-
Hey Guest,
If you want to donate, we have a thread with updated donation options here at this link: About Donations
Undertow Mermaid
Human Centipede is a tour de force
- Feb 5, 2023
- 50
I wanted to be a mother. But my own trauma and mental health issues would equal me being a horrible mother. I feel people who have issues like mine, or are just fucked up shouldn't be allowed to have kids. But then it gets complicated on who can and cannot have children. But I feel like the country you live in should have evaluations for anyone who wants to be a parent.
Add to the fact people shouldn't be having kids until every last adoptable child has a happy home, but we all know that once a baby is born no one gives a fuck about it anymore. Knew some kids in the system they lived through some twisted sick shit, they shouldn't have been born just to suffer like that.
Add to the fact people shouldn't be having kids until every last adoptable child has a happy home, but we all know that once a baby is born no one gives a fuck about it anymore. Knew some kids in the system they lived through some twisted sick shit, they shouldn't have been born just to suffer like that.
Spiritual survivor
A born again but occasionally suicidal
- Feb 13, 2022
- 503
This is also one big reason I avoided having children. I knew I had some serious issues. I would have wanted to if I could reasonably ensure that they had a decent future and would not have had to endure a terrible childhood like mine was. I was not taken care of properly, and I had a lifetime of failure and struggle as a result. And no it's not attractive to have kids in poverty or under the threat of potential poverty. I grew up in deprivation and neglect. I did not know how to ensure that my child won't have a similar outcome.
I think that as long as you can guarantee your kids a happy life free from major problems it's OK to have kids. But given the unpredictability of genetics and life in general, and the current state of our world, it's not possible. So I'm against having kids.
FuneralCry
She wished that she never existed...
- Sep 24, 2020
- 34,597
Of course, the only compassionate and rational outcome would be to let this species finally go extinct, I see it as such a terrible, disgusting crime forcing life into this hellish reality as after all procreation is the ultimate cause of all human suffering. To me it's like a virus how humans decide to so selfishly and cruelly procreate despite the fact that existence is so incredibly harmful with no limit as to how much one can suffer.
The non-existent should just be left alone in peace as one cannot be harmed by being eternally unaware, existence is completely unnecessary and procreation just creates problems there was never a need for.
The non-existent should just be left alone in peace as one cannot be harmed by being eternally unaware, existence is completely unnecessary and procreation just creates problems there was never a need for.
LonelyStarrySky
they/them, menhera
- Oct 27, 2023
- 75
I would never wish anyone to be born especially into a family where they will get neglected and treated like trash. People have children as tools of status and to inherit properties and get fake compassion from those around them. Pro-lifers only care about you as long as you are inside your mother's womb but once you get out, they don't care if your life is miserable however if you dare try to kill yourself, they will 'care' again about you how you have so much to live for. If you kill yourself now, you won't be alive to see this society fall to ruins and you won't be able to experience more pain than you already have, they want you to live even if your life is miserable. They value quantity over quality of ones life.
If I was never born I wouldn't be able to care if I got to live in this world or not. By the way this society's norms and the economy is right now I would rather not have lived at all.
If I was never born I wouldn't be able to care if I got to live in this world or not. By the way this society's norms and the economy is right now I would rather not have lived at all.
bettertosleep
Member
- May 3, 2023
- 12
I really want to be a parent. But I have schizophrenia, bipolar, and severe depression and I wouldn't want to pass any of that pain onto my children like my parents did to me.
partially (only in theory, not in practice). I do cognitively recognize that being born / giving birth to new life is a negative no matter what financial prospects and genetic value that life might have, it's better to never have existed in the first place no matter what.
but I'm more about liberty and we all shall do as we please (if it doesn't cause any detrimental harm to others) than anythings else because I wouldn't want anyone forcing me to do something againts my will. plus it is natural to want to have kids and be a parent so I don't judge a person on that.
in short, birth is negative but realistically there's nothing to do about it (without taking immoral measures to enforce it; I do think it matters how a thing is achieved)
but I'm more about liberty and we all shall do as we please (if it doesn't cause any detrimental harm to others) than anythings else because I wouldn't want anyone forcing me to do something againts my will. plus it is natural to want to have kids and be a parent so I don't judge a person on that.
in short, birth is negative but realistically there's nothing to do about it (without taking immoral measures to enforce it; I do think it matters how a thing is achieved)
WAITING TO DIE
TORMENTED
- Sep 30, 2023
- 1,541
Bringing children into this world of suffering is just adding more suffering to the problem.
Yup, I inherited depression and bipolar from my father. I'm glad I never had kids to inflict the same crazy genes upon them.
No but there should be measures to help "glitch people" like us to exit life.
I find the "some people suffer therefore nobody should have children" thing to be a pretty shit argument. Just cuz you don't like life doesn't mean trillions of other people don't love it. Not everything in the world that happens to you must be done with your consent. And parents do not bring you into the world to suffer. They bring you into the world and then you suffer.
Idk. Seeing life as ultimately a net negative is weird to me. So many people love and cling to life even throughout hardship. I might not. You might not. But the majority of people are grateful to be here. I don't think it is selfish to have children.
If life happens. And 9/10 people enjoy it. I don't think it's selfish to chance that 1 may not.
Idk. Seeing life as ultimately a net negative is weird to me. So many people love and cling to life even throughout hardship. I might not. You might not. But the majority of people are grateful to be here. I don't think it is selfish to have children.
If life happens. And 9/10 people enjoy it. I don't think it's selfish to chance that 1 may not.
ijustwishtodie
death will be my ultimate bliss
- Oct 29, 2023
- 2,665
I'm currently undecided. However, I do believe that most parents shouldn't be parents or should at least prepare more before being parents. Though, a strong point for antinatalists, in my opinion, is that there is no reason to create a child for the child's sake. Like the person above me said, most people like life despite the hardship but, even so, creating a life still creates a risk that they end up suicidal and depressed even if said risk is small. Or that they just dislike life for what it is. And, if they were to grow up to hypothetically love life, they can't regret not existing in the first place since.. they never existed yet
I wonder what attitudes towards reproduction would be if it were more of a 50:50 chance.
Even if we are "glitch people" as I termed it it's still fucked up to force us into Frankenstein lives and expect us to accept the "gift of life" and there should be more institutional measures to help people exit if that's the way it is going to be.
LikeAPendulum
Member
- Aug 25, 2022
- 99
Some Anti-Natalists out there have shown their foul, angsty personalities. There should be more good people in this world, and some of them prove they aren't good people themselves.
I wish my parents never got together to be the dysfunctional couple that left me with a broken mind and a broken soul. But I wish the best for the healthy families out there.
I wish my parents never got together to be the dysfunctional couple that left me with a broken mind and a broken soul. But I wish the best for the healthy families out there.
You say that people should only be allowed to do things that don't hurt others, and you accept that bringing children into the world is harmful. Yet you say that people should be free to have children? Don't you see the contradiction?
You're right about the contradiction. I just naively hope that at some point everyone will agree to willingly let the human race go extinct and create a long-term plan to do it so the last generation won't suffer too much in its final days while not having a continuation. But I can't see it ever happening; it's too far fetched. The human race is devided and pluralistic, there's no way that a true consensus to go exitinct will be reached. We'll continue the cycle of life until external forces will stop it, and it'll be a lot uglier than what could have been a much more comfortable departure if humanity went with the anti natalism route.
I am. Used to be in a reddit group for anti-natalists but got fed up of the constant "why are you still here then?" from the natalists believe it or not. It really is not nice being asked why you're still here just because you happen to be an antinatalist and disagree with creating new life. Of course I can't go into the whole thing and say actually I AM planning my exit because I'd get a "reddit cares" msg lol. I just got sick of arguing with people about it really. It makes total sense to me to not bring new life here, but most people think it's a completely crazy concept and I don't have the energy to argue it anymore because of the sheer amount of trolling we get from natalists. I'm proud of my decision not to have biological children though.
thewalkingdread
Life is a pointless, undeserved, unnecessary pain.
- Oct 30, 2023
- 435
Spiritual survivor
A born again but occasionally suicidal
- Feb 13, 2022
- 503
I do agree with this but at the same time, many people are not fit to be parents and cause a lifetime of unnecessary suffering on a person. If there was some type of parental evaluation to make sure u are not personality disordered and too self centered to properly nurture children I would be way less antinatalist. It causes major problems for society when people are abusive or unable to care for kids correctly in the first 1 to 6 years of age especially. You want to produce functional adults who are able to participate in society and self actualize, not people for the prison industrial complex. Some people literally have to be taught how not to abuse their children lol!
Last edited:
Yeah, we do agree on that. At least we know for a fact that extinction will happen one way or another.
If people wants to have kids , they must have very good mental health, no problems at all (drugs, alcool, gambling, etc.) and have enough money to support their kids and give them good education and access to university if they want.
Unfortunately for some dumbass, ejaculate is the only requirement to have kids.
Nobody should have kids because life is a terminal disease so wtf having kids.
The kids will go old and rot in is body and will be scared of death.
People should leave their hypothetical kids safe in the void.
Unfortunately for some dumbass, ejaculate is the only requirement to have kids.
Nobody should have kids because life is a terminal disease so wtf having kids.
The kids will go old and rot in is body and will be scared of death.
People should leave their hypothetical kids safe in the void.
It's not like I could be father even if I wanted but absolutely i would never pass this awful disease on to my kids.
Yeah this. I believe there should be as special licence to have kids and mandatory genetic testing for mental and physical illnesses
Anonymoususer1234
Experienced
- Apr 13, 2023
- 205
I wouldn't say I'm a hard line anti natalisit but I definitely do have anti natalisit leanings. I don't think that nobody should ever give birth but I do think most people who have/want kids probably shouldn't. I think most parents don't actually love their kids or treat them well. I don't have much sympathy for parents whining about how hard their lives are. (99% of parents who do that love to make their kids feel like a burden.)
daydreams
Member
- Nov 14, 2023
- 54
Most of us
What's the point of supporting natalism if you have experienced the pain and the suffering to the point that you want to end your life.
If the human race goes extinct no one has to suffer anymore.
What's the point of supporting natalism if you have experienced the pain and the suffering to the point that you want to end your life.
If the human race goes extinct no one has to suffer anymore.
I do agree with this. I can understand making some methods difficult to access (cuz I mean. All suicide methods are things that kill. And I can understand not wanting the general public to have access to things that kill people. Like guns.... Fuck America.) But things like SN? Nobody is using SN to murder people. There's just so many better ways to do that. If the country can be self aware enough to decriminalize suicide, they should decriminalize the purchasing and selling of suicide products to adults.
february in alaska
wandering aimlessly
- Sep 13, 2023
- 462
I don't think I would ever blame someone for having a kid (especially if it wasn't planned/extenuating circumstances or something) but I do have this blanket resentment towards all parents. I don't understand wanting to bring someone into this world, and although it doesn't really make sense, I feel like it isn't fair that people don't get a choice whether or not they're born.
Mostly I just don't see the world getting any better, and I just feel bad for anyone being born recently who will have to somehow navigate this shit
Mostly I just don't see the world getting any better, and I just feel bad for anyone being born recently who will have to somehow navigate this shit
Mistiie
This is a Junly moment
- Nov 10, 2023
- 205
Lots of people here are equating anti-natalism with not wanting a child. That's different. The latter is mature and rational. It's perfectly normal not to want kids, if you think you couldn't handle them for this or that reason. Anti-natalism is defined as being the hatred and disgust at the action of reproduction due to the introduction of a life into the world, which anti-natalists see as 'cruel'. This is downright stupid.
I might be going against the grain here but I think anti-natalism is a pathetic, short-sighted ideology. Most people who follow it see existence and birth as an immoral act. Something that hurts people. And that's just not true. Maybe it is in the anti-natalist's eyes, but their views are skewed. Think about how many people have happy lives. That happens to be, (un)shockingly, the vast majority. Are most of those people happy to be alive? Yes. Are there a few that think that they'd rather not be born? Also yes. Should we stop human births entirely so that there's a net neutral feeling towards life from children (neither good nor bad because they were never born) rather than mostly positive lives with a few tragic ones sparsely scattered throughout? No, obviously not.
Another way to think of it is to go take a walk. Look at what others are doing. Are they moping, alone, forever alone? Or are they being happy, chatting to friends, eating nice food, taking in a view, listening to good music, etc.? The answer is that the majority are doing the latter. They're not suffering. They're thriving. Just because you're not, doesn't mean you have to prevent people like them from being born. It's selfish and ignorant.
To address arguments against this:
Also, for the argument of the non-existent being left alone...how do you know that's what they want? Is it not fairer to bring them in and let them leave of their own accord rather than to not let them in at all? Freedom is the least cruel path to follow regarding the right of birth, in every conceivable way, be that freedom to procreate or freedom to die. The most cruel option is to enforce suffering on people (anti-natalism) because some people might face a bad time in life.
Ideas like these are only ever good on paper.
Also, the skewed idea of people being like you, again...not everyone is scared of death. Most people are like, kind of scared of death. As you get older, you accept it though. And even then, if you don't, is that not an argument towards living as full a life as you can, rather than suffering via death, a fear of yours?
These ideas that anti-natalists provide seem so half-baked and just completely self-centered. People need to learn that not everyone feels like they do. If anything, it's the opposite. That entire concept completely suplexes anti-natalism as an idea because if it were even worthy of discussion/had merit, the species would have died out long ago because it would have meant that the species' emotional states were selecting against the species itself, causing them to stop breeding and consequentially, extinction would follow.
Any species that expresses just a few traits of anti-natalism is lost to the fossil record, because they're an error in evolution. They shouldn't have been around. But humans have been around, and for a relatively long time. That alone tells us that anti-natalism is not inherently a correct idea at all. Life wants to reproduce, to be around, to live and experience. The idea that it doesn't and that it shouldn't could not be further from the truth. Every organism, from bacteria to butterfly to bee to bear, wants to live and to die and to have children and to experience. It's just a small subsection of faulty humans expressing faulty concepts and learned beliefs that don't. Their beliefs are selecting against themselves, in some way, though; in the future, you might see children want to live to a greater capacity than we want to today, because those that didn't died out sooner or didn't thrive and have kids. Who knows...
Biologically, it's a worthless ideology. Socially, it remains the same thing.
I might be going against the grain here but I think anti-natalism is a pathetic, short-sighted ideology. Most people who follow it see existence and birth as an immoral act. Something that hurts people. And that's just not true. Maybe it is in the anti-natalist's eyes, but their views are skewed. Think about how many people have happy lives. That happens to be, (un)shockingly, the vast majority. Are most of those people happy to be alive? Yes. Are there a few that think that they'd rather not be born? Also yes. Should we stop human births entirely so that there's a net neutral feeling towards life from children (neither good nor bad because they were never born) rather than mostly positive lives with a few tragic ones sparsely scattered throughout? No, obviously not.
Another way to think of it is to go take a walk. Look at what others are doing. Are they moping, alone, forever alone? Or are they being happy, chatting to friends, eating nice food, taking in a view, listening to good music, etc.? The answer is that the majority are doing the latter. They're not suffering. They're thriving. Just because you're not, doesn't mean you have to prevent people like them from being born. It's selfish and ignorant.
To address arguments against this:
This is a hop, skip and a jump away from eugenics. An OK-at-best idea in theory, but good luck enforcing this in any way. On one hand, you'll have people not caring and doing the deed in private. On the other, your government now restricts people based on more than mental health. That's a stone's throw from what our favourite toothbrush-moustache-donning man in the 1900s believed in for specific peoples. And no, not Charlie Chaplin.
Again, my argument for this being a horribly skewed view of life is relevant. The majority of people don't have net suffering in their lives. If humanity were to face a net suffering, then the species would have been selected against through suicide or anti-natalist views. There's a reason why anti-natalism isn't a mainstream movement, and that's because it's being selected against, because most people are happy with their lives.
Also, for the argument of the non-existent being left alone...how do you know that's what they want? Is it not fairer to bring them in and let them leave of their own accord rather than to not let them in at all? Freedom is the least cruel path to follow regarding the right of birth, in every conceivable way, be that freedom to procreate or freedom to die. The most cruel option is to enforce suffering on people (anti-natalism) because some people might face a bad time in life.
Again. People here need to understand that most people don't suffer. Even if they do, they enjoy life. You go up to anyone on the street and ask them if they enjoy their life and they're normally at the very least adequately pleased with it. Not too much but definitely enjoyed having been born to experience what they did. Sanctioned Suicide is not an accurate sample of the wider populace, and should not be treated as such. It is a niche, underground website for those who suffer in life. As such, your views will be shifted towards suffering being the norm. It is not. Joy with suffering mixed in and added as a topping is what life is truly like for most.
You two get it. Achb, you're almost uncanny, you said the exact same thing I was thinking.
Providing good opportunities for your kids before having them is a nice fantasy but not everyone can afford that. If that were implemented right here, right now, in 20-30 years, society would literally collapse. We're already struggling with the weight of the ageing populations in the majority of countries outside of Stage 5 countries, which I think there's only 2/3 of right now (Germany and some others?) where their populations are declining and not ageing as much. In countries like the U.S., U.K., Japan, etc., you would see a complete social care meltdown and the elderly would die en masse, with the economy tanking quite hard. That's suffering.
Ideas like these are only ever good on paper.
Also, the skewed idea of people being like you, again...not everyone is scared of death. Most people are like, kind of scared of death. As you get older, you accept it though. And even then, if you don't, is that not an argument towards living as full a life as you can, rather than suffering via death, a fear of yours?
These ideas that anti-natalists provide seem so half-baked and just completely self-centered. People need to learn that not everyone feels like they do. If anything, it's the opposite. That entire concept completely suplexes anti-natalism as an idea because if it were even worthy of discussion/had merit, the species would have died out long ago because it would have meant that the species' emotional states were selecting against the species itself, causing them to stop breeding and consequentially, extinction would follow.
Any species that expresses just a few traits of anti-natalism is lost to the fossil record, because they're an error in evolution. They shouldn't have been around. But humans have been around, and for a relatively long time. That alone tells us that anti-natalism is not inherently a correct idea at all. Life wants to reproduce, to be around, to live and experience. The idea that it doesn't and that it shouldn't could not be further from the truth. Every organism, from bacteria to butterfly to bee to bear, wants to live and to die and to have children and to experience. It's just a small subsection of faulty humans expressing faulty concepts and learned beliefs that don't. Their beliefs are selecting against themselves, in some way, though; in the future, you might see children want to live to a greater capacity than we want to today, because those that didn't died out sooner or didn't thrive and have kids. Who knows...
Biologically, it's a worthless ideology. Socially, it remains the same thing.
Last edited:
Twiceler
Pro-suicide. Blackpill.
- Dec 16, 2021
- 73
I'm not anti-natalist, but I'm still pro-suicide. No matter how bad or good people are, there are people who can deal with suffering and I'm fine with them procreating. Even if I'm wrong and everyone is suffering, there is an option called suicide.
Suicide is always open for everyone and will always be. And if a person truly wants it, he has methods to get it done. There is a SI, yeah, but it's not an excuse, let's be fair.
Suicide is always open for everyone and will always be. And if a person truly wants it, he has methods to get it done. There is a SI, yeah, but it's not an excuse, let's be fair.
thewalkingdread
Life is a pointless, undeserved, unnecessary pain.
- Oct 30, 2023
- 435
Yes.This is a true statement. Many people above have made this gross mistake. But why did they do it?! Why are people equating 'anti-natalism' with being 'childfree'?! Because being childfree is an easier-to-swallow black pill... it comes without the moral judgment present in anti-natalism.
This is a 'pro-choice' and 'suicidal ideation' support forum. This means people here are aware and care more about free will than just passing moral judgment/condescension on others (hence the "pro-choice" label). And, also, they want to be supported and to support others, like themselves, who have had the misfortune of coming to the same, ill fated, crossroads between continuing living a miserable life or stoping it already — because enough is enough.
So, perhaps, anti-natalists are refraining from asserting their hard-to-swallow anti-natalist views out of respect for all the natalists, like you, cohabitating in this forum. As you recognized yourself, you are a minority in here. You should look at those statistics and reflect carefully why this is the case.
I will be audacious and state that all — and I really mean ALL — the people in this forum, with their diverse life backgrounds, if they were given the option between (1) Killing themselves or (2) Never being born, they would choose (2) because it's always "better" never to have been in the first place. For suicidal people, this is what anti-nalism truly means. (And that should include you, despite your reluctance against it.)
No, no, no. That's not how anti-natalism is defined.
You are "strawmaning" the thesis you want to refute by grossly misconstruing it. And you are furthering the rethorical falacy by ascribing to anti-natalists a hateful stance, suggesting that hating something, which is considered by a majority a natural thing — i.e. procreating —, is irrational.
So... Strawman, emotional appeal, Ad populum... The list of fallacies you've made just grows. How can we debate anything without a minimum of intellectual honesty?! I won't fall into to this trap "debate".
I will leave an open question, however, to counter another somewhat inadequate suggestion you did. You said anti-natalists view the "world" (life) as 'cruel'. Yes... Maybe antinalists would use this term, expressing themselves, colloquially, in layman terminology, assuming that life is, overall, "more pains than pleasures".
And that would be inaccurate but, worse: 'cruel' is a moral term, subjected to, well, subjective evaluation and judgment. Neutral terminology is best suited for a more "scientific", objective language. Therefore, instead of 'cruel', I would rather say 'indifferent'.
That being said, it would still make no big difference, for the discussion's sake, if antinatalists say the "world" is 'cruel' or 'indifferent'... Because, in the end, you are still affirming that the "world" is, overall, a 'good' thing — which, by the way, is also a problematic moral term just as 'cruel' is.
Why can you say that the "world" is 'good' but anti-natalists can't say it is actually 'cruel'…? What is your criterion? If you really think hard about my question, you are going to realize you're not being fair and balanced as you would like to think.
No and yes.
No, existence is not an immoral act. It's not even an 'act' to begin with.
And, yes, antinatalists think procreation/birthing sentient beings is an immoral act. That's the honest definition of anti-natalism you should have stated instead of the one you used before.
Anti-natalism says: Procreation is an immoral act. (When done by moral agents like humans, since morality doesn't apply to non-human agents)
Last edited:
I answered no.
Some people do have a really content and fulfilling life. I had alot of trauma yet there have been many years of joy and contentment in between. I think our views are so bias because we are all here and are now suffering extensively. We can't help but project that.
I feel that the more we know and learn about the truth of humanity ( the ugly truth) then the worse our world view becomes. The more awake I became the more I wished I could turn back to ignorant bliss. I think the more ignorant and blinkered you are, the happier your life.
Some people do have a really content and fulfilling life. I had alot of trauma yet there have been many years of joy and contentment in between. I think our views are so bias because we are all here and are now suffering extensively. We can't help but project that.
I feel that the more we know and learn about the truth of humanity ( the ugly truth) then the worse our world view becomes. The more awake I became the more I wished I could turn back to ignorant bliss. I think the more ignorant and blinkered you are, the happier your life.
