>>223130>Don't think someone wanting kids makes them a "natalist" in a political sense necessarily.It's an ethical category, not a political one. It generally only enters political discourse in the context of religion, due to the ties between religion and ethical philosophy. Though it does sometimes enter into politics without clear religious ties as Stalin was an abortion-banning natalist despite his firm atheism.
>and that it's rewarding to nurture them and watch them grow up.He's a natalist then, and the unconscious and ill considered kind whose natalism is a form of self-gratification without consideration for the true responsibility of bringing life into existence.
Try to consider the weight of responsibility for a life that brings more harm than joy to the world.
Almost 20% of moids are rapists, and according to increasingly alarming figures it is possible that nearly 30% are adult virgins. These were also children once brought into the world for the gratification of their parents, whether merely impulsively sexual and without consideration beyond that, or worse for the gratification of parental instincts, social preening or narcissistic reinforcement. They clearly should not have been allowed to exist, as the harm that they cause to society overall greatly outweighs the small period of time in which they brought joy to one or possibly two parents' lives. That is at least and at minimum 50% odds that a male life will be a gross negative impact on the world. When any other potential negative factor is brought into attention the inevitable conclusion is that no male should ever be permitted to be born. That will also effectively end the human species' reproductive cycle. Forever. There is no ethically justifiable cause to delay the total extermination of males until such time as scientific developments enable asexual or female-female reproduction, because the benefits of existing in a world that includes males are entirely overshadowed by the detriments of any such existence and a future existence which does not include males is uncertain.
And what about the harm to the child itself? Nearly 25% of Americans are considered clinically depressed. That is not a curable condition, only a treatable but often terminal one. We are asked repeatedly to consider this when firearms rights are discussed because the right of a woman to shoot a rapist is considerably less commonly exercised than the right of a clinically depressed person to shoot themselves, despite the incredible commonality of sexual assault in America. The use of firearms in suicide is considered an effective argument for curtailing the constitutional rights of all Americans everywhere because we have found our medical and social systems to be wholly inadequate to the task of providing depressed individuals–more than 50% of the time depressed adults who were in active medical treatment for their condition, a true systemic failure and not an individual failure to enter the medical system–with a life that is subjectively worth continuing. Even if having and raising a child could effectively stave off depression that would constitute a morally repugnant passing of the buck down a generation. And there is little evidence that it does so to any effect; even if it were effective the question remains for how many years, and whether the years of parental cure balances out the lifetime of harm the choice to reproduce inflicts upon the child. Anyone with a hereditary history of depression has a moral obligation to avoid reproduction, and this is a true obligation which ought to be enforced by the state, and not optional. Even if that individual believes that they have conquered their own depression individually, least of all if they believe their self improvement is reliant on creating children of their own. No child is voluntarily born and so no parent should have the right to volunteer them as an infant sacrifice to their own dark devouring god of malignant self love and self-care. And that is just one possible issue to consider in the question of whether or not reproduction is justifiable. 25% of the population, eliminatable from ethical participation in the genetic future of the human species over just one issue.
▽Quick Reply