutions to what to do once you are born. Many, if not most antinatalists, are against the right to die, which I think is not only cowardly, but also contradicting and hypocritical. I think antinatalists should shift their focus from antinatalism to right to die philosophy, because I think those who do exist and are suffering are more important than potential people.

The premise of antinatalists is that everyone hates being alive. While it's true that most people are destitute, come from abusive households, are rape victims, suffer from some kind of disability or chronic illness, suffer from some sort of PTSD, have been homeless once in their lifetime, which means their lives are objectively bad, they, for some reason, don't regret being born and are actually against the right to die because they hope for a better future. Their hope is not necessarily rational, but they still genuinly want to be here. My point is, juat because antinatalists hate their lives doesn't mean everyone else does, even if their lives are objectively bad and hating your life is the only rational response.

The third reason is the gamble argument. It's true that having a child is a gamble, but since you don't know the future of that child, natalists can rightfully conclude that the child is going to have a fine future and antinatalists can't really prove that wrong. They can only say "you don't know your child's future, so he might as well be miserable", but none of the sides wins the argument. Natalists would prefer to give a chance while AN's would rather avoid potential harm.

The fourth reason is antinatalists obsession with people who adopt children. According to them, a parent who gave birth to a child, despite being a supportive parents, both financially and mentally, who planned everything and thought about everything and is prepared for whatever that comes at his child's way, he's still an asshole compared to a someone who adopted his child, despite this adoptive parent can be abusive, dysfunctional, kicking the child out of home at 18 and not give a damn about his well being. Most people who adopt are racist. How do I know that? Because there are long lines of people who want to adopt a white, blonde hair blue eyed child from eastern europe, but almost zero parents who want to adopt black children from Africa. Also, there's this case of that asshole singer, Tim Lambesis, who adopted three children from ethiopia and he was very neglectful towards them.

All in all, having been to the AN subreddit, I have mostly encountered people who just screamed words and weren't interested in engaging a thoughtful discussion about the philosophy, about what works and what doesn't. Many, if not most, users on this subreddit were just NPC's who didn't have anything meaningful to add to the discussion.

I am not an antinatalist, but a conditional natalist. I think that having a child IN POVERTY is immoral, because that's a prison sentence for the child. You already know your child's future is going to be bleak, he's going to suffer a lot, he's going to be targeted for humiliation and harassment. It's irresponsible to have a child in poverty, because that child joins to the cruel journey of your own life of poverty and after you're gone he's just going to have it worse. I know too many cases of people.coming from poverty who have had terrible lives and aren't able to escape the very undesirBle fate of poverty.

My friend, I cant really be bothered addressing all your points (getting late here), however I would urge you to read more and get more informed about the antinatalist philosophy. There are alot of things you said that just aren't true of antinatalism. I would encourage you to read the book "Better never to have been" by David benatar as a start. There are also a number of good YouTube videos on the subject, if you're keen I can show you which ones.