5 Common Misconceptions About Antinatalism 

Antinatalists seem to misconceptualize their own logic when they continue to rely on the existence of other humans. Antinatalists shouldn't rely on the existence of other humans when they don't want other humans to be born!

That every antinatalist hates children

the biggest misconception about antinatalism is that it really cares about others, when really, it's just sour grapes.

I watched a few antinatalist videos because they don't want humans to procreate but it is still ok for them to rely on the existence of procreated humans. I tried to explain their hypocrisy. So far they haven't acknowledged their own hypocrisy.

*gave

Research 🤓

Are you an antinatalist ?

Karma is primarily sorting s#it out, can't imagine that not qualifying as suffering like hell!

@@Charlotte.4C hey ever read , spirit guide.. " silver birch" . I find that good , as far as what goes round comes round, to just one life makes no sense , ciao

@@Charlotte.4C plus.. I am sure it's true we humans only really learn , in dark times , if that's right then , that's the reason souls choose to be part of many incarnations

Karma doesnt exist. Yall are tripping

​@@oranges557 golden rule , we reap what we sow, what goes round comes round, ext ext

Cheers Joe

The problem with Zeke's idea is that it is selective and racist, it only applies to the Eldians and will thus lead to the eradication of an entire people specifically. It's unfair.

He should only watch his own movies. Movies made by other people (they shouldn't have been born) shouldn't exist!

@@TheFettuck why?

Glad you appreciate it!

According to the meriam-webster dictionary, "Eugenics is the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations to improve their genetic composition." Antinatalism is not concerned with selectively breeding humans. It's about not breeding /any/ humans. But I'm not surprised that people who like to gaslight by spinning reality, would say that AN inherently promotes eugenics.

@@user-cn7mz7bt8y thier are some dumb extremist/edgy antinatalists on the r/antinatalism sunreddit that advocate for it too so that dosent help

Breeding is leading to eugenics.

Cheers Stan

👋

Nah there’s a cure

@@isaiahdamron445 Like?

😏🔫

@@mjfraser04 Not bringing more life to existence.

1st lol

He’s slipping down the league table 😱

@@LawrenceAnton 🙀 🙀 🙀

It is morally wrong to have children because having children means bringing another person into existence, and subjecting them to the risk of suffering. The reason it is morally wrong is because it is impossible to ask consent, thus, it exposes that it is a selfish act, done by a person to another person for no justifiable reason other than the parents simply wanted to. The child becomes an object, and simply has to take on the consequences of those actions. That's why it is morally wrong, because it is selfish to gamble with someone elses life.

@@uncagedpine9589 You can't ask if they want to continue non existent either. No way to know either way means no moral nor philosophical argument, just your subjective belief that living is worse than not existing, so depression masquerading as a philosophy.

@@firebird4909 that's exactly what I said. There's no way to know, so you're simply doing it because YOU want to. You're putting yourself first, which makes it selfish. So there is a moral argument there, because although we cannot look at the child's subjective opinion, we can look at you, and your own motives. That's like saying it's morally fine to beat the crap out of a paralyzed person because they can't fight back or say they don't want it. "yea but he didn't say he didn't like it bro" does it subjectively hurt you if I beat you with a bat? Do you think he would feel the same, or since we can't ask him, it's morally fine correct?

@@firebird4909 So let's say another subjective belief. I say hey it's good for me to be able to rip off and steal from anyone I want, and when other people complain about it, that's just their subjective opinion and to be honest, they're just paranoid. That's paranoia masquerading as an actual argument. Hey some people might like it if I steal from them? So why would I care about this person's subjective experience? The point I'm making is this: You can put yourself in others shoes, and assume things for them if you have empathy. Just because we ask someone what they want, doesn't mean giving them what they want is always the moral thing either. If the bar for morality is to ask people what they want, the whole would be pure chaos.

@@uncagedpine9589 you misunderstood, it is your subjective belief that life is miserable, but you can't assume the child will feel the same way, not when we have vast experience of the opposite.

Aren't you against suffering? Antinatalists actually are just as obliged to be vegans as vegans are to be plant based. But plant based eaters aren't necessarily vegans, and vegans aren't necessarily antinatalists! Plant based eaters can and are mostly "in it" for selfish reasons! Vegans care a lot about suffering, but it's primarily about not using/abusing or oppressing anyone and for liberating everyone. Antinatalists are, as far as I can tell, primarily about liberating all from suffering, preferably from before suffering is even an option... Period! I think vegans and antinatalists understand each other very much and are close, you could say!

Suffering - is the only thing that matters ( therefore, suffering is bad, regardless if who suffer, even if animals), anything other seems to be important, because it influences amount of suffering, for example, food decrease suffering, deceases increase suffering.

​​@VeganDeed sentiocentric antinatalism. I'm most concerned with humans and any super sentient creatures. I don't think nature outside of humans and other super sentient creatures have morals. Because it doesn't. It will get along just fine without us and doesn't have an understanding of its suffering, nor does it need one. Of course this doesn't excuse us to abuse animals in the ways we have (an example being factory farms), other species arnt the odd one out. We are. Antinatalism is only applicable to humans, I think, because we're the only one who can come up with such a concept

@saggyshaggy It's not about their morals... It's all about you and your moral. It seems you couldn't be more selfish even if you tried too, which you apparently are doing! As long as you are here, though, please try and do the right thing, be as empathic and ethical as possible to all 💚🌿

@@saggyshaggy Btw. I'm mostly concerned, very, very much actually, about humans morals towards animals and all others! The animals, ignorants or selfish people have no morals, they obviously can not help themselves, they are mostly pure instinct, choiceless, they need guidance from those that can and do have it... Morals and choices!

No. We're realistic thinkers. Being negative is unnecessary.

Realistic or skeptical as well I'd say

Negative by circumstances I'd say

@@pateksky1890 Nope negative. People are antinatalist because the focus on suffering and assign it a negative value. A realistic thinker might see suffering as worth it to build a future for humanity.

@@user-pd8ns7gs3grealistic? You think others should be brought here to suffer for other humans? 🤨

Yes. It's part of bodily autonomy whether we like it or not. We should strive to educate people in helping them see though why it might not be the ethical choice they think

@@saggyshaggy we say it is their choice or their right only because the herd think it is. also because it is seen as something "natural". the classic appeal to nature fallacy. many things happen in nature that I do not see people doing, they simply cherry pick based on their desires in order to justify their actions. people talk about the right to have kids, have any of them stop to think about the rights of the person being created? they do not care about that. what about the people that are living in a 💩 hole, they just keep popping kids out so that they can also enjoy living in that shit hole too. they are so kind. could somebody think of the children!!. BUT ONLY AFTER THE FACT, NOT BEFORE, NO NO NO. because we need to play house. apparently the rights of the person being created are irrelevant because they have the right to pop kids out and force people into this world to starve and, enjoy a 💩 hole . apparently the rights to play house supersedes the rights of those they are forcing to come here. they consider it is ok NOT to have children only when you know there is some genetic disease and your kid will be sick (and not always happens) but, if we do not know the chances of a disease... who cares, I mean, once the baby is here, we just shrug our shoulders and say, hey, life isn't perfect enjoy being sick for the rest of your life because heyyy, after all, life is wooonderful. that pretty much makes everything right, right?. wrong. the thing is that the herd has never stopped to really think about reproduction but, they do not really care. they only care about their desires and fairy tales. the fairy tales are mostly to justify their actions that are based on their desires. think about smoking, you have the right to put whatever you want in your body and yet, you are not allowed to smoke in public spaces, why? because other people are affected by you smoking. the same thing with pregnancy. another person will be affected in multiple ways and yet, it is allowed because of the so called bodily autonomy. because people think they have the right to put another person in this place. it is interesting to see that the immorality of a behavior is invalidated as soon as the majority does not agree. if the majority does not think it is immoral then, it isn't. the well being and rights of the individual does not matter if it does not align with the desires of the group. they talk so much about bodily autonomy and human rights and yet, euthanasia is not available for anyone. probably there are many other examples because they always contradict themselves. if something aligns with their desires and fairy tales then, it is ok and good and moral. morality and human rights should be independent of such things.

Procreation should not be a right.

@prussiansocietyofamerica there are a lot of things morally and ethically wrong with this statement

Sure, it's your right and your choice to have children. But just because you _can_ do a thing, still doesn't mean that you _should._ There are no altruistic reasons to have children.

It's not incoherent at all. Antinatalism doesn't state it's not better to self delete. It's the individual's own choice to self delete or not.

@@fjj310 Antinatalism absolutely does make prescriptions on staying alive as an act of not harming.

@@tjk355 Antinatalism states it's better not to procreate, nothing more nothing less.

@@fjj310 you're wrong. Look at the doctrine. The question of self deletion has been asked by many and the answer is that it would break the no harm principal. You're either lying because you know it is completely unpalatable to the general population or you are just ignorant if what you're defending.

1. Antinatalists don't want humans to procreate. 2. Antinatalists do still rely on procreated humans. Antinatalism is incoherent!

Wrong. Many people DO INDEED care, hence why the philosophy is growing more and more. And attention on it as well. And we will continue to plan and act so as to give the philosophy the best chance possible to take over. Obviously YOUR side cannot present argument x as to why its objectively wrong, so just stand aside while we do our work.

@@FinalFantasy8911debater you can shout about this to the ends of the earth , it will always remain niche and taboo because it is completely the against the interest of all life on earth ( the will to reproduce). For that reason , it will never gain traction. As it is anti human .nobody cares , people are still having sex and having babies , partying and clubbing .

@@FinalFantasy8911debater antinatalism will always remain niche and taboo, since it is the exact opposite of every living things interest ( reproducing ). So by default it not unnatural. By pure Darwinian logic antinatlism simply cannot win , as the fools who subscribe to the theory will someday cease to exist without children to bear the philosophy, while their ideological opponents will do as nature to intends , and continue to replenish their numbers the old fashion way , as well as reproducing the old fashioned mindset with them . Fight as the day is long , no one will ever take seriously throwing away their desire to have children away .

@@FinalFantasy8911debater antinatalism will always remain niche and taboo, since it is the opposite of every living things interest ( reproducing ). So by default its unnatural. By pure Darwinian logic antinatlism simply cannot win , as the fools who subscribe to the theory will someday cease to exist ,without children to bear the philosophy, where as there ideologically will do as nature to intends , and continue to replenish their numbers the old fashion way .

​@@Cherubim6166 You should use your brain more. Enslavement is also natural and was very common, but now vast majority of people view this as a bad thing, the same is true about nazism, racism, and such. People are slowly getting less bad. And antinatalists do not need to reproduce in order to increase their numbers. There is no antinatalist who was intentionally created by an other antinatalist. All antinatalists were born by natalists. Antinatalism is an idea, ideas can be spread without reproduction.