Not happenin' man. At least not at my age. And no, it's not because "what, you'll change your mind?", I just don't want to. I may not be selfish about a lot of things, but when it concerns my private parts, I can have full say in it.

If I ever want children (which I don't think I do) I would probably adopt, my mum was adopted and I really appreciate the great life my grandparents gave to her. I just don't see why I should have a kid when there's loads of children out there who don't have a home, mum or dad.



I would just like to point out Ladyislingering, child birth doesn't necessarily ruin your figure/body, my sister has a kid and she has a stretch mark free stomach, meanwhile I'm child free and honestly have stretch marks everywhere and I've got them from simply being fat before.

I don't think I'm explaining myself well.

I do not think that it is immoral to want to have children, nor do I think people with children are immoral people. I admit that it is natural. I don't think that you're an immoral person and it's not my intention to pass judgement or shame anyone for the decisions they make. Your body is your body and I have no right to tell you what to do with it whatsoever.

I don't, however, think that morality is relative, and this is where my antinatalist philosophy comes heavily into play.



The view of an antinatalist (I should disclaim here that there different forms of antinatalism, but I subscribe to the position called "pure antinatalism," and so anything I say in regards to the philosophy is in accordance with that position) is that in order to abide by the moral principles that exist we should each individuality set out to impose the least amount of suffering on other sentient beings as possible. All sentient beings, not just people.

Tl;dr - It really all boils down to simply this: Life is suffering. To impose life on a being is to impose suffering. Therefore, imposing life in an immoral action.

I reiterate that I do not consider child-bearers to be immoral people, it's much too complicated a situation to assign that judgement fairly or accurately. I do, however, think that the act of bringing a being into existence is an immoral action.

Everyone has and will continue to perform various immoral actions. It's an inevitability. It's the human experience. Having a child is just one of those offenses, not necessarily better or worse than any of the others.

I'm still not sure I'm making myself as clear as I hope to, but alas, it's early and I've only had one cup of coffee so far today. But I want to say again, Hermione, I do not think that you wanting to have children is immoral. You're one of the most morally sound people I know. You'd be a great mom, and I don't doubt that the majority of the parents on MB are good parents. My antinatalist philosophy just happens to prohibit me from having or wanting to have children. For me, it was as easy a decision as proclaiming myself vegetarian.

Anyway, poop and vomit and teething and stuff. Gross.



Yeah, absolutely, me as well. There are people who would make great parents and children everywhere who need them. I think that adoption is one of the most selfless acts a person can perform.

I am a parent and while I agree that having children is inherently selfish, I do feel the selfishness is mitigated somewhat if you do the best you can to raise your children to contribute to the greater good of the world, in whatever ways they can and choose to do.

I do not feel that people who elect not to have children are selfish; in fact, I think they are making a conscientious and responsible decision.

I love my children more than anything and wouldn't trade them for any amount of freedom or riches, but raising children is a huge responsibility even under the best of circumstances -- and in less than ideal circumstances, such as when divorce occurs and the co-parent is not particularly involved (which happens to be my situation), it's even more difficult.

Bolded for absolute agreeance. Because I'm an antinatalist a lot of people I know tend to think of me as anti-child but that's certainly not the case. Once a being is brought into existence it's absolutely our responsibility to look out for them - and when I say "our" I do mean collectively. We should take care of all sentient life. And not out of obligation, but rather empathy and compassion.

Having raised two girls, I would say DON'T have kids unless it is absolutely what you want to do. DON'T have them because all your friends have them or some stupid s-hit like that. It doesn't work that way. When they're born, they yell and scream and whine at all hours of the day and night. They piss and s-hit whenever and wherever they feel like it--it's horrible. The fu-ck s-hit up like drawing on the wallpaper with magic marker and s-hit like that. They make a lot of noise and you actually prefer that to them being quiet because when they're quiet you'd better go find what they're f-ucking up to because they are up to something. Kids are never quiet unless they're up to something.

Then there's the fighting and arguing which they do with each other endlessly. But once the hit their teens, then it's you they fight and argue with endlessly. And if you think they were rotten as young kids, you just wait until they hit their teens!!

By the time they start to turn into adults and start to become the fine human beings you raised them to be and start being people you really do want to spend time with, they're 18 and they up and beat it on you--off to college, off to work, gotta get their own place and all that s-hit--and you rarely see them anymore.

And before you can say, "So that's it?" That's it.

Wow, this is the first I've heard of this. That sounds like a really bizarre philosophy to me. Being alive is a gift if you are born into the right circumstances. Suffering is the price you have to pay for receiving that gift.

So what about the people who aren't born into the right circumstances? Is suffering the price they pay for being born into ****ty circumstances?

Useless comment is useless.

What child free nazis?

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not comparing the decisions in terms of moral or ethical grounds, but rather terms of 'magnitude'.

In other words, it is one of a very few of life's decisions that it utterly irreversible.