Is it wrong to have children?

[Costa Fierro]

Anti-natalism is usually the preserve of the fringes of society who should rightfully be ignored and ridiculed. That said, anyone in a heterosexual relationship or marriage should avoid having children.

[Mujahidah]

That said, anyone in a heterosexual relationship or marriage should avoid having children.

Why? A stable marriage is the ideal environment to have children.

[New Emeline]

Anti-natalism is usually the preserve of the fringes of society who should rightfully be ignored and ridiculed. That said, anyone in a heterosexual relationship or marriage should avoid having children.

Anyone in a heterosexual marriage/relationship should avoid having children? Isn't that the primary demographic of child-havers?

[Albrenia]

Anti-natalism is usually the preserve of the fringes of society who should rightfully be ignored and ridiculed. That said, anyone in a heterosexual relationship or marriage should avoid having children.

Uhm... is there some part of anti-natalism beyond not having children?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Anti-natalism is usually the preserve of the fringes of society who should rightfully be ignored and ridiculed. That said, anyone in a heterosexual relationship or marriage should avoid having children.

Nani

[Wallenburg]

No.

That said, anyone in a heterosexual relationship or marriage should avoid having children.

Why? A stable marriage is the ideal environment to have children.

Perhaps he is concerned that the presence of a woman in the family would pose a threat to the development of any children.

[Mujahidah]

No.

Why? A stable marriage is the ideal environment to have children.

Perhaps he is concerned that the presence of a woman in the family would pose a threat to the development of any children.

That.... That makes absolutely no sense.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No.

Perhaps he is concerned that the presence of a woman in the family would pose a threat to the development of any children.

That.... That makes absolutely no sense.

It's Costa. Dude hates women.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Anti-natalism is usually the preserve of the fringes of society who should rightfully be ignored and ridiculed. That said, anyone in a heterosexual relationship or marriage should avoid having children.

It's good to be able to laugh at yourself. This is healthy and a positive step.

[Aboim]

Anti-natalism is the pretty much the belief that giving birth is immoral. Believers of this philosophy assign a negative value to birth. They would believe that it's better to not have been born. By giving birth, you're exposing a human to pain, disease, injury, or any other misfortune life has to offer. This can be compared to Negative utilitarianism, which gives greater priority to reducing suffering than maximizing happiness. Looking at this, I came to believe that the previous two ideas are closely related to nihilism, the belief that all life is meaningless.

Personally, I find anti natalism to be an interesting philosophy. I do agree with several principles of nihilism (mainly existential nihilism), so there would be no point in me having children. However, I'm sure a majority of people would assign a positive value to life and birth, and thus conclude that anti natalism makes no sense. We wouldn't be here if it weren't for reproduction, but then again, no one asked to be born. Are we here simply to reproduce and pass on our genes? If so, what is the ultimate goal? What exactly is our purpose? I don't think it's wrong to have children because it appears that our purpose is to have children. However, they cannot be guaranteed a perfect happy life. If someone wants children, then they should have them, but only if they can reasonably afford and raise them properly. I believe that people who can't afford to have children shouldn't have any. You're giving them an unnecessary disadvantage and exposing them to more pain than they otherwise would have, if they had better circumstances. I'm not saying we should ban poorer people from having children (such a proposal is a violation of human rights and also impossible), but people should really be more careful when thinking about having children.

Is it wrong to have children? No.

Are we here simply to reproduce and pass on our genes? No.

If so, what is the ultimate goal? What exactly is our purpose?

Save people like Einstein, Alan Turing, Mandela, Gluecksohn-Waelsch, Asimov, Charles Drew, Elon Musk. Discover the atomic energy, the gravity, the DNA. Invent the farming technology, the airplane, the penicillin, the cure for cancer, for HIV, for Parkinson. Spread happiness, determination to do the right thing, which not include the extermination of who you don’t like. You can restrict yourself to genes, to be the matrix and reproductive, but even bacteria need something more.

[Costa Fierro]

Why? A stable marriage is the ideal environment to have children.

Anyone in a heterosexual marriage/relationship should avoid having children? Isn't that the primary demographic of child-havers?

Uhm... is there some part of anti-natalism beyond not having children?

Nope.

Perhaps he is concerned that the presence of a woman in the family would pose a threat to the development of any children.

It's Costa. Dude hates women.

Also nope.

With regards to relationships/marriages and children, it's all well and good that a kid can grow up in a nice, stable environment. But not every relationship/marriage is that happily ever after fairytale Disney keeps trying to force feed people. And once that relationship/marriage goes south and the parents get a divorce, stability is thrown out of kilter and the kid becomes an object which both parents use to cudgel one another to get the best settlement (well as "best" as the blatantly biased family court system allows). That and a parent dying isn't good for the stability of the household either. Plus there's numerous studies showing kids in single parent households do worse than kids in two parent households.

With regards to people's assumptions about me, the great thing about assumptions is that they are easily broken.

[United Homeland]

No, they are our future,and with our comfortable modern lifes we can have plenty of them, stupid question

[Mujahidah]

Also nope.

With regards to relationships/marriages and children, it's all well and good that a kid can grow up in a nice, stable environment. But not every relationship/marriage is that happily ever after fairytale Disney keeps trying to force feed people. And once that relationship/marriage goes south and the parents get a divorce, stability is thrown out of kilter and the kid becomes an object which both parents use to cudgel one another to get the best settlement (well as "best" as the blatantly biased family court system allows). That and a parent dying isn't good for the stability of the household either. Plus there's numerous studies showing kids in single parent households do worse than kids in two parent households.

With regards to people's assumptions about me, the great thing about assumptions is that they are easily broken.

So if people shouldn't have children in heterosexual households, when should they? You said you thought anti-natalism was wrong, and now you're saying that single-parent households aren't a good place to raise children, but you told heterosexual couples to not reproduce, so it seems you are saying noone should reproduce.

Also, "marriages can fail" is a horrible reason for people to not have kids. The world isn't perfect, we know this. Risks have to be taken because nothing is a guarantee. But when two people love each other and marry, there is no reason why they should not have children.

[Telconi]

Why? A stable marriage is the ideal environment to have children.

Anyone in a heterosexual marriage/relationship should avoid having children? Isn't that the primary demographic of child-havers?

Uhm... is there some part of anti-natalism beyond not having children?

Nope.

Perhaps he is concerned that the presence of a woman in the family would pose a threat to the development of any children.

It's Costa. Dude hates women.

Also nope.

With regards to relationships/marriages and children, it's all well and good that a kid can grow up in a nice, stable environment. But not every relationship/marriage is that happily ever after fairytale Disney keeps trying to force feed people. And once that relationship/marriage goes south and the parents get a divorce, stability is thrown out of kilter and the kid becomes an object which both parents use to cudgel one another to get the best settlement (well as "best" as the blatantly biased family court system allows). That and a parent dying isn't good for the stability of the household either. Plus there's numerous studies showing kids in single parent households do worse than kids in two parent households.

With regards to people's assumptions about me, the great thing about assumptions is that they are easily broken.

So what would you consider an ideal situation?

[Mujahidah]

Nope.





Also nope.

With regards to relationships/marriages and children, it's all well and good that a kid can grow up in a nice, stable environment. But not every relationship/marriage is that happily ever after fairytale Disney keeps trying to force feed people. And once that relationship/marriage goes south and the parents get a divorce, stability is thrown out of kilter and the kid becomes an object which both parents use to cudgel one another to get the best settlement (well as "best" as the blatantly biased family court system allows). That and a parent dying isn't good for the stability of the household either. Plus there's numerous studies showing kids in single parent households do worse than kids in two parent households.

With regards to people's assumptions about me, the great thing about assumptions is that they are easily broken.

So what would you consider an ideal situation?

Its Costa, so probably one that does not involve a woman, somehow.

[Magheraat]

Why does this "philosophy" even exist in the first place? If you consider your life to be meaningless, worthless and miserable, then stop whining and go kill yourself. If for some reason you don't want to do it, the shut the fuck up. That's another reason, why we need totalitarianism-to send these kinds of degenerates to the labour camps, where they can whine all they want till they die in service of decent human beings.

[Mujahidah]

Why does this "philosophy" even exist in the first place? If you consider your life to be meaningless, worthless and miserable, then stop whining and go kill yourself. If for some reason you don't want to do it, the shut the fuck up.

I don't think encouraging people to commit suicide is a good idea.

That's another reason, why we need totalitarianism-to send these kinds of degenerates to the labour camps, where they can whine all they want till they die in service of decent human beings.

Now thats a leap.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Why does this "philosophy" even exist in the first place? If you consider your life to be meaningless, worthless and miserable, then stop whining and go kill yourself. If for some reason you don't want to do it, the shut the fuck up.

I don't think encouraging people to commit suicide is a good idea.

On the other hand, it tells us everything about Magheraat we'll ever need to know.

[Magheraat]

I don't think encouraging people to commit suicide is a good idea.

If i was a religious person, then i would say, that encouraging people to kill their children by the means of abortion, just because they may face some hardships in their life, is a far worse idea.

[Mujahidah]

I don't think encouraging people to commit suicide is a good idea.

If i was a religious person, then i would say, that encouraging people to kill their children by the means of abortion, just because they may face some hardships in their life, is a far worse idea.

Encouraging someone to have an abortions for no justifiable reason and encouraging people to kill themselves because you disagree with their (admittedly flawed) beliefs are both horrible things to do.

[Aillyria]

Why? A stable marriage is the ideal environment to have children.

Anyone in a heterosexual marriage/relationship should avoid having children? Isn't that the primary demographic of child-havers?

Uhm... is there some part of anti-natalism beyond not having children?

Nope.

Perhaps he is concerned that the presence of a woman in the family would pose a threat to the development of any children.

It's Costa. Dude hates women.

Also nope.

With regards to relationships/marriages and children, it's all well and good that a kid can grow up in a nice, stable environment. But not every relationship/marriage is that happily ever after fairytale Disney keeps trying to force feed people. And once that relationship/marriage goes south and the parents get a divorce, stability is thrown out of kilter and the kid becomes an object which both parents use to cudgel one another to get the best settlement (well as "best" as the blatantly biased family court system allows). That and a parent dying isn't good for the stability of the household either. Plus there's numerous studies showing kids in single parent households do worse than kids in two parent households.

With regards to people's assumptions about me, the great thing about assumptions is that they are easily broken.

You do realize that this practically makes you an anti-natalist, right?

[Mujahidah]

Nope.





Also nope.

With regards to relationships/marriages and children, it's all well and good that a kid can grow up in a nice, stable environment. But not every relationship/marriage is that happily ever after fairytale Disney keeps trying to force feed people. And once that relationship/marriage goes south and the parents get a divorce, stability is thrown out of kilter and the kid becomes an object which both parents use to cudgel one another to get the best settlement (well as "best" as the blatantly biased family court system allows). That and a parent dying isn't good for the stability of the household either. Plus there's numerous studies showing kids in single parent households do worse than kids in two parent households.

With regards to people's assumptions about me, the great thing about assumptions is that they are easily broken.

You do realize that this practically makes you an anti-natalist, right?

Not practically. It makes him literally an anti-natalist. He's saying because no marriage will ever be perfect, and because there is a chance that marriages end in divorce, that because of the risk of the child suffering heterosexual couples should not have children. That 100% makes him an anti-natalist, both in effect and thought.

[Telconi]

So what would you consider an ideal situation?

Its Costa, so probably one that does not involve a woman, somehow.

Which is, well, frankly not possible.

[Aillyria]

Why does this "philosophy" even exist in the first place? If you consider your life to be meaningless, worthless and miserable, then stop whining and go kill yourself. If for some reason you don't want to do it, the shut the fuck up. That's another reason, why we need totalitarianism-to send these kinds of degenerates to the labour camps, where they can whine all they want till they die in service of decent human beings.

<advocates slavery
<complains about moral degenerates

Calm down, edgelord.

[Magheraat]

...

>encouraging people to kill themselves because you disagree with their beliefs
I didn't say that. Anti-natalist think that it's immoral to give birth to children, because by doing it "you're exposing a human to pain, disease, injury, or any other misfortune life has to offer". So if anti-natalist consider life to be so cruel and unjust, why won't they kill themeslves, so they won't have to suffer anymore? By not doing it, they make themselves look like a bunch of hypocrites.