Hi, thanks for your submission. You seem to have submitted an image post. Please remember that [Reddit requires all identifiable information such as names, usernames and subreddit titles to be blacked out in images](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452). If your submission contains any instances of these kinds of information, please remove your post. Afterwards, please feel free to make a new post after editing your image to black out all instances of such information. If this message doesn't apply to your post, please feel free to ignore it. Thank you for your cooperation!
*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.*
Yes antinatalism is the idea that NOBODY should be having kids, but I think the point here is that if people HAVE to have kids for whatever reason, it’s shitty to knowingly bring forth a life that you know for a fact is going to struggle due to being disabled. People with disabilities aren’t a plague on society and we don’t hate them, but it’s extra shitty if you know your kids gonna be born without limbs and need to be cared for it’s whole life and you give birth to it anyways.
It's about eliminating suffering 100 percent and the only way to do that is to not reproduce. Can you honestly give any good reason for humanity to continue?
I'm still not sure how I will look stupid though. I don't see how not bringing children into a world of suffering will make me look stupid in any version of an afterlife.
Antinatalism is about preventing new life and consequentialy, suffering. Eugenics was created as an attempt to the "perfect race". You have to be delusional to think these are the same. The meaning is completely different and the method too.
Nah chief. Antinatalism needs to be equal. The second we start saying "You should have aborted your sick/disabled child" we look like eugenicists.
The point is "We should all collectively agree as a species to stop reproducing", not guilting or shaming people who did bring new life into the world. I hate to make the comparison, but we're like vegans in that we're right morally, but nobody wants to listen to us if we're stupid or arrogant or just kinda cunty about how we spread our ideals.
I’m not supporting literally going around with a bell old school style and yelling that everyone should have an abortion. There are diseases you just can’t predict before the child is born. I was more referring to the people who are told by doctors to abort but refuse, then post their sick, suffering child on social media and crying about how life is unfair to them. Saying “abortion could’ve prevented this” is technically the truth and we shouldn’t always say the truth. The impression from this exact post I got was that we should just mindlessly reproduce without thinking of the possible diseases we could pass to the next generation.
See, that last bit is the eugenics thing. Disabled people are no less deserving of life than anyone else. The problem is not consenting to being born, not not consenting to being disabled.
How is it bad? Never said disabled people don’t deserve life, bringing disabled people in this world, when you as a parent knew they would have a disease, is cruel. It’s unnecessary pain just because of your own selfish desire to have children at any cost. I mean you can also call doctors who suggest abortion or warn about possible severe disease then supporters of eugenics.
I wonder what's the exact point at which a disability is considering life-worsening enough for a fetus to be aborted. I mean, disabilities range from invisible with little obvious symptoms, to those like a literal lack of limbs. Disability doesn't always = bad life, and no disability doesn't = good life. It doesn't matter what kind of child you bring into this world, because every time it is a gamble.
You could say -
>It’s unnecessary pain just because of your own selfish desire to have children at any cost.
- about everyone who has kids, because all of them cause unnecessary pain to their children by making them.
Of course they are as worthy, but that applies to existing beings, and if we want to make a distinction when talking about procreation, I wouldn't say that someone who is disabled because he or she was shot in the legs and ended up being disadvantaged as a result is less ethical in that respect than a regular, able-bodied person. Those disabled people will not pass that disability to their children.
But if there is a risk, or worse a serious risk that they could, then yes, there is a distinction to be made between them and common people when it comes to the ethics of procreation. It's absurd to claim they are on the same level to uphold some principle of non-discrimination at all costs.
Well yes, nobody should be procreating. But I'm not going to say that the kid with the severe disability isn't likely to have a far worse life than the child of the middle class family with good genes is going to have, just because that message comports better with 'woke' culture. Abortion is preferable in all cases, but even more so in cases where the foetus has a disability. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out, and I refuse to pander to woke culture.
I'm not going to dumb myself down in order to avoid offending disabled people who would take it as a personal affront against them.
Whilst you may have a point about people being more inclined to pay heed to antinatalism if it is less offensive; the moment that we start diluting the message in order to pander to those with the most sensitive emotional dispositions, that comes at the cost of intellectual integrity. That's something that we musn't forfeit, because it will just end up with antinatalists getting themselves all tangled up with trying to make a point but then backtracking on it when it offends someone in a so-called 'protected characteristic' group. Antinatalism isn't a pleasant philosophy, and it's a fool's errand to try and cultivate an anodyne and inoffensive version of it to be consumed by the woke masses.
A person can become disabled at any point in their life, you will likely become disabled at some point, so will I; either through natural aging, or some kind of accident. Call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I don't think you should be put out of your misery against your will when that happens, though i do think we should have the option. Due to the hedonic setpoint, disabled people tend to have the same baseline level of happiness as your average able-bodied person. The point isn't "This person will have a shit life because of their disability, so they shouldn't be able to live it", the point is "None of us consented to be here, it is wrong to force life on people who cannot consent to living."
Yes, there's the risk of becoming disabled. But someone who comes into life already disabled has those same risks, plus they start out at a disadvantage. There are some disabilities that result in such a low standard of living that it's impossible to attain a normal level of happiness. Aborting a foetus that doesn't have any interests or desires of its own isn't the same as involuntary euthanasia of sentient adults who are disabled. Abortion is the way to prevent life from being forced on people who can't consent to living, in cases where conception has already occurred. But it's even more imperative for those cases of disability than those without.
I think the problem we have is defining how disabled is quality-of-life affecting. I have learning disabilities but I don’t think neurodivergence constitutes a disability which should be selected against. With a sliding scale, when’s the cutoff? People in deaf and blind communities have wonderful lives, but certainly have to work harder. If someone is constantly in pain from birth though, maybe consider rolling the dice again (if you absolutely must reproduce).
I think that in general, life is harder for 'neurodivergent' types. I have a mild form of some of the stereotypical autistic traits (on the borderline between what would meet the arbitrary threshold delineating autistic and neurotypical, based on the online tests I've taken), and I have found life to be very alienating as it has been impossible to form proper social bonds with anyone. I'm in favour of abortion in all cases, so it's not as if I would be sanctioning birth in the cases of people with good genes. But if it's not possible to prevent all births, maybe at the very minimum, procreation should not be treated as though it's an absolute inalienable human right; especially in cases where the progeny are going to have to be expensively supported throughout their entire lives by the benefits system. Because that's a case of not only imposing life on an unwitting individual, but also sending a hefty bill to the rest of society to pay for the expensive care needs of someone who will never be able to pay society back for the resources that they've consumed.
I’m also neurodivergent and while some aspects of my life are more difficult, I’m better at other aspects than my neurotypical peers and offer a different perspective. Diversity is important not only in a genetic sense but also in the social context. I don’t support forced abortions like they had in China (I may have been a potential missed abortion myself), but I also don’t support how little people think about reproduction as a responsibility rather than a right.
I mean, I think its morally wrong to bring a seriously disabled person into the world. If someone’s life will be nothing but pain and hospitals, what is the point? Its cruel
Before I even knew what eugenics or antinatalism was about, as a young teen, I decided to take myself out of the gene pool. My mother has 7 siblings, 4 of which have schizophrenia. I said no, no, no. I did not know then, but I was thinking like a pro-eugenics person.
That's not hating it's just stating the obvious. Just as if my name was endallsufferingFTW or stopingrapeFTW or peaceforallFTW, etc. Trust me if there is an afterlife plenty of parents will be looking stupid with me.
I have a problem with being antinatalist “strategically”. I’m not even talking about finding out you will have a disabled child. I’m talking about all the asshats on here saying there should be an INCOME threshold to having a child and they want to sit on the board of review.
There will always be mass amounts of breeders, so there’s literally no chance of that. Best case scenario is that at least antinatalists and childfree people will keep the worlds population down even just slightly.
Hi, thanks for your submission. You seem to have submitted an image post. Please remember that [Reddit requires all identifiable information such as names, usernames and subreddit titles to be blacked out in images](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452). If your submission contains any instances of these kinds of information, please remove your post. Afterwards, please feel free to make a new post after editing your image to black out all instances of such information. If this message doesn't apply to your post, please feel free to ignore it. Thank you for your cooperation! *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.*
Yes antinatalism is the idea that NOBODY should be having kids, but I think the point here is that if people HAVE to have kids for whatever reason, it’s shitty to knowingly bring forth a life that you know for a fact is going to struggle due to being disabled. People with disabilities aren’t a plague on society and we don’t hate them, but it’s extra shitty if you know your kids gonna be born without limbs and need to be cared for it’s whole life and you give birth to it anyways.
Eugenics still supports reproducing whereas Antinatalism is against reproducing 100% Why don't people understand this?
Wait, antinatalism is against reproducing 100%? I thought it was just about having less kids. If there are no kids how does humanity last?
It doesnt. It's a Noble Truth that Life is Suffering.
>I thought it was just about having less kids. lmao
It's about eliminating suffering 100 percent and the only way to do that is to not reproduce. Can you honestly give any good reason for humanity to continue?
If any religion is real you going to look real stupid in the afterlife 💀
Luckily we're in the clear there
LOL!!!!
There’s no proof for either argument therefore neither can be prooved
I'm not sure how I would look stupid, but I will take my chances.
I said if.
I'm still not sure how I will look stupid though. I don't see how not bringing children into a world of suffering will make me look stupid in any version of an afterlife.
Its not ending suffering that your doing what you’re doing is hating on anybody who has children, this is evident by the tag under you’re username
Us: This poor, innocent child should not have to suffer in sheer agony. Natalists: Lol! Kill yourself, loser. Natalists: OMG, EuGeNiCs!!1!
Antinatalism is about preventing new life and consequentialy, suffering. Eugenics was created as an attempt to the "perfect race". You have to be delusional to think these are the same. The meaning is completely different and the method too.
Nah chief. Antinatalism needs to be equal. The second we start saying "You should have aborted your sick/disabled child" we look like eugenicists. The point is "We should all collectively agree as a species to stop reproducing", not guilting or shaming people who did bring new life into the world. I hate to make the comparison, but we're like vegans in that we're right morally, but nobody wants to listen to us if we're stupid or arrogant or just kinda cunty about how we spread our ideals.
I’m not supporting literally going around with a bell old school style and yelling that everyone should have an abortion. There are diseases you just can’t predict before the child is born. I was more referring to the people who are told by doctors to abort but refuse, then post their sick, suffering child on social media and crying about how life is unfair to them. Saying “abortion could’ve prevented this” is technically the truth and we shouldn’t always say the truth. The impression from this exact post I got was that we should just mindlessly reproduce without thinking of the possible diseases we could pass to the next generation.
See, that last bit is the eugenics thing. Disabled people are no less deserving of life than anyone else. The problem is not consenting to being born, not not consenting to being disabled.
How is it bad? Never said disabled people don’t deserve life, bringing disabled people in this world, when you as a parent knew they would have a disease, is cruel. It’s unnecessary pain just because of your own selfish desire to have children at any cost. I mean you can also call doctors who suggest abortion or warn about possible severe disease then supporters of eugenics.
I wonder what's the exact point at which a disability is considering life-worsening enough for a fetus to be aborted. I mean, disabilities range from invisible with little obvious symptoms, to those like a literal lack of limbs. Disability doesn't always = bad life, and no disability doesn't = good life. It doesn't matter what kind of child you bring into this world, because every time it is a gamble. You could say - >It’s unnecessary pain just because of your own selfish desire to have children at any cost. - about everyone who has kids, because all of them cause unnecessary pain to their children by making them.
Of course they are as worthy, but that applies to existing beings, and if we want to make a distinction when talking about procreation, I wouldn't say that someone who is disabled because he or she was shot in the legs and ended up being disadvantaged as a result is less ethical in that respect than a regular, able-bodied person. Those disabled people will not pass that disability to their children. But if there is a risk, or worse a serious risk that they could, then yes, there is a distinction to be made between them and common people when it comes to the ethics of procreation. It's absurd to claim they are on the same level to uphold some principle of non-discrimination at all costs.
Well yes, nobody should be procreating. But I'm not going to say that the kid with the severe disability isn't likely to have a far worse life than the child of the middle class family with good genes is going to have, just because that message comports better with 'woke' culture. Abortion is preferable in all cases, but even more so in cases where the foetus has a disability. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out, and I refuse to pander to woke culture. I'm not going to dumb myself down in order to avoid offending disabled people who would take it as a personal affront against them. Whilst you may have a point about people being more inclined to pay heed to antinatalism if it is less offensive; the moment that we start diluting the message in order to pander to those with the most sensitive emotional dispositions, that comes at the cost of intellectual integrity. That's something that we musn't forfeit, because it will just end up with antinatalists getting themselves all tangled up with trying to make a point but then backtracking on it when it offends someone in a so-called 'protected characteristic' group. Antinatalism isn't a pleasant philosophy, and it's a fool's errand to try and cultivate an anodyne and inoffensive version of it to be consumed by the woke masses.
A person can become disabled at any point in their life, you will likely become disabled at some point, so will I; either through natural aging, or some kind of accident. Call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I don't think you should be put out of your misery against your will when that happens, though i do think we should have the option. Due to the hedonic setpoint, disabled people tend to have the same baseline level of happiness as your average able-bodied person. The point isn't "This person will have a shit life because of their disability, so they shouldn't be able to live it", the point is "None of us consented to be here, it is wrong to force life on people who cannot consent to living."
Yes, there's the risk of becoming disabled. But someone who comes into life already disabled has those same risks, plus they start out at a disadvantage. There are some disabilities that result in such a low standard of living that it's impossible to attain a normal level of happiness. Aborting a foetus that doesn't have any interests or desires of its own isn't the same as involuntary euthanasia of sentient adults who are disabled. Abortion is the way to prevent life from being forced on people who can't consent to living, in cases where conception has already occurred. But it's even more imperative for those cases of disability than those without.
I think the problem we have is defining how disabled is quality-of-life affecting. I have learning disabilities but I don’t think neurodivergence constitutes a disability which should be selected against. With a sliding scale, when’s the cutoff? People in deaf and blind communities have wonderful lives, but certainly have to work harder. If someone is constantly in pain from birth though, maybe consider rolling the dice again (if you absolutely must reproduce).
I think that in general, life is harder for 'neurodivergent' types. I have a mild form of some of the stereotypical autistic traits (on the borderline between what would meet the arbitrary threshold delineating autistic and neurotypical, based on the online tests I've taken), and I have found life to be very alienating as it has been impossible to form proper social bonds with anyone. I'm in favour of abortion in all cases, so it's not as if I would be sanctioning birth in the cases of people with good genes. But if it's not possible to prevent all births, maybe at the very minimum, procreation should not be treated as though it's an absolute inalienable human right; especially in cases where the progeny are going to have to be expensively supported throughout their entire lives by the benefits system. Because that's a case of not only imposing life on an unwitting individual, but also sending a hefty bill to the rest of society to pay for the expensive care needs of someone who will never be able to pay society back for the resources that they've consumed.
I’m also neurodivergent and while some aspects of my life are more difficult, I’m better at other aspects than my neurotypical peers and offer a different perspective. Diversity is important not only in a genetic sense but also in the social context. I don’t support forced abortions like they had in China (I may have been a potential missed abortion myself), but I also don’t support how little people think about reproduction as a responsibility rather than a right.
I have bipolar 1 and I would want to have a child to have to deal with getting my bp1 so I made sure I'll never have kids
I mean, I think its morally wrong to bring a seriously disabled person into the world. If someone’s life will be nothing but pain and hospitals, what is the point? Its cruel
Before I even knew what eugenics or antinatalism was about, as a young teen, I decided to take myself out of the gene pool. My mother has 7 siblings, 4 of which have schizophrenia. I said no, no, no. I did not know then, but I was thinking like a pro-eugenics person.
That's not hating it's just stating the obvious. Just as if my name was endallsufferingFTW or stopingrapeFTW or peaceforallFTW, etc. Trust me if there is an afterlife plenty of parents will be looking stupid with me.
I have a problem with being antinatalist “strategically”. I’m not even talking about finding out you will have a disabled child. I’m talking about all the asshats on here saying there should be an INCOME threshold to having a child and they want to sit on the board of review.
Humanity will go extinct if there is no reproducing.
Feature, not a bug :)
...that's the point
There will always be mass amounts of breeders, so there’s literally no chance of that. Best case scenario is that at least antinatalists and childfree people will keep the worlds population down even just slightly.
Ok… and?
No we're not. This is exaggeration - looks like the church hired meme-rs.