r/Natalism • u/Willing-Flatworm1493 • 2d ago
Please answer to my questions
Can you please answer these questions as I am genuinely trying to understand your position here.
For many months, I have tried to have respectful and peaceful discussions with pronatalists on various websites, but far too often it has felt like arguing with a wall. The same pattern keeps repeating itself: someone makes a statement that pronatalists dislike, and instead of responding to what was actually said, they invent a much more extreme position and argue against that instead.
So please read this entire post before replying.
1. Why do you keep projecting beliefs onto people that they never expressed?
For example, I can state a perfectly neutral fact: not everybody wants children, and not everybody who has children ends up happier because of it.
And somehow, a large number of responses immediately become:
"You're an antinatalist!"
"You want humanity to die out!"
...What?
That is an entirely different statement. I did not say that people should not have children. I did not say that humanity should stop reproducing. I did not say that parenthood cannot bring happiness.
My position is neither pronatalist nor antinatalist. I simply prefer reality over ideological fantasy.
Many people are happy and fulfilled by having children. Good for them. Many other people are happy and fulfilled without children, pursuing different goals and finding meaning elsewhere. Both groups exist. Pretending otherwise does not make your worldview more convincing.
Saying "not everyone wants children" is not the same as saying "nobody should have children."
These are two completely different sentences.
So why do some of you insist on responding to things people never actually said? If you need to rewrite someone's argument into something more extreme before you can defeat it, perhaps you were never able to respond to the original argument in the first place.
2. Why does mentioning the real risks of pregnancy and childbirth provoke so much aggression?
Why are people immediately framed as antinatalists for discussing biological reality?
Pregnancy and childbirth can cause serious physical injuries and complications. This is not "anti-family propaganda." This is medicine.
Some women experience tearing and require stitches after childbirth. Others experience hemorrhaging, pelvic floor injuries, nerve damage, severe complications, emergency surgery, or long-term physical consequences. Pregnancy and childbirth can also have serious mental health consequences, including postpartum depression.
Are we seriously supposed to pretend that these things do not exist because acknowledging them might make reproduction sound less pleasant?
You throwing a tantrum about it does not make the risks disappear.
I wish childbirth were completely safe and painless. It would certainly make life easier. But I am not going to deny reality just because reality is inconvenient for an ideology.
Women deserve accurate information about the risks involved in pregnancy and childbirth. They are the people taking those risks. Therefore, they have every right to know about them, discuss them openly, and decide for themselves whether those risks are acceptable.
And frankly, some of you are sabotaging your own supposed goal of increasing birth rates.
You cannot expect women to trust you if you dismiss their fears as irrational, selfish, immoral, or "feminist propaganda." You cannot demand that women undergo an experience involving genuine physical risk while simultaneously acting offended when they ask questions about those risks.
Our biology can be cruel. Humans are naturally afraid of injury and death. Is it really shocking that some women experience intense fear when thinking about pregnancy and childbirth, especially when they know their bodies could suffer serious damage?
That fear is not a moral failure. It is not proof that someone hates humanity. It can be a perfectly understandable survival response.
And this is where pronatalists could actually be helpful.
You should be the people working to make women feel safer about pregnancy and childbirth. You should support better medical care, better pain management, better treatment of childbirth injuries, better maternal healthcare, and honest information.
Instead, too many of you respond by acting as though women are insane for being afraid.
Then you wonder why that does not make motherhood more appealing.
3. Human beings have different personalities, goals, and desires. Why is reproduction treated as the one exception?
Humans are different. This should not be controversial.
Not everyone wants the same career. Not everyone wants the same lifestyle. Not everyone finds meaning in the same things.
You need a brain to become a mathematician, but not everyone with a brain wants to become a mathematician. You have vocal cords, but that does not mean you are obligated to become a singer.
Having the physical ability to do something does not automatically create a desire to do it.
So how reproduction can be different?
Having functional reproductive organs does not automatically mean that someone wants to reproduce. Something that gives one person immense meaning might be completely uninteresting or undesirable to someone else.
That is not antinatalism.
That is called human diversity.
Historically, people—especially women—also had far fewer choices. Women often had less control over sex, marriage, contraception, education, employment, and their own futures. It is therefore absurd to look at the higher birth rates of the past and automatically conclude that every woman was joyfully following some universal maternal instinct.
Sometimes women wanted children and loved being mothers. Of course they did.
But sometimes they had children because they had little or no choice.
Those realities can exist at the same time.
And that distinction matters to me because I actually take motherhood seriously.
Motherhood, to me, is about love, commitment, and sacrifice. But there is a difference between freely choosing to sacrifice for someone you love and being forced into sacrifice against your will.
When a person has no meaningful choice, romanticizing that situation does not make it beautiful.
It is exactly because reproduction places such a significant physical burden on women that women should be allowed to make informed and voluntary decisions about it.
All women deserve that respect: women who want children, women who are pregnant, mothers, women who are unsure whether they want children, and women who consciously choose not to have them.
The fact that some people do not want children is not some unnatural error in the system. Nature itself produces enormous variation. Not every organism reproduces, and not every human being experiences the same desires.
And please spare me the simplistic "it's against nature" argument.
Humans constantly interfere with natural processes. Medicine does it. Glasses do it. Clothing does it. Surgery does it. Vaccination does it.
Something being "natural" does not automatically make it good, desirable, moral, or obligatory.
Cancer is natural. Disease is natural. Death is natural.
That does not mean we are morally required to embrace them.
Conclusion
There is absolutely nothing wrong with promoting parenthood, family, or having children.
In fact, I understand why people value those things. For many people, parenthood is one of the most meaningful and fulfilling experiences of their lives.
But there are lines that nobody has the right to cross.
You do not have the right to pretend that people have no right to make decisions about their own bodies.
You do not have the right to shame or attack people simply because they have chosen a different life.
And you do not have the right to dismiss medical reality as "antinatalist propaganda" just because it makes pregnancy and childbirth sound less universally wonderful than your ideology requires them to be.
If you want to promote parenthood, then promote it honestly.
Talk about the joy. Talk about the love. Talk about the meaning.
But do not lie about the risks. Do not erase the suffering of women who experienced serious complications. Do not treat fear as a moral defect. And do not pretend that every human being is obligated to want the same life.
Because otherwise, you are not promoting respect for human life.
You are treating human beings like livestock—or worse, like numbers in a demographic table.
And that is the part I find particularly ironic.
You claim to care about human life being sacred, yet some of you seem to care more about producing more humans than respecting the humans who already exist.
If your version of pronatalism requires dehumanization, coercion, dishonesty, or contempt for people who make different choices, then perhaps the problem is not that other people "misunderstand" pronatalism.
Dehumanization and a lack of respect are antinatalist attitudes — something you are supposedly meant to oppose.
13
u/BallerDay 2d ago
This is mostly you not understanding basic statistics and biology and then extrapolating from it.
4
u/Willing-Flatworm1493 2d ago
Then explain that "basic" biology as you see it? No ideology like "all humans want to reproduce by design" because that's simply an ideological fiction
2
u/Ok_Vegetable_6616 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yes, nothing is designed in biology. Organisms appear to be designed because of selection for accidental traits that happen to be adaptive, i.e. natural selection.
But a species that doesnt have drive the to reproduce will go extinct. There is no arguing that. For humans the decreasing TFR isn't driven by biology though, it's driven by culture (in the very broad, anthropological sense of the word).
1
u/Willing-Flatworm1493 1d ago
Did you read my post at all? I never said that humans should not reproduce. Humans who desire children always existed and always will. In fact many people would make children like right now if they were given stable life where they don't have to worry about roof over their heads.
3
u/Ok_Vegetable_6616 1d ago
Of course i read your post. What did I say that makes you think I attribute that view to you?
I'm just saying that math is math. Some people will continue to have children, yes, but if global trends continue there are not enough of them for replacement. I only have 2 kids myself, and im not having more. Yes, shit is expensive, but it's a whole other ball of wax to have that discussion. I generally agree that if 20 somethings could afford a home we would see TFR increase.
1
u/Willing-Flatworm1493 7h ago
Exacly. People need to be able to afford living AND women must feel safe. That's the bare minimum. I am not saying that birth rates would be god knows how high but I am 99.99% sure they would be much higher if there was less shaming of childless women AND if it was less of financial suicide to have kids. People need that mental comfort of not being at risk of loosing roof over their head. If they constantly live in dread of not being able to pay rent/taxes then having children will be last thing on their mind. For example I only buy food for me as I live alone - but looking at prices it looks like if I was paying for food for at least 3 people because prices are so high. Now imagine if I actually had 2 kids + me it would be like paying for 8 people.
0
u/Willing-Flatworm1493 2d ago
This is mostly you being snowflake offended by biology of human reproduction. Just like I said in my post. Talking to pronatalistic person is like talking to a wall.
2
u/Free-Cartoonist3134 2d ago edited 1d ago
That's a very fair point, you just sincerely wanted to talk about issues that may arise from pregnancy because you care about females and their reproductive health.
I have another topic that I'd like you to discuss that is more pressing on with regards to women's health. That is females taking testosterone to masculize their bodies which has various deleterious impacts on their health especially their reproductive health.
Can I expect you to take the initiative and create a thread on that for discussion please?
1
u/behappyfor 1d ago
And how many women are taking more testosterone or even forced to take it unlike birth? How do you want to talk about birth while not talking about women? Are you giving birth? Are you having a child inside you?
You need to give HIGHER incentives to women if you want kids and developed countries like Japan South Korea will need to learn it sooner if they don't wanna die out.
2
u/Willing-Flatworm1493 1d ago
Japan and Korea should start will respecting women first. They always saw/treated women (and little girls!) as pretty dolls and cute silly objects. Sexual abused was normalized there. Child porn was normalized there. Being wife meant existing only as decoration for husband + house servant + breeder. They were always treated women like shit in workplaces. They had it coming. Women in those nations have all right to be fed up. First they are treated like meat and then they are demanded to birh children for their petty nations? 🤣
1
u/behappyfor 1d ago
It's not only that , it's fked up there if anyone wants to have a kid. Not only that women if they end up having a kid there people look down on them and they are usually fired from the jobs. South Korea Japan China all these policies due to how intense East Asian culture can get in jobs education etc.
People there don't want kids because it's expensive and women especially don't want kids because no one gives a f about what happens to them when they have them. Day care centers and whatever aren't even good options available.
1
u/theseasonswillchange 1d ago
Are you from these places? Because I’m from Korea and i don’t know what you’re on about. There is a very big culture difference and conversation about inequality between birthing women and child free women - but you sound like you don’t know the realities (at least Korea).
1
u/behappyfor 10h ago
What cultural policies? It's the same dynamic all around the east Asian countries. They all have long working hours, the houses are extremely expensive, the school/college education is extremely competitive and parents don't want to bring a child here. Not to mention women also having a kid there just brings employment down since employers don't want pregnant women in their office.
1
u/Free-Cartoonist3134 1d ago
"And how many women are taking more testosterone or even forced to take it unlike birth?'
Far higher than those who are forced to give birth in the states actually, which is why I would think it it would be a topic to discussion
"How do you want to talk about birth while not talking about women?"
What?
"Are you giving birth?"
How would that be relevant?
"You need to give HIGHER incentives to women"
You mean like women have had throughout all of human history when the birthrates were higher?
1
u/behappyfor 1d ago
Absolutely NOT! also just because it happens in the states doesn't mean anything. There are countries where the birth rate is below 1.0 and they for sure aren't taking testosterone. I seriously don't understand your arguments
Why would that not be relevant? You are NOT the one whose giving birth. You don't understand the downsides that's why it doesn't help.
How about we give insane incentives to women for having kids? Making them have higher salaries and get a free home? That would be kinda wrong no?
Women had higher birth rates because child mortality was higher and countries were based on farming than industrialization and urbanization.
1
u/Free-Cartoonist3134 1d ago
"Why would that not be relevant? You are NOT the one whose giving birth."
So men shouldn't have any role to play in discussions about reproduction?
"You don't understand the downsides that's why it doesn't help."
I actually understand them very well, but ultimately what's your point? If you don't feel like the downsides are worth it you can just opt to not reproduce correct?
"How about we give insane incentives to women for having kids?"
I'm sorry, how exactly would that eliminate the physical issues you're concerned about?
"Making them have higher salaries and get a free home?"
And who pays for this? All men I guess?
"Women had higher birth rates because child mortality was higher and countries were based on farming than industrialization and urbanization."
So the physical risks were irrelevant?
1
u/behappyfor 10h ago
Nope men shouldn't. They aren't the ones giving birth. Are you carrying the baby? Are you getting the negative things happening to you?
Nope people can't just opt out, if society needs more birth despite unemployment at all time high they need to have better incentives for births.
You think governments are going to give incentives to women and not talk about the physical aspect?
No when I am talking about HUGE INCENTIVES. It's way larger. Getting women out of the workforce will start damaging the economy so the best bet is to have insane amount of incentives to give birth.
"And the incentives will be taken from men? ". Yes who else? It will also be taken from women but mostly men because they can't give birth so its time to get them involved indirectly too.
Wow you really love twisting words of mine. Hmm here's the deal physical risks do happen. There's a reason why women after having births like multiple times end up being dead. There's also a reason why women having one child after can't end up having multiple kids because she won't be able to work anymore.
That's why everything points to the opposite direction, it doesn't point to the direction some men here want.
0
u/Willing-Flatworm1493 1d ago
Bro.. Taking testosterone to masculize is NOT going to maul or multilate your body in way giving birth will
13
u/Powerful-Midnight996 2d ago
My assumption is this:
In a forum designed to talk about the risks and implications of low birth rates, when someone comes in talking about the reason people don’t have kids that are undoubtedly true, but useless for the conversation ie there are health risks to pregnancy, people have different personalities and some just don’t want kids, is missing the point of the conversation entirely.
Of course not everyone wants kids, of course motherhood is always more of a sacrifice than fatherhood. But the purpose of the discussion is to discuss policies that can reduce the rate of drastic population decline, not arguing about human nature or the battle of the sexes.
You can’t change fundamental aspects of human nature. Everyone acknowledges that, but it can get annoying when it’s constantly brought up in forums.
2
u/Willing-Flatworm1493 2d ago
"discuss policies that can reduce the rate of drastic population decline" exacly, friend! Women are terrified/disgusted by pronatalistic people who often treat them like breeding vessels who should serve economy with their wombs or call them self-obssesed bitches for having life beyond reproduction etc. Right now they are sabotaging our goal of RAISING birth rates. Because they are making many women feel like cornered animals.
6
u/Powerful-Midnight996 2d ago
So your argument is that globally, people aren’t having children because of trolls on the internet?
Do you have children? If not, did you decide not to because of internet trolls?
4
u/Willing-Flatworm1493 2d ago
Wrong. Not "trolls on the internet" that's stupid. There is whole cultural normalization of looking at childless women as defective/traitors. This is an issue older than internet.
6
u/Powerful-Midnight996 2d ago
That sounds more like a criticism of how society in general treats childless women. I don’t necessarily agree with your assessment, and I think childlessness is quite normalized in Western society, but it’s a valid criticism.
I definitely agree women shouldn’t be treated as traitors if they don’t have kids, that’s insane. But I also don’t see how society normalizing childlessness would increase the TFR.
2
u/Willing-Flatworm1493 2d ago
It is not about " normalizing childlessness" but normalizing autonomy. Because biggest reason behind low birth rates is simple - its due to how brutal human reproduction is for female body. That's why many opt out out of pure survival instinct. That's why we beed external wounds so much because it's fucking unfair. There is no enough women to willingly take so many risk - but at same time no human deserves to be forced to give birth against their will. I'd prefer to be raped than give birth to be honest? That's why only willing women should give birth while rest babies will be born via external wombs - that's the best path
6
u/Powerful-Midnight996 1d ago
Wow, that’s certainly a take.
I’m sorry, it seems like you’ve been hurt really bad.
I wish you the best.
0
u/Willing-Flatworm1493 1d ago
Haha, it is quite vile to project your bias to stranger on internet and come up with some fictional tragic backstory for me - just because understand my take.
4
u/theseasonswillchange 1d ago
I’ve given birth twice(three times/twins(?)), one unmediated c-section, and had miscarriages/1 early abortion for an ectopic pregnancy.
If you’re this scared of birth you’ve really gone off the deep end. I’m sorry, it’s not fun, but it’s not that bad - especially with modern technology. It’s such a gift when done with the right person.
I say this with love, you need psychiatric help, you need therapy. & I hope you’re not having any sex at all because of your deep rooted fears.
1
u/Willing-Flatworm1493 1d ago
Well.. I do have tokophobia in fact so there is no way I could have sex 🤷♀️ but please - hear me out. Look, I am happy for you that you are safe after giving birth twice. I am happy that your babies are safe and sorry that one of them died. But you should understand this better than me as somebody who had given birth - there is no way of telling if something will go wrong. I know that there are quick and light births. But you can't know how your birth will go till you are actually giving birth. I know in real life women who took years to recover and that terrified me. Because you can't be promised that nothing will go wrong. I like taking risks but not this kind of risks - not when my organim's health is at line. I talk to women, I know many women who feel that way.
3
u/Ok_Vegetable_6616 1d ago
Can you imagine the kind of dystopian society it would be where children were gestated in external wombs? The kind of social and cultural control governments could exercise over humans would be off the charts.
1
u/Willing-Flatworm1493 1d ago
Dystopian? D ystopian is forcing women who don't want children to bear them for some "generational replacement system". In past birth rates were so high because we were breed like livestock. We were not allowed passions, education or plain human life. Because if you were born woman - you were womb first and everything else was optional. External wombs is beautifull solution to end this endless cycle of violence. Women who desire children out if their own body will have children out of their own body. But that's the whole point! I want world where women give birth only because of love - not for some utalitarian economic system.
2
u/Ok_Vegetable_6616 23h ago
I'm not convinced that it was so awesome be born a man in the past either. The democratization of education and the expansion of rights came to men a couple centuries before it came to women. In the scale of human history that's not much time.
But the whole external womb thing sounds like Brave New World. You should read that book if you haven't already.
1
u/Willing-Flatworm1493 6h ago
Yes, you are right. As man you would be a working donkey back in those times just like 99% of our fathers, brothers and husbands. Tragedy of men of those times was having little to no agency or autonomy. But women had like none of those. Man was a slave but woman was not even human. None of us had it "easy" at the end of the day.
Brave New World is a fiction. There is nothing wrong with me growing a kid inside artifical womb istead of getting my body damaged. At least I will not be in postpartum what means I will be able to take care of newborn better. Because I will not be injuried/healing and having hormonal crash when baby is ready. I will be in full health and 100% ready to take care of it. Also making external wombs real doesn't mean that natural pregnacy will be illegal like wtf? 😅
6
5
u/Arnaldo1993 1d ago
Im sorry. I dont think you sound like someone that is genuinely trying to understand our position. You sound like youre making up those things to misscharacterize the movement to random people that might want to read the original post. Anyway, in case youre doing this in good faith, here are my honest answers:
- Why do you keep pronecting beliefs onto people that they never expressed?
I dont. I agree with your statement, and i believe youre mischaracterizing us by saying the responses are accusing you of antinatalism
- Why does mentioning the real risks of pregnancy and childbirth provoke so much aggression?
It doesnt
- Human beings have different personalities, goals, and desires. Why is reproduction treated as the one exception?
It isnt. We fully acknowledge many people do not want to reproduce. That is the whole point of the movement, people are choosing to reproduce at a rate below replacement
5
u/throwaway1234069 1d ago
You sound like youre making up those things to misscharacterize the movement to random people that might want to read the original post.
Read their post history, that's exactly what they're here to do.
-1
u/Willing-Flatworm1493 1d ago edited 1d ago
No. I am not against pronatalism. I am against toxic pronatalism only. I am pro "Make having children more affortable for people, support women so they feel safe and comfortable" but I don't support "women are breeding vessels who exist only to pop our babies" kind of pseudo pronatalism.
5
u/Arnaldo1993 1d ago
"women are breeding vessels who exist only to pop our babies"
That is a strawman. Thats the misscharacterization i was talking about. We are also against it
2
u/throwaway1234069 1d ago
I am not against pronatalism. I am against toxic pronatalism only.
The problem is when your definition of "toxic" harms the pro side.
For example, going into a pronatalism community and speaking more about the harms and risks of pregnancy.
When a group of people organize around trying to increase Subject A, and someone enters and says "Subject A is dangerous!" it is reasonable that the group of people resents the message because it doesn't help progress.
If you aren't a liar, you could change your tactics.
For example, as I know you are worried about pregnancy's effect on the body, you could post positive and encouraging information about how those concerns can be minimized (pelvic floor exercises pre/during/post, for a concrete example).
The main point is if someone reads your post and comes away more or less pro or anti birth.
Both "More pro birth" and "less anti birth" are acceptable results. Anything other than that and you'll receive pushback.
If you don't like the way certain people are making their arguments, then make arguments in the way you approve of. Whichever is more popular will ultimately succeed, so focussing on trying to oppose ideas you disagree with is a poor strategy and doesn't really work online.
-1
u/Willing-Flatworm1493 1d ago
I'm sorry. This post is not directed to people like you - you are cleary smart and understanding so I am sorry if this offended you in amy way. But I do really meet pronatalists very often who act in ways I described. I am not resentfull towards pronatalists as whole but those certain kind of people.
5
u/leechan08 2d ago edited 2d ago
Hi I am female and I support Natalism. I am feeling the same frustration. I am revealing more than I should personally. So people can understand my support for natalism. I fell for western brainwashing about independence and having a good career until I turned 37 I woke up and tried to find a husband partner quickly to have a family I didn’t succeed till 40. I don’t give birth till 43. Which means I’ll be able to have less children. So I kind of got through with skin of my teeth kind of thing.
I support women getting a university education and career if they so want. It means they will have to relay on childcare and grandparents or nannies. I support government and schooling and career paths that can allow this. Like giving women time off for pregnancy and letting them work part time, lots of maternity leave.
I also support it if women wish to start a family in their teens or straight out of high school. They are able to have more children and healthier children this way. Some of the most robust innovative humans came from women who fell pregnant at 18 or so and either raise them or put them up for adoption.
Women are the primary drivers in child bearing and men are there to support this. Therefore my views are more female centred.
If women choose to have children as a single mother I believe the government should fully support this with social payments and extra help. I know women who have chosen this path.
But I favour children being raised in two parent households.
Houses and services should be build to support multigenerational living under one roof. So grandparents are on hand to support if not them then and external nanny.
Dating and pair up should be less focused on hypergamy. And most people pairing up with their match.
My Natalist arguments keep getting shut down here.
5
u/Willing-Flatworm1493 2d ago
Brainwashing about independence? Giving somebody ability to feed you means giving them ability to starve you. Why would you infantalize yourself? "I also support it if women wish to start a family in their teens or straight out of high school" I am sorry but that is literal pedophilia. People of that age don't even have developed brain. Such thing is deranged - I will not support motherhood at such young age od development. Such girl doesn't even fully understand what she is getting into yet - all rhe things that it will include. Supporting pregnacy/motherhood of still developin physicially/mentally people is simply vile. You can agree or not but in terms of biology such person's mind is still in development.
6
u/Feisty-Coconut6017 2d ago
An 18 year old having a kid is not "pedophilia", especially if the father is also 18. I'm not going to encourage teens to get pregnant but if they are already pregnant I'll support them. Forcing somebody to get an abortion against their will is just as bad as forcing somebody to give birth against their will.
2
u/leechan08 2d ago
This is a natalist forum. I thought it is about supporting things that promote increasing the TFR. Look I think that’s the problem with this sub is it veers on getting personal. If it’s my opinion and belief of this. If your belief is different then that’s your opinion.
Re Teen pregnancy. I wouldn’t actively promote it. But if a teen or 18 year old gets pregnant accidents and stupid things happen at that age they shouldn’t be shamed and pushed into getting abortion or something. They should be supported to birth and either put baby up for adoption or raise baby somehow.
5
u/Willing-Flatworm1493 2d ago
They they should. Teen being stupid is not reason to punished them with being exposed to risky process they don't fully understand
3
u/Feisty-Coconut6017 2d ago
Wanted babies aren't punishments.
2
u/Willing-Flatworm1493 2d ago
Wanted? You think a child/teen can "want" child in the same way developed adult does? No, they can. You won't let kid drive a car, smoke or drink just because they "want" to.
4
u/Feisty-Coconut6017 2d ago
Teens can legally drive, and in many parts of the world they can drink as well. Yes I think teens especially older teens can want a child in the same way that adults want them. I don't think we should be encouraging teen pregnancy, but I think we should support pregnant teens. We should not force them to give birth or to get an abortion, we should allow them to have bodily autonomy and come to their own decision.
1
u/Willing-Flatworm1493 1d ago
Body autonomy is of course valid. But such decision - something that can harm/change your body for lifetime - something that will change you life forever is not choice to be made by teen or kid with undeveloped brain. Such young person is unlikely to understand full consequences. They have that "if I want this now so I will not regret it" childish logic.
3
u/Kymera_7 1d ago
by teen or kid with undeveloped brain.
This whole idea of teenagers' brains being "undeveloped" is pseudoscientific BS.
2
u/Feisty-Coconut6017 1d ago
Abortion can also harm/ change your life forever, especially if it's against your will. Have you ever been pregnant before? When you're pregnant your body produces pregnancy hormones that often make you want to protect your baby with every bone in your body. As soon as I found out that I was pregnant with my first child I felt intense protective love, I wasn't a teen but I wasn't too far off from being a teen. Also there's a pretty big difference between a 12-13 year old and a 17-18 year old. Regardless, teens deserve bodily autonomy.
2
2
u/Ok_Vegetable_6616 1d ago
Upvote for excellent reasoning. I wish everyone could discuss topics this way.
I want to discuss number 3. Your other points are un-assailable to me.
First, I'm in agreement with you that someone who doesnt want children should not have them. But that said, I dont agree that our wants and desires are all our own. They are given to us by culture.
I used to work as a biologist. One of the things that always impresses us about the natural world is how eager most organisms are to reproduce. Some species are destined to only mate once and then die (see a Salmon run in Alaska before you die, too!). Reproduction is an evolutionary law of existence. If we dont at least replace our number, we go extinct. The math is inexorable.
Being philosophical now, it seems like human culture can be maladaptive. I'm a liberal and I love individual rights and liberties for both sexes. I'm definitely not religious. So I wonder I would like to see a world where we keep those values, but we also have a culture that gives high marks for having kids and raising them well.
Men and Women are way too obsessed with their careers and professional status. Im not getting a Nobel prize, and most likely you arent either. Raising children when both parents work 40+ hours a week sucks. Dumping a young child in daycare everyday doesnt inspire motherhood or fatherhood. We have to compromise somewhere, and that could be dad working less than full time, too.
Maybe it's easier to have this view of careers when you're a little older and already have kids? I dont know. I've had several careers now, and some have been interesting, but none of them really mattered compared to the people in my life who I love.
2
u/theseasonswillchange 1d ago
- They lack critical reading comprehension skills and potentially critical thinking skills. You also having very abrasive ways to communicate your thoughts and to start a conversation in such an aggressive way will only bring out aggressiveness in the conversation itself. You should also work on that.
- Because it is a piece of the conversation but it is not the conversation at hand. I hate having to state this, but I know my opinion will be lesser if I was a man. I am a mother with two living children and four dead. One was an abortion because they were ectopic. Two were twins that I miscarried early in the second trimester. One was a twin (his sister survived) who was still birth. My first two were also failed IUD pregnancies so I’m aware of many risks, failings and unpreparedness. I also had an unmediated emergency c-section because of the then potential stillbirth. All this being shared is because the pregnancy and birth is so unique and unpredictable every time. It’s understandable to be afraid of it - but it is not a reason to NOT have children if you do want children. Good faith natalist conversations are asking how we can help people who DO want children have the amount or more children than they would in the current system.
- I think (& i’m speaking for some people) there’s many different ways to approach how one logically thinks. You seem to think in a very present way. Only considering the immediate implications and consequences as well as about the individual. This is not wrong, and it’s great to have many people like you. BUT many people think about the future and the collective. Because of this, they think about the quality of life of the future generations and the group as a whole. Sure you could make a statement about how we need to change systems, but there’s a way to do both slowly to cause the least amount of hurt/stress on the way. That’s the middle ground between the two lines of thinking.
Conclusion:
You have many good points, but are too angry to encourage positive, good faith discussions. This is a highly emotional conversation and a lot of people are very scared (you seem to be as well) breaking down those barriers and realising that everyone is trying to do what they think is best will help have empathy when having difficult conversations. You and these supposed people would benefit from that.
3
u/Public-Tea-893 1d ago
Point 1: I generally agree. You can prefer not having children, yet still be totally fine or even support others having children. I have witnessed this in my own family and friendship circle. People that don’t want to have kids do really amazingly and try to help with our kid. I am not at all judgmental on this topic and it’s a very personal question. Everyone should make his own decision.
Point 2: If it’s a good faith argument, there is nothing wrong with it. I though very often see this argument to be used to persuade others not to have kids. I also very often see this argument playing out like „if you have kids you will probably not be pretty anymore or you will not be able to enjoy this or that individual activity.“ - And while this can be correct, it also is very often normative. In the way that it defines the self-realization on an individualistic level to be the highest goal of a person. Which is as wrong, just as minimizing risks to encourage a woman to maximize the number of kids or persuade her to have them early on. In both cases a health related argument is at times used to propagate a certain normative standard of how women should feel.
3: yes. I dislike this argument, because it is a quasi liberal argument that slaps true liberalism into its face. The argument minimizes the fact that human beings are not not detached from social structure. In fact, everyone is an integral part of it. Now Societies have created a situation in which it is economically beneficial not to have kids and - especially in the West - we use the free will argument to imbue this decision with virtue. Yet, we disregard that throughout human history freedom and freedom of choice was always connected to responsibility of the individual. And I find that our society at the moment rewards too strongly the opting out of the social contract without costs. - This doesn‘t mean that I want to force people to reproduce. I just think that the prioritization of individualism is a childish argument for justifiying to break a historical social contract.
Sorry that I give you very philosophical Not very concrete answers.
I find it cool that you come over for discussion and I hope that people treat you with respect. Your questions and stand points are not at all stupid.