data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8806a/8806acce06e455a41faf6f347ff070f6c70dacf4" alt="Darkover"
Darkover
Archangel
- Jul 29, 2021
- 5,041
Bringing someone into existence guarantees they will experience suffering and eventually die. If a parent truly prioritized sparing their child from harm, they might conclude that the only way to do so is to never have them in the first place. This is a core argument of antinatalism—the idea that it is better never to be born than to suffer and die.
Most parents, however, don't think this way. They either don't consider the inevitability of death when deciding to have children, or they believe that life is worth it despite suffering. Many see joy, love, and meaningful experiences as justifications for existence, even though suffering is guaranteed.
From my perspective, though, the certainty of suffering and death outweighs any potential positives, making non-existence the more compassionate choice.
Most parents, however, don't think this way. They either don't consider the inevitability of death when deciding to have children, or they believe that life is worth it despite suffering. Many see joy, love, and meaningful experiences as justifications for existence, even though suffering is guaranteed.
From my perspective, though, the certainty of suffering and death outweighs any potential positives, making non-existence the more compassionate choice.