What is the anitnatalist position on sex? Shouldn't they all be virgins or volcels...

flawless reasoning dumbass

All sexual acts are immoral and to be denied for they all come from the same Will, the will to reproduce life.

>"evil"

Contaceptives are good enough for most.

I don't trust thots not to keep my child though if something goes wrong so I went volcel. They're not worth the vasectomy.

>Imagine for a moment that you and your partner have recently discovered you’re going to be parents. You’ve held this secret between the two of you for a few months now, but your bump is showing, and you’re starting to buy onesies, and you’re just so thrilled that you’re really, truly pregnant that you want to share it with the world. So you create your perfect Facebook post, with two adult-sized pairs of shoes and a little bitty baby pair and the words “Family of Three: Spring 2018!” scrawled in pink or blue handwriting font. And you wait for the congratulatory comments to start rolling in—“Ahhh so exciting,” and “can’t wait to meet the little nugget,” and “omg you’re going to be the best mom!”

>But then, something else happens. Your notifications, instead, are replete with “Ew”s. You are called a “Mombie” and your forthcoming offspring “crotch-fruit” and “semen demon.” You are congratulated, not on your bundle of joy, but on “your latest contribution to overpopulation.”

>You, once-elated mom-to-be, have fallen victim to the anti-natalists.

marieclaire.com/culture/a14751412/antinatalism/

That would be hilarious

>The only way for me to conceptualize this group of people is for them to bully my vapid posturing on facebook and inflict a narcissistic injury on me
My god the lives of people who earnestly read this must be horrifying

Im an volcel but no one will by it and just label me as "incel" anyway. Fuck all breeders btw. Scum.

How stupid would one have to be to even honestly ask this question? I'm genuinely curious.

Nobody should be having children because having children is objectively immoral and unnecessary, fuck your petty/selfish desires

It's very unclear what an antinatalist's position would be on non-reproductive sex. How stupid do you have to be to not get this?

Antinatalism has literally nothing to do with sex, mongoloid. You can procreate without sex and you can have nonprocreative sex.

Life is on the weighted average good.

>It's ok for literally billions of people to be a "suffering sink" of sorts, as long as life averages out to be "good"

The absolute state of natalists

Attached: 1540130535644.png (1440x1557, 738K)

Where is your argument?
If you are talking about Africa, then why does antinatalism apply to the first world?

The chance of a first worlder having a baby which doesn't have a net positive life is pretty small. And yes, having a baby means that the most likely outcome is to increase the total happiness in the world, why would you destroy that?

Also suffering, in moderation, isn't bad, that's an absurd meme you people push.

>The chance of a first worlder having a baby which doesn't have a net positive life is pretty small.
imagine being this much of a soulless pinkerite bugman

antinatalism is about eradicating suffering
fetuses don't suffer

>hurr antinatalists want to massacre everyone!
You'd think an over the top philosophy like that would be easily refuted, but instead its opponents seem to have nothing but strawman arguments and a complete lack of comprehension of what it is antinatalists believe. Very curious.

Attached: serveimage.png (960x720, 505K)

>fetuses don't suffer
Depends on its age. They feel and react to pain at week 8 and onwards.

What we can say about the fetal nervous system is that based on the best science we have" on the neurons that carry pain signals is that the "system isn't developed until the third trimester of pregnancy," Davis told Live Science.

Scientists' knowledge of the fetal nervous system was summed up in a 2005 review in the journal JAMA. The authors of that review outlined in detail the evidence on how this system develops, based on a number of previous studies on the anatomy of the fetus at various stages of development.

Davis, who was not involved with that review, noted that though it was published in 2005, the research is still valid, because the scientific community's understanding of fetal development is "pretty much stable." Indeed, since the publication of the review, "no research has contradicted its findings," said a recent statement from ACOG.

In the review, the researchers highlighted several key points in fetal development that are required in order for a fetus to perceive pain. One is that the receptors in the skin that sense an injury must be developed. Research has shown that this happens between 7.5 and 15 weeks of pregnancy, depending on the location of the receptors on the body, according to the review. For example, receptors in the skin around the mouth develop at around 7.5 weeks, whereas receptors in the skin on the abdomen develop at around 15 weeks, according to the review.

Second, the neurons in the spinal cord that transmit that signal up to the brain must be developed. Researchers who looked at fetal tissues reported that this happens at around 19 weeks, the review said.

Third, the neurons that extend from the spinal cord into the brain need to reach all the way to the area of the brain where pain is perceived. This does not occur until between 23 and 24 weeks, according to the review.

Moreover, the nerves' existence isn't enough to produce the experience of pain, the authors wrote in their review. Rather, "These anatomical structures must also be functional," the authors wrote. It's not until around 30 weeks that there is evidence of brain activity that suggests the fetus is "awake."

What does the opinion of one edgy user have to do with what the other antinatalists believe?

if you truly think giving life is immoral that is where you end up. the rest is just r/childfree basedboy posturing

What is the anti-bats list argument regarding adoption/foster care? I’d imagine that they’d be for it as a replacement to natural family-making as those children not only already exist but if they aren’t adopted would be subjected to worse conditions than ordinary children in their growing years and likely after.

woooah dude conventional morality is secretly wrong woooooooah giving birth is like, just like murder bro omg... I'm going to write a expository novel about a death row inmate contemplating these very questions while smoking his last cigarette he questions the moral principles of a society that punishes him for one measley murder while society at large kills millions most notably by giving birth and silently subjugating them will all sorts of CRAZY MENTAL PRISONS like the internet and designer clothes... truly death is preferable to life, but not right now I'd rather not kill myself... maybe if I wasnt born yet... yeah that's it, not being born is better than living yeah, yeah totally...

Attached: 1547528563774.jpg (163x171, 9K)

Okay, so you're arguing with the only "true" antinatalist in existence, who is not in this thread and likely was trolling to begin with.
Good job, buddy.

Attached: 1372538643205.gif (308x214, 1.99M)

Adoption is the pressure valve of natalism. It's a practise that gives people an easy way out for their irresponsible behaviour.

Abandoned children should be euthanised, preferably in front of the people that abandoned them.

>Abandoned children should be euthanised, preferably in front of the people that abandoned them.
based anitnatalist psychotic

This. I blame liberal helicopter parents and participation trophies. What happened to our society? I want to go back to the days when men were men and women were women, and ivy tower intellectals didn't confuse us with there babbling. we didn't need books on (((philosophy))) to live our lifes...we had a little thing called COMMON SENSE!

You can be an antinatalist that has children if you think other people should not breed because you believe them to bring more suffering into the world. I'm particular to the position that no one should breed except for me. It's not about my good looks or about my sense of humour, but about how I would pass on genes that would solve most of the worlds problems in the very act of having penetrated all the eligible women of the world and given them my seed. After having all women set to join me for fertilization and me only, I would then set myself up on live streaming to concil all my children, giving them my perfect wisdom and so leading them for the remainder of my life to the perfect contentment that will never be reached with the current members of the opposite sex. These men will undoubtedly be happy to see that my breeding has led them to have decent children worth supporting financially and emotionally because my perfect attention and guidance will free them of the anxiety of having to fake being good fathers. Through this practice, I will increase the utility of happiness exponentially to the degree that when I die there will be no suffering at the end of life. This position is I hope you see the only method of bringing about a utilitarian utopia.

is this satire

shut up liberal pussy

just incase it's satire I'm not a conservative