This has already been addressed, in the article and in comments. Please actually add something new. Don’t just repeat things that have already been answered or refuted here.

Quote a thing that you are responding to, and be sure you know the context of it so you don’t just repeat something already addressed before or after the thing you are quoting.

You seem instead to be ignoring everything we have said, and just rewriting the thesis from scratch that we already replied to. That’s simply of no use as a method of discussion.

This comment is not responding to anything here. We have already addressed all these claims (in the article, and over and over again in comments).

Please, do not post comments that ignore the entire conversation you are jumping into. Read the article, and reply to specific points made there. Or if you wish to respond to a specific point in comments, read the entire thread that comment is in first, and then quote that point and explain how you are adding anything new to the conversation.

I recently read your article critiquing antinatalism, and while I acknowledge your background in history and philosophy, I feel compelled to respond—not out of hostility, but because your argument represents a wider pattern that many of us are tired of.

Your response to antinatalism wraps itself in the garb of logic, empirical data, and moral reasoning, but beneath it, I see the same core assumptions I’ve seen from many others: that life is inherently valuable, that suffering is acceptable if there’s a chance of pleasure, and that procreation is somehow always justifiable—despite the risks and pain it imposes on others without their consent.

These are not neutral, objective stances. They are deeply ideological.

I’ve noticed how antinatalism, like feminism, is held to an impossible standard: it must be perfect, it must be supported by a mountain of flawless data, it must never upset anyone. Meanwhile, the pro-natalist worldview—which has led to global overpopulation, ecological collapse, mass poverty, and forced birth policies—gets a free pass. Where is your scrutiny of that?

You suggest that a 1% chance of happiness justifies bringing someone into existence. But if we, anti natalists, point to real data—suicide rates, depression, climate breakdown, poverty—we’re told we’re being irrational or too negative. You ask us for empirical proof, but accept optimism bias without question. That’s not reason. That’s selective rationalization.

Let me be clear: we do not advocate mass murder or forced sterilization. We advocate autonomy. We argue that birth is not a moral obligation—and that no one should be forced or shamed into having children. We believe nonexistence cannot be harmed, but existence can suffer—and that matters.

As a woman, I’ve seen firsthand how society weaponizes natalist expectations. My refusal to bear children is treated not as a choice, but a threat.
Anti natalism gives me a framework to defend that choice—and yet thinkers like you distort it to mean something sinister. Why?

You said slaves found joy; therefore, suffering doesn’t invalidate the value of life.

Using historical examples like slaves finding joy to justify procreation is deeply flawed. People adapt to trauma-that doesn’t mean trauma should be inflicted. It’s a survival mechanism, not moral permission.

Most people are biologically wired for optimism bias like you are too. Surveys reflect that, not objective well-being. Plus, cultural and familial pressures force people to defend life even if they’re unhappy. The data is not neutral.
You use extensive technical language and theoretical framing, but behind the academic phrasing lies a simple, deeply personal bias: the belief that life-despite all its involuntary suffering-is still worth imposing on others. That’s not objective. That’s faith in optimism, dressed up in statistics and philosophical vocabulary.

You may not agree with my conclusions. That’s fine. But at the very least, acknowledge the double standard: that natalism is assumed moral by default, while anti natalism must endlessly justify its existence.

Sometimes, people don’t want to have children. That is not a philosophical error. That is a boundary.

Being an anti natalist woman I found my truth in life which is not absolute but again it is my own choice and consent to not bring life I’m not forcing anyone unlike natalist and pro life people. So maybe you should ask question to pro life/ natalist people not us..

Life has no value we humans create value through our hardship and struggle. We humans created purpose and so on. Life inherently has No Value. So humans created value is what stopping mass murdering cause we force to see the presents Humans struggle valuable we gave it a meaning that is why war is wrong but people still do it and they are ready to die cause it’s add value to their final life even if it means death in the battle field ( they want to achieve symbolic immortality) Again we anti natalists don’t wanna mass murder cause it is same as we don’t wanna bring children the key is Consent. If someone wants to die then we anti natalist promotes Euthanasia and say let the person die peacefully without judgment the person gave his Consent to death cause probably he saw his created value / purpose as meaningless who knows?? But we are not here to judge. All of this argument’s missed one key point which is Consent.

Anti natalist don’t want mass murder means life is valuable is not even remotely equal. People go for genocide and war too but somehow sterilization and not giving birth is more of a crime than actually killing children it seems here. I will never understand why breeders try to hide behind rational logical framework to justify their own and only desire to pro create like any other animal. They bring nature, biology evolution and so on so to justify their selfish desire.

Your point – Antinatalists argue that future humans shouldn’t exist which implies that they believe that life has disvalue yet they inveigh against ending the lives of existing people which implies that they believe life has value.

Life has no value ( same as nature / biology is not moral guide) But we Humans gain higher consciousness and and because of that we can say whether my life is valuable or not other wise the goal is to simply survive once born but simple survival don’t create value or meaningful existence!!

Whatever we are judging is from a moral framework here that’s why this article started with straw man that anti natalist wants to kill everyone which is wrong.

The unborn is non existence it did not consent to being born you can’t compare it with slaves that are already being born opposing to die means life has value of course his life is valuable to him cause he created that value through struggle he must survive cause he is already born there’s no other choice probably he can die peacefully and surrender but requires training your mind and the primal reptilian brain reuses to do that instincts override Cold rational Logic. Emotions over Logic as simple..

Anti natalism like any other philosophy is debatable so as natalism/breeding I don’t see why we should not argue about it and think pro creation is ok it’s fall under same scrutiny. But at least we are looking at the void and refuse to play the Russian roulette unlike breeders.

[BANNED]

You are just repeating things already refuted. Again.

You are ignoring all data presented against you, and all demonstrations of your fallacies, as if never provided.

This clearly clocks you as insane. If you keep doing this (just repeating claims already refuted rather than responding to those refutations) you will be permanently banned here.

To ignore all the joys of living and act like only suffering exists is lunacy.

To ignore the suffering is beyond lunacy.

Everything else you keep saying has been refuted repeatedly here.

You have not really refuted anything, you just act AS IF you have done so.

**That you keep saying the same refuted things over and over as if they are answering their refutation is lunacy.

You are a lunatic.**

You are not only lunatic but sadistic person who does not care about suffering, thats really the worst kind of people there is.

And every sane reader of this thread knows it by now.

AKA, everyone who agrees with me is a sane person – thats really poor argument.

And that’s just the story of you. There isn’t anything I can do about it.

There is no story of me. There is a story of human suffering which seems fine by you.

Hopefully evils like you will be blocked and removed.

To ignore all the joys of living and act like only suffering exists is lunacy.

Everything else you keep saying has been refuted repeatedly here.

That you keep saying the same refuted things over and over as if they are answering their refutation is lunacy.

You are a lunatic.

And every sane reader of this thread knows it by now.

And that’s just the story of you. There isn’t anything I can do about it.

**Lunatics citing lunatics.

That’s antinatalism in a nutshell.** – hardly a convincing argument.

** You are completely trapped in a false reality. And everyone but you can see that now.**
There is no reality which does not contain immense suffering. By having children, you are satisfying your egoistic and sadistic desires, thats how it just is. Secondly, there is no OTHERS here, its just you and a whole lot of copium (natalism).

Lunatics citing lunatics.

That’s antinatalism in a nutshell.