Breeders

[x51391225x]

The older I get (I'm 26 now) I see parents (breeders) as more and more crazy for every day I spend living this life.
I mean, how fucking crazy do you have to be to ignore life is a absolute horror story beyond compare and THEN breed and FEEL GOOD about it?
Like holy fuck, like I know people are dumb as f so thats why we have so many breeders but it's strange to me there's not a big stigma on getting kids.
On the contrary, it's elevated and glorified to have kids. But then - when the kid is 25 he is SHUNNED by society and spat on.

It's kind of funny actually.

Whats your view on parents (breeders) in general ?

Do they make you suicidal?

As one myself, it is one of the things that makes me suicidal. Everyone thinks I'm an amazing parent, and to a degree, I am. But I have a lot of issues that someday, they will resent me for. I didn't realize my mentally ill mother was a horrible parent until I was a teen/adult and I hate her. I don't want to live to the time when mine realize that about me. They have people who will love them and take care of them.

 

[Mr.Mediocre]

In a consequentialist perspective, having children creates risk, this risk, whether it's future unwillingness of the child to be created, or a debilitating medical defect, is determined by the genetics of mother and father. Granted a hedonistic society where the more pleasure you can attain the more power you are perceived to have over others, the risk certainly far outweighs the reward because this child's fate now lies on throwing 10 dice hoping you get all 6's.

 

[TheSoulless]

I'm antinatalist and proud. Giving birth is always a gamble and never the right thing to do. It's selfish.

 

[FreddieQuell]

Interesting that no one has brought up the genetical aspect. I think happy people with the means to take care of a child who make an informed decision are fine to do so.

With me, depression runs in one side of the family and anxiety runs in the other. I'm in the intersection of the two. Knowing that and still go ahead with having kids would be immoral, regardless of my overall philosophical beliefs on procreation.

Humanity should not breed becomes I should not breed

 

[FriendofDeath]

So, here I am being crazy, and perhaps most of you don't believe in it, but what about reincarnation? The belief I heard most often is that we learn lessons each time we return with the ultimate goal being enlightenment. In my world, that would mean I chose to come back and experience way too many challenges, maybe in the hopes of reaching nirvana sooner. These views are not built on a certain religion.

 

[Smellanie]

Honesty I've wanted to have kids for a long time but I can't bear the thought of my child living in a post climate change world, with all the war and suffering that that's sure to cause. I would never look down on others for having kids tho, that's just too edgy even for me lol.

 

[SSlostallhope]

I know what I'm going to say may seem hard to believe because of our perspective and life experiences, so bear with me, but not everyone is suffering and hurting in their lives. and some people have nice parents.

I'm still torn about this topic, for once I believe that not everyone should be allowed to have or adopt children, we as humans should know better than to bring a life to this world without being prepared for it, and there's also the people who have children knowing that they carry bad genes with things such as genetic disorders and family history of mental illnesses, not to mention that some people are simply NOT made to care for another human being.
however, I also believe that people should have reproductive rights and the option to follow their natural urges. we are still dumb animals, we have needs and instincts, reproduction is one of them as it is for literally every other species that there has ever been. besides, we can't judge what other people say and do with their own bodies and lives.

So instead of saying dumb shit like 'fuck all parents' we should simply say fuck bad parents. generalizations are plain stupid to me, specially when talking about what other people are or aren't allowed to do. that same mentality is why we have people saying stuff like 'all suicidal people are selfish and they shouldn't have the right to kill themselves'.

well said :)

 

[Secrets1]

Funny since that is exactly what happens when people bring a child into this world: they unilaterally decide life is worth living (whatever may come), i.e. it's worth all the pain and suffering and being subjected to death. How is this not imposing values on someone-else?



No. Given that decision has serious consequences for another human-being it is a moral issue. When a decision only involves consequences for yourself you certainly can claim it is your business and yours alone. Yet here it is not the case: it's not just about you and your egotistical wants and needs. Might as well claim you have the right to abuse someone-else for your pleasure since apparantly wanting something equals having the right to do it.



Again it's not about you. Whether or not an action is morally right does not depend on the satisfaction (or lack thereof) the actor experiences.

By your own admission you live a miserable life (you do have my sympathy as I can relate) yet you're somehow convinced such a fate will not befall your children. While I sincerely hope that will be the case and your children (will) live happy, healthy lives you cannot possible know this so what it amounts to is gambling with another's future hoping for the best. Purely because one hopes to gain from it...

To be clear I have no intention of attacking you personally and I'm only concerned with the arguments presented. Still I will not be silent on this matter out of misplaced piety towards the convictions of others when I firmly believe (and can rationally argue) it's wrong to bring life into this world. There's more than enough misery as it is, no need to keep adding to it.


It's your faulty interpretation of my argument that makes no sense as did your original argument which I refuted. I quoted your original argument and it was clearly a response to said argument. I never claimed consent could be given by the relevant party so your inquiry is moot. .

Whether or not consent could be give given in the case of procreation is completely irrelevant: you implied that critiquing procreation is somehow wrong because it supposedly only involves two consenting adults.



I clearly showed that this is simply not the case as that decision has serious consequences for the child who'll be born yet cannot give consent. Since you reasoned no-one else should concern themselves with a decision that only involves two consenting adults and this is clearly not the case here my counter-argument was correct and you argued beside the point.



No it's not. Severe suffering is fairly common (almost all of us will get seriously ill at one point and almost no deaths happen suddenly without protracted suffering preceeding it and this is only one source of severe suffering) not to mention that simple fact that all life ends in death and it's what all living things instinctively fear. Unless you can prove death or rather dying isnt a bad thing it's most definitely a very foolish gamble.

It's very simple really: if you don't exist you neither suffer nor experience any good things. Not having to experience pain and death is infinitely better than having to experience them (this is simple human nature: the very definition of pain means it's something unpleasant we want to avoid) especially since after death you'll (very likely) again be nothing so you'll be in exactly the same position your started in, metaphorically speaking. In other words the whole game was completely futile.

As far as I'm concerned everyone should be free to play the game aslong as they like but I refuse to accept merely being alive, having working sex organs and a burning desire to become a parent is enough grounds to justify forcing another to play the game when they'll have a very real and very high stake in it and it might end very, very badly for them.



Since you clearly haven't experienced death and presumably aren't dying now I don't put much stock in your claim. Wait untill you have some skin in the game before making such grandiose claims but even then it's fairly irrelevant since a) you can't speak for everyone and b) there is no guarantee anyone's offspring will feel the same way. There simply is no logical connection between thinking life is swell and well worth living and having the moral right to impose that rosy, sunny view on others.

It still surprises me to find it's apparantly possible to be suicidal and an optimist. You'd think those would be mutually exclusive.

Optimism is a self-defeating ideology: if life is so great surely it must be quite bad when it ends.

not worth picking apart this argument but there is plenty of hypocrisy and safe to say this board represents an extremely skewed view of life and others, in a radically negative way. Expressing subjective opinion as fact because it's written academically and the argument makes sense to your lived experience is not theoretically sound. Nor does the existence of suffering take away the existence of joy, a rewarding state you chose to ignore. Never mind the assumption that people raise children for purely selfish reasons. Lol. Think hard about that one for a minute...

The negative bias is quite egocentric. As is the tone. It's something I struggle with too and correlates nicely with suiciders.

Here's an easy litmus test: what % of the population wishes they were never born? Ignoring exact figures, the lack of a uniform desire to not experience life should stand as evidence against many points in your argument.

 

[Fragile]

Yes, but...
Most species don't have complex nervous systems like humans do. In other words, they feel the misery of living far less intensely. For example, a stray dog's or a zoo lion's life is far from happy, but it feels its misery the way we would feel ours if we were pumped full of ketamine. In other words, nothing good, but tolerable enough to not put up with being alive. What about lizards and other lower animals? Pffft! Their nervous systems are basically "eat, sleep, fuck, repeat". Misery as we know it isn't even on their radar.

We humans, on the other hand, due to our complex nervous systems, REALLY feel the misery. Enough to prefer death over life.

That's not accurate at all, humans have different brains brains but it doesn't mean that animals don't suffer the same. it just means that our brains evolved for functions such as language, complex reasoning and introspection, but we mammals have extremely similar nervous systems and run on the same impulses, many drugs that we use have similar effects on animals for example. to say that animals feel less pain is ignorant, some researchers argue that many species can suffer even more intense pain than us humans.

you just see it that way because animals can't communicate pain the same way we do, animals can't put into words how much they suffer and they don't express themselves in a way that we evolved to understand. and us humans are extremely good at justifying atrocities so we ignore or directly cause suffering even in our own species.

and animal depression is a very real and documented thing, some animals are reported to stop eating or killing themselves in more direct ways when exposed to trauma, even military dogs are reported to develop PTSD.

we just like to think that we are better than anything or anyone.

 

[MyStateKilledMe]

and animal depression is a very real and documented thing, some animals are reported to stop eating or killing themselves in more direct ways when exposed to trauma, even military dogs are reported to develop PTSD.

we just like to think that we are better than anything or anyone.

You misunderstood my post. I was saying that having a more complex nervous system than animals do is a bad thing. It makes us feel our misery more intensely. That's why us humans rely on tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs to get through our lives. Animals don't have a strong need for drugs, and even they get tranquilizers to reduce their misery.

And another thing. If an animal, like a dog or a cat, stops eating and acts listless, its owners actually care and try to alleviate its misery somehow. If a child stops eating because he/she feels miserable, his/her parents get angry and enforce a "clean plate" rule, ignoring what's in his/her mind. Similar with adults: MHP's look for ways to force that person to eat, rather than give him/her drugs to alleviate depression.

 

[Fragile]

You misunderstood my post. I was saying that having a more complex nervous system than animals do is a bad thing. It makes us feel our misery more intensely. That's why us humans rely on tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs to get through our lives. Animals don't have a strong need for drugs, and even they get tranquilizers to reduce their misery.

And another thing. If an animal, like a dog or a cat, stops eating and acts listless, its owners actually care and try to alleviate its misery somehow. If a child stops eating because he/she feels miserable, his/her parents get angry and enforce a "clean plate" rule, ignoring what's in his/her mind. Similar with adults: MHP's look for ways to force that person to eat, rather than give him/her drugs to alleviate depression.

but humans don't have a more complex nervous system, this is a case by case question depending on the species. besides, some animals are known to seek substances that cause altered states of consciousness, some monkeys steal alcoholic beverages and dolphins get high on pufferfish poison, this behavior is not exclusive tu humans and there are countless examples of this. the addicting effects of many drugs are studied first on lab animals, they can also suffer from horrible addictions but it happens less often because of reasons like lab rats don't have access to pure cocaine in the wild.

and that second point makes no sense at all, some parents do implement great strategies to raise their children and some animal owners are pieces of shit who mistreat them for no reason and never try to alleviate their suffering. It really depends on the person and I'd argue that animals suffer from exponentially more abuse than humans.
Oh, and medical proffessionals force you to eat and give you drugs, but those drugs are wildly ineffective and cause terrible side effects. some people argue that the drugs are the problem there.

 

[Grandexit]

For me, it's a relief to stamp out our shitty family line.

 

[Raminiki]

Antinatalist here. Like others have said, I don't want to risk an offspring inheriting any of the conditions I suffer and I think any that deliberately have offspring knowing they may inherit defects are incredibly selfish. Or going for a second child after the first is born disabled, in the hopes that it'll be 'normal'. Just no. Nonono. I also wouldn't bring offspring into this already overburdened world, knowing they're guaranteed to struggle and suffer. I think people need to be more responsible with their reproductive capabilities, and their choices. But it's already too late. Humanity has well overshot carrying capacity. People are celebrating getting pregnant under quarantine. Ignorance and irresponsibility. Unfortunately, antinatalists and child-free individuals are self-eliminating from the population. Those who reproduce will continue to reproduce and continue to want to reproduce regardless of the consequences because it's the measure of success of a species.

 

[Heavy]

Antinatalist here. Like others have said, I don't want to risk an offspring inheriting any of the conditions I suffer and I think any that deliberately have offspring knowing they may inherit defects are incredibly selfish. Or going for a second child after the first is born disabled, in the hopes that it'll be 'normal'. Just no. Nonono. I also wouldn't bring offspring into this already overburdened world, knowing they're guaranteed to struggle and suffer. I think people need to be more responsible with their reproductive capabilities, and their choices. But it's already too late. Humanity has well overshot carrying capacity. People are celebrating getting pregnant under quarantine. Ignorance and irresponsibility. Unfortunately, antinatalists and child-free individuals are self-eliminating from the population. Those who reproduce will continue to reproduce and continue to want to reproduce regardless of the consequences because it's the measure of success of a species.

I really like your phrasing there , "measure of success." It's totally true.

 

[Final Escape]

Kids are normally a good thing but the way our society is setup it's unnatural. Not the having kids part but just this system creates dysgenic fertility. What we're experiencing now has a lot to do with the fact that low IQ people have been able to successfully breed multitudes of low IQ people. This is largely due to the vast resources available to all of humanity. 'Survival of the fittest' no longer applies. This part I took from a twitter comment. It's true though. The welfare state is dysgenic and normally the successful healthiest people outbreed the more sickly or not very competent. This is not to insult anyone it's just the situation we have. If u were born into welfare this doesn't make u less valuable. I'm speaking on a large scale it's bad when the least competent people are getting paid to breed. When normally the least healthy die out more in nature or reproduce far less. Add in the legal abortion which is more likely to be gotten by the most intelligent people because they consider not wanting to raise kids on welfare. Intelligence is not the end all be all but it matters if u want civilization and modern technology. Plumbing, people who can farm, invent labor saving technology. Basically if u want a society where the people think things through more and are able to plan ahead.

 

[Heavy]

Kids are normally a good thing but the way our society is setup it's unnatural. Not the having kids part but just this system creates dysgenic fertility. What we're experiencing now has a lot to do with the fact that low IQ people have been able to successfully breed multitudes of low IQ people. This is largely due to the vast resources available to all of humanity. 'Survival of the fittest' no longer applies. This part I took from a twitter comment. It's true though. The welfare state is dysgenic and normally the successful healthiest people outbreed the more sickly or not very competent. This is not to insult anyone it's just the situation we have. If u were born into welfare this doesn't make u less valuable. I'm speaking on a large scale it's bad when the least competent people are getting paid to breed. When normally the least healthy die out more in nature or reproduce far less. Add in the legal abortion which is more likely to be gotten by the most intelligent people because they consider not wanting to raise kids on welfare. Intelligence is not the end all be all but it matters if u want civilization and modern technology. Plumbing, people who can farm, invent labor saving technology. Basically if u want a society where the people think things through more and are able to plan ahead.

Having kids have never been a good thing.
Life is a TEMPORARY existence of plain suffering and then it ENDS.
Life is the definition of useless.

 

[Final Escape]

Having kids have never been a good thing.
Life is a TEMPORARY existence of plain suffering and then it ENDS.
Life is the definition of useless.

Life can be beautiful if u are adequately prepared for it and have a healthy mindset about it. It is suffering, u are right about that. The point is to create meaning out of the suffering. Take on responsibility. From taking on responsibility is what actually leads to fulfillment. But we aren't told that or taught this in school. They don't want people to grow up.

 

[rhiino]

Kids are normally a good thing but the way our society is setup it's unnatural. Not the having kids part but just this system creates dysgenic fertility. What we're experiencing now has a lot to do with the fact that low IQ people have been able to successfully breed multitudes of low IQ people. This is largely due to the vast resources available to all of humanity. 'Survival of the fittest' no longer applies. This part I took from a twitter comment. It's true though. The welfare state is dysgenic and normally the successful healthiest people outbreed the more sickly or not very competent. This is not to insult anyone it's just the situation we have. If u were born into welfare this doesn't make u less valuable. I'm speaking on a large scale it's bad when the least competent people are getting paid to breed. When normally the least healthy die out more in nature or reproduce far less. Add in the legal abortion which is more likely to be gotten by the most intelligent people because they consider not wanting to raise kids on welfare. Intelligence is not the end all be all but it matters if u want civilization and modern technology. Plumbing, people who can farm, invent labor saving technology. Basically if u want a society where the people think things through more and are able to plan ahead.

It is not only about intelligence. Modern medicine has eradicated survival of the fittest, today everybody can have children and everybody is pulled through. Thus the gene pool is diluted by stupid people, by mentally ill people, by crippled people. This creates tremendous suffering in the following generations. I count myself to the group of people with bad genes as well and I suffer from it. The culture to make everybody survive will be the downfall of humanity. One day we will have such a bad gene pool that people will suffer from that alone, plus the ecosystem currently is getting wrecked.
The culture to make everybody survive also directly creates suffering in the people that survive but would have died in a natural scenario, like I would have myself very likely and then I would not be suffering like I am now. Today there are so many illnesses that make you suffer and would have killed you without modern medicine, but now it does not kill you and you keep living while suffering.

 

[Starcitty]

I don't even like talking about "childfree" because like always people dive into eugenics and about how "the smart people should breed and not these other people."

 

[rankinchris]

I hate breeders with all my heart, especially if they bread after 30s and/or while suffering. If they had a good life and they bred when they were young and naive, I don't know, there is a bit of an excuse there, due to unawareness. But to be fully aware of how shitty life can be and to still decide to breed ('because who's gonna take care of me when I am old?' mostly)........ that's just horrifying. Fuck breeders and fuck their sadism.

what fucking planet do you live on, seriously, if they "bread after they are 30/ or while suffering" 30 is still considered young, the mother of my daughter had her child after 30? and my daughter has a very fun happy loving life, this is clearly something you have never been shown or had to make ridiculous statements. And as for while suffering, I had my daughter during depression, and it certainly does make life more fun and feeling like you have a purpose. 90% OF THE COMMENTS ON THIS POST ARE FROM PEOPLE WITH NO KIDS WHO DONT HAVE A CLUE

 

[Lost in a Dream]

I suppose it's possible that there are good parents and children who don't suffer, but honestly I really do think the majority of all children in the world are subjected to abusive, neglectful, or inadequate upbringings that scar them for life. Parenting should be STRICTLY regulated.

The idea of regulating parenting sounds like a good one at first glance, but after having a debate about this on other sites in the past, I've come to realize that it might not be as good of an idea as I originally thought. The first problem is: Who is going to regulate this? If it's the government, then it's likely that the personal biases of the politicians involved will be the deciding factor in who can have children. People could be denied the privilege of having children because of their religious beliefs, ethnicity, political ideas, or any other reason that the government arbitrarily decides on, even though the people who are denied could have been excellent parents. If they can't be counted on to regulate it, then who else could do it?

The second problem is that there is no guarantee that the regulations will prevent abuse from happening. Some parents could qualify for the privilege of having children, but could still be abusive in ways that don't violate the rules. The third problem would be deciding who is able to qualify, even if the biases of the regulators weren't a problem. They would have to evaluate whether or not a person applying for parenthood is likely to be abusive and if the applicants are knowledgeable enough, they could find a way to cheat the system, obtain their license (if they need licenses to begin with), and then proceed to becoming a horrible parent anyway. Narcissists would probably be the best at accomplishing this goal. There would also be the problem of dealing with those who've either managed to cheat the system or found a way to procreate without being detected. What if unlicensed individuals manage to escape detection and provide a good life for their kids, only to be discovered later on? If that happens, law enforcement would have to take the children away from their unlicensed parents, but doing so would traumatize them, which is the very thing that the regulations are supposed to prevent. As for the parents that are able to cheat the system, the second problem is likely going to be involved here because they could find ways to either hide the abuse or use a loophole to avoid legal consequences by abusing their kids in a way that isn't forbidden (for example, sexual abuse and physical abuse could be defined as abusive behavior, but emotional abuse might not, therefore they could get away with it, but the children would still be miserable).

@Heavy to answer your question, I hate people who decide to have children for completely stupid or selfish reasons, which seem to be the most common reasons for having children, but I don't feel the same way for people who have selfless or intelligent reasons. I just think it would be unfortunate if their kids failed to accomplish whatever positive goal they were hoping to achieve because it would have been a waste of time and energy, especially if they became suicidal one day. I honestly think that it would be better if no one had kids, ever, because that would prevent future generations from suffering in this hellhole that we call Earth. It's the reason that I will never be a father. I would never be able to forgive myself if I changed my mind about that, only to have my kids become depressed and suicidal like me. The mere possibility of that is the reason that my mind cannot be changed about this.

 

[Zappfe lover]

having kids is just immoral. it's one of the most immoral things you can do.

Considering that perception is reality, creating a new sentient being is literally the worst thing you can do in your life.

not worth picking apart this argument but there is plenty of hypocrisy and safe to say this board represents an extremely skewed view of life and others, in a radically negative way. Expressing subjective opinion as fact because it's written academically and the argument makes sense to your lived experience is not theoretically sound. Nor does the existence of suffering take away the existence of joy, a rewarding state you chose to ignore. Never mind the assumption that people raise children for purely selfish reasons. Lol. Think hard about that one for a minute...

The negative bias is quite egocentric. As is the tone. It's something I struggle with too and correlates nicely with suiciders.

Here's an easy litmus test: what % of the population wishes they were never born? Ignoring exact figures, the lack of a uniform desire to not experience life should stand as evidence against many points in your argument.

As long as one creature wishes to never have been, the argument will stand.

The point about suffering negating joy is pretty simple: life is objectively useless. There's literally no reason to exist. Animals procreate simply because the DNA tells them to do it.

So, knowing that, we have the state of nonexistence. A state without desire where you can't miss the lack of pleasure. Then you have existence. A state dominated by desire. Once you exist, pleasure will be important to you. Before and after you stop existing, it's going to be meaningless.

By creating life, you are subjecting a being to both unecessary suffering and pleasure. Said pleasure, once again, won't be missed until the being exists. Why do it then? Why create suffering when you can easily avoid it without any losses?

 

[Angina]

I am an anti-natalist and also pretty much an efilist. I've given "likes" to many posts in this thread.

 

[ghostgirl1995]

Something about the word breeders makes my skin crawl.

 

[Lost in a Dream]

what fucking planet do you live on, seriously, if they "bread after they are 30/ or while suffering" 30 is still considered young, the mother of my daughter had her child after 30? and my daughter has a very fun happy loving life, this is clearly something you have never been shown or had to make ridiculous statements. And as for while suffering, I had my daughter during depression, and it certainly does make life more fun and feeling like you have a purpose. 90% OF THE COMMENTS ON THIS POST ARE FROM PEOPLE WITH NO KIDS WHO DONT HAVE A CLUE

I would agree with you that suffering's response was probably biased, but could yours also be as well? I am glad that your depression has improved and that your daughter is loved and happy, but what happens if your daughter develops cancer? Even if you do everything possible to prevent it, it could still happen. Would you still feel the same way about your decision to have a daughter if she was lying in a hospital bed fighting for her life? If the illness was eventually cured and she went back to her happy life again, it would probably seem like it was worth it and then life for both of you would be enjoyable and meaningful again, but if the treatment failed, then you would be back to where you started and your grief would be piled on top of your depression, making it worse.

I hope with all my heart that you never have to go through that, but the unfortunate thing is, it could. It may be the case that most of the participants on this thread lack the experiences that you have, but it doesn't necessarily mean we are clueless. We can still rely on the shared experiences of good parents who had to grieve over the loss of their child, to know that becoming a parent is a big gamble. Some of us have also experienced emotional abuse from parents that might have thought they were doing everything right, but were actually doing everything wrong. Considering these things, it would be quite easy for someone to point their finger at you and claim that you had a daughter just to give your life purpose, which would seem like a selfish reason to an anti-natalist like myself. The only reason anyone would have a problem with that is the fact that you are putting the well-being of another person at risk for your own personal gain. For now, it might appear that the gamble paid off and you've hit the jackpot, but several years from now, a devastating and unexpected event could occur that takes that all away. Would it still be worth it if your daughter found herself writing a good-bye thread on SS 10-20 years from now? I hope that she never ends up in that kind of a situation, but it is a possibility that my own father will likely have to face when I reach my limit of what I can handle in this life.

I don't want to hurl accusations about "breeders" being sadistic or anything like that, because people can have kids for reasons that seem like good ones, but really are not. I don't know if that is the case for you or not, since you and her mother might have considered all of this before having a daughter anyway. You both might have had more reasons that we aren't aware of for making the decision, but I feel like sharing them would help your case more than becoming defensive.

 

[rhiino]

90% OF THE COMMENTS ON THIS POST ARE FROM PEOPLE WITH NO KIDS WHO DONT HAVE A CLUE

Might the comments of the childless people be more rational than yours? After all you love your daughter and thinking about her never been born makes you feel a loss, which results in a negative sentiment towards anti-natalism.
The childless people, however, all are children and can see it from the other perspective, without emotions towards an own child that distorts the picture.

The idea of regulating parenting sounds like a good one at first glance, but after having a debate about this on other sites in the past, I've come to realize that it might not be as good of an idea as I originally thought. The first problem is: Who is going to regulate this? If it's the government, then it's likely that the personal biases of the politicians involved will be the deciding factor in who can have children. People could be denied the privilege of having children because of their religious beliefs, ethnicity, political ideas, or any other reason that the government arbitrarily decides on, even though the people who are denied could have been excellent parents. If they can't be counted on to regulate it, then who else could do it?

That is true, it would open doors for corruption and malpractice. Nature was a good decision maker, let the strong and healthy survive and thus kept the genes healthy. Healthy genes meant less suffering. Today you can meander through the world and survive, even though you suffer and would never make it in nature alone because you are weak and ill.

 

[rhiino]

If you have nothing else to throw around but insults, my reasoning was obviously accurate.

And yes, it is about you as a matter of fact:

it certainly does make life more fun

 

[rankinchris]

If you have nothing else to throw around but insults, my reasoning was obviously accurate.

And yes, it is about you as a matter of fact:

do expect someone to say having kids isn't fun hahaha

 

[Mr2005]

Ughh. This again. Saying anything's just opening myself up to more grief I don't need. All I'll say is do you really think having kids is what's wrong with the world? That people should stop living their lives because there's problems with it? That's giving up which you're entitled to do but deciding that for everyone? Nah. I haven't met any antinatalists that love people which tells me everything I need to know

 

[puppy9]

I'm the testament of two dumb adults having kids despite their life is a wreck, every single day I wish I was not born. That is my view on my life experience.
I too wish to have kids, but I know it's selfish of me to have one despite knowing that I can't provide the best for my future children. I wanna give em a life that I never had but that ship has sailed. I will rethink marriage and having children when I'm financially abundant which is impossible.