LogFAQs > #956301977

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	I'm an anti-natalist.
Reigning_King 07/20/21 11:23:10 PM #88:	adjl posted... Uhh, no. Not at all. I have no idea why you would ever think that. List off a couple of things you think of as positive and I'll break it down for you since your imagination seems to be limited. I'm not saying that as a jab, it's just that even if you disagree with me you shouldn't really have a problem seeing what I'm saying. ReturnOfFa posted... I don't agree with OP. Too finite, too restrictive, unrealistic, unempathetic - any enforcement of this is an infringement upon my rights, I'd say. I am indifferent towards procreation, but there's no goddamn way enforcing that is realistic without fascistic/authoritarian/broken democratic action. I'll dunk on people popping out hella babies, but gtfo with this anti-natalist shit lol You are correct in so far as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and nearly every national article enshrines the right to reproduce or rather they dictate that no willing couple of legal age should be stopped from procreating by the state. This right is held quite high, unsurprisingly considering how core reproduction is to human and all other life. However that doesn't mean it is beyond reproach, in fact rights exist mostly to allow fringe cases, they say nothing of the moral or optimal way to live your life. One can have a legal right to do something if they feel but a moral duty not to. My opinion is that anyone who looks at the matter clearly should see that such a moral duty exists in preventing needless suffering by not reproduce thus invalidating the right without actually revoking it. That would be the ideal path. As for the possible practical application of the idea failing that one can imagine in the not too distant future a drug or virus that causes infertility and few if no other symptoms which could covertly be put into the water supply of a nation or maybe distributed with incentives for those who take it. Advancements in A.I. and virtual reality could also help fill the gap for those who want an emotional bond similar to that of a child (people seriously treat their pets like kids, don't tell me this is far fetched). However once again I will say that I have no serious expectation that anything close to that will ever happen. <cite>Reigning_King posted [p:956301977] in I'm an ant... [t:79573893]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Uhh, no. Not at all. I have no idea why you would ever think that.</quote>List off a couple of things you think of as positive and I'll break it down for you since your imagination seems to be limited. I'm not saying that as a jab, it's just that even if you disagree with me you shouldn't really have a problem seeing what I'm saying. ReturnOfFa posted... </cite> <quote>I don't agree with OP. Too finite, too restrictive, unrealistic, unempathetic - any enforcement of this is an infringement upon my rights, I'd say. I am indifferent towards procreation, but there's no goddamn way enforcing that is realistic without fascistic/authoritarian/broken democratic action. I'll dunk on people popping out hella babies, but gtfo with this anti-natalist shit lol</quote>You are correct in so far as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and nearly every national article enshrines the right to reproduce or rather they dictate that no willing couple of legal age should be stopped from procreating by the state. This right is held quite high, unsurprisingly considering how core reproduction is to human and all other life. However that doesn't mean it is beyond reproach, in fact rights exist mostly to allow fringe cases, they say nothing of the moral or optimal way to live your life. One can have a legal right to do something if they feel but a moral duty not to. My opinion is that anyone who looks at the matter clearly should see that such a moral duty exists in preventing needless suffering by not reproduce thus invalidating the right without actually revoking it. That would be the ideal path. As for the possible practical application of the idea failing that one can imagine in the not too distant future a drug or virus that causes infertility and few if no other symptoms which could covertly be put into the water supply of a nation or maybe distributed with incentives for those who take it. Advancements in A.I. and virtual reality could also help fill the gap for those who want an emotional bond similar to that of a child (people seriously treat their pets like kids, don't tell me this is far fetched). However once again I will say that I have no serious expectation that anything close to that will ever happen. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1