What a beautiful story 😊❤

Wow how lovely and lucky. Gives me some hope.

😢 That's so beautiful.

Several people have suggested adoption .... we shall see...

Thank you for this comment that definitely helps. ❤️

Hope it never works out for you. Antinatalism is the ethical position that views the birth of sentient beings as morally wrong. The justifications are: harm/suffering prevention, the questionable nature of gambling with another life, & the impossibility of consent to be born. - No one has the moral right to inflict serious, preventable harms upon others without their consent. Existence brings preventable, guaranteed harm & is imposed without consent. Because a child cannot consent to being born, the default should be to assume that consent doesn’t exist and that no action should be taken on the child’s behalf. Just like how it’s not okay to r@pe an unconscious person just because they can’t consent to or refuse to participate in the act. - Everyone experiences at least some suffering, and some people experience disproportionately more suffering than others. Creating a life is inherently unfair & inconsiderate. - Everyone has the rights to eternal peace & the freedom from all harm, both of which can only result from never coming into existence. Therefore, every human being has the right to NOT be born so long as they can’t waive their rights by providing informed consent to being born. Procreation is the biggest violation of a being’s autonomy there is. - An opinion being “negative” doesn’t make it untrue. On the contrary, it’s realistic as suffering is inevitable, & it’s impossible for someone to consent to life. - Procreation is simply not anyone’s risk to take because they won’t be the ones suffering any negative consequences of their decision to procreate-their children will. - By procreating, you are intentionally harming your “loved ones” for your own selfish desires to attain a sense of control, purpose, fulfillment, pride, achievement, or superior social status. - There’s no reason to create a child that’s for the child’s sake. For a potential child, birth doesn’t solve any problem that it doesn’t first create. All positives in life, such as love, happiness, or good food are based on fulfilling needs, which get created by birth. Creating a life is creating a host of needs for no need. - A nonexistent “person” cannot miss out on anything good since they don’t exist & the nonexistent have no needs or desires, including the desire for life itself or any of its pleasures. - For the betterment of humans, the environment, & other sentient beings, humans need to go extinct. No one is being harmed by the extinction of humans since no one will exist to experience said harm. Who will care that humanity is ending if no one is around to care? - On the point directly above: Just because an outcome may be unwanted doesn't mean that the arguments are wrong. Even if you believe extinction is inherently bad, this does not justify the undeniable truth that reproduction violates the child’s consent to being born. This is an appeal to consequences, a logical fallacy. - Just because procreation is natural & societally accepted doesn’t mean it’s morally good. Diseases, natural disasters, & famine are all natural too, but that doesn’t mean they’re good. This is an appeal to nature, a logical fallacy. Slavery has been around for over 13,000 years. That doesn’t make it moral or ethical. - None of the nonexistent can wish to be born, but plenty of the living wish they had never existed.

I saw this and started crying I’m battling this and I’ve been beating myself up about not having kids at 31

Glad this is happening. Hope it keeps going this way forever. Antinatalism is the ethical position that views the birth of sentient beings as morally wrong. The justifications are: harm/suffering prevention, the questionable nature of gambling with another life, & the impossibility of consent to be born. - No one has the moral right to inflict serious, preventable harms upon others without their consent. Existence brings preventable, guaranteed harm & is imposed without consent. Because a child cannot consent to being born, the default should be to assume that consent doesn’t exist and that no action should be taken on the child’s behalf. Just like how it’s not okay to r@pe an unconscious person just because they can’t consent to or refuse to participate in the act. - Everyone experiences at least some suffering, and some people experience disproportionately more suffering than others. Creating a life is inherently unfair & inconsiderate. - Everyone has the rights to eternal peace & the freedom from all harm, both of which can only result from never coming into existence. Therefore, every human being has the right to NOT be born so long as they can’t waive their rights by providing informed consent to being born. Procreation is the biggest violation of a being’s autonomy there is. - An opinion being “negative” doesn’t make it untrue. On the contrary, it’s realistic as suffering is inevitable, & it’s impossible for someone to consent to life. - Procreation is simply not anyone’s risk to take because they won’t be the ones suffering any negative consequences of their decision to procreate-their children will. - By procreating, you are intentionally harming your “loved ones” for your own selfish desires to attain a sense of control, purpose, fulfillment, pride, achievement, or superior social status. - There’s no reason to create a child that’s for the child’s sake. For a potential child, birth doesn’t solve any problem that it doesn’t first create. All positives in life, such as love, happiness, or good food are based on fulfilling needs, which get created by birth. Creating a life is creating a host of needs for no need. - A nonexistent “person” cannot miss out on anything good since they don’t exist & the nonexistent have no needs or desires, including the desire for life itself or any of its pleasures. - For the betterment of humans, the environment, & other sentient beings, humans need to go extinct. No one is being harmed by the extinction of humans since no one will exist to experience said harm. Who will care that humanity is ending if no one is around to care? - On the point directly above: Just because an outcome may be unwanted doesn't mean that the arguments are wrong. Even if you believe extinction is inherently bad, this does not justify the undeniable truth that reproduction violates the child’s consent to being born. This is an appeal to consequences, a logical fallacy. - Just because procreation is natural & societally accepted doesn’t mean it’s morally good. Diseases, natural disasters, & famine are all natural too, but that doesn’t mean they’re good. This is an appeal to nature, a logical fallacy. Slavery has been around for over 13,000 years. That doesn’t make it moral or ethical. - None of the nonexistent can wish to be born, but plenty of the living wish they had never existed.

@@Smartskull0apparently morality is in the eye of the beholder because you want humans to be extinct and to me, that means you lack morals. Since you feel so strongly about it, why not start with yourself? Nobody will miss you 😁

🙏🙏🙏🙏❤❤❤

❤❤❤

I’m so glad, i hope it stays this way forever. Antinatalism is the ethical position that views the birth of sentient beings as morally wrong. The justifications are: harm/suffering prevention, the questionable nature of gambling with another life, & the impossibility of consent to be born. - No one has the moral right to inflict serious, preventable harms upon others without their consent. Existence brings preventable, guaranteed harm & is imposed without consent. Because a child cannot consent to being born, the default should be to assume that consent doesn’t exist and that no action should be taken on the child’s behalf. Just like how it’s not okay to r@pe an unconscious person just because they can’t consent to or refuse to participate in the act. - Everyone experiences at least some suffering, and some people experience disproportionately more suffering than others. Creating a life is inherently unfair & inconsiderate. - Everyone has the rights to eternal peace & the freedom from all harm, both of which can only result from never coming into existence. Therefore, every human being has the right to NOT be born so long as they can’t waive their rights by providing informed consent to being born. Procreation is the biggest violation of a being’s autonomy there is. - An opinion being “negative” doesn’t make it untrue. On the contrary, it’s realistic as suffering is inevitable, & it’s impossible for someone to consent to life. - Procreation is simply not anyone’s risk to take because they won’t be the ones suffering any negative consequences of their decision to procreate-their children will. - By procreating, you are intentionally harming your “loved ones” for your own selfish desires to attain a sense of control, purpose, fulfillment, pride, achievement, or superior social status. - There’s no reason to create a child that’s for the child’s sake. For a potential child, birth doesn’t solve any problem that it doesn’t first create. All positives in life, such as love, happiness, or good food are based on fulfilling needs, which get created by birth. Creating a life is creating a host of needs for no need. - A nonexistent “person” cannot miss out on anything good since they don’t exist & the nonexistent have no needs or desires, including the desire for life itself or any of its pleasures. - For the betterment of humans, the environment, & other sentient beings, humans need to go extinct. No one is being harmed by the extinction of humans since no one will exist to experience said harm. Who will care that humanity is ending if no one is around to care? - On the point directly above: Just because an outcome may be unwanted doesn't mean that the arguments are wrong. Even if you believe extinction is inherently bad, this does not justify the undeniable truth that reproduction violates the child’s consent to being born. This is an appeal to consequences, a logical fallacy. - Just because procreation is natural & societally accepted doesn’t mean it’s morally good. Diseases, natural disasters, & famine are all natural too, but that doesn’t mean they’re good. This is an appeal to nature, a logical fallacy. Slavery has been around for over 13,000 years. That doesn’t make it moral or ethical. - None of the nonexistent can wish to be born, but plenty of the living wish they had never existed.

The troll posted this more than once. Don't let it bring you down, this person is obviously very sad and bitter. I hope you have a good day and one day will have you miracle baby 🍀❤️

@@c.m.8972 I hope it brings both of you & everyone who thinks like you wayyyy down

I hope it never works out and you decide to adopt instead. Antinatalism is the ethical position that views the birth of sentient beings as morally wrong. The justifications are: harm/suffering prevention, the questionable nature of gambling with another life, & the impossibility of consent to be born. - No one has the moral right to inflict serious, preventable harms upon others without their consent. Existence brings preventable, guaranteed harm & is imposed without consent. Because a child cannot consent to being born, the default should be to assume that consent doesn’t exist and that no action should be taken on the child’s behalf. Just like how it’s not okay to r@pe an unconscious person just because they can’t consent to or refuse to participate in the act. - Everyone experiences at least some suffering, and some people experience disproportionately more suffering than others. Creating a life is inherently unfair & inconsiderate. - Everyone has the rights to eternal peace & the freedom from all harm, both of which can only result from never coming into existence. Therefore, every human being has the right to NOT be born so long as they can’t waive their rights by providing informed consent to being born. Procreation is the biggest violation of a being’s autonomy there is. - An opinion being “negative” doesn’t make it untrue. On the contrary, it’s realistic as suffering is inevitable, & it’s impossible for someone to consent to life. - Procreation is simply not anyone’s risk to take because they won’t be the ones suffering any negative consequences of their decision to procreate-their children will. - By procreating, you are intentionally harming your “loved ones” for your own selfish desires to attain a sense of control, purpose, fulfillment, pride, achievement, or superior social status. - There’s no reason to create a child that’s for the child’s sake. For a potential child, birth doesn’t solve any problem that it doesn’t first create. All positives in life, such as love, happiness, or good food are based on fulfilling needs, which get created by birth. Creating a life is creating a host of needs for no need. - A nonexistent “person” cannot miss out on anything good since they don’t exist & the nonexistent have no needs or desires, including the desire for life itself or any of its pleasures. - For the betterment of humans, the environment, & other sentient beings, humans need to go extinct. No one is being harmed by the extinction of humans since no one will exist to experience said harm. Who will care that humanity is ending if no one is around to care? - On the point directly above: Just because an outcome may be unwanted doesn't mean that the arguments are wrong. Even if you believe extinction is inherently bad, this does not justify the undeniable truth that reproduction violates the child’s consent to being born. This is an appeal to consequences, a logical fallacy. - Just because procreation is natural & societally accepted doesn’t mean it’s morally good. Diseases, natural disasters, & famine are all natural too, but that doesn’t mean they’re good. This is an appeal to nature, a logical fallacy. Slavery has been around for over 13,000 years. That doesn’t make it moral or ethical. - None of the nonexistent can wish to be born, but plenty of the living wish they had never existed.

@@Smartskull0 I really don't know who hurt you but I hope you get the help you need. Apparently you live in an environment where people rather tear each other down than lift each other up

@@Smartskull0get over it people want their own blood children

@@Smartskull0We get it your parents didn’t love you, and now you are mad.

@@demonademona5623 yeah you need to be inv sterlized, ur too dvmb to get it on ur own

So happy to hear that. Hope it stays this way forever. Antinatalism is the ethical position that views the birth of sentient beings as morally wrong. The justifications are: harm/suffering prevention, the questionable nature of gambling with another life, & the impossibility of consent to be born. - No one has the moral right to inflict serious, preventable harms upon others without their consent. Existence brings preventable, guaranteed harm & is imposed without consent. Because a child cannot consent to being born, the default should be to assume that consent doesn’t exist and that no action should be taken on the child’s behalf. Just like how it’s not okay to r@pe an unconscious person just because they can’t consent to or refuse to participate in the act. - Everyone experiences at least some suffering, and some people experience disproportionately more suffering than others. Creating a life is inherently unfair & inconsiderate. - Everyone has the rights to eternal peace & the freedom from all harm, both of which can only result from never coming into existence. Therefore, every human being has the right to NOT be born so long as they can’t waive their rights by providing informed consent to being born. Procreation is the biggest violation of a being’s autonomy there is. - An opinion being “negative” doesn’t make it untrue. On the contrary, it’s realistic as suffering is inevitable, & it’s impossible for someone to consent to life. - Procreation is simply not anyone’s risk to take because they won’t be the ones suffering any negative consequences of their decision to procreate-their children will. - By procreating, you are intentionally harming your “loved ones” for your own selfish desires to attain a sense of control, purpose, fulfillment, pride, achievement, or superior social status. - There’s no reason to create a child that’s for the child’s sake. For a potential child, birth doesn’t solve any problem that it doesn’t first create. All positives in life, such as love, happiness, or good food are based on fulfilling needs, which get created by birth. Creating a life is creating a host of needs for no need. - A nonexistent “person” cannot miss out on anything good since they don’t exist & the nonexistent have no needs or desires, including the desire for life itself or any of its pleasures. - For the betterment of humans, the environment, & other sentient beings, humans need to go extinct. No one is being harmed by the extinction of humans since no one will exist to experience said harm. Who will care that humanity is ending if no one is around to care? - On the point directly above: Just because an outcome may be unwanted doesn't mean that the arguments are wrong. Even if you believe extinction is inherently bad, this does not justify the undeniable truth that reproduction violates the child’s consent to being born. This is an appeal to consequences, a logical fallacy. - Just because procreation is natural & societally accepted doesn’t mean it’s morally good. Diseases, natural disasters, & famine are all natural too, but that doesn’t mean they’re good. This is an appeal to nature, a logical fallacy. Slavery has been around for over 13,000 years. That doesn’t make it moral or ethical. - None of the nonexistent can wish to be born, but plenty of the living wish they had never existed.

Did they also adopt the Foster child?

@@auntieWarr yes they gave him a card with big brother on it and the adoption papers inside, the twins she had were boys so it's the 3 boys together they are a lovely family ❤️

@@Pips1990 that is so lovely to hear. I am granny to 3 boys myself . Sounds like they are a very happy family.

This is a beautiful story! Also just keep in mind that these stories are not always helpful to those of us that hasn’t happened to. It’s not that you’re doing a thing wrong; you’re trying to encourage by telling us a story where it worked out. The truth is, we are always wondering why we’re not chosen to be parents naturally like those around us. Hearing these stories, in some seasons, just makes us wonder why we don’t get the miracle. Why we don’t get the miracle story. In some seasons, we just need someone to sit with us in the grief. We need to grieve and to have someone who isn’t scared by it and isn’t trying to fix it. Someone to show us that we’re okay as we are, not broken vessels. I’m personally in a season of joy Ava hopefulness heading into IVF, but i have had many times of grief where I just wanted to not be alone. I’ve heard the same from many others. You may be the exact person who does stand by the side of the grieving and let them grieve. So this may be for other onlookers reading more than for you. Either way, I just wanted to add this thought to the conversation. ♥️

❤❤❤❤❤❤

Good!! I hope it stays this way forever! Antinatalism is the ethical position that views the birth of sentient beings as morally wrong. The justifications are: harm/suffering prevention, the questionable nature of gambling with another life, & the impossibility of consent to be born. - No one has the moral right to inflict serious, preventable harms upon others without their consent. Existence brings preventable, guaranteed harm & is imposed without consent. Because a child cannot consent to being born, the default should be to assume that consent doesn’t exist and that no action should be taken on the child’s behalf. Just like how it’s not okay to r@pe an unconscious person just because they can’t consent to or refuse to participate in the act. - Everyone experiences at least some suffering, and some people experience disproportionately more suffering than others. Creating a life is inherently unfair & inconsiderate. - Everyone has the rights to eternal peace & the freedom from all harm, both of which can only result from never coming into existence. Therefore, every human being has the right to NOT be born so long as they can’t waive their rights by providing informed consent to being born. Procreation is the biggest violation of a being’s autonomy there is. - An opinion being “negative” doesn’t make it untrue. On the contrary, it’s realistic as suffering is inevitable, & it’s impossible for someone to consent to life. - Procreation is simply not anyone’s risk to take because they won’t be the ones suffering any negative consequences of their decision to procreate-their children will. - By procreating, you are intentionally harming your “loved ones” for your own selfish desires to attain a sense of control, purpose, fulfillment, pride, achievement, or superior social status. - There’s no reason to create a child that’s for the child’s sake. For a potential child, birth doesn’t solve any problem that it doesn’t first create. All positives in life, such as love, happiness, or good food are based on fulfilling needs, which get created by birth. Creating a life is creating a host of needs for no need. - A nonexistent “person” cannot miss out on anything good since they don’t exist & the nonexistent have no needs or desires, including the desire for life itself or any of its pleasures. - For the betterment of humans, the environment, & other sentient beings, humans need to go extinct. No one is being harmed by the extinction of humans since no one will exist to experience said harm. Who will care that humanity is ending if no one is around to care? - On the point directly above: Just because an outcome may be unwanted doesn't mean that the arguments are wrong. Even if you believe extinction is inherently bad, this does not justify the undeniable truth that reproduction violates the child’s consent to being born. This is an appeal to consequences, a logical fallacy. - Just because procreation is natural & societally accepted doesn’t mean it’s morally good. Diseases, natural disasters, & famine are all natural too, but that doesn’t mean they’re good. This is an appeal to nature, a logical fallacy. Slavery has been around for over 13,000 years. That doesn’t make it moral or ethical. - None of the nonexistent can wish to be born, but plenty of the living wish they had never existed.

Please don’t give up! 😢 your making me cry, I badly want children and everyone around me is getting pregnant but me …. Happy for them! But I get so down hoping one day it’s me!

Such good news! Please give up for the sake of your unborn children. Antinatalism is the ethical position that views the birth of sentient beings as morally wrong. The justifications are: harm/suffering prevention, the questionable nature of gambling with another life, & the impossibility of consent to be born. - No one has the moral right to inflict serious, preventable harms upon others without their consent. Existence brings preventable, guaranteed harm & is imposed without consent. Because a child cannot consent to being born, the default should be to assume that consent doesn’t exist and that no action should be taken on the child’s behalf. Just like how it’s not okay to r@pe an unconscious person just because they can’t consent to or refuse to participate in the act. - Everyone experiences at least some suffering, and some people experience disproportionately more suffering than others. Creating a life is inherently unfair & inconsiderate. - Everyone has the rights to eternal peace & the freedom from all harm, both of which can only result from never coming into existence. Therefore, every human being has the right to NOT be born so long as they can’t waive their rights by providing informed consent to being born. Procreation is the biggest violation of a being’s autonomy there is. - An opinion being “negative” doesn’t make it untrue. On the contrary, it’s realistic as suffering is inevitable, & it’s impossible for someone to consent to life. - Procreation is simply not anyone’s risk to take because they won’t be the ones suffering any negative consequences of their decision to procreate-their children will. - By procreating, you are intentionally harming your “loved ones” for your own selfish desires to attain a sense of control, purpose, fulfillment, pride, achievement, or superior social status. - There’s no reason to create a child that’s for the child’s sake. For a potential child, birth doesn’t solve any problem that it doesn’t first create. All positives in life, such as love, happiness, or good food are based on fulfilling needs, which get created by birth. Creating a life is creating a host of needs for no need. - A nonexistent “person” cannot miss out on anything good since they don’t exist & the nonexistent have no needs or desires, including the desire for life itself or any of its pleasures. - For the betterment of humans, the environment, & other sentient beings, humans need to go extinct. No one is being harmed by the extinction of humans since no one will exist to experience said harm. Who will care that humanity is ending if no one is around to care? - On the point directly above: Just because an outcome may be unwanted doesn't mean that the arguments are wrong. Even if you believe extinction is inherently bad, this does not justify the undeniable truth that reproduction violates the child’s consent to being born. This is an appeal to consequences, a logical fallacy. - Just because procreation is natural & societally accepted doesn’t mean it’s morally good. Diseases, natural disasters, & famine are all natural too, but that doesn’t mean they’re good. This is an appeal to nature, a logical fallacy. Slavery has been around for over 13,000 years. That doesn’t make it moral or ethical. - None of the nonexistent can wish to be born, but plenty of the living wish they had never existed.

Same here miscarriage back in 2021 and then a friend just told me she’s having a baby, happy for her but sad because seems like I’ll never get what I want 😢

Good!! I hope it stays this way forever! Antinatalism is the ethical position that views the birth of sentient beings as morally wrong. The justifications are: harm/suffering prevention, the questionable nature of gambling with another life, & the impossibility of consent to be born. - No one has the moral right to inflict serious, preventable harms upon others without their consent. Existence brings preventable, guaranteed harm & is imposed without consent. Because a child cannot consent to being born, the default should be to assume that consent doesn’t exist and that no action should be taken on the child’s behalf. Just like how it’s not okay to r@pe an unconscious person just because they can’t consent to or refuse to participate in the act. - Everyone experiences at least some suffering, and some people experience disproportionately more suffering than others. Creating a life is inherently unfair & inconsiderate. - Everyone has the rights to eternal peace & the freedom from all harm, both of which can only result from never coming into existence. Therefore, every human being has the right to NOT be born so long as they can’t waive their rights by providing informed consent to being born. Procreation is the biggest violation of a being’s autonomy there is. - An opinion being “negative” doesn’t make it untrue. On the contrary, it’s realistic as suffering is inevitable, & it’s impossible for someone to consent to life. - Procreation is simply not anyone’s risk to take because they won’t be the ones suffering any negative consequences of their decision to procreate-their children will. - By procreating, you are intentionally harming your “loved ones” for your own selfish desires to attain a sense of control, purpose, fulfillment, pride, achievement, or superior social status. - There’s no reason to create a child that’s for the child’s sake. For a potential child, birth doesn’t solve any problem that it doesn’t first create. All positives in life, such as love, happiness, or good food are based on fulfilling needs, which get created by birth. Creating a life is creating a host of needs for no need. - A nonexistent “person” cannot miss out on anything good since they don’t exist & the nonexistent have no needs or desires, including the desire for life itself or any of its pleasures. - For the betterment of humans, the environment, & other sentient beings, humans need to go extinct. No one is being harmed by the extinction of humans since no one will exist to experience said harm. Who will care that humanity is ending if no one is around to care? - On the point directly above: Just because an outcome may be unwanted doesn't mean that the arguments are wrong. Even if you believe extinction is inherently bad, this does not justify the undeniable truth that reproduction violates the child’s consent to being born. This is an appeal to consequences, a logical fallacy. - Just because procreation is natural & societally accepted doesn’t mean it’s morally good. Diseases, natural disasters, & famine are all natural too, but that doesn’t mean they’re good. This is an appeal to nature, a logical fallacy. Slavery has been around for over 13,000 years. That doesn’t make it moral or ethical. - None of the nonexistent can wish to be born, but plenty of the living wish they had never existed.

True, but it is not as easy as many people think. In my country, there are 10 times more couples who want to adopt than children who can be adopted. Even getting licensed to be allowed to adopt sometimes takes many years. Mostly, it takes around a year. Afterwards, you can try International adoption which is extremely expensive (20.000 to 40.000 Euros) and again, takes a very long time

So insensitive

@@aminahhadi6536 Antinatalism is the ethical position that views the birth of sentient beings as morally wrong. The justifications are: harm/suffering prevention, the questionable nature of gambling with another life, & the impossibility of consent to be born. - No one has the moral right to inflict serious, preventable harms upon others without their consent. Existence brings preventable, guaranteed harm & is imposed without consent. Because a child cannot consent to being born, the default should be to assume that consent doesn’t exist and that no action should be taken on the child’s behalf. Just like how it’s not okay to r@pe an unconscious person just because they can’t consent to or refuse to participate in the act. - Everyone experiences at least some suffering, and some people experience disproportionately more suffering than others. Creating a life is inherently unfair & inconsiderate. - Everyone has the rights to eternal peace & the freedom from all harm, both of which can only result from never coming into existence. Therefore, every human being has the right to NOT be born so long as they can’t waive their rights by providing informed consent to being born. Procreation is the biggest violation of a being’s autonomy there is. - An opinion being “negative” doesn’t make it untrue. On the contrary, it’s realistic as suffering is inevitable, & it’s impossible for someone to consent to life. - Procreation is simply not anyone’s risk to take because they won’t be the ones suffering any negative consequences of their decision to procreate-their children will. - By procreating, you are intentionally harming your “loved ones” for your own selfish desires to attain a sense of control, purpose, fulfillment, pride, achievement, or superior social status. - There’s no reason to create a child that’s for the child’s sake. For a potential child, birth doesn’t solve any problem that it doesn’t first create. All positives in life, such as love, happiness, or good food are based on fulfilling needs, which get created by birth. Creating a life is creating a host of needs for no need. - A nonexistent “person” cannot miss out on anything good since they don’t exist & the nonexistent have no needs or desires, including the desire for life itself or any of its pleasures. - For the betterment of humans, the environment, & other sentient beings, humans need to go extinct. No one is being harmed by the extinction of humans since no one will exist to experience said harm. Who will care that humanity is ending if no one is around to care? - On the point directly above: Just because an outcome may be unwanted doesn't mean that the arguments are wrong. Even if you believe extinction is inherently bad, this does not justify the undeniable truth that reproduction violates the child’s consent to being born. This is an appeal to consequences, a logical fallacy. - Just because procreation is natural & societally accepted doesn’t mean it’s morally good. Diseases, natural disasters, & famine are all natural too, but that doesn’t mean they’re good. This is an appeal to nature, a logical fallacy. Slavery has been around for over 13,000 years. That doesn’t make it moral or ethical. - None of the nonexistent can wish to be born, but plenty of the living wish they had never existed.

Will that miraculously take their pain away?

works for me and my wife and we are enjoying life while going thru IVF.

What are the different ways apart from adoption that you know that doctors don't.

You’re either to young to understand or too bitter and hurt to accept it if you’re asking why people want to fulfill the literal meaning of their biological existence

@@19382q Antinatalism is the ethical position that views the birth of sentient beings as morally wrong. The justifications are: harm/suffering prevention, the questionable nature of gambling with another life, & the impossibility of consent to be born. - No one has the moral right to inflict serious, preventable harms upon others without their consent. Existence brings preventable, guaranteed harm & is imposed without consent. Because a child cannot consent to being born, the default should be to assume that consent doesn’t exist and that no action should be taken on the child’s behalf. Just like how it’s not okay to r@pe an unconscious person just because they can’t consent to or refuse to participate in the act. - Everyone experiences at least some suffering, and some people experience disproportionately more suffering than others. Creating a life is inherently unfair & inconsiderate. - Everyone has the rights to eternal peace & the freedom from all harm, both of which can only result from never coming into existence. Therefore, every human being has the right to NOT be born so long as they can’t waive their rights by providing informed consent to being born. Procreation is the biggest violation of a being’s autonomy there is. - An opinion being “negative” doesn’t make it untrue. On the contrary, it’s realistic as suffering is inevitable, & it’s impossible for someone to consent to life. - Procreation is simply not anyone’s risk to take because they won’t be the ones suffering any negative consequences of their decision to procreate-their children will. - By procreating, you are intentionally harming your “loved ones” for your own selfish desires to attain a sense of control, purpose, fulfillment, pride, achievement, or superior social status. - There’s no reason to create a child that’s for the child’s sake. For a potential child, birth doesn’t solve any problem that it doesn’t first create. All positives in life, such as love, happiness, or good food are based on fulfilling needs, which get created by birth. Creating a life is creating a host of needs for no need. - A nonexistent “person” cannot miss out on anything good since they don’t exist & the nonexistent have no needs or desires, including the desire for life itself or any of its pleasures. - For the betterment of humans, the environment, & other sentient beings, humans need to go extinct. No one is being harmed by the extinction of humans since no one will exist to experience said harm. Who will care that humanity is ending if no one is around to care? - On the point directly above: Just because an outcome may be unwanted doesn't mean that the arguments are wrong. Even if you believe extinction is inherently bad, this does not justify the undeniable truth that reproduction violates the child’s consent to being born. This is an appeal to consequences, a logical fallacy. - Just because procreation is natural & societally accepted doesn’t mean it’s morally good. Diseases, natural disasters, & famine are all natural too, but that doesn’t mean they’re good. This is an appeal to nature, a logical fallacy. Slavery has been around for over 13,000 years. That doesn’t make it moral or ethical. - None of the nonexistent can wish to be born, but plenty of the living wish they had never existed.

The yearning for children is like the urge to eat when hungry and the craving for sleep when tired. It's a deep deep seated desire down to the molecular level. Only biology can explain it.

@@life_is_the_proof_of_godSure the biological drive to have children makes sense but from a logical standpoint I don’t see why people would want them.

@@19382qI think there is significantly more to life than just reproducing. People are more than just their biological desires.

There are not a lot of available infants. There are not kids just waiting a building to be picked up by couples. Anyone can foster single, married with or without kids. Those are temporary placements while parents recover from what issue is happening to them. Donor sperm, donor embryo, staying childless..

Then help all the infertile people find an child to adopt seeing it's so easy.

@@kristinesharp6286those aren’t temporary replacements? If that couple truly wants kids they won’t care if it’s biological or not? Adoption kids are not temporary

@@eklei2025 I adopted. Yes I know. I said fostering is temporary. My point to the original commenter is that there are not a lot of kids needing parents. Certainly not a lot of babies under 2. The spanish flu is not a pandemic taking people in their 30’s with small kids left behind. We don’t take infants from never married or abandoned women anymore. Those kids grew up and told us to stop that. You realize most the kids in orphanages overseas are not really in orphanages. They have a living parent or relative. They just like to set up feeding centers to give kids food and school without enriching and feeding their parent. So those numbers are off, meant to fund raise. If she has no issue go with donor sperm. They are more likely to end up parents. I’m still livid on their behalf they didn’t test him years ago. It’s the first thing, they do the sperm count and the dye test/blood work on her for hormones. Honestly.

@@kristinesharp6286 ooo makes sense!! I’m adopted too, I lived in orphanage however had no family. Sorry I mistake your comment, i just hate how people say children who are adopted have it easy or their not really your child.

jello guys that does work my husband has the same problem and we had 2 kids the are in their 30 know the are serving this country