this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
21 points (83.9% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
920 readers
65 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The implications for child and societal welfare.
Edit: "but who cares?!" such a disgusting thought-terminating hollow canard.
You're putting words in my mouth. If your implication is that children do not consent to being born, you have to also agree that literally nobody CAN consent to being born or not. So what is the point of you brining this up if not for the indirect implication that having children is inherently wrong as it does not factor in an unobtainable level of consent? I am actually interested in hearing how you would resolve this consent issue.
As Mao said, reality is full of contradictions, and contradictions aren't a neat or simplistic thing, there is duality and opposites in everything, and two dialectics can be true at the same time.
Of course no one can consent to being born.
As I say, I don't necessarily view having biological children as being inherently wrong. Selfish, yes. But not inherently "wrong". That's why I say partial anti-natalism. Just as I am not just a communist, but a specific subset. I don't see what's hard to understand about this. I'm not trying to be a dick, this is genuinely easy for me to "get".