Common Counterarguments & Rebuttals
Responses to common counterarguments to antinatalism
1. “Just kill yourself if you are unhappy”
It is unethical to put people in a situation where the only escape is suicide and all of the pain, fear, guilt of leaving others behind, and more that comes with it. Not to mention the pain that precedes it that pushes people to this point in the first place. Also, many people are miserable but don’t commit suicide because they are afraid they will survive, fear the pain, don’t want to hurt others, social stigma, the survival instinct, etc. They never should have been put into this situation in the first place.
Additionally, the idea that no more new people should be brought into existence does not necessarily imply by itself that people who have already been forced to exist should stop existing. A person who is currently alive may be happy with their life and want to continue living. However, it is still unethical to create someone else who might not feel the same way. Since there is no way to know how they will feel and no way to receive consent to take the risk, it is not morally justified to reproduce.
Furthermore, people who are born may suffer but still be concerned about how their friends or family will react to a suicide. So even if they are miserable, they will not commit suicide and continue suffering for the sake of others. This does not mean they enjoy life or think it is worth the pain; they simply do not want to hurt others by committing suicide.
Aside from this, suicide does not actually solve the problem as it does not inform people why procreation is unethical. It would be like telling a slave to kill themselves without stopping the actual issue. While it may satisfy that person, many others will still suffer.
This is also a thought-terminating cliche. Since you think only people who have killed themselves can be antinatalist and no one who has killed themselves can respond to your criticism of antinatalism, this just means no one who is alive can argue against you. It isn't an argument, just a way to silence all opposition.
Refer to “Kidnapping Analogy” in the “Thought Experiments” section.
2. “What if the child is happy?”
People who aren’t born won’t care if they are missing out on pleasurable experiences. On the other hand, they will care if they suffer (see: the asymmetry argument). Also, what if they aren’t happy? It is not up to the parents to decide since they are not the ones suffering the consequences. There are many factors that cannot be controlled no matter how hard the parents try (e.g. mental/physical illnesses, accidents, crimes, etc.).
3. “My child will improve things/My child will be special/My child will change the world”
This is highly unlikely. One person cannot do much to change society, and the vast majority of people are insignificant overall. After all, how much have you altered society? Perhaps your own parents said the same about you, yet it is unlikely you solved any major crises in the world yourself. If you were unable to change the world, why do you believe your child would be able to? Is the only value of your child the value they can produce for others? This seems to be a selfish goal as they would be exposed to suffering for the benefit of others, a self-sacrifice they never agreed to. Would you even care about them if they don't contribute anything of significance, as most people do, or even act as a net drain on society?
It is much more likely that a person will consume more resources and cause more pollution than they will produce (see Arguments E, K and L). Also, it should not be a child’s responsibility to fix humanity’s mistakes, if it’s even possible, or provide new innovations. This is a selfish argument because it shows that you are reproducing so the child can serve others or yourself. Instead you could adopt and give someone who already exists the resources necessary to reach their maximum potential. Thus, someone who has talent can change the world with your help without creating any additional suffering. If you disagree with this, refer to Argument D. Additionally, if you want to help humanity, why are you relying on your child to do it when you can do so yourself? You should be spending your time and resources to change the world rather than hoping someone else will do it for you.
Also, if your child dies early for any reason, it would all have been a wasted effort. So if their impact is the only thing you are considering, it might end up being futile regardless.
Even if the child is guaranteed to solve major problems in the world, that should not be their responsibility at the expense of their own wellbeing. They never agreed to that sacrifice, so it shouldn’t be forced into them.
4. “Future generations will fix climate change.”
It will be around 2055-2060 for people born now to receive a PhD. We have until 2050 to reach net-zero emissions, and even then climate change is expected to displace 1.2 billion people by that year. Do you think they will have time to get started by then? It shouldn't even be their responsibility to fix our mistakes or die trying, even if it is possible.
Besides, your children might become climate change deniers after seeing YouTube videos published by the Heritage Foundation. Or they might not care at all. You can't control what they think and many people don't believe what their parents believe. To think that your children will be the ones to save the planet is absurd and narcissistic as most people are insignificant and contribute little to the world overall. Why don't you do something about it instead of assigning responsibility to someone else? Or you can adopt and help someone who already exists reach their full potential rather than creating a new person who will face the consequences of our actions.
5. “Conditions were bad before, but people survived and things improve”
Many people died and suffered during those times as a result of genocides, depressions/recessions, wars, pandemics, unrest, etc. Those who survived and thrived were one of those who got lucky, while others (perhaps even most people) were not. Your child might not be one of them, and it isn’t your gamble to make if you aren’t the one who will suffer the consequences. Also, it may have been worse then, but that does not mean it is good now or that it can’t get to that point again. Less suffering now does not mean it is an “acceptable” level of suffering as no suffering is acceptable since the person who is born did not agree to those terms and the suffering can still increase if conditions worsen (which is always possible). I would even argue that people suffer the same amount or even more so today in different ways, such as through debt, low wages, neocolonialism, incompetent/malicious leadership, the unraveling of civil liberties, state surveillance and control, skyrocketing costs of living and housing, civil unrest, lack of financial stability, lack of corporate accountability, economic turmoil, environmental degradation, the general stress and monotony of finding and keeping a 9-5 job, etc. There doesn’t need to be a global war or genocide for mass suffering to occur, all of which can still happen as well.
For example, millennials have SIGNIFICANTLY less wealth than baby boomers did at the same age. Additionally, climate change is expected to displace 1.2 billion people by 2050, which will lead to immense political, economic, and humanitarian crises around the world as many of them will try to move to other countries even if you are not directly affected by it. It also poses an existential threat by that same year, which will make the world much worse than it already is for everyone due to air pollution, mass species extinction, the inability to meet human food and resource needs, freshwater pollutants making antimicrobial-resistant infections a major cause of death, the collapse of the Arctic, the Amazon rainforest and the coral reef systems, deadly heat, "catastrophic decline” in insect populations, weather too hot for humans to survive in significant food-growing areas, chronic water shortages, wars over resources, skyrocketing prices (which contributes to political instability as it did in the Arab Spring), greater frequency and intensity of natural disasters, droughts, and wildfires, flooding that will make large swaths of land unlivable, and much more.
And even without all of this, the march of progress doesn't always move forwards. While many believe the world always improves overtime, this is far from reality. There are a myriad of examples throughout history where conditions did not improve or even regressed, from how the Reconstruction Era in the US failed dramatically to uplift former slaves, anti-Semitism dramatically increased following the fall of the Weimar Republic and led to the Holocaust, how the Iranian Revolution of 1979 made the culture much more conservative, and the fact that people today work longer hours than serfs did under feudalism. There is no guarantee things will get better, and it's not a risk we should force our children to take. Not to mention the suffering that will occur before then and the struggle to get there even if it does happen.
While there's nothing wrong with optimism itself, you shouldn't apply that philosophy to justify reproduction under the pretense that conditions that are harmful now will just work itself out as the very opposite may happen instead.
6. "We can improve things/What if thing were better?" (also known as conditional natalism)
Improving conditions does not solve any of the other issues regarding reproduction, such as the inability to receive consent, the lack of desire to even be born in the first place, the social contract of needing to work, and causes of suffering that cannot be prevented, (e.g. stress, emotion, potential mental or physical illness/disability, crime, grief, personal issues, wars, societal collapse, etc.). Less suffering does not mean there is an “acceptable” level of suffering as no suffering is acceptable since the person who is born did not agree to those terms. No suffering (only achievable through nonexistence) is always better than some suffering, and the suffering can still increase if conditions worsen (which is always possible).
7. “You will stifle human progress”
This is a selfish argument. People should not be produced and suffer because other people want something out of them. It should not be a person’s job to contribute to a society that they never consented to be born into in the first place. Additionally, it is also very unlikely that your child will do anything of great significance regardless as the vast majority of people will not meaningfully influence the world. It would be more sensible to focus your own energy on helping humanity progress instead of assigning that responsibility to someone else.
8. “I need to continue my bloodline/leave a legacy”
No bloodline is inherently special. Your ancestors do not care if you continue your bloodline because they are no longer alive to care and may not have even cared if they were alive. Even if they did, having children just to satisfy them or yourself is selfish since the child will be exposed to suffering to fulfill their desires. If you want to truly leave a positive legacy, spend your time contributing to the world rather than living vicariously through someone else. It is also unlikely that future generations will even remember you regardless as many do not know their ancestors beyond their grandparents or great-grandparents.
9. “I want to pass on my genes.”
Believing your genes are superior is narcissistic. Wanting a clone of yourself that you can control is objectifying and misses the fact that the person who is born is an independent human and not a doll to play with. Even if you have genes that may be more preferable than those of the average person, an unborn person would not care if they received them as they do not exist. Doing it for the benefit of others is also selfish as your child will be exposed to suffering so other people can gain from it. Also, it might not be enough to ensure that they have a good life regardless due to other factors, such as material conditions or mental health. Additionally, gene expression differs, even if both parents share similar traits. They could carry recessive alleles that could cause issues for the child, environmental factors could affect the fetus or the child as it develops, and/or there may be a mutation. Since there is no guaranteed way to prevent this from happening, it is unethical to have children who will suffer the consequences of it.
10. “But I want to have a child/Having children makes people happy”
How do you know if you’ve never had a child before? Even if you worked at daycares, that's very different than having to care for one yourself everyday after work and doing tasks that you normally wouldn’t have to do, like changing diapers late at night, financial costs, potential resentment, etc. It is also selfish to force someone to do something just because you want to, especially if it means they might end up having a bad life they never agreed to. It would be like justifying animal abuse because some people enjoy doing it. Just because it makes them happy does not mean it is ethical.
Multiple studies have shown that having children often DECREASES happiness as well. See Argument G2 in the "Arguments" section of the site for more information.
11a. "They don’t exist, so it doesn’t matter.”
But they will exist if they are born and will have no choice but to suffer. They should remain nonexistent to remove any chance of this. Imposing life is disagreeable once that person is born and can suffer as well as be forced into a social contract of needing to work to live and suffer through disasters, conflict, and other harmful events outside of their control. However, it's too late to reverse it by then w/o murder or suicide (which would also cause pain at the point it is done and the suffering beforehand via doubt, guilt, fear, etc.). Since there is no way to know how they will feel about their situation or if they will live a happy life, we cannot know if they will be happy that they were born. Therefore, the only way to avoid this is to not procreate at all.
11b. “But doesn’t that also mean I am also responsible for all of the pleasure they experience?”
While you would be, this is not a tradeoff the child agreed to as they could suffer more than they experience pleasure. In fact, their desires for pleasure only exist because they were born. If they had never been born, how could they have wanted to experience pleasure at all? In fact, they never desired life in the first place (on account of not existing until they were born).
11c. “It’s better to exist and experience pleasure but suffer than not to exist at all”
That’s your opinion. You do not have the right to push that onto someone else who never consented to nor desired birth and will be the one who faces the consequences if the suffering outweighs the pleasure.
12. The non-identity problem (points taken from the Wikipedia page)
(1) a person-affecting view
The only way for the non-identity problem to remain applicable is if a person does not exist. The only way to ensure that is if they are never born. Otherwise, they will suffer. Imposing life is disagreeable once that person is born and can suffer as well as be forced into a social contract of needing to work to live and suffer through disasters, conflict, and other harmful events outside of their control. However, it's too late to reverse it by the time they are born w/o murder or suicide (which would also cause pain at the point it is done and the suffering beforehand via doubt, guilt, fear, etc.). Therefore, the only way to avoid this is to not procreate at all.
(2) bringing someone into existence whose life is worth living, albeit flawed, is not "bad for" that person
There is no guarantee that a life will be worth living. Practically, this is impossible to accomplish with certainty (aka the risk argument). Also, the person never consented to being born in the first place, so it is bad no matter the result. Even if they are happy, they are given the potential to suffer by being born, meaning the suffering they face will act as a net negative overall in comparison to never having been born and avoiding all of it. Since there is no guaranteed way to get rid of suffering or reverse it once they are born, it is unethical to reproduce and take that risk on their behalf.
(3) some acts of bringing someone into existence are wrong even if they are not bad for someone
All acts of bringing someone into existence are wrong since they can never consent, never desired to be born or feel happiness, and (in any realistic scenario) will be obligated to do tasks that they never agreed to do. It is good for someone as the only other alternative is for someone to exist who will consequently suffer.
See also: A challenge to the permissibility of procreation (st-andrews.ac.uk)
13. “It’s good for the economy and others/it makes people happy.”
This is fundamentally selfish. People shouldn’t be produced to benefit someone else, especially since the person who is born will suffer. Having children for others to benefit is selfish, similar to enslaving the child so someone else can benefit. In this analogy, justifying reproduction by saying "but they might be happy" is like saying "but the slave might be treated well." In fact, they could actually make the world worse either intentionally or mistakenly depending on their decisions and overall impact. Also, you are admitting life is essentially a pyramid scheme that needs a constant flow of new members to suffer and be exploited for other people to gain from.
14. “I had a bad childhood and want to give someone else a good one and understand the issues they will face.”
This is ultimately self-serving as an unborn child has no desire to be born or have a good childhood as they do not exist and cannot consent to it. You should not be living vicariously through someone else to make up for a lost childhood as it is not something you can experience again. Having a child to fulfill your own desires of retribution is ultimately selfish. It is also more difficult to provide a good childhood for someone if you never had one yourself as you would not have a previous example to base your own parenting off of. Additionally, if you genuinely believe you are able to give someone a good childhood, you should adopt rather than create a new person who never wanted nor consented that love in the first place since they didn’t exist. Instead, adopting will be helping someone who already needs help rather than creating more demand for it. It is affordable if you adopt from foster care, and invalidating the idea of adopted families as inferior is elitist and invalidating to other adopted families, especially since strong emotional attachment can be cultivated among adoptive families. If you have any objections to this idea, see Argument D.
15. “I’m happy. How do you know my child won’t be happy?”
How do you know they will be happy? There is no guarantee that they will be satisfied with their lives. All of their suffering will ultimately be your fault. It is not up to you to take the gamble since you are not the one who will suffer the consequences and you never received consent to create them in the first place. Not to mention, unborn people have no desire to feel pleasure, so creating them creates that demand to feel happiness in the first place. Procreating can also take away resources from people who already exist and worsen their conditions as most people consume more resources than they produce in a lifetime. If you really care about helping people become happy, why not adopt? (see other Argument D)
16. “It’s impossible to receive consent”
If you can't get consent, the default answer is always no, such as how it is immoral to rape an unconscious or drunk person.
17. “Why would it be okay to help an unconscious person then?”
They could get a DNR request if they didn’t want to be resuscitated. Not to mention, people who are already alive are invested in life, and most people want to live. However, an unborn person has no desires and, therefore, no desire to live. Creating them creates that desire in the first place. And since you don’t know how their life will pan out, you can’t assume that they think the risk will be worth it.
18. “Why should I care about the consent of someone who doesn’t exist?”
Because they will exist once they are born. At that point, it’s too late to reverse it once they do suffer. The only way to ensure that this won’t happen is to not have them at all.
19. Accusations of eugenics/fascism/genocide/etc.
I am not advocating to target a specific group of people. No one should have children, regardless of race, background, class, religion, etc. It's not like putting anyone in death camps or mass murder, so there is little suffering involved with it.
20. “Humanity will go extinct/Antinatalism is a death cult/Survival is inherently good”
No one is being killed by antinatalism. People can continue to live happy lives as they please. And since the people who would have been born don't exist, they won't care or even be aware that humanity is ending (or what humanity or anything even is). So who is being harmed?
Who will care if no one is around to care? We can enjoy what humanity has produced without subjecting others to suffering, and no one will feel as if they missed out because there is no one around to feel this way and people who don't exist don't have any desire to feel pleasure or experience humanity's achievements anyway.
Besides, humanity has caused irreparable harm to the environment, and survival requires the consumption of resources that will harm other organisms. Why should our survival be prioritized over the survival of other species?
Humanity will almost certainly go extinct anyway at some point in the future because of entropy and the unstable nature of the universe (all stars will die and the most likely end to the universe is the Big Freeze). Even before then, Earth will eventually be consumed by the Sun and there is no guarantee that our species will survive the aftermath, assuming we even make it to that point. (Credit to u/vebby for these rebuttals)
Additionally, far more people will die as a result of reproduction than the death of an antinatalist alone. Since death is practically inevitable, everyone who is born will die, meaning more births will eventually lead to more deaths compared to just a single death from the antinatalist.
This logic could also justify rape if all women except a small number of them became infertile, but none of them wanted to have children. Both involve violating a person's consent to continue the human race. By saying you agree that violating consent is moral if it means continuing humanity, you would have to also agree that rape in justified in this scenario.
Lastly, this is an appeal to consequences, which is an informal fallacy. Just because an outcome may be unwanted does not mean the arguments are wrong. Even if you believe extinction is inherently bad, this does not justify the undeniable truth that reproduction violates the consent of the child.
21. "What you are saying isn't false, but isn't it a lot to ask for a people to simply cease to exist."
I'm not asking them to do that. I'm asking them to stop reproducing and putting more people in a horrible situation. They can enjoy their lives without forcing anyone else into the situation without consent.
22. “It’s too pessimistic/We have to have hope”
That’s not your call because you aren’t the one who will suffer the consequences if your child’s life goes poorly. Even if you are optimistic, you still never received consent to give birth to someone else and expose them to suffering in exchange for potential happiness that the unborn person never wanted in the first place as nonexistent people have no desires. There is also no guarantee that things will always stay positive since circumstances can and will always change.
23. “Human life is inherently valuable.”
Human life comes with suffering. Since there is no way to know if someone who is born will find suffering worthwhile, they should not be forced into a world where they will suffer just because you want to continue your bloodline.
Additionally, not everyone believes human life is inherently valuable. Your child could be one of them. It is irresponsible to make decisions on someone else’s behalf using a moral value that they may not even hold. (Credit to u/vebby for this rebuttal).
24. “We shouldn’t base our morals off of consequences.”
A deontological perspective can also be applied to antinatalism. If suffering is disagreeable to most and there is no way to know if a subject will want it, then it shouldn't be inflicted on others. If procreation leads to suffering, then you shouldn't procreate.
25. “If people hated life, then why does the survival instinct exist?”
No, the survival instinct isn't willingness to live. It's caused by adrenaline, fear, pain, etc., similar to how everyone will struggle or scream if they are in pain or about to die, even if it doesn't help. It is evolutionarily hard-wired into people and has nothing to do with whether or not they enjoy life. The innate instinct isn't a justification for reproducing. It is literally a part of every organism due to evolution. If we are talking about ethics, we need to talk about what will do the least harm/most good, meaning whether people are actually happy and enjoying their lives and not whether they are forced to live by their own genetic code.
It would be as if you lock someone in your basement and torture them and then blame them for not killing themselves. Would that mean they actually want to be there?
26. “What if I can provide for them?”
Suffering is unavoidable in many cases. Poor or rich, oppressed or privileged, healthy or ill, everyone suffers. Even if you have the resources to provide for them, you cannot control every factor of someone’s life that may cause suffering. Not to mention, conditions may change, and you could lose those resources. Nothing you do can prevent suffering, especially if you are already preconditioned to suffer materially, socially, genetically, etc. Unpredictability is an inherent aspect of life. You can be the richest person in the world and lose everything and the happiest person and become depressed. You could be living in a communist utopia where all of your needs and wants are guaranteed, but it can collapse and leave everyone in shambles. Or your child could be born with severe defects or contract an incurable disease. Since there are many variables that you can’t control and, therefore, cannot guarantee that your children will be happy, it is unethical to have children who will face those issues and never consented to taking that risk.
27. “Life is all about taking risks.”
That is not your risk to take since you won’t be the one suffering the consequences.
28. “We take risks all of the time, like driving a car.”
The difference is that people cannot consent to being born and suffering, while doing a risky action in your own life is your decision. You also have no choice since you have to do risky actions to survive, while the person who is born never needed to be born in the first place. The risk of suffering throughout someone's life is much higher (practically guaranteed) than the risk of most necessary actions.
29. “Life is hard. It’s not supposed to be easy.”
Then why are you creating a new person who will have to suffer through it if they never consented to being born and had no desire for it? You are essentially putting them into a world where you know they will suffer and you have acknowledged that they will have a high chance of failing. What if it is too difficult for them, and they can’t succeed? Do you genuinely care about the wellbeing of your potential child? In fact, if they are born with defects, become debilitatingly sick or disabled, develop a mental illness, or any other challenge, they will be at an even larger disadvantage compared to everyone else. Is a life of suffering really better than nonexistence, where it is impossible to even desire life?
30. “A bad life is better than no life at all”
Then why are some people suicidal? How do you know your unborn child would agree with this judgement? What if they become miserable and end up wishing they had never been born? That would ultimately be your fault. You never received consent to give someone life, and they never desired it as unborn people have no desires. Now they will suffer due to your actions. In fact, they may even end up making others’ lives worse by using up resources others could have used or if they make bad decisions that negatively impact someone else, a community, or even the world.
By this logic, people would be morally obligated to reproduce as much as possible to create as many lives as possible. However, quality of life supplants quantity of life as it is better to have a good life than many bad ones. Even so, there is no way to guarantee that a life will be good. Since the person who is born never consented to this risk, never desired pleasure in the first place as they did not exist, and could even harm others overall (even if it is indirectly or unintentionally), it is unethical to reproduce.
31. “If things were different, there wouldn’t be so much resource consumption/suffering”
How do you know things will change? If it does not change or even gets worse, your child will suffer the consequences. It is not a risk that your unborn child ever consented to and gets no reward for it since they never wanted to experience this potential utopia in the first place as they had no desires before you produced them. With climate change, excessive resource consumption, pollution, and a plethora of other issues that are gradually making the planet worse, it is unethical to reproduce, especially since there is no solution for these issues yet and may never be.
32. “Please explain how not suffering is a (+) and not a (0) - how is an absence of a negative a positive? Not being on fire doesn't make me happy.”
It's better not to procreate because the only other alternative to not existing is living and, therefore, suffering. It would be like not creating someone who you know will be hit by a truck. Technically, you didn't improve their lives; you just stopped it from getting worse/ending. While this also means they can’t experience pleasure, a person who doesn’t exist won’t want to experience joy in the first place and won't feel as if they missed out. Both joy and suffering are guaranteed by existence, making the net result a variable from individual to individual (-, 0, +). Whereas with nonexistence, 0 is guaranteed so the odds for mitigating suffering are infinitely better. If you think the odds are worth it, who allowed you to decide if the risk of suffering is worth the joy? After all, the parents aren’t the ones who will suffer the consequences if their child’s life goes poorly, and the child never consented to it.
33. “You sound like a pro-lifer”
The difference between anti-choice arguments and mine are that the end result of their philosophy is more suffering, where the parents are saddled with an unwanted child and the child will probably be neglected and the parents likely won't have the resources to care for them regardless. Many anti-choicers are also hypocrites who support policies that cause more harm and death than abortion anyway. Antinatalism does the opposite since it ultimately avoids suffering.
34. “We can handle pain and need it to enjoy other emotions”
That might be how you feel, but there are many people who are miserable. Millions of people commit suicide each year, and many more attempt it or want to do it but are too afraid or don't want to hurt those around them. Even people who aren't suicidal can suffer to a large degree. This isn't something that should be imposed on others.
There is little anyone can do about systemic issues like exploitation, injustice, discrimination, etc. The belief that people can decide their own futures is similar to the "just pull yourself up by your bootstraps" line as if taking more Personal Responsibility will solve their problems rather than other factors outside of their control. Even if we do create a fairer societal structure, there are still many things that will happen that can't be stopped, such as disease, mental illness, disabilities, natural disasters, etc. Why is it up to the parents to decide for someone else if the potential pleasure they will experience is worth the risk if they aren't the ones suffering the consequences? After all, a person who isn't born doesn't have any desire to feel pleasure in the first place so they won’t feel like they are missing out.
35. “You'd be surprised how resilient people are, what they can consider to be normal because they don't know better.”
This is a point in my favor. The fact that conditions are so bad that they become used to it is not a good thing. It takes a lot of suffering to build up that resilience and no one should be exposed to that. What happens to people who can't handle it?
36. “What if people want to have sex but don’t have access to abortion and/or contraception?”
If someone knows that sex can lead to pregnancy, take no steps to prevent it, and know that it is unethical, then they shouldn't do it as their enjoyment doesn't supersede the wellbeing of another person.
37. “Don’t be so negative.”
An opinion being "negative" doesn't make it untrue. On the contrary, it is realistic as suffering is inevitable, and it is impossible for someone to consent to life. Therefore, it should not be up to you to decide if someone else should be born and face the risk of a terrible life as they might not be as “positive” about it as you are and actually resent it. Believing otherwise is just optimism bias and should not be applied when deciding on the lives of others. It is not irrational to realize that life is inherently bad.
38. “Sometimes, it’s necessary to make decisions on behalf of another person for their own wellbeing.”
The difference between making decisions for someone else for their own wellbeing and creating life is that they are already alive and should be cared for. However, creating life also creates the need for caring. If they had never been born, they would never have needed someone in the first place. Their birth was not done for their own wellbeing because nonexistent people don't have needs that need to be met. It would be like breaking someone's arm and then tending to it. They would not have needed you to tend to it if you hadn't broken it in the first place. And before you say that this is a faulty comparison because a broken arm brings no pleasure but life does, the main fact is that you never received consent to put them into this situation and imposed the need to be cared for onto them, meaning they will now suffer as a result.
Also, this is similar to circumcision. Both involve forcing something onto the child based on the parents' decision that cannot be undone under the assumption that it will benefit them (regardless of how the child may feel about it in the future) despite the child never desiring it nor providing consent. If you support reproduction, you must also support the right of parents to circumcise their children.
39. “I should be able to decide if the risk is worth taking”
Who gave you the right? Just because you can? It’s not like you will be the one who faces the consequences in the end. What if you are underestimating the risk since circumstances can change, such as the economy, your personal wellbeing, the state of the world, laws, a pandemic, etc? Can you handle a child with severe disabilities?
40. “People have a negativity bias, so they overestimate their distress/Suffering is subjective.”
Life and suffering are subjective, so that negativity bias will increase suffering even if it is not based on reality. You are proving my point.
Also, what you think is suffering may not be suffering to others and vice versa. That bias is part of the experience. There could be some who are completely miserable with a typical life and a 9-5 job while others are just fine with it. Why is it your choice to decide if they will enjoy it or not? Why is it your choice to decide if the world is in acceptable condition or not if it’s not you who gets affected?
41. “The real reasons we have kids are 1) Suffering isn't necessarily a bad thing, 2) Exposing someone to harm is not morally the same as harming them, and 3) we don't really care about consent. Why should suffering be avoided? Why shouldn't we allow people to experience harm?”
How is suffering not a bad thing? Even if some people are fine with it, the person who is born may not be, and it's not up to the parents to decide for them since they are not the ones suffering the consequences. Exposing someone to harm is the same as harming them, like how dumping toxic chemicals in the water supply would make you culpable for its effects since you caused it to happen in the first place. If you don't care about consent, then what is stopping you from raping unconscious people? It's not like they'd notice, right?
It's pretty obvious why suffering should be avoided and why exposing people to harm is bad. Would it be okay if someone tortured you because it brings them pleasure? You are implying that you don't care if your child suffers.
42. “Doesn’t that mean you should be vegan. If you are, why do you want to force people to be vegan too?”
While I do support veganism and believe it is the morally right thing to do, I don’t want to discuss that right now. Let’s focus on talking about antinatalism instead.
43. “Suffering isn’t bad/suffering builds character/strength”
There are many traumatic experiences that do more harm than good, such as PTSD from war, rape, abuse, trauma, grief, etc. This doesn’t build character or strength; it destroys them. There is no way to predict how people will react to certain situations, so it may actually hurt them more than it will help them.
Besides, people shouldn’t have to suffer to fulfill some virtue of strength regardless. They never asked to be in that situation nor even desired or valued strength, so why should it be forced on them?
Even if you think it's worth it, that's your opinion. Don't force someone else into a world where they can suffer since they might not feel the same way. Why is it your choice to make if you aren't the one suffering?
44. “We are not obligated to prevent suffering.”
By procreating, you are causing suffering by creating a new being who will suffer, not just preventing it.
45. “Parents spend time and energy helping their children and should be appreciated”
They are sacrificing their time and energy helping someone they created. That need for their help wouldn’t have existed if they hadn’t created it themselves. It's like spending time cleaning up a mess they made in the first place. That's not something to be thankful for.
46. “But parents don’t mean to harm their children”
Intent doesn’t matter because the effects are the same. If you know the effects can be negative and never received the consent to take that risk, then it is unethical to do.
47. “But I want to be a parent/It will be fun.”
At the cost of inflicting suffering onto others and signing them up to all of the difficulties and hardships of life without consent? What if they end up disliking their lives?
There is also no guarantee you will even enjoy it if the child becomes too rowdy for you. Not like you can take it back once it's done. And if they end up disabled, spoiled, or difficult to care for in any way, that would be your problem for the rest of your (or their) life.
48. “You aren’t contributing anything to the world.”
By refusing to reproduce, I am not adding a burden to the environment, I pay more in taxes for not having dependents, I have more cash to put into the economy, and won't have to rely on welfare as much as families with children do.
I also work more hours on average and pick up slack for the parents who constantly leave work for their kids. I could continue this list all day, but the point is that antinatalists do contribute to society even if they’re not contributing future members to it.
49. “It can be reasonably assumed that people would want to live.”
How do you know how they will feel? There are plenty of people who regret being born and are miserable. Otherwise, why would people attempt or commit suicide? There are many more who resent life who don’t kill themselves out of fear, shame, guilt, and other negative feelings associated with it.
50. “Only parents can take the risk of creating a child, so they have to.”
They are able to do so, but it would be unethical to do so without consent. Just because they can doesn’t mean they should.
51. “You are denying them the opportunity to live and have a good life.”
They never had a choice as to whether they wanted it and take the risk of living a bad life as well. It’s not our right to decide for them. It would be like saying not raping someone is denying them the pleasure of sex. Not to mention, they wouldn’t care anyway because they don’t exist.
52. “They didn’t dissent to being born either.”
When you can’t get consent, the default answer is no, similar to how you can’t have sex or spend someone else’s money without permission. By the time the child is born, it would be too late to undo it, so inaction should be the default, similar to how you shouldn’t rape someone who is unconscious under the assumption that they will enjoy it.
53. “A child benefits from being born.”
They had no desires until they were born and wouldn’t have cared if they weren’t as they wouldn't exist.
54. “It’s a personal choice.”
It’s a moral philosophy, not an individual decision like being child-free. If it is unethical, no one should do it in the same way no one should murder.
55. “But isn’t it ethical to help someone who is unconscious and can't consent either?”
A person who is already alive has an investment in life, a will to live, and can decide to end their own lives or get a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) request. An unborn person cannot do that. It is unethical to make a decision on someone else’s behalf, so it is better to maintain things the way they are by helping people who are alive continue to live unless they decide not to and keeping nonexistent people nonexistent as there is no way to know how they will feel.
This can also be used to justify abuse. If parents can do whatever they want to children because they have the authority to make decisions for them until they are independent, this same logic could also be used to warrant harmful behavior for "their own good." Children are their own autonomous beings, not the property of the parents, and should not be treated as such.
56. “Eventually, there will no longer be any antinatalists if none of them reproduce.”
Generally, there's no genetic component that predisposes people to certain beliefs. Exposure to ideas and experience has a far stronger impact. Otherwise, antinatalists wouldn't even exist b/c they would have already been bred out. Environment factors much more into a person's beliefs than genetics. While genetics can play a role, such as influencing empathy, it is far from the only factor and varies wildly, like how heterosexual or cis parents can have gay or transgender biological children. The implication that we should be selecting specific traits to pass on also seems somewhat like eugenics.
57. “Then shouldn’t we also commit infanticide/murder to prevent future suffering?”
That would cause suffering, which antinatalists are trying to avoid. People, including infants already have a will to live and can feel pain, so killing them would cause harm. Infanticide/murder =/= using birth control.
58. “Antinatalism violates people’s freedom to have children”
Do laws that ban rape or murder violate people’s freedom? All laws restrict freedom to some extent. Should we abolish all laws? This would not be ideal as we should accept at least some laws to ensure that public safety is not threatened and prevent serious harm from being allowed. Similarly, we should do the same to prevent harm caused by reproduction.
59. “Children of wealthy people will be happy.”
Even wealthy people may not simply overcome suffering, as seen in famous suicide victims like Chris Cornell, Chester Bennington, or Anthony Bourdain. Even though they had vast amounts of resources they could have utilized to treat any maladies and were both well-known and well-respected, they still did not enjoy life. This means that even if you are wealthy, your children still might not be happy in the same way being poor does not always mean the children will be miserable. Wealth is merely one factor and does not guarantee anything. It would be even worse for less fortunate people, especially if they also face mental illnesses like depression that are impossible to cure. (Also see “Abuse Analogy” in the “Thought Experiments” section). Not to mention, the children of wealthy or successful people might be spoiled and make the world worse off for others or feel inadequate and overshadowed by the legacy of their parents.
60. “People can adapt/overcome hardship or suffering.”
Many people may not be able to though. It is not the parents’ decision to make as they are not the ones who will face the consequences. In fact, this can be seen in how poorer countries generally have a lower level of happiness than wealthier countries. This indicates that poverty and material conditions do factor into someone’s well being and that they will not simply adjust to a lower standard of living and be happy despite it.
61. “Antinatalism is a personal choice and unenforceable on a wide scale.”
Antinatalism can be legally enforced, as was done under China’s one-child policy or with other measures, like tax incentives/disincentives to choosing adoption or abstaining from procreation, increasing funding and access to sex education, contraceptives, family planning services, and abortion, and widespread media campaigns against reproduction or in favor of choosing adoption (which seems to have worked in Thailand), or even through sterilizations. See the question regarding the morality of this in the “Understanding Antinatalism'' section.
Regardless, this does not justify reproduction for you as an individual.
62. “Antinatalists are just resentful of or hate their parents.”
Not only is this provably false, but is simply an ad hominem attack even if it was true as it targets the character of the person making the argument rather than addressing the arguments themselves.
63. “People in the first world need to breed or the third world will overpopulate because they breed much more."
A higher population in developed countries will not change anything. The third world already has a far higher population than the first world countries, but this has not influenced their power dynamic. The Global North also has far greater technological advantages and can withstand any potential attacks. This is actually an argument against procreating as more people in the future will not only increase demand for more goods and lead to greater exploitation of people in the third world to meet that demand, but they will also need to live in a world where a high number of such people exist.
64. “Procreation is natural”
So is disease and death. Natural does not mean good. By this same logic, we should all be living in caves and disconnect from society. It is a fallacy.
65. “We have always done it”
And slavery was legal until it wasn’t. Tradition does not mean good. By this same logic, we would never change as a society and still be living under feudal lords. It is a fallacy.
66. “Procreation is popular and widely supported”
So was slavery, segregation, and Nazism. Popular does not mean good. It is a fallacy.
D1. “It’s not the same if we are not biologically related.”
Arguing that adoption is somehow inferior to biological families invalidates existing adopted families and is based on pseudoscience as a bond can be created that is not based on genetics.
Also, if love forms based on biological connection, then why do biological parents abuse their children?
D2. “It’s too expensive.”
It is not that expensive if you adopt from foster care.
If you cannot even afford this, you likely cannot afford to care for a child regardless, especially if they end up having special needs and will require more resources, money, time, and attention to care for.
Not to mention, you will also dodge the costs of pregnancy (including opportunity costs such as losing time at work) and giving birth, which is very high in the U.S. depending on your healthcare coverage.
Adoption also eliminates the risk of complications during birth or birth defects or unexpected deformities that would also increase costs.
"In 2017, the average cost of adoption for foster parents was $2,398, according to Adoptive Families. Among the parents surveyed, 88% received a monthly subsidy from a government agency to provide care for their foster child. The average subsidy amount was $827."
D3. “Adopted children tend to have more problems.”
Biological children can have problems too. Why is the risk of adopted children misbehaving too high but the risk of biological children misbehaving acceptable?
Isn’t it easier to judge if a child has problems after they are born and you can essentially choose your child than to leave it up to chance by reproducing?
Even then, wanting a child with fewer problems to deal with is still a selfish reason to reproduce.
Brief counterargument summary (used to address common counters quickly):
And before you say "but what about the good parts of life," a person who doesn't exist doesn't care about what they are missing out on. Are you sad that Martians don't get to enjoy life because they don't exist? They don’t exist and have no desire to experience pleasure. Why feel bad for them when they don’t even care? Also, there is no guarantee they would have a paradise. Maybe their world would have been worse than ours. There’s no way to know anything, and that’s a core premise of antinatalism. You can’t guarantee a good life or know if the person would desire it (which they don’t until they are born and can even have desires at all), so you can’t force people into a life they never asked for and could suffer in.
And before you respond to that with "by that logic, they won't care about suffering either," it's not up to you to decide how they will feel because you aren't the one suffering the consequences.
And before you say "it doesn't matter because they don't exist," consider that they will suffer once they come into existence and the only way to prevent that is by not reproducing.