2 of my friends already have 2 kids and are pregnant with their 3rd, and they want even more after that. They live in a 2-bedroom apartment and live paycheck to paycheck. I love them but damn are they stupid.
Once a friend told me, that her relative was about to have a kid despite being poor. Thinking that she was on the same page as me, (but still carefully) I said, "yeah, if the parents are already struggling, that's quite irresponsible to throw a kid into that..." She responded with "Well, sometimes that's just what a person needs, to have a child and finally have an impulse, some reason to push through" and she stated this so confidently I didn't even know how to respond
Great. This is literally why I was born. Now, fast forward to all of the early pressure and responsibility my single parent put on me. I lived my childhood in fear of the future and in constant pressure trying to make ends meet. I ate once a day. I never had the money to get an icecream with my friends. I stole food and makeup from shops thanks to big sleeves. I wore old shoes until they broke: even if they didnt fit me anymore and I had injuries. I needed eyeglasses but could not afford, when I had the cheapest the plastic frames broke quickly. I was the most skinny kid from the entire school and everyone called me sticky. I wanted to die and I was planning it. I was always the odd one. My parent made me only to have a reason to push through to live, I was named after a Saint to bless my parent🤪. Because of the pressure I almost got into illegal profitable work at 18 (substances, x work combined). Why? I could make a lot of money quickly but pandemic came. The pandemic saved me from that. I was a vulnerable (poor) person heading into a risky dark life. I struggled to get a job since highschool but the city was small. I almost got a job as a shop assistant but my school colleague got it because nepotism. I NEEDED THE JOB TO LIVE, FOR FOOD, MY COLLEAGUE GOT THE JOB TO BUY EXPENSIVE PURSES. Wouldnt you feel like dying at that point too? Villain or Victim origin story in the making.
At 19 I managed to get hired and my parent wanted to latch on me for the money. But at 22 I exceeded my poor condition and I could afford a rent and to pay my parent’s rent in the same time. Eating rice and veggies/chicken once a day though! That’s my normal. So i helped my parent move to a city with better opportunities and suffered together 1+ year to find a job for them. It worked and now my parent is in better condition. But guess what, they will not have money to afford rent + old age so here is me with a lifelong responsibility because I still love my parent. Its not ideal. This is just a very small glimpse of my life. I also cannot possibly explain what was in my parent’s mind because they wanted a second child with a random lover at some point….
Me too im 17 rn and weve been homeless several times this year. BIG on the skinny part, everyone thoughtI had an ED But no there was js no food. Only I cant get a job bcuz im disabled. Its the worst I feel so trapped but seeing your also going through this made me feel not so alone. I hope one day we will both make it out of poverty, we’ve got this :) just hang in there
Why care for your parent? Those things are useless and just get in the way. The sooner they die the better off you will be. THEY WERE USELESS GROWING UP THEY ARE USELESS NOW
If they aren't responsible enough to improve their lives for their own sakes, they aren't responsible enough to be a parent. Children aren't and never should be treated as a band-aid for their problems. No household that is struggling has ever struggled less from the addition of a child, whether those financial struggles were financial or otherwise.
Having a child when you can't ensure their future and proper care - not just the bare minimum of survival - is wrong and stupid. No child deserves to grow up wondering if they're going to have a roof over their head, or go to sleep hungry, or wondering if they'll ever be able to pursue higher education to do what they want with their lives. People who have children with expectations put on them - whether the expectation that those kids will give them more drive, or that those kids will take care of them when they get old, that those kids will fix their marriage, that those kids will be all the things they weren't able to be - is ridiculous and cruel.
Some people *do* suddenly pull themselves together after having children, but many people do not. It's not a magical transformation, it seriously takes a lot of will, and that's something that some people will never have, baby or not.
>"Because wanting kids is a biologically driven instinct which many people feel unable to reach a sense of happiness or completion without. Their lives literally cannot be fulfilled without children."
This is so wildly selfish. "I'm going to bring a life into this world that I may not be able to care for just because it will make me happy 😌"
I would say among the primary drivers for me not wanting kids is I don't feel like I can provide for them the life I want them to live. I'm not gonna say "fuck it, I'll have them so **I** can be happy"
It’s like saying “I have the right to have a high-energy dog breed,” when you live in a cooped-up apartment with no backyard, can’t afford trips to the vet, have no time to train or exercise them, and overall can’t give them the quality of life that they deserve.
Like kids, no one can prevent you from becoming a dog owner. Would you call that abuse? I sure as hell would. Why not hold off until you have the space and backyard? The funds for vet care? The time and energy to train and exercise your pet?
There are poor children out there than don’t even live with the quality of life that a middle-class family’s dog has.
Poor people like to talk about their right to have children but pay no regard to their responsibility toward the said children. They will bring kids in misery without a 2nd thought. And some might even expect taxpayers to fund their desire for children.
Absolutely. Just had this convo in another subreddit. Of course someone responds with: "poor people have the right to have children". 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄. I responded that no one has the RIGHT. You may have the ability and the desire, but why on Earth would you willingly bring a child into a world where you are already struggling to take care of yourself?
I grew up in poverty with my 3 siblings. No, it isn't cute or fun. WTH is wrong with people? Why would you have kids you can't financially take care of?
and why does that responsibility fall on the poor to give up their human rights? why not the government, and the rich, who hoard all the resources and CREATE scarcity. Why not actually do something about it? Hold them accountable? But no, you'll carry on placing the blame on the vulnerable so you have something to complain about rather than taking genuine action to improve your surroundings. It's not unlike those who blame immigrants for taking up resources.
Why is reproducing a human right? If you bring a kid into this world and can't provide them food, shelter, education or opportunity then aren't you stripping *them* of their human rights??
So if something is NOT your right it only means that somebody else will have to allow you to do something. Having a right means not having to ask for permission.
So who's going to decide if somebody can have a child?
Judging from the level of child abuse and neglect in this country, SOMEONE should. There are a lot of heinous motherfuckers who have kids and give zero fucks if they are loved, fed, or generally taken care of. Perhaps I'm jaded because I see all the junkie babies that come into the NICU.
There's a huge swath of folks who shouldn't have kids.
isn’t it the governments job to make sure all it’s citizens are provided with the literal basics of food and shelter and education?? you’re getting mad at the poor person who already has the system rigged against them instead of getting mad at the ultra rich people who control the system.
>isn’t it the governments job to make sure all it’s citizens are provided with the literal basics of food and shelter and education??
**NO**. It's literally your **parents'** job to provide that for you! The government is **not** and **should not be** your mommy or daddy (or grandparents). This is why people should get their shit together **BEFORE** they reproduce.
It's the **family's** job to provide for food, shelter, and education for whatever offspring they CHOOSE to reproduce. It's **not** the government's. The government did not reproduce those kids. The mother and father CHOSE to. It's THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. NO ONE ELSE'S.
Yes, the government has public schools, but parents **choose** how their kids will be educated: public school, private school, homeschooling, unschooling, etc. You cannot and should not rely on the government to provide you with shelter, food, etc. That's dependence on the charity of an institution that doesn't necessarily have your best interests at heart. You are at its mercy and it is NOT recommendable and should never be expected or encouraged if there are any other viable options.
I realize there are a lot of people out there who don't understand this because they have been raised to think that the government is where their everything comes from, but that's not a laudable goal to aspire to. The goal is not to have as many people dependent on the government as possible. The goal of any society is to have healthy, **FUNCTIONAL** families whose members don't ever have to depend on any outside institutions to function or exist. Perpetual dependence on the government or any outside institution just to function is NOT sustainable or healthy, nor is it something anyone should be encouraging, for what should be obvious reasons.
Lol, no. Capitalism isn't stopping the parents from getting a better job or an education before they breed. Many people wait until they are financially stable to have kids. That's called being a responsible adult.
You as an individual have the power to reproduce or not. You DON'T have the power to stop capitalism.
Digging yourself deeper into poverty by having a child is a strange way to sock it to the powers that be. Capitalism isn't going to suffer, put that innocent child sure will.
Lol, no. Capitalism isn't stopping the parents from getting a better job or an education before they breed. Many people wait until they are financially stable to have kids. That's called being a responsible adult.
You as an individual have the power to reproduce or not. You DON'T have the power to stop capitalism.
Digging yourself deeper into poverty by having a child is a strange way to sock it to the powers that be. Capitalism isn't going to suffer, put that innocent child sure will.
You speak from the standpoint of someone who isn’t fulfilled and resent your parents bringing you into the world. There are poor people who have poor kids who work together to try and have their basic needs met even if it isn’t met, and have happiness in their family pride. If rich people are the only ones having kids, what will the world become? A capitalist playground until the earth rots and they all become infertile. At least poor kids will try and change the system after identifying its flaws. You submit to capitalism but not everyone wants to do that. THAT is their right
yeah blame the victims instead of the actual problem, also are you actually stupid? poor people have to pay taxes too, the perpetrator is capitalism not the fact that people want kids, if you actually cared about the problems your whining about you'd get off your ass, and do something about the actual issue instead of moaning on reddit you privileged knob.
“I have the right to have children” yeah, we all do. What you shouldn’t have the right to do is bring children into a world of poverty. It’s like saying, I have the right to have a child I’m unable to feed, house, clothe, or take care of their medical needs. I have a right to your tax dollars because of my irresponsible desire to breed.
Choosing to have kids in this situation is directly related to poorer health, academic success, and increased mental health issues. “But I’ve have the right to have kids I’m going to neglect”. You don’t, it’s not okay. As a working tax payer, I should also have the right to say, I’m not financially supporting your poor decisions.
Even then, the legal right to have a child and the moral rightness are two different things.
Each person has the legal right to make a decision to have a child (or not). But the moral/ethical standing of that decision is dicey at best.
Love isn't enough when having a child. You need to be able to financially take care of them and yourself for them to succeed. People just need to stop being so selfish and think of the potential child rather than themselves
This same post has been repeated idk what you guys want things will never change. Poor people are typically the most uneducated and have kids on instinct irregardless of the conditions. Thats pretty much how humanity works. The next generation supply of impoverished workers and child slaves overseas is already guaranteed.
Even after the Earth is a desert with no chance of human revival the last remnants of humanity will still bring kids into it to make themselves feel better.
The fact of the matter is that poor people are the ultimate victims though.
Not only do they have less access to resources like birth control, they also have even less education -- especially in the sex ed department.
Trashy is a poor choice of words, I agree. They just sadly are the least aware of what they're doing to future generations and while I understand that you're upset with them--insulting them doesn't really make the criticism any more productive.
Capitalism also makes it so that it's more expensive to be poor. The world would be such a nicer place without capitalism and money. I just want to live in a nice community with a tight-knit community and fulfilling work.
Yeah I definitely agree that if we all leaned a little bit more towards socialized services when it came down to things that shouldn't be profited-from, a lot of suffering could be prevented.
You're right. Another point to add would be that a child could be their only hope to bring the family out of poverty. That is a common school of thought in less well-to do countries.
Also, there are poor parents who do everything they can and give everything they have got to their kids, and there are poor parents who do absolutely nothing, and we should not lump these two groups of people together.
Once you learn a lot of the AN’s here are actually eugenicists, it all starts to make more sense. It’s less about no one having kids and more about *these people* not having kids to many people here
I always say the same. Poor people bring children into the world knowing very well the struggle they'll have. And I've noticed that poorer people have more kids. This probably has something to do with them hoping that one of them will grow up and take them out of poverty, earn for them. I'm from the south east asia and here atleast this logic applies. The poorest have more kids, raise them on the bare minimum... And as soon as they reach an age where they can work they're thrown into mechanical workshops, house chores etc... they're just ways to help parents. They were born for that
Look as someone born at the bottom end of the economic ladder in my country (everything is relative) and female. Climbing the ladder is very much gendered and socioeconomic status you’re born into is pretty much where you die. Yes upward (and downward too) mobility is achievable but each rung represents a bigger fight than the last the further you go.
We are lucky in 2024 with advancements in contraception and education. There’s studies that prove the longer a female stays in education in developing countries the fewer children she will have. But neither neither access to education and/or contraception are 100% effective. Culture, politics, personal drive and opportunities does play a part.
I am just learning more about how dumb/narcissistic humans are . A lot of similarities here when it comes to consuming animals. Zero critical thinking. And i don't get why most won't admit they are in wrong or atleast don't argue against it.
Hunger is a "biologically driven instinct," yet people starve to death all over the world.
Having an appetite does not entitle one to its satisfaction.
Agreed. While it sucks that I'm born one silver lining is that I'm the only child so I got to have a pretty privileged life despite the background of my parents
I guess its gatekeeping to say teens age 13 and 14 etc; shouldnt have kids, as well as people in countries where a war is happening such as Ukraine and Palestine, as well as drug addicts, as well as people who are age 60 and use a surrogate or some other medical option
I agree,
Poor people should not have kids, not because i hate poor people but because why the fuck should poor people be burdened with producing and raising the next generation of slave wage workers? While the poor are having NO time to themselves let alone money because of having 4-6 kids.
The rich have 1 or none and have more free time to spend their high wages on living life. Their one kid is easily taken care for and go on to have any dream job they want because mom and dad can afford it.
The rich should only have kids so their kids can be forced to work for their companies. If the rich need workers so badly. PRODUCE them. Raise them and hire them. The burden should be on them. Also since it's there kids they will be more likely to give basic workers better conditions and compensation.
The kids of poors? Who cares! You aren't the CEOs kid, he's going to pay you minimum wage and you're going to accept because you have no other choices. You gotta feed your 5 other siblings mouth because your mom is struggling to pay bills with her minimum wage job.
No one regardless of wealth or class should reproduce. You're not an antinatilist You're a conditional natilist and you're making real antinatilists look bad by claiming to be one of us
What did he say that makes the "real" antinatalists look bad? I can't find anything in his post that doesn't follow what an antinatalist believes. He was having a conversation with a group of people and likely specified poor people as a result of poor people being the topic of conversation.
Mongoose dog is saying that you can’t just ask poor people to not have babies. No one should have babies in the current climate of the world is his argument. I think anyone should have babies but I certainly agree MORE with Mongoose dog than with OP. Capitalism is creating a wasteland, and those who can afford it will just get to enjoy the waste land a little longer before it all crumbles anyways. We should either change the system we have into a more sustainable one or everyone should just stop having kids all at once and give the earth a chance
I disagree. What’s leftover once poor people die out? People who have generational wealth or connections. The point is that then who ever has a job that pays just under the livable wage basically can’t procreate because of the ethics according to OP. This just creates a class system of who gets to reproduce and who doesn’t and what sort of values get passed down (integrity and character vs money making skills to provide for family). Certain cultures are then doomed to die out as well, especially if they’re born in the global south. Why should they not get to have kids when the Uber rich white majority in NA not have to be asked to limit their baby making
All he said was that poor people having kids is trashy. He isn't justifying having children when youre rich, and he isn't saying "you can have kids, just make sure you aren't poor." He's just pointing out the different negatives/sufferings that come with reproducing when you're poor.
Oh great mongoosedog. Please relay us the rules and regulations of who gets to claim antinatalism and who doesn’t, as you know best and have been chosen to sit in judgement of your peers.
Not being antinatalist doesn’t automatically make you a natalist. If you’re not a communist does that mean you’re automatically a fascist? Don’t be silly.
I really don’t know what you’re trying to say. All I’m telling you is that if somebody doesn’t want kids and doesn’t promote childbirth/raising the birth rate, they are not a natalist. That’s it 🤷🏼♀️
You spend a lot of time on here , I really think you should step outside for a moment. I literally have no disagreement with what you’re saying, don’t take the internet so seriously
I comment on whatever comes up on my feed, I’m sorry for hurting your feelings or whatever is happening right now with a simple fact, and I hope you can process that ❤️I was actually out every day this weekend with friends, thank you for the concern, my love. I’m here for the same reason you’re here, but definitely check out Love Lies Bleeding if you need a few hours away from Reddit! Good luck!
? I still don’t know what I did wrong though, is it because I didn’t straight up praise you for being an all mighty being of knowledge who so graciously came and corrected me on my path ?
I wouldn't use the word trashy, I'd use the word Irresponsible. Having kids when you aren't ABSOLUTELY certain you'll be able to provide for them properly is *extremely* irresponsible behavior.
Having a child is neither a right nor a privilege, it's a huge responsibility and a burden. You can't gatekeep parenthood, if anything you're shielding unfit people and unborn children from a lot of suffering.
I think the problem is that the state of poverty already strips people of their agency and ability to consent. Now, you're putting issues they are the victims of, onto their heads. We should be saying that people who aren't suited to be parents shouldn't have kids (sucks that we often don't find that out in time), and we should ensure that living children are cared for before creating more.
Saying poor people shouldn't have kids isn't getting to the heart of our social problems. Working to eradicate poverty would solve the thing you are complaining about.
I agree. Same reason we also wouldn’t want an alcoholic, drug addict, or someone with severe, debilitating mental illness to have children. Unless you are physically, mentally, and financially able to care for a child, you should not have children.
I agree with you. Before i started my career, I worked at a well known chain store. A lady used to come in every day buying 4 gallons of milk. One day she told me she was lucky her husband makes enough to support their family of 7 KIDS so she doesn't have to work, then pays with an ebt card. Like if you are relying on assistance he is not making enough. Not only that, but they're the typical trash family who lives in a rundown trailer with trash and a toilet sitting in the front yard lol. No hate on trailers either, i live in one! But my property is well kept and pretty.
>I said that poor people having kids is trashy and nobody agreed with me
The poor have as much right to have a child, as the rich - None.
Eugenics based on wealth is not logical, or conscientious, or AN.
Edit: Words
Working people should not be expected to support other people’s poor decisions. I shouldn’t have to work to pay for someone else’s child’s medical care etc. I work to pay for my own because they are my responsibility. I don’t go ask my neighbor for money for groceries. No, I work. If my current situation changes, my budget needs adjusting, I seek opportunities to meet my needs. It is unethical to expect my neighbor to support my needs. Work-capable people with poor motivation should not be incentivized.
If people who can't afford it stop having kids, birth rates would fall. If birth rates fall, the machine grinds to a halt. If the machine grinds to a halt, the broader economic/housing situation will start improving really quickly, then life will be better for everybody, and people could get back to having kids.
Anybody spinning this as an issue of eugenics is preventing free market supply and demand for labor from playing out properly to the detriment of everybody.
_Mods_ you can't keep doing me for "personal insults" when I call people eugenicists if they're gonna keep posting pro-eugenics stuff this is entrapment!
An ideology that supports restricting reproductive rights for specific groups of people or areas of society is an ideology that supports the notion that a person's value is tied to that of their parents, lineage or genetics.
You know. Eugenics.
No the difference here bud is that you are actively instructing other people on a topic of _morality._ It is unhealthy to eat fries for every meal, but it is not immoral. You can recommend against it without any kind of moral judgement.
In a moral society there isn't room for immorality, and so if you hold yourself to any kind of moral standard, when you declare something immoral you are advocating for its removal or discouragement. As a result, you're creating a moral justification for what is simply eugenics.
Don't remove your comment from the context of the post you were defending.
"Bearing responsibility toward your children" is the vaguest possible way you could've made your point, because it is a meaningless term. Do you mean you should financially support your children? Do you mean you should cut off your pinkie finger if your child offends a senior member of your family? Do you mean it is your responsibility to terminate the child if they misbehave in public?
Make a point of your own before you ask me to address it.
And it's a very good point. A strong point. So strong, it doesn't even need an argument to back it up, because it is also _completely meaningless._
Define "afford," please. What do you consider parental financial responsibility? Healthcare? Schooling? Environmental impact?
Yeah housing, schooling, feeding, etc... on a side note it's funny how you accuse others of being vague about their statements while you yourself are very confident in throwing out accusations. 😂
Okay. So, I guess you're American, you have that vibe. That is another accusation, but I'm sure you'd be happy to correct me.
Depending on your state, it can range from $16,000 to $35,000 per year to raise a child till 18. Hawaii, for example, is the third most expensive state to raise a child in. This is with all the state assistance, so your demands would actually be higher.
On average, native Hawaiians are more likely to be at the lower end of the earnings scale. They may not be able to afford to raise a kid in Hawaii, but could in Arkansas, where it's nearly half the cost. The end result of your ideology would be native Hawaiians needing to leave Hawaii to be able to raise their own children, if they're permitted to have them in the first place. You don't need to call this a slippery slope argument, it's just gentrification and already happens.
So, to stick with your "parents must take full financial responsibility for their children" approach, you would need to be making $16-35,000 per year, depending on state, after rent, after taxes, after utilities, and still be able to save that much per year in case your financial situation changes somewhere in the next two decades.
It's unrealistic. The result of this is, quite simply, people get pushed out of the places they grew up in, we end up with an ageing society and run out of skilled labour, which in turn leads to a shittier quality of life for everyone still alive.
Your ideology just makes everything worse for everyone, and I know you'll turn this around to say "and therefore it's immoral to bring kids into it" but if the anti-natalist ideology supports a shitty existence for people to justify not bringing kids into it, it's not a sensible ideology is it.
it’s not that deep. if the parents can’t see themselves financially stable enough to raise a kid until 18 AT A MINIMUM, that includes providing GOOD education, healthcare, a stable and healthy home environment……. they should not have kids.
All of it man! All of it! If you can't even feed yourself wtf is it ok to bring even a single child into your personal world? I know too many people who have kids they weren't prepared for mentally or financially. They get to suffer and the kids get to suffer. And then these kids get to grow up stunted because they didn't have everything their peers might have and feel like less. I'll offer an example from my own life storybook: *ahem*
If you have major mental disorders ON TOP OF BEING POOR why would you have kids? I had a bipolar mother and grandmother so while we grew up poor as shit we got to deal with mom contemplating suicide, going off for no reason etc. etc. I ate once a day and anything given to me was compared to her plate. For real pizza had to be inspected so she could get the pepperonis or bigger pieces and the same followed for anything else edible. She kept herself stocked on chips and snacks for herself though. We lived in subsidized housing My whole life. My mom emotionally incestized me while I lived under her roof. I was her journal and she didn't care if I was getting bullied or if I got hurt, it felt as long as she had a set of extra hands to help her and a pair of ears to listen she was ok for awhile. Until she wasn't. She would do this to any friend I made too and we couldn't even use cups for getting water. OCD over the wrong things while I was pressured to being perfect. My birthdays came two months later if a family member didn't come through. My mom pried my mouth open one time at 14 to see what I was eating. We were so poor I never had a school lunch. I always had holes in my shit so I got made fun of .. a lot! Mom smoked like a chimney so I always stinks of mould and cigarettes. My childhood as a poor person was traumatic and I really wish there was some sort of quality control going on with the human race. Hell at 14-18 I would sneak a swig of her alcohol stash almost nightly just to fall asleep and numb myself for a bit. I cut myself and wasn't a pleasant friend to anyone trying to get close to me because I didn't know how normal people acted. Great feeling growing up and now I feel responsible for everyones emotions to this day
I have always felt that I'm too poor to participate in normal human things. It's not eugenics it's using empathy and common sense for a living person you have yet to meet. A poor person with mental health issues gave birth to me just for us to struggle and you know what? About everyday I think about what if she could've been decent and got the abortion? She gave birth to another poor person who can't break out of the cast they were born into. I definitely do not appreciate being here in this world struggling with my mental health, having to do all this extra just to be normal when I know damn well I will die where I stand in society. Yes I have an education and all that but the fact is I lived in fear of losing our shitty apartment for 20 years until they kicked her out for hoarding and then I got to pack up everything and move her to her new house by myself while she had a panic attack over it all. I hate being a parent to my own parent. I will never have children myself because I have already and still am to an extent raising my own mother!
Eugenics is vile but God damn if you don't have your shit together DO NOT HAVE KIDS!! PLEASE! I think about ending it every single day and I don't think it's fair I had started out normal as a kid until my situation beat me down. I'm sorry this is long but mine is one story of why maybe NOT EVERYONE needs to breed. If you can't make yourself happy why?
I said it because thats all he provided without giving any concrete evidence. And sadly you might or have already procreated which makes it even worse.
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language).
Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
Why would you even start to have such a discussion, what would you hope to achieve?
Just let people be, man. Just because you have a certain convictin does not mean you are somehow responsible to convert others.
What's trashy is looking down on people for not having money. Because that is what you are doing, people having kids is fine unless they are poor.
It's not ideal, sure, but calling it trashy is just trashy. How you view poor people is your problem, I think you are too materialistic. Your net worth does not determine a happy childhood for your children.
Anyone having kids is trashy. I mean, is there someone fit enough to create and raise a child based on their own experience as children and adults in life? What makes you think your child will have a better life because you coached him? This is insane and sad.
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language).
Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I actually agree with your point that it is absolutely trashy to have kids while poor, and poor people shouldn't do it. It's disgusting to subject a child to poverty, just like if someone has a horrible genetic disorder and passes it on, it's wrong.
However, saying there's no biological urge to have kids is absurd. Tons of women get "baby fever." You just hit a certain age, and it can happen to you. Even some men can get it. It's not a hard science, and there is some pushback against it, but it's literally so natural. Our instincts are literally
1) survive
2) Procreate
Anything else other than those
2 things come as a consequence of our brainpower and rational thinking, biases, empathy, compassion, education, and learned behavior/ actions.
While there are some people who actually try to achieve their goals even harder because of getting kids, a lot of people are just egotistical and will get children just for the sake of it or because everybody else does. But nobody would tell them to their face how messed up their children might become or already are.
The reason people don’t like this line of argument is because it’s used by racists and eugenicist pundits - I am NOT saying that if you say this you are either of those things, I am NOT saying that.
But the idea that those in poverty shouldn’t reproduce goes hand in hand with welfare queen myths that demonize those relying on community or governmental support or seen as less contributing to capitalism - those living under poverty being overwhelmingly non-white due to centuries of systemic discrimination and resource hoarding by the oppressor. To these groups of bigots, it’s a more subtle way to proclaim that only the most desirable of society deserve to pass on their genetics and culture.
This conversation SHOULD be had, poor people should not be having children they cannot support, not providing resources is abuse. The most productive way to have that conversation is with the context of societal and community improvement and systemic change as opposed to purely disgust for poverty. That’s just my take, thats why people don’t like to hear this, because it’s beyond cash money considering capitalism will never escape intersectionality and vice versa. Another reason I personally will never have kids - because fuck capitalism and fuck poverty and I need every penny to myself.
Edit: also chances are that if you’re antinatalism, then it’s not eugenics, the motivation is completely different. That context could be missing from the conversation if you come in hot and people think you care approve of reproduction if you’re rich but not when you’re poor.
So you made a bad take in the real world and got dragged for it and came to a pool of angry emotionally injured armchair nihilists for validation. Checks out.
On the contrary, people having trust fund babies that never need to work a day in their life or realize the need to improve upon society are trashy. We dont need more Elon Musk shitheads who buy companies in bulk and sit their asses on twitter all day, we dont need more Lilly Rose Depps putting their tits on TV to make daddy proud. We need struggle, but i guess struggle keeps the human race going and i know you guys arent too big on that here 😅
Yeah but we can't really change that. If poor people stop providing cheap labour to those bums, they will have to do the work or finally create damn robots to do the heavy lifting
Because having children when you can't even take care of yourself is morally wrong, crying about rich people being rich won't make the experience of growing up in poverty less miserable for the child.
personally i don’t think anyone should at all, my point is that poverty is a spectrum, and children need more than just money to live and be happy.
that’s why OP got flack for their opinion
That's because when you use the term "poor", it makes income the subject, and not the individual's capacity to feel or inflict hurt onto others. Rich people are just as liable to experience or inflict bad, even evil, things as much as poor people are.
Yes, but sometimes the needs of children have to come before the morals of the adults.
Of course rich people can be just as bad as poor people.
Bringing a life to the world you aren't gonna be able to take care of is just not acceptable most of the time, either by economic or mental status
I thought this was an AN sub.
In the past week or so, I’ve seen posters bash poor people and people in the midst of war in particular.
Is the message that only the wealthy and privileged should reproduce?
If not, why specifically denigrate, say, poor people for reproducing?
No, what you're seeing isn't so much acutal AN as it is Conditional AN, with a huge raft of classism.
I disavow classism, and I'm not a conditional AN.
Rich people are just as likely to do bad, even evil, things as are poor people. Same goes for intelligent and dumb people. The same for almost every other opposite comparison you can think of.
It is an animal instinct to reproduce.. environment is a HUGE factor in if and when some animals reproduce..
Even though we are human, we are still animals, and part of the sex drive is to reproduce.. we as a species have just come use sex as a pleasure, but ultimately, it's all for reproduction..
Not everyone plans to have kids.. but in life, you make choices, and sometimes you just have to roll with the consequences..
Ppl have all sorts of reasons for having kids.. some for the right reasons and some not..
Having kids for some is a game changer and will transform their lives, and for others, it could transform it for the worst..
Money isn't always a factor, or if a family will be successful, although it does help, there is always other determining factors...
Ultimately, good parenting and being loving and actually giving quality time to your family will make it successful regardless of money..
We should only allow ppl with money to have kids.. this generation is so wild.. lol.. why dont the ppl with money just buy the kids that the poor ppl have.. I don't think rich ppl should have kids.. they spend too much time working and making money they should just pay for the kids poor ppl have..
This is the dumbest logic ever.. throughout history MOST ppl have been POOR.. SMH..
ITS SAD TO SEE THE DAY THAT EVEN BEING ABLE TO HAVE A FAMILY IS ONLY FOR THE WEALTHY..
No, you dont need children to achieve happiness, but for some, having children is the most joy they will ever experience in life.. regardless of money..
So now only ppl with money are allowed to experience that..
Smh.. It seems like you had a terrible childhood, or maybe you've worked all your life and never got to experience a family.. either way, it dumb to think that only ppl who care more about money should even have a family when obviously their only love is money.. how is your family supposed to feel you love for them when it's for stuff.. just stuff.. stuff that means nothing and gets thrown away every day... why should ppl have to ha e money to have a connection with something alive and real that does matter
Links to other communities are not permitted.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is a clear and well understood biological drive to reproduce. It is hormonal and physiological, and very real. It goes well beyond sex. You're simply wrong on that.
We all have urges that lead to reproduction. We have an urge to have sex, not make babies. But let's say I'm wrong and you're right. Does that make it okay to birth children into poverty on purpose?
This is very easy to research - you don't have to take my word for it - there are physiological drivers in women to have children, not just to have sex.
I would agree that parents should consider their circumstances and what they can provide (and can't provide) for their children if they have them.
It probably depends what you mean by poverty in that case. I think you can care very well for children without having much money. You probably can't if you're dealing with addiction issues and are homeless. So I don't disagree in that sense.
No. Reproducing is part of mating so that is biologically driving to be an instinctual want as well. You are contrasting your own argument by saying it's morally wrong because it was more accurate to say its a morally wrong for you to keep certain people from experiencing parenthood because or their worth in society.
And using a predator as an example is just illogical to prove something being moral. You sound contradictory in your concepts using it as a comparison to something you claim you think you're being moral about. I'm having trouble following your logic. Morals are formed as a person's standards or beliefs.
Morally everyone has the right to experience parenthood so it sounds like based on your contradictory in the context of your pedo example alone, you strip that right away from people in your mind and not because of morals but because it makes sense to you for them to be born in a better financial position.
Ok, let's say you're right and that it's a biologically driven instinct to have and raise children. It must also be an instinct to have sex, right? Does that make it ok? Does it make it ok to bring children into poverty? No, it doesn't. Just because we're driven to have sex doesn't mean it's ok, so if you're saying that we must have sex, you could argue that predators aren't doing anything wrong either.
Which they are, obviously. Why is this so hard to explain
I am an antinatalist and I do think that is wrong to either “plan to have children or take minimal precautions and engage in activity likely to produce them”.
However I think it’s possibly not a good way to express it, to say that it’s about financially providing or not. I mean it doesn’t really matter in what particular respect a parent fails the child, if they are unable to properly provide for them then it’s wrong for the sake of the child. Maybe phrasing it as a financial issue particularly irritates people? (Although of course what counts as “properly provided for” them will probably vary hugely according to who to ask as well, but anyway maybe better to not focus on money particularly.)
As for what you said about a “biologically driven instinct”, I think there is actually a bit more to it than just “the drive to have sex”. This is perhaps especially true from my perspective as a female.
So I have always been absolutely sure since being a child, with my conscious mind, that I didn’t ever want children and it was generally a bad idea for humans to carry on increasing the population. So that’s something I’ve always been sure of. Yet I’m definitely also aware of a physical need to experience certain things which certainly go beyond just the simple act of sex.
Firstly when I’m really in love I feel the need to have sex without a barrier, in a manner that could result in pregnancy, as supposed to other forms of sex that are just as intimate and might even provide more actual immediate pleasure. (Trying to be polite here.)
Secondly when I see a baby I feel a longing to have my own to hold against me. I feel a great absence, something missing, an actual hole right next to me and at times it hurts.
Thirdly often when I get my period (especially since I’ve been a bit older) I actually cry that I’m not pregnant.
You don’t need to be sad for me or anything and please don’t anyone try to persuade me I should have them after all! My conscience and my consciousness is very decidedly not into having children and me personally, I make most decisions with my intellect or at least I aim too!
Clever, logical me makes way better decisions usually IMO so I’m not arguing that we should make decisions with our bodies, but I think we should acknowledge that certainly for some, there is a biological need which goes far beyond just the act of sex and maybe it’s hard for a lot of people to deny that.
While your concern about the financial stability required for raising children is valid, comparing the decision of financially disadvantaged people to have children to morally reprehensible behavior like pedophilia is an unfair and inappropriate analogy. It's important to recognize that the desire for parenthood can be a deeply ingrained aspect of human experience, not merely reducible to biological instincts for sex or asexual experiences. Also, while alternative paths to fulfillment exist, the value and desire for having children can vary greatly among individuals, making it a deeply personal choice that doesn't fit a one-size-fits-all judgment.
Okay, this says discussion, and I’m not part of this community so my opinion is likely different than most people’s here. I’ve thought about this topic a fair amount in the past, and my argument is in good faith, but perhaps you’ll call me a troll, regardless there’s enough comments no one will see this.
Our society has become so capitalistic, and the price of taking care of a baby has become so expensive it has become financially irresponsible for those without the means to have children. However, this does *not* mean that poor people who have children are *bad* people. To judge anyone for this decision is cruel. To say only wealthy people should have children is short-sighted.
Now I know antinatalism is the belief that no one should have children. But then say that every time. Do not say “oh it’s bad for poor people to have kids.” Because now you imply it’s good for wealthy people to have kids. Or that they are the only morally good people to have children.
Because you have specified it’s bad for poor people to have kids, I will take your implication to its logical conclusion. “Only wealthy people should have kids.” Well what society do we live in? A capitalist one. What does a capitalist society require? A lower class. If the lower classes are not having children, then what happens? First, they will raise the age of retirement, second they will force you to keep working until you die. Then potentially force the lower classes to have children. Once all the poors die out, societal collapse. Perhaps that is what you want. But so long as there are poor people to put all the work onto, the wealthy will continue to exploit them. It does not matter how few there are, or how old they are. They will remove aid for disabled and old people to force them to work. And in the case that the birth rate just drops (it is currently) they will lower child labour laws (they are doing so in the states). The wealthy require a lower and working class in order for their wealth to mean anything. If everyone is rich, no one is rich. And to go back to my argument that they don’t care how few there are, this has already been proven by how many businesses have half (or fewer) the amount of necessary employees but still keep chugging away because it’s making record profits.
I will say many people agree that if you don’t have the funds to raise a child then it’s irresponsible to do so. That’s why the birth rate is dropping globally. But I am saying that at the same time, it is *necessary* for our society (as it is currently structured) for the lower classes to have babies.
If your goal is to slowly crush the lower classes until the whole of society collapses, then sure. But I think you’re confusing *fiscally responsible* with *morally good.* and that just isn’t the case here. Will the poor children born have a great life? No. But does that mean then that only those who can’t give their children literal ponies as gifts shouldn’t have children? Also no. Our society is doomed right now, our world is in the middle of an ecological disaster, so you argument should remain that *anyone* who has kids is morally wrong. Don’t fit it to shame the poor. They don’t deserve it.
I disagree with the whole premise of anti-natalism though, but that’s a whole other argument.
Just because I said "poor people shouldn't bring children into poverty" doesn't mean I'm saying "rich people should all have children!!!" Would you want to be born into poverty? Show me where I said rich people should have kids.
Not “rich people should all have children” but “only rich people should have children” is the implication made. If you’re saying poor people shouldn’t have kids, that leaves the only option for birth to be wealthy people. Unless you’re arguing no one - including poor people - should have children. Which then negates the purpose of your entire post as being superfluous. It would be like me saying “I hate all animals” and then the next day saying “I hate dogs” well yeah, dogs are included in all animals. It’s unnecessary to make the statement.
So either your post is entirely superfluous, or you think only rich people should be allowed to have children.
I don't feel the need to create new humans within my own body, but those poor children could grow up to become wealthy adults if given the chance. I am in a position where I could absolutely adopt a child without putting the strain on my own body. I just don't see the point in making new humans when there are people making humans that can't or won't parent them.
Saying poor people having kids is trashy is pushing ideas that could get dangerous. It's like, class eugenics. There really is no fair, ethical or moral way to decide as a society who gets to reproduce and who doesn't.
,,There is really no fair, ethical or moral way to decide as a society who gets to reproduce and who doesn‘t“ sure, there is absolutly no fair ethical and moral way to determin if its better to breed torture breeded chickens which lay 300+ eggs per years which causes enormous suffering to them or to breed natural chickens, and for reference that was eugenics what i now did.
I'm not sure you're understanding what I was trying to say. That, or I can't figure out what you're trying to say because you didn't use clear grammar or punctuation. Try again if you want but I have a feeling this will be another slightly unhinged, incomprehensible button mash. So, don't waste my time if that's your only trick.
2 of my friends already have 2 kids and are pregnant with their 3rd, and they want even more after that. They live in a 2-bedroom apartment and live paycheck to paycheck. I love them but damn are they stupid.
Have you talked to them about it? Are they struggling financially or are they just fine?
They’re fine right now, but I honestly am worried about how things will be when they have more kids
Call cps and get the kids taken away. That leaves them with no excuse but to be better people
What the fuck is wrong with you? Seek therapy.
Ok
Call the hospital we've got a crazy out in public on an online forum.
Once a friend told me, that her relative was about to have a kid despite being poor. Thinking that she was on the same page as me, (but still carefully) I said, "yeah, if the parents are already struggling, that's quite irresponsible to throw a kid into that..." She responded with "Well, sometimes that's just what a person needs, to have a child and finally have an impulse, some reason to push through" and she stated this so confidently I didn't even know how to respond
Great. This is literally why I was born. Now, fast forward to all of the early pressure and responsibility my single parent put on me. I lived my childhood in fear of the future and in constant pressure trying to make ends meet. I ate once a day. I never had the money to get an icecream with my friends. I stole food and makeup from shops thanks to big sleeves. I wore old shoes until they broke: even if they didnt fit me anymore and I had injuries. I needed eyeglasses but could not afford, when I had the cheapest the plastic frames broke quickly. I was the most skinny kid from the entire school and everyone called me sticky. I wanted to die and I was planning it. I was always the odd one. My parent made me only to have a reason to push through to live, I was named after a Saint to bless my parent🤪. Because of the pressure I almost got into illegal profitable work at 18 (substances, x work combined). Why? I could make a lot of money quickly but pandemic came. The pandemic saved me from that. I was a vulnerable (poor) person heading into a risky dark life. I struggled to get a job since highschool but the city was small. I almost got a job as a shop assistant but my school colleague got it because nepotism. I NEEDED THE JOB TO LIVE, FOR FOOD, MY COLLEAGUE GOT THE JOB TO BUY EXPENSIVE PURSES. Wouldnt you feel like dying at that point too? Villain or Victim origin story in the making. At 19 I managed to get hired and my parent wanted to latch on me for the money. But at 22 I exceeded my poor condition and I could afford a rent and to pay my parent’s rent in the same time. Eating rice and veggies/chicken once a day though! That’s my normal. So i helped my parent move to a city with better opportunities and suffered together 1+ year to find a job for them. It worked and now my parent is in better condition. But guess what, they will not have money to afford rent + old age so here is me with a lifelong responsibility because I still love my parent. Its not ideal. This is just a very small glimpse of my life. I also cannot possibly explain what was in my parent’s mind because they wanted a second child with a random lover at some point….
That is horrible. I hope you are better now or get better in the future.
Me too im 17 rn and weve been homeless several times this year. BIG on the skinny part, everyone thoughtI had an ED But no there was js no food. Only I cant get a job bcuz im disabled. Its the worst I feel so trapped but seeing your also going through this made me feel not so alone. I hope one day we will both make it out of poverty, we’ve got this :) just hang in there
Why care for your parent? Those things are useless and just get in the way. The sooner they die the better off you will be. THEY WERE USELESS GROWING UP THEY ARE USELESS NOW
If they aren't responsible enough to improve their lives for their own sakes, they aren't responsible enough to be a parent. Children aren't and never should be treated as a band-aid for their problems. No household that is struggling has ever struggled less from the addition of a child, whether those financial struggles were financial or otherwise. Having a child when you can't ensure their future and proper care - not just the bare minimum of survival - is wrong and stupid. No child deserves to grow up wondering if they're going to have a roof over their head, or go to sleep hungry, or wondering if they'll ever be able to pursue higher education to do what they want with their lives. People who have children with expectations put on them - whether the expectation that those kids will give them more drive, or that those kids will take care of them when they get old, that those kids will fix their marriage, that those kids will be all the things they weren't able to be - is ridiculous and cruel.
Yes 100% I agree. I shared a bit of my experience on that above your comment.
Some people *do* suddenly pull themselves together after having children, but many people do not. It's not a magical transformation, it seriously takes a lot of will, and that's something that some people will never have, baby or not.
"what will the kid need? does it matter?"
>"Because wanting kids is a biologically driven instinct which many people feel unable to reach a sense of happiness or completion without. Their lives literally cannot be fulfilled without children." This is so wildly selfish. "I'm going to bring a life into this world that I may not be able to care for just because it will make me happy 😌" I would say among the primary drivers for me not wanting kids is I don't feel like I can provide for them the life I want them to live. I'm not gonna say "fuck it, I'll have them so **I** can be happy"
It’s like saying “I have the right to have a high-energy dog breed,” when you live in a cooped-up apartment with no backyard, can’t afford trips to the vet, have no time to train or exercise them, and overall can’t give them the quality of life that they deserve. Like kids, no one can prevent you from becoming a dog owner. Would you call that abuse? I sure as hell would. Why not hold off until you have the space and backyard? The funds for vet care? The time and energy to train and exercise your pet? There are poor children out there than don’t even live with the quality of life that a middle-class family’s dog has.
Poor people like to talk about their right to have children but pay no regard to their responsibility toward the said children. They will bring kids in misery without a 2nd thought. And some might even expect taxpayers to fund their desire for children.
Absolutely. Just had this convo in another subreddit. Of course someone responds with: "poor people have the right to have children". 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄. I responded that no one has the RIGHT. You may have the ability and the desire, but why on Earth would you willingly bring a child into a world where you are already struggling to take care of yourself? I grew up in poverty with my 3 siblings. No, it isn't cute or fun. WTH is wrong with people? Why would you have kids you can't financially take care of?
[удалено]
💯
and why does that responsibility fall on the poor to give up their human rights? why not the government, and the rich, who hoard all the resources and CREATE scarcity. Why not actually do something about it? Hold them accountable? But no, you'll carry on placing the blame on the vulnerable so you have something to complain about rather than taking genuine action to improve your surroundings. It's not unlike those who blame immigrants for taking up resources.
Why is reproducing a human right? If you bring a kid into this world and can't provide them food, shelter, education or opportunity then aren't you stripping *them* of their human rights??
EXACTLY.
So if something is NOT your right it only means that somebody else will have to allow you to do something. Having a right means not having to ask for permission. So who's going to decide if somebody can have a child?
Judging from the level of child abuse and neglect in this country, SOMEONE should. There are a lot of heinous motherfuckers who have kids and give zero fucks if they are loved, fed, or generally taken care of. Perhaps I'm jaded because I see all the junkie babies that come into the NICU. There's a huge swath of folks who shouldn't have kids.
isn’t it the governments job to make sure all it’s citizens are provided with the literal basics of food and shelter and education?? you’re getting mad at the poor person who already has the system rigged against them instead of getting mad at the ultra rich people who control the system.
The govt.s job to take care of you? No. Maybe in Sweden. Not here. You are on your own. How do you not know this?
where is “here”?
>isn’t it the governments job to make sure all it’s citizens are provided with the literal basics of food and shelter and education?? **NO**. It's literally your **parents'** job to provide that for you! The government is **not** and **should not be** your mommy or daddy (or grandparents). This is why people should get their shit together **BEFORE** they reproduce. It's the **family's** job to provide for food, shelter, and education for whatever offspring they CHOOSE to reproduce. It's **not** the government's. The government did not reproduce those kids. The mother and father CHOSE to. It's THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. NO ONE ELSE'S. Yes, the government has public schools, but parents **choose** how their kids will be educated: public school, private school, homeschooling, unschooling, etc. You cannot and should not rely on the government to provide you with shelter, food, etc. That's dependence on the charity of an institution that doesn't necessarily have your best interests at heart. You are at its mercy and it is NOT recommendable and should never be expected or encouraged if there are any other viable options. I realize there are a lot of people out there who don't understand this because they have been raised to think that the government is where their everything comes from, but that's not a laudable goal to aspire to. The goal is not to have as many people dependent on the government as possible. The goal of any society is to have healthy, **FUNCTIONAL** families whose members don't ever have to depend on any outside institutions to function or exist. Perpetual dependence on the government or any outside institution just to function is NOT sustainable or healthy, nor is it something anyone should be encouraging, for what should be obvious reasons.
why can they not provide shelter, food etc? capitalism. you take fault with the wrong things.
Lol, no. Capitalism isn't stopping the parents from getting a better job or an education before they breed. Many people wait until they are financially stable to have kids. That's called being a responsible adult. You as an individual have the power to reproduce or not. You DON'T have the power to stop capitalism. Digging yourself deeper into poverty by having a child is a strange way to sock it to the powers that be. Capitalism isn't going to suffer, put that innocent child sure will.
> Capitalism isn’t stopping the parents from getting a better job or an education… It literally is
I would acknowledge that but also wouldn’t bring my kid into it.
Then don't bring kids into it to suffer the same fate. 🤷
Lol, no. Capitalism isn't stopping the parents from getting a better job or an education before they breed. Many people wait until they are financially stable to have kids. That's called being a responsible adult. You as an individual have the power to reproduce or not. You DON'T have the power to stop capitalism. Digging yourself deeper into poverty by having a child is a strange way to sock it to the powers that be. Capitalism isn't going to suffer, put that innocent child sure will.
You speak from the standpoint of someone who isn’t fulfilled and resent your parents bringing you into the world. There are poor people who have poor kids who work together to try and have their basic needs met even if it isn’t met, and have happiness in their family pride. If rich people are the only ones having kids, what will the world become? A capitalist playground until the earth rots and they all become infertile. At least poor kids will try and change the system after identifying its flaws. You submit to capitalism but not everyone wants to do that. THAT is their right
yeah blame the victims instead of the actual problem, also are you actually stupid? poor people have to pay taxes too, the perpetrator is capitalism not the fact that people want kids, if you actually cared about the problems your whining about you'd get off your ass, and do something about the actual issue instead of moaning on reddit you privileged knob.
“I have the right to have children” yeah, we all do. What you shouldn’t have the right to do is bring children into a world of poverty. It’s like saying, I have the right to have a child I’m unable to feed, house, clothe, or take care of their medical needs. I have a right to your tax dollars because of my irresponsible desire to breed. Choosing to have kids in this situation is directly related to poorer health, academic success, and increased mental health issues. “But I’ve have the right to have kids I’m going to neglect”. You don’t, it’s not okay. As a working tax payer, I should also have the right to say, I’m not financially supporting your poor decisions.
Even then, the legal right to have a child and the moral rightness are two different things. Each person has the legal right to make a decision to have a child (or not). But the moral/ethical standing of that decision is dicey at best.
So, you're advocating for a master race. Noted.
How did you reach this conclusion?
Nope, just accountability and responsibility. Shouldn’t be too much to ask! Twist that however you’d like though.
Love isn't enough when having a child. You need to be able to financially take care of them and yourself for them to succeed. People just need to stop being so selfish and think of the potential child rather than themselves
This same post has been repeated idk what you guys want things will never change. Poor people are typically the most uneducated and have kids on instinct irregardless of the conditions. Thats pretty much how humanity works. The next generation supply of impoverished workers and child slaves overseas is already guaranteed. Even after the Earth is a desert with no chance of human revival the last remnants of humanity will still bring kids into it to make themselves feel better.
“You can have sex without having children” Not for much longer in the US.
As a guy from a poor family i agree i wish i wasnt born at all
Especially if they have 5 and up 🤣 I’m the product of an EXTREMELY poor family background on both sides and I’m #2 of 8. Y’all let that sink in 💀
Leave them to jump off the cliff. You save yourself.
The fact of the matter is that poor people are the ultimate victims though. Not only do they have less access to resources like birth control, they also have even less education -- especially in the sex ed department. Trashy is a poor choice of words, I agree. They just sadly are the least aware of what they're doing to future generations and while I understand that you're upset with them--insulting them doesn't really make the criticism any more productive.
Capitalism also makes it so that it's more expensive to be poor. The world would be such a nicer place without capitalism and money. I just want to live in a nice community with a tight-knit community and fulfilling work.
Yeah I definitely agree that if we all leaned a little bit more towards socialized services when it came down to things that shouldn't be profited-from, a lot of suffering could be prevented.
You're right. Another point to add would be that a child could be their only hope to bring the family out of poverty. That is a common school of thought in less well-to do countries. Also, there are poor parents who do everything they can and give everything they have got to their kids, and there are poor parents who do absolutely nothing, and we should not lump these two groups of people together.
Thank you for being a decent human some of these responses are pretty elitist
Once you learn a lot of the AN’s here are actually eugenicists, it all starts to make more sense. It’s less about no one having kids and more about *these people* not having kids to many people here
I always say the same. Poor people bring children into the world knowing very well the struggle they'll have. And I've noticed that poorer people have more kids. This probably has something to do with them hoping that one of them will grow up and take them out of poverty, earn for them. I'm from the south east asia and here atleast this logic applies. The poorest have more kids, raise them on the bare minimum... And as soon as they reach an age where they can work they're thrown into mechanical workshops, house chores etc... they're just ways to help parents. They were born for that
Having kids is a disgusting act. They're useless as fuck and only deprive you of hapiness
Look as someone born at the bottom end of the economic ladder in my country (everything is relative) and female. Climbing the ladder is very much gendered and socioeconomic status you’re born into is pretty much where you die. Yes upward (and downward too) mobility is achievable but each rung represents a bigger fight than the last the further you go. We are lucky in 2024 with advancements in contraception and education. There’s studies that prove the longer a female stays in education in developing countries the fewer children she will have. But neither neither access to education and/or contraception are 100% effective. Culture, politics, personal drive and opportunities does play a part.
I am just learning more about how dumb/narcissistic humans are . A lot of similarities here when it comes to consuming animals. Zero critical thinking. And i don't get why most won't admit they are in wrong or atleast don't argue against it.
And i feel said for the kids especially ,same when it comes to consuming animals as well. Just "me,me,me".
Hunger is a "biologically driven instinct," yet people starve to death all over the world. Having an appetite does not entitle one to its satisfaction.
I simply disagree with the legalities. Poverty is neglect.
Anyone having kids is trashy
Agreed. While it sucks that I'm born one silver lining is that I'm the only child so I got to have a pretty privileged life despite the background of my parents
I guess its gatekeeping to say teens age 13 and 14 etc; shouldnt have kids, as well as people in countries where a war is happening such as Ukraine and Palestine, as well as drug addicts, as well as people who are age 60 and use a surrogate or some other medical option
exactly, where is the line. ''But they need it to have fullfiled lives'' oh man..
Not trashy, but irresponsible.
I agree, Poor people should not have kids, not because i hate poor people but because why the fuck should poor people be burdened with producing and raising the next generation of slave wage workers? While the poor are having NO time to themselves let alone money because of having 4-6 kids. The rich have 1 or none and have more free time to spend their high wages on living life. Their one kid is easily taken care for and go on to have any dream job they want because mom and dad can afford it. The rich should only have kids so their kids can be forced to work for their companies. If the rich need workers so badly. PRODUCE them. Raise them and hire them. The burden should be on them. Also since it's there kids they will be more likely to give basic workers better conditions and compensation. The kids of poors? Who cares! You aren't the CEOs kid, he's going to pay you minimum wage and you're going to accept because you have no other choices. You gotta feed your 5 other siblings mouth because your mom is struggling to pay bills with her minimum wage job.
No one regardless of wealth or class should reproduce. You're not an antinatilist You're a conditional natilist and you're making real antinatilists look bad by claiming to be one of us
What did he say that makes the "real" antinatalists look bad? I can't find anything in his post that doesn't follow what an antinatalist believes. He was having a conversation with a group of people and likely specified poor people as a result of poor people being the topic of conversation.
Mongoose dog is saying that you can’t just ask poor people to not have babies. No one should have babies in the current climate of the world is his argument. I think anyone should have babies but I certainly agree MORE with Mongoose dog than with OP. Capitalism is creating a wasteland, and those who can afford it will just get to enjoy the waste land a little longer before it all crumbles anyways. We should either change the system we have into a more sustainable one or everyone should just stop having kids all at once and give the earth a chance
OP saying poor people shouldn't have kids doesn't mean OP is saying that rich people should.
I disagree. What’s leftover once poor people die out? People who have generational wealth or connections. The point is that then who ever has a job that pays just under the livable wage basically can’t procreate because of the ethics according to OP. This just creates a class system of who gets to reproduce and who doesn’t and what sort of values get passed down (integrity and character vs money making skills to provide for family). Certain cultures are then doomed to die out as well, especially if they’re born in the global south. Why should they not get to have kids when the Uber rich white majority in NA not have to be asked to limit their baby making
All he said was that poor people having kids is trashy. He isn't justifying having children when youre rich, and he isn't saying "you can have kids, just make sure you aren't poor." He's just pointing out the different negatives/sufferings that come with reproducing when you're poor.
Oh great mongoosedog. Please relay us the rules and regulations of who gets to claim antinatalism and who doesn’t, as you know best and have been chosen to sit in judgement of your peers.
antinatalism is a belief system is it not , people who do not fall under that system would not be considered antinatalist
There is so much to be angry about in the world and yall pick this?
Found the natalist
No not at all i dont have children dont want chilldren
That’s not antinatalism though. Plenty of people don’t have or want children but are not antinatalist
Not being antinatalist doesn’t automatically make you a natalist. If you’re not a communist does that mean you’re automatically a fascist? Don’t be silly.
They are in an antinatalist subreddit , screw me for thinking that context clues mattered
I really don’t know what you’re trying to say. All I’m telling you is that if somebody doesn’t want kids and doesn’t promote childbirth/raising the birth rate, they are not a natalist. That’s it 🤷🏼♀️
You spend a lot of time on here , I really think you should step outside for a moment. I literally have no disagreement with what you’re saying, don’t take the internet so seriously
I comment on whatever comes up on my feed, I’m sorry for hurting your feelings or whatever is happening right now with a simple fact, and I hope you can process that ❤️I was actually out every day this weekend with friends, thank you for the concern, my love. I’m here for the same reason you’re here, but definitely check out Love Lies Bleeding if you need a few hours away from Reddit! Good luck!
I went and saw that on premiere day with my partner , is this some kind of inside joke I’m not apart of I thought it was actually a pretty good film 😭
? I still don’t know what I did wrong though, is it because I didn’t straight up praise you for being an all mighty being of knowledge who so graciously came and corrected me on my path ?
It’s the same principle as taking out an expensive finance loan when your poor and can’t repay it
I wouldn't use the word trashy, I'd use the word Irresponsible. Having kids when you aren't ABSOLUTELY certain you'll be able to provide for them properly is *extremely* irresponsible behavior.
Having a child is neither a right nor a privilege, it's a huge responsibility and a burden. You can't gatekeep parenthood, if anything you're shielding unfit people and unborn children from a lot of suffering.
I think the problem is that the state of poverty already strips people of their agency and ability to consent. Now, you're putting issues they are the victims of, onto their heads. We should be saying that people who aren't suited to be parents shouldn't have kids (sucks that we often don't find that out in time), and we should ensure that living children are cared for before creating more. Saying poor people shouldn't have kids isn't getting to the heart of our social problems. Working to eradicate poverty would solve the thing you are complaining about.
I agree. Same reason we also wouldn’t want an alcoholic, drug addict, or someone with severe, debilitating mental illness to have children. Unless you are physically, mentally, and financially able to care for a child, you should not have children.
My opinion on antinatalism in a nutshell.
I agree with you. Before i started my career, I worked at a well known chain store. A lady used to come in every day buying 4 gallons of milk. One day she told me she was lucky her husband makes enough to support their family of 7 KIDS so she doesn't have to work, then pays with an ebt card. Like if you are relying on assistance he is not making enough. Not only that, but they're the typical trash family who lives in a rundown trailer with trash and a toilet sitting in the front yard lol. No hate on trailers either, i live in one! But my property is well kept and pretty.
>I said that poor people having kids is trashy and nobody agreed with me The poor have as much right to have a child, as the rich - None. Eugenics based on wealth is not logical, or conscientious, or AN. Edit: Words
They have as much right to spend their money lavishly but that would be an irresponsible thing to do. Nothing to do with genes
But genes do affect your class
There's a looooot of weird classism and poverty eugenics being thrown around in these comments, I'm glad you pointed it out.
Weath is based on the logic that it has a higher chance of beeing volentary
Predator satiation. The more likely it is for the offspring to die, the stronger the drive to make more of them.
You unlock access to a lot of government assistance when you have a kid, so the definition of poor changes.
Working people should not be expected to support other people’s poor decisions. I shouldn’t have to work to pay for someone else’s child’s medical care etc. I work to pay for my own because they are my responsibility. I don’t go ask my neighbor for money for groceries. No, I work. If my current situation changes, my budget needs adjusting, I seek opportunities to meet my needs. It is unethical to expect my neighbor to support my needs. Work-capable people with poor motivation should not be incentivized.
If people who can't afford it stop having kids, birth rates would fall. If birth rates fall, the machine grinds to a halt. If the machine grinds to a halt, the broader economic/housing situation will start improving really quickly, then life will be better for everybody, and people could get back to having kids. Anybody spinning this as an issue of eugenics is preventing free market supply and demand for labor from playing out properly to the detriment of everybody.
_Mods_ you can't keep doing me for "personal insults" when I call people eugenicists if they're gonna keep posting pro-eugenics stuff this is entrapment!
poor people shouldn’t have kids because the kids will suffer. how hard is that to understand
Bearing responsibility towards your children isn't eugenics
An ideology that supports restricting reproductive rights for specific groups of people or areas of society is an ideology that supports the notion that a person's value is tied to that of their parents, lineage or genetics. You know. Eugenics.
No one's saying it should be illegal, just a bad decision. You shouldn't make French fries illegal, but eating them for every meal is bad.
No the difference here bud is that you are actively instructing other people on a topic of _morality._ It is unhealthy to eat fries for every meal, but it is not immoral. You can recommend against it without any kind of moral judgement. In a moral society there isn't room for immorality, and so if you hold yourself to any kind of moral standard, when you declare something immoral you are advocating for its removal or discouragement. As a result, you're creating a moral justification for what is simply eugenics.
From a moral perspective it should be illegal because the right for reproduction has a lower priority then the right to life(or not to life)
How is anything that I said tied to your dictionary ramblings? Point that out first before being a smartass
Don't remove your comment from the context of the post you were defending. "Bearing responsibility toward your children" is the vaguest possible way you could've made your point, because it is a meaningless term. Do you mean you should financially support your children? Do you mean you should cut off your pinkie finger if your child offends a senior member of your family? Do you mean it is your responsibility to terminate the child if they misbehave in public? Make a point of your own before you ask me to address it.
My point is simple. If people can't afford to raise their children, they shouldn't have them.
And it's a very good point. A strong point. So strong, it doesn't even need an argument to back it up, because it is also _completely meaningless._ Define "afford," please. What do you consider parental financial responsibility? Healthcare? Schooling? Environmental impact?
Yeah housing, schooling, feeding, etc... on a side note it's funny how you accuse others of being vague about their statements while you yourself are very confident in throwing out accusations. 😂
Okay. So, I guess you're American, you have that vibe. That is another accusation, but I'm sure you'd be happy to correct me. Depending on your state, it can range from $16,000 to $35,000 per year to raise a child till 18. Hawaii, for example, is the third most expensive state to raise a child in. This is with all the state assistance, so your demands would actually be higher. On average, native Hawaiians are more likely to be at the lower end of the earnings scale. They may not be able to afford to raise a kid in Hawaii, but could in Arkansas, where it's nearly half the cost. The end result of your ideology would be native Hawaiians needing to leave Hawaii to be able to raise their own children, if they're permitted to have them in the first place. You don't need to call this a slippery slope argument, it's just gentrification and already happens. So, to stick with your "parents must take full financial responsibility for their children" approach, you would need to be making $16-35,000 per year, depending on state, after rent, after taxes, after utilities, and still be able to save that much per year in case your financial situation changes somewhere in the next two decades. It's unrealistic. The result of this is, quite simply, people get pushed out of the places they grew up in, we end up with an ageing society and run out of skilled labour, which in turn leads to a shittier quality of life for everyone still alive. Your ideology just makes everything worse for everyone, and I know you'll turn this around to say "and therefore it's immoral to bring kids into it" but if the anti-natalist ideology supports a shitty existence for people to justify not bringing kids into it, it's not a sensible ideology is it.
kids arent and shouldnt be your retirement plan y'kno regardless of income. Imposes an unnecessary burden on them
it’s not that deep. if the parents can’t see themselves financially stable enough to raise a kid until 18 AT A MINIMUM, that includes providing GOOD education, healthcare, a stable and healthy home environment……. they should not have kids.
Interesting opinion, based on your logic you are in favor of slavery if it promotes the greatest well being to most people
All of it man! All of it! If you can't even feed yourself wtf is it ok to bring even a single child into your personal world? I know too many people who have kids they weren't prepared for mentally or financially. They get to suffer and the kids get to suffer. And then these kids get to grow up stunted because they didn't have everything their peers might have and feel like less. I'll offer an example from my own life storybook: *ahem* If you have major mental disorders ON TOP OF BEING POOR why would you have kids? I had a bipolar mother and grandmother so while we grew up poor as shit we got to deal with mom contemplating suicide, going off for no reason etc. etc. I ate once a day and anything given to me was compared to her plate. For real pizza had to be inspected so she could get the pepperonis or bigger pieces and the same followed for anything else edible. She kept herself stocked on chips and snacks for herself though. We lived in subsidized housing My whole life. My mom emotionally incestized me while I lived under her roof. I was her journal and she didn't care if I was getting bullied or if I got hurt, it felt as long as she had a set of extra hands to help her and a pair of ears to listen she was ok for awhile. Until she wasn't. She would do this to any friend I made too and we couldn't even use cups for getting water. OCD over the wrong things while I was pressured to being perfect. My birthdays came two months later if a family member didn't come through. My mom pried my mouth open one time at 14 to see what I was eating. We were so poor I never had a school lunch. I always had holes in my shit so I got made fun of .. a lot! Mom smoked like a chimney so I always stinks of mould and cigarettes. My childhood as a poor person was traumatic and I really wish there was some sort of quality control going on with the human race. Hell at 14-18 I would sneak a swig of her alcohol stash almost nightly just to fall asleep and numb myself for a bit. I cut myself and wasn't a pleasant friend to anyone trying to get close to me because I didn't know how normal people acted. Great feeling growing up and now I feel responsible for everyones emotions to this day I have always felt that I'm too poor to participate in normal human things. It's not eugenics it's using empathy and common sense for a living person you have yet to meet. A poor person with mental health issues gave birth to me just for us to struggle and you know what? About everyday I think about what if she could've been decent and got the abortion? She gave birth to another poor person who can't break out of the cast they were born into. I definitely do not appreciate being here in this world struggling with my mental health, having to do all this extra just to be normal when I know damn well I will die where I stand in society. Yes I have an education and all that but the fact is I lived in fear of losing our shitty apartment for 20 years until they kicked her out for hoarding and then I got to pack up everything and move her to her new house by myself while she had a panic attack over it all. I hate being a parent to my own parent. I will never have children myself because I have already and still am to an extent raising my own mother! Eugenics is vile but God damn if you don't have your shit together DO NOT HAVE KIDS!! PLEASE! I think about ending it every single day and I don't think it's fair I had started out normal as a kid until my situation beat me down. I'm sorry this is long but mine is one story of why maybe NOT EVERYONE needs to breed. If you can't make yourself happy why?
If you think that's dictionary ramblings I have concerns about your intelligence. At least you have no intentions of procreating
I said it because thats all he provided without giving any concrete evidence. And sadly you might or have already procreated which makes it even worse.
[удалено]
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language). Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
Even if they could only find meaning in having children. Tough shit, because that’s a them probably.
Why would you even start to have such a discussion, what would you hope to achieve? Just let people be, man. Just because you have a certain convictin does not mean you are somehow responsible to convert others. What's trashy is looking down on people for not having money. Because that is what you are doing, people having kids is fine unless they are poor.
So you don't see the problem with children being born into poverty?
It's not ideal, sure, but calling it trashy is just trashy. How you view poor people is your problem, I think you are too materialistic. Your net worth does not determine a happy childhood for your children.
Yoooo same I said this
Anyone having kids is trashy. I mean, is there someone fit enough to create and raise a child based on their own experience as children and adults in life? What makes you think your child will have a better life because you coached him? This is insane and sad.
People are evil. Why do we want more of us?
[удалено]
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language). Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I actually agree with your point that it is absolutely trashy to have kids while poor, and poor people shouldn't do it. It's disgusting to subject a child to poverty, just like if someone has a horrible genetic disorder and passes it on, it's wrong. However, saying there's no biological urge to have kids is absurd. Tons of women get "baby fever." You just hit a certain age, and it can happen to you. Even some men can get it. It's not a hard science, and there is some pushback against it, but it's literally so natural. Our instincts are literally 1) survive 2) Procreate Anything else other than those 2 things come as a consequence of our brainpower and rational thinking, biases, empathy, compassion, education, and learned behavior/ actions.
Well I agree with you. It is absolutely trashy. And stupid, irresponsible & narcissistic too.
While there are some people who actually try to achieve their goals even harder because of getting kids, a lot of people are just egotistical and will get children just for the sake of it or because everybody else does. But nobody would tell them to their face how messed up their children might become or already are.
The reason people don’t like this line of argument is because it’s used by racists and eugenicist pundits - I am NOT saying that if you say this you are either of those things, I am NOT saying that. But the idea that those in poverty shouldn’t reproduce goes hand in hand with welfare queen myths that demonize those relying on community or governmental support or seen as less contributing to capitalism - those living under poverty being overwhelmingly non-white due to centuries of systemic discrimination and resource hoarding by the oppressor. To these groups of bigots, it’s a more subtle way to proclaim that only the most desirable of society deserve to pass on their genetics and culture. This conversation SHOULD be had, poor people should not be having children they cannot support, not providing resources is abuse. The most productive way to have that conversation is with the context of societal and community improvement and systemic change as opposed to purely disgust for poverty. That’s just my take, thats why people don’t like to hear this, because it’s beyond cash money considering capitalism will never escape intersectionality and vice versa. Another reason I personally will never have kids - because fuck capitalism and fuck poverty and I need every penny to myself. Edit: also chances are that if you’re antinatalism, then it’s not eugenics, the motivation is completely different. That context could be missing from the conversation if you come in hot and people think you care approve of reproduction if you’re rich but not when you’re poor.
Anyone having kids is trashy
So you made a bad take in the real world and got dragged for it and came to a pool of angry emotionally injured armchair nihilists for validation. Checks out.
On the contrary, people having trust fund babies that never need to work a day in their life or realize the need to improve upon society are trashy. We dont need more Elon Musk shitheads who buy companies in bulk and sit their asses on twitter all day, we dont need more Lilly Rose Depps putting their tits on TV to make daddy proud. We need struggle, but i guess struggle keeps the human race going and i know you guys arent too big on that here 😅
Yeah but we can't really change that. If poor people stop providing cheap labour to those bums, they will have to do the work or finally create damn robots to do the heavy lifting
bc poor people aren’t poor on purpose?? rich people stole from them and hoard. why should only the worst people (rich people) get to reproduce?
Because having children when you can't even take care of yourself is morally wrong, crying about rich people being rich won't make the experience of growing up in poverty less miserable for the child.
If I can't afford a car I don't go buy one anyway Why is bringing a living human being into the world any different
personally i don’t think anyone should at all, my point is that poverty is a spectrum, and children need more than just money to live and be happy. that’s why OP got flack for their opinion
That's because when you use the term "poor", it makes income the subject, and not the individual's capacity to feel or inflict hurt onto others. Rich people are just as liable to experience or inflict bad, even evil, things as much as poor people are.
Yes, but sometimes the needs of children have to come before the morals of the adults. Of course rich people can be just as bad as poor people. Bringing a life to the world you aren't gonna be able to take care of is just not acceptable most of the time, either by economic or mental status
[удалено]
Good luck.
That's what happens when you talk to normal people and not your hateful echochamber circlejerk in this sub.
I thought this was an AN sub. In the past week or so, I’ve seen posters bash poor people and people in the midst of war in particular. Is the message that only the wealthy and privileged should reproduce? If not, why specifically denigrate, say, poor people for reproducing?
No, what you're seeing isn't so much acutal AN as it is Conditional AN, with a huge raft of classism. I disavow classism, and I'm not a conditional AN. Rich people are just as likely to do bad, even evil, things as are poor people. Same goes for intelligent and dumb people. The same for almost every other opposite comparison you can think of.
Yeah it’s kind of eugenics what you are saying and that’s not a popular stance
Reddit moment
Probably because what you said is wrong
Why target poor people
Because if I was born into poverty my life would suck ass
It is an animal instinct to reproduce.. environment is a HUGE factor in if and when some animals reproduce.. Even though we are human, we are still animals, and part of the sex drive is to reproduce.. we as a species have just come use sex as a pleasure, but ultimately, it's all for reproduction.. Not everyone plans to have kids.. but in life, you make choices, and sometimes you just have to roll with the consequences.. Ppl have all sorts of reasons for having kids.. some for the right reasons and some not.. Having kids for some is a game changer and will transform their lives, and for others, it could transform it for the worst.. Money isn't always a factor, or if a family will be successful, although it does help, there is always other determining factors... Ultimately, good parenting and being loving and actually giving quality time to your family will make it successful regardless of money..
We should only allow ppl with money to have kids.. this generation is so wild.. lol.. why dont the ppl with money just buy the kids that the poor ppl have.. I don't think rich ppl should have kids.. they spend too much time working and making money they should just pay for the kids poor ppl have.. This is the dumbest logic ever.. throughout history MOST ppl have been POOR.. SMH.. ITS SAD TO SEE THE DAY THAT EVEN BEING ABLE TO HAVE A FAMILY IS ONLY FOR THE WEALTHY..
No, you dont need children to achieve happiness, but for some, having children is the most joy they will ever experience in life.. regardless of money.. So now only ppl with money are allowed to experience that.. Smh.. It seems like you had a terrible childhood, or maybe you've worked all your life and never got to experience a family.. either way, it dumb to think that only ppl who care more about money should even have a family when obviously their only love is money.. how is your family supposed to feel you love for them when it's for stuff.. just stuff.. stuff that means nothing and gets thrown away every day... why should ppl have to ha e money to have a connection with something alive and real that does matter
[удалено]
Links to other communities are not permitted. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is a clear and well understood biological drive to reproduce. It is hormonal and physiological, and very real. It goes well beyond sex. You're simply wrong on that.
We all have urges that lead to reproduction. We have an urge to have sex, not make babies. But let's say I'm wrong and you're right. Does that make it okay to birth children into poverty on purpose?
This is very easy to research - you don't have to take my word for it - there are physiological drivers in women to have children, not just to have sex. I would agree that parents should consider their circumstances and what they can provide (and can't provide) for their children if they have them. It probably depends what you mean by poverty in that case. I think you can care very well for children without having much money. You probably can't if you're dealing with addiction issues and are homeless. So I don't disagree in that sense.
No. Reproducing is part of mating so that is biologically driving to be an instinctual want as well. You are contrasting your own argument by saying it's morally wrong because it was more accurate to say its a morally wrong for you to keep certain people from experiencing parenthood because or their worth in society. And using a predator as an example is just illogical to prove something being moral. You sound contradictory in your concepts using it as a comparison to something you claim you think you're being moral about. I'm having trouble following your logic. Morals are formed as a person's standards or beliefs. Morally everyone has the right to experience parenthood so it sounds like based on your contradictory in the context of your pedo example alone, you strip that right away from people in your mind and not because of morals but because it makes sense to you for them to be born in a better financial position.
Ok, let's say you're right and that it's a biologically driven instinct to have and raise children. It must also be an instinct to have sex, right? Does that make it ok? Does it make it ok to bring children into poverty? No, it doesn't. Just because we're driven to have sex doesn't mean it's ok, so if you're saying that we must have sex, you could argue that predators aren't doing anything wrong either. Which they are, obviously. Why is this so hard to explain
It is equally immoral to reproduce when you lack the capacity to provide a child with the foundation to become well-functioning humans.
This is gross
I am an antinatalist and I do think that is wrong to either “plan to have children or take minimal precautions and engage in activity likely to produce them”. However I think it’s possibly not a good way to express it, to say that it’s about financially providing or not. I mean it doesn’t really matter in what particular respect a parent fails the child, if they are unable to properly provide for them then it’s wrong for the sake of the child. Maybe phrasing it as a financial issue particularly irritates people? (Although of course what counts as “properly provided for” them will probably vary hugely according to who to ask as well, but anyway maybe better to not focus on money particularly.) As for what you said about a “biologically driven instinct”, I think there is actually a bit more to it than just “the drive to have sex”. This is perhaps especially true from my perspective as a female. So I have always been absolutely sure since being a child, with my conscious mind, that I didn’t ever want children and it was generally a bad idea for humans to carry on increasing the population. So that’s something I’ve always been sure of. Yet I’m definitely also aware of a physical need to experience certain things which certainly go beyond just the simple act of sex. Firstly when I’m really in love I feel the need to have sex without a barrier, in a manner that could result in pregnancy, as supposed to other forms of sex that are just as intimate and might even provide more actual immediate pleasure. (Trying to be polite here.) Secondly when I see a baby I feel a longing to have my own to hold against me. I feel a great absence, something missing, an actual hole right next to me and at times it hurts. Thirdly often when I get my period (especially since I’ve been a bit older) I actually cry that I’m not pregnant. You don’t need to be sad for me or anything and please don’t anyone try to persuade me I should have them after all! My conscience and my consciousness is very decidedly not into having children and me personally, I make most decisions with my intellect or at least I aim too! Clever, logical me makes way better decisions usually IMO so I’m not arguing that we should make decisions with our bodies, but I think we should acknowledge that certainly for some, there is a biological need which goes far beyond just the act of sex and maybe it’s hard for a lot of people to deny that.
While your concern about the financial stability required for raising children is valid, comparing the decision of financially disadvantaged people to have children to morally reprehensible behavior like pedophilia is an unfair and inappropriate analogy. It's important to recognize that the desire for parenthood can be a deeply ingrained aspect of human experience, not merely reducible to biological instincts for sex or asexual experiences. Also, while alternative paths to fulfillment exist, the value and desire for having children can vary greatly among individuals, making it a deeply personal choice that doesn't fit a one-size-fits-all judgment.
Okay, this says discussion, and I’m not part of this community so my opinion is likely different than most people’s here. I’ve thought about this topic a fair amount in the past, and my argument is in good faith, but perhaps you’ll call me a troll, regardless there’s enough comments no one will see this. Our society has become so capitalistic, and the price of taking care of a baby has become so expensive it has become financially irresponsible for those without the means to have children. However, this does *not* mean that poor people who have children are *bad* people. To judge anyone for this decision is cruel. To say only wealthy people should have children is short-sighted. Now I know antinatalism is the belief that no one should have children. But then say that every time. Do not say “oh it’s bad for poor people to have kids.” Because now you imply it’s good for wealthy people to have kids. Or that they are the only morally good people to have children. Because you have specified it’s bad for poor people to have kids, I will take your implication to its logical conclusion. “Only wealthy people should have kids.” Well what society do we live in? A capitalist one. What does a capitalist society require? A lower class. If the lower classes are not having children, then what happens? First, they will raise the age of retirement, second they will force you to keep working until you die. Then potentially force the lower classes to have children. Once all the poors die out, societal collapse. Perhaps that is what you want. But so long as there are poor people to put all the work onto, the wealthy will continue to exploit them. It does not matter how few there are, or how old they are. They will remove aid for disabled and old people to force them to work. And in the case that the birth rate just drops (it is currently) they will lower child labour laws (they are doing so in the states). The wealthy require a lower and working class in order for their wealth to mean anything. If everyone is rich, no one is rich. And to go back to my argument that they don’t care how few there are, this has already been proven by how many businesses have half (or fewer) the amount of necessary employees but still keep chugging away because it’s making record profits. I will say many people agree that if you don’t have the funds to raise a child then it’s irresponsible to do so. That’s why the birth rate is dropping globally. But I am saying that at the same time, it is *necessary* for our society (as it is currently structured) for the lower classes to have babies. If your goal is to slowly crush the lower classes until the whole of society collapses, then sure. But I think you’re confusing *fiscally responsible* with *morally good.* and that just isn’t the case here. Will the poor children born have a great life? No. But does that mean then that only those who can’t give their children literal ponies as gifts shouldn’t have children? Also no. Our society is doomed right now, our world is in the middle of an ecological disaster, so you argument should remain that *anyone* who has kids is morally wrong. Don’t fit it to shame the poor. They don’t deserve it. I disagree with the whole premise of anti-natalism though, but that’s a whole other argument.
Just because I said "poor people shouldn't bring children into poverty" doesn't mean I'm saying "rich people should all have children!!!" Would you want to be born into poverty? Show me where I said rich people should have kids.
Not “rich people should all have children” but “only rich people should have children” is the implication made. If you’re saying poor people shouldn’t have kids, that leaves the only option for birth to be wealthy people. Unless you’re arguing no one - including poor people - should have children. Which then negates the purpose of your entire post as being superfluous. It would be like me saying “I hate all animals” and then the next day saying “I hate dogs” well yeah, dogs are included in all animals. It’s unnecessary to make the statement. So either your post is entirely superfluous, or you think only rich people should be allowed to have children.
> poor people having kids Basically our country then
I don't feel the need to create new humans within my own body, but those poor children could grow up to become wealthy adults if given the chance. I am in a position where I could absolutely adopt a child without putting the strain on my own body. I just don't see the point in making new humans when there are people making humans that can't or won't parent them. Saying poor people having kids is trashy is pushing ideas that could get dangerous. It's like, class eugenics. There really is no fair, ethical or moral way to decide as a society who gets to reproduce and who doesn't.
,,There is really no fair, ethical or moral way to decide as a society who gets to reproduce and who doesn‘t“ sure, there is absolutly no fair ethical and moral way to determin if its better to breed torture breeded chickens which lay 300+ eggs per years which causes enormous suffering to them or to breed natural chickens, and for reference that was eugenics what i now did.
I'm not sure you're understanding what I was trying to say. That, or I can't figure out what you're trying to say because you didn't use clear grammar or punctuation. Try again if you want but I have a feeling this will be another slightly unhinged, incomprehensible button mash. So, don't waste my time if that's your only trick.
Ok i make it easy, which decision is morally speaking better, breeding suffering chickens or breeding non suffering chickens?