It is uncomfortable. i have pain and hard times because disabilities and people mistreating me, but i am happy exist. Even with all problems i face life is not all down down down, there is up and good and things to look forward to.
understand why someone would not carry or raise children themself - like money and time limits, health problems, or just not want - but really uncomfortable if say bad as sort of universal truth. I wish i could be parent but eugenics society do not want that and sometimes this do not feel much different

Yet to hear an antinatalist argument that isnt just a bunch of moralising nonsense.

Have kids or dont but dont pretend either decision gives you moral high ground. its all a matter of preference.

I think that there are multiple versions of it, some better than others. I don't subscribe to it, since I think there are occasions where having a child is ok, but I lean towards it.

The main one I see going around, grounded in David Benatar's work Better Never To Have Been, is built on a utilitarian argument that fails in some of the ways that utlilitarianism fails. But the basic idea that if you bring someone into existence, you are a cause of all their pain, but if you don't bring them into existence, that person didn't exist to miss out on anything, does affect me.

Incidentally, it was antinatalism that made me vegan. The fact that industrial farming of animals, including for milk and eggs actually involves forcing life, pregnancy and birth onto animals, over and over, was an additional kind of harm that made clear to me that was unacceptable. Trillions of animals have been brought into existence by humans, their entire lives just abused through industrial processes. They didn't need to be brought into existence, and trillions of entire lives continue to be forcefully created and filled with horrid suffering. The egg that the vegetarian eats couldn't have been laid without the life of the chicken that laid it, and little-to-nothing about that coming into being wasn't constructed by abusive humans.

I think that whether someone should have kids or not depends on their particular circumstance. For example, I think it's hard to justify having a child if you have the resources to adopt. Choosing to bring someone into existence instead of adopting someone is fucking two people over horribly. Instead of making someone else's life markedly better by adopting them, you're leaving them in that (relatively much worse) position, while creating a whole new life that will suffer terribly, perhaps horrifically in this world.

I think experiencing life is great & it feels like antinatalism is weirdly eugenics. That being said, right now I can't see myself getting children, because I can't imagine watching over them all the time in this economy.

Why would anyone make an "ism" out of something like this.

Garbage.

with so many human and non human animals in need, how could i possibly think of forcing another into this machine of misery? this curse ends with me..

At some point I thought it was kind of interesting cos basically no one can consent to being born.

Then I decided not to think about it anymore being alive is cool

Edit to add that I never really knew anything about anti natalism or if that's a common argument from them, just that I thought about the above

I think it's a vague position with several different and diverging standpoints, so that it's difficult to have a thought about it precisely.

If we talk about birth control imposed by some states, well of course to me it's a malthusian form of authoritarian management that shouldn't exist. But then again several states are funding natality and parenting, without planning any overhaul of the economy, infrastructures and public services. So that also means a time bomb for society... but not in the way you'd like. That's the situation in several developed countries where the whole social insfrastructure is not catching up to the ever-growing demands. And a lot of these demands has mostly just to do with more people that got new levels of economic demands, especially for education, transportation and healthcare.

So the argument that this is patronizing or moralizing is kinda dishonest, as it's not taking into account how state and society are pushing birth rates from the start, often without providing the means to back up such population growth.

But if it's about some female person's choice to not have kids, then I don't see what is wrong with this anti-natalism... or how it's anyone else's business!

I am pro-choice. To the bone.

complicated. Humanity proved to be very harmful for the Earth and the best thing we can do for our planet is going extinct. Besides, indeed, forcing someome into existence without their content feels very authoritarian. These two merits seems solid to me

Despite that, to be honest, I want to have children. Likely, never will, though. I'm ashamed of these thoughts, of this irrational urge to leave something of you, this specific set of chromosomes after you, after your death. Such a spook

It's absolutely a great thing, I support it 100%. And will likely be more embraced when capitalism (which is pro-natalist to the core) runs its course, as well as being perpetuated by young folks, women, and queer people who are trying to liberate themselves, since patriarchy forces child-bearing/child-rearing upon everybody (can't keep up a nation's strength if more workers and soldiers aren't being pumped out like clockwork). Hell, I'd say pro-natalism is a core tenent of fascism, since it views people as nothing more but property that must create more property (in this case, being children). Then, of course, we get into the ecological problems of natalism, such as the inevitably razing and destroying of lands and species, ravaging the Earth, overpopulation, ramped-up consumption, which causes states and economies to grow, or want to grow, leading to imperialism, etc.

I think it's privileged thinking because most working class people need children to look after us in our old age.