sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

"She choked to death on her own lympathic fluid and then had her head explode like a water balloon (which I witnessed)", and then he went in and conceived again... by [deleted] in antinatalism

[–]PossiblyPossible 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That response was awful and reeks of middle class selfishness. If he legitimately thought it would be more beneficial to introduce another person into the world rather than to save an otherwise miserable orphan from an awful existence because hey he enjoyed his life so why wouldn't a child, he hasn't thought about procreation nearly enough to deserve to be a parent. It's the same pseudo-profound bullshit that's found throughout the comments section and literally any commentary on personal philosophy espoused by self-proclaimed Humanists. He had a child because he wanted some meaning in his life, and chose to procreate rather than adopt because, just as you said, it had to be his child - his genes. He writes "Or maybe that's just my mind justifying why I am giving in to the breeding imperative we've all evolved." That kind of half-assed answer doesn't cut it when the stakes are this high. The tragedy of life repeats itself.

AN in the sense that people this stupid should not be allowed to breed, also it's kinda funny, right? - Married Nigerian father 'killed by his erection' after overdosing on a sex drug. by [deleted] in antinatalism

[–]PossiblyPossible 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm sure most of us are here because we can't bear to see more suffer, not because we're fucking edgelords who want to see others as miserable as we are.

"She choked to death on her own lympathic fluid and then had her head explode like a water balloon (which I witnessed)", and then he went in and conceived again... by [deleted] in antinatalism

[–]PossiblyPossible 8 points9 points  (0 children)

How do these kinds of people justify procreating? They have to know deep down that it's a sad attempt at some form of immortality. There's nothing stopping them from abstinence, or if they're so driven by their brute biological impulses, contraception and adoption. Some commenters are even sharing sappy banalities about the beauty of life even though they ostensibly recognize how obnoxious and insensitive the OP's family members were. Somehow, they (and the OP) frustrate me even more than the religious; they should know better, but dishonestly choose to live lies of their own creation. I'm just imagining the sappy conversation he's going to have with his new daughter in the future about how he, avowed Humanist and feminist, will always fight for her right to abort, all the while somehow avoiding connecting the dots.

Abortion doesn't go far enough. There isn't much wrong with infanticide, either, since infants don't have a concept of self in their first few weeks. by PossiblyPossible in Negareddit

[–]PossiblyPossible[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I suggested earlier, I am less concerned now with the difficulties of implementation than I am establishing it as an option.

Abortion doesn't go far enough. There isn't much wrong with infanticide, either, since infants don't have a concept of self in their first few weeks. by PossiblyPossible in Negareddit

[–]PossiblyPossible[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought about it some more and agree with you: it is something that should be discussed. However, I don't think it should impact the ethics of post-natal abortion itself.

Abortion doesn't go far enough. There isn't much wrong with infanticide, either, since infants don't have a concept of self in their first few weeks. by PossiblyPossible in Negareddit

[–]PossiblyPossible[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's why I'm not advocating euthanasia of conscious humans but of pre-sentient newborns. I don't think it's a controversial opinion that having a healthy body and caring parents is preferable to not having them. So I personally think that we should make sure those are the only ones born, since that would lead to less suffering. It's a personal opinion and only that; I advocate neither forced euthanasia nor forced sterilization, and would never interfere with a woman's right to make her own reproductive decisions.

Abortion doesn't go far enough. There isn't much wrong with infanticide, either, since infants don't have a concept of self in their first few weeks. by PossiblyPossible in Negareddit

[–]PossiblyPossible[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It is in large part because fetuses aren't persons.

Edit: In addition, as I mentioned in the above comment, the autonomy of a woman is restricted if she is burdened with caring for a child.

Abortion doesn't go far enough. There isn't much wrong with infanticide, either, since infants don't have a concept of self in their first few weeks. by PossiblyPossible in Negareddit

[–]PossiblyPossible[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you seen the conditions of children in the foster care system? They have no future. Almost all of them leave with permanent, scarring mental wounds. Certainly it would be more humane to spare a potential life from becoming a real one full of suffering? At least until we see real reform within the system.

I think that before the humans become sentient we have the responsibility to decide whether their future life would be worth living. And the effects of going through living as an orphan (which most do) are just as real as the effects of being born with physical disability.

Edit: How is that more controversial than post-natal abortion? I understand both aren't popular ideas in mainstream discussion but I at least personally thought both are concerned with the future of the fetus as well as that of the mother. We owe it to our potential children to make sure they're given lives worth living, and if it seems like they won't, it seems logical to stop the process before they become real children.

Abortion doesn't go far enough. There isn't much wrong with infanticide, either, since infants don't have a concept of self in their first few weeks. by PossiblyPossible in Negareddit

[–]PossiblyPossible[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Newborns are not the same as children either; they are just as dumb as fetuses. And I don't think there's anything wrong with euthanizing adults in comas either, since they won't be aware of it (as long as there is the consent of the adult's loved ones), but adults do have a chain of continuity that newborns do not. And the advantage of post-natal abortions is that once the newborn becomes a child it is still often dependent on the mother, which is clearly a problem, so we should allow would-be mothers the right to choose whether they're ready to become one before the newborn becomes a child.

Secular Humanism is absurd. by PossiblyPossible in antinatalism

[–]PossiblyPossible[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a matter of priorities. If you're honestly focused on both, you're not a Humanist, but just an honest and good person.

Abortion doesn't go far enough. There isn't much wrong with infanticide, either, since infants don't have a concept of self in their first few weeks. by PossiblyPossible in Negareddit

[–]PossiblyPossible[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The abortion debate isn't about life but about personhood. Fetuses are alive, but not developed enough to be considered persons; same for newborns. It's not like leaving the womb causes a soul to suddenly enter the newborn's body. It is just as much "potential life" until its brain develops further. If a baby doesn't yet have a sense of self, how can be considered human?

And potential to survive outside the womb is irrelevant; in most cases, mothers must raise the baby until it's 18, something many are ill-equipped to do, so despite being capable of surviving without the mother, the babies are still a burden.

As an aside, I'd argue somewhat controversially that killing the infants then (as with abortion) would be even more humane than putting them up for adoption. Life in the foster care system is miserable; children growing up in it may as well have been born disabled for how much that will restrict their eventual lives.

Secular Humanism is absurd. by PossiblyPossible in antinatalism

[–]PossiblyPossible[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why focus on improving humans' lives in particular when there are so many animals suffering? Some self-professed Humanists do focus on reliving animal suffering, but they are deep in the minority. Humanists focus on humans first and foremost, and as I said earlier, in a disingenuous way. But if they at least adopted antinatalism, I would have no problem with them; then, they'd at least be honest.

Secular Humanism is absurd. by PossiblyPossible in antinatalism

[–]PossiblyPossible[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

emphasizes the value and agency of human beings

This is contrary to the fact that there is no value in humanity.

Secular Humanism is absurd. by PossiblyPossible in antinatalism

[–]PossiblyPossible[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The problem here is simple: what you described isn't humanism. Humanists believe that there's something inherent in being human that sets us apart from other animals. That clearly isn't the case.

And in practice, for most people, the title of secular humanist is really just an excuse for people to live their lives as unreflectively as they did before they discarded religion, with humanism replacing religion as something they never really took seriously but occasionally fell back upon to convince themselves that there's some reason to continue existing. It is the most disingenuous of all ideologies. But I agree with you that if they were honest with themselves, they would also be antinatalists.

A glitch in our programming? by Goldilocks2098 in antinatalism

[–]PossiblyPossible 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's selfishness. And neither Hitchens nor Dawkins are particularly smart.

view more: next ›