Anti natalist rant

[chudjak]

Reasons against birth of humans:

1. It is against their consent/bodily autonomy. Normies are obsessed with this, especially foids, "my body my choice". They completely break this when they force a child to be born against it's will, they are making it go through all the suffering and pain that comes with life even though it cannot consent to such a thing. It is selfish and one sided, if consent is such an important thing then don't force anyone to be born. They don't actually value consent.

2. Women do not actually care about their children. This is proven by not only the fact that they are so easily willing to have a pre birth abortion and just trash the poor thing for their own selfish reasons of not wanting to have to deal with a kid yet, but also by the fact that even when women can't get abortions they will just kill the baby after it's born. No "just a clump of cells" argument there. Filicide was a VERY common act before abortions, entire underground institutions were dedicated to helping women kill babies they didn't want to take care of, and women would definitely still do it if they could get away with it. So basically, the argument that "oh I need a kid because I value life so much, I am compassionate and empathetic and I care about my babies" is completely thrown out the window. Women don't value their kids life at all, they could easily decide to just kill the thing. Most women who have kids have literally killed previous ones, almost all women get abortions nowadays, they don't actually value life.

3. It can actually costs you and doesn't benefit you. Kids are expensive, you have to pour a lot of your money into not only raising them (all the food, clothes, gifts, exc) but then you have to pay for their college and help them become an adult. It's not just money, it's time, you are taking a LOT of your time and effort. And what's the reward? They run off to live life and you get the fucking retirement home. Remind me, why do this?

4. There is no real reason to have them in the first place, it is pointless. The only reason people do it is because a combination of natural instinct and a culture that shames childless men, why should you continue the pain of life for generations upon generations just because you selfishly feel like it? There's not one good reason why anyone should have kids, and plenty of reasons not to.

 

[wereq]

1. It is against their consent/bodily autonomy. Normies are obsessed with this, especially foids, "my body my choice". They completely break this when they force a child to be born against it's will, they are making it go through all the suffering and pain that comes with life even though it cannot consent to such a thing. It is selfish and one sided, if consent is such an important thing then don't force anyone to be born. They don't actually value consent.

Denial of consent is especially felt if the conditions of birth and life are harsh and unforgiving like ours. We are doomed to suffer and fail; our parents should've realized that they would only doom their children with poor quality of life and thus refrained from procreation altogether.

2. Women do not actually care about their children.

In the best case scenario, women only care about childbirth, motherhood, and loving kids when they stand to gain personal fulfillment from satisfying their biological craving, so once again, its just about them. They don't love kids, they love what having kids make them feel. And loving children is also not enough. Its not enough to love a child if you can't do justice to him. If you cannot equip him with good genetics needed to compete and cope in this harsh competitive world, no amount of labor of love can help. I know this for a fact with my own life.

And what's the reward? They run off to live life and you get the fucking retirement home. Remind me, why do this?

There's only reward if the children are competent, moral, happy, and fulfilled. If not its endless misery and despair.

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

Reasons against birth of humans:

1. It is against their consent/bodily autonomy. Normies are obsessed with this, especially foids, "my body my choice". They completely break this when they force a child to be born against it's will, they are making it go through all the suffering and pain that comes with life even though it cannot consent to such a thing. It is selfish and one sided, if consent is such an important thing then don't force anyone to be born. They don't actually value consent.

Why would you think that humans some weird inherited autonomy they're owed, it would be based on of what? Such a moronic point.

There's no such a thing as "being owed", if somebody say people are "owed" rights this would imply there's somebody to make them i.e. God. If I would refuse his existence, it would mean that all humans have natural liberty either for everything or for nothing. In second case I should consider every act, even such as breathing, as injustice, what makes this concept moronic. If I accept the first case, everything is allowed to man from nature. It means, that without a contract (agreement) with another man there could not be any injustice in their deeds against each other. Thus, without the social contract, which was broken, there are no tidings for liberties of nonchads, therefore, if the only right that punish nonchads is based on strenght and if I was to consider such strenght-based law a good thing, the inobedience towards the laws that banish their liberties is an even better thing, since they used the same strength-based right to overpower previous lawmaker. Thus foids being graped or killed isn't injustice, foids aren't owed life nor "autonomy".

2. Women do not actually care about their children. This is proven by not only the fact that they are so easily willing to have a pre birth abortion and just trash the poor thing for their own selfish reasons of not wanting to have to deal with a kid yet, but also by the fact that even when women can't get abortions they will just kill the baby after it's born. No "just a clump of cells" argument there. Filicide was a VERY common act before abortions, entire underground institutions were dedicated to helping women kill babies they didn't want to take care of, and women would definitely still do it if they could get away with it. So basically, the argument that "oh I need a kid because I value life so much, I am compassionate and empathetic and I care about my babies" is completely thrown out the window. Women don't value their kids life at all, they could easily decide to just kill the thing. Most women who have kids have literally killed previous ones, almost all women get abortions nowadays, they don't actually value life.

Indeed foids are subhuman vermins. But it does not change anything. Again, you're trying to apply weird, undefined morality here. Why would suffering be a objectively bad thing?

3. It can actually costs you and doesn't benefit you. Kids are expensive, you have to pour a lot of your money into not only raising them (all the food, clothes, gifts, exc) but then you have to pay for their college and help them become an adult. It's not just money, it's time, you are taking a LOT of your time and effort. And what's the reward? They run off to live life and you get the fucking retirement home. Remind me, why do this?

If somebody do this willingly, he have some reason behind it. Therefore it benefits him in this way.

4. There is no real reason to have them in the first place, it is pointless. The only reason people do it is because a combination of natural instinct and a culture that shames childless men, why should you continue the pain of life for generations upon generations just because you selfishly feel like it? There's not one good reason why anyone should have kids, and plenty of reasons not to.

Why not? Why do you consider suffering as something objectively bad? If it's just subjectively bad, there's no divine nor moral law that say: 'suffering is bad', but only it could be wrong in my consideration. Therefore if i consider suffering of others as something good, there's no objective argument against it. My consideration is as valid as yours objectively, yet subjectively I follow mine, thus I have a valid argument for approbation or damnation of actions and choices of mine and others (morality) to be considered such according to my thoughts of them.

 

[chudjak]

Why would you think that humans some weird inherited autonomy they're owed, it would be based on of what? Such a moronic point.

Because normies claim that everyone has a right to bodily autonomy and then they turn around and break it, read what I said, it is not a moronic point. They make zero sense.

Indeed foids are subhuman vermins. But it does not change anything. Again, you're trying to apply weird, undefined morality here. Why would suffering be a objectively bad thing?

The point of what I wrote here was that women are not fit for taking care of children, but they are the only way of having them, so it is better not to have them. Also shut up about "objectively bad thing", that's stupid Christian semantics, if you be honest for a second then what you see as objectively bad is whatever you feel is bad and generally everyone feels that suffering is bad so the argument makes sense for most of humanity.

Why not? Why do you consider suffering as something objectively bad? If it's just subjectively bad, there's no divine nor moral law that say: 'suffering is bad', but only it could be wrong in my consideration. Therefore if i consider suffering of others as something good, there's no objective argument against it. My consideration is as valid as yours objectively, yet subjectively I follow mine, thus I have a valid argument for approbation or damnation of actions and choices of mine and others (morality) to be considered such according to my thoughts of them.

There's no universal objective argument against anything if we are real here. You just have to decide what's true for yourself, if you think that you want your children to suffer then how am I supposed to stop you? Go right ahead and make that happen.

My points were designed around people capable of making children, ie normies, this is not some sort of niche philosophical argument. It's just showing that it is not even beneficial or reasonable for normies to have kids, it shouldn't make any sense to them and yet they do it

 

[Starfish Vs Koala]

based rant

 

[NiggerAnnihilator]

your body my choice always the best way to piss them off

 

[Juice]

Not like we're going to have a choice anyway, only reason an incel should be anti-natalist is to drag sexhaving scum down with them

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

if you be honest for a second then what you see as objectively bad is whatever you feel is bad and generally everyone feels that suffering is bad so the argument makes sense for most of humanity

>I feel, therefore it's bad! Because... IT JUST IS, OKAY?

 

[chudjak]

>I feel, therefore it's bad! Because... IT JUST IS, OKAY?

"I feel Christianity is real therefore it is objectively true! You have to obey it too...just because I said so!!!"

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

"I feel Christianity is real therefore it is objectively true! You have to obey it too...just because I said so!!!"

Christianity isn't real, I never said so.

 

[chudjak]

Christianity isn't real, I never said so.

Than what exactly do you believe in that creates an objective truth which everyone must believe?

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

Than what exactly do you believe in that creates an objective truth which everyone must believe?

The truth (thing-in-itself, noumen) is objective, but phenomenons are shaped according to senses, which are subjective. There's no objective morality, because there's no such a thing as objective good or evil. Yet it's possible to find how the social contract works and what's state supposed to do based on it. That's why I rely on it, it's objective. Based on it I can prove, how the redistribution of foids among men is objectively a thing that state is supposed to do.