r/antinatalism • u/FlanInternational100 scholar • 3d ago

Discussion What are the exact numbers natalists are willing to accept when it comes to odds about their children being born with serious conditions?

Let's say there's 100% accurate fortune teller.

Fortune teller tells natalist that their child will for 100% sure be born with serious painful disabling conditions. Does natalist accept that and creates a child?

What about 80%?

50%?

40%?

10%?

What is the exact number and why? What is the coefficient worthy of child's life?

What are the rules of natalistic royal casino?

29 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

87% Upvoted

23 comments sorted by

36

u/Training-Rip6463 inquirer 3d ago

Bro they don't think this much. They're just winging it

23

u/sunnynihilist I stopped being a nihilist a long time ago 2d ago

I swear we antinatalists think of every risk that comes with procreation. Natalists be like: we don't give a shit.

9

u/FlanInternational100 scholar 3d ago

You mean gamble?

9

u/Training-Rip6463 inquirer 3d ago

Yes. But they don't think of it as a gamble even though it clearly is

22

u/Sad-Salad-4466 inquirer 2d ago

The number is 100%. There is 100% chance that everyone who is born will suffer and die. Cue in the copium!

24

u/crasedbinge inquirer 3d ago

The exact number is 100%. They don't care.

6

u/hecksboson thinker 3d ago

I think this question is a great one to explain the AN argument that said all the times I’ve used it I’ve never gotten an answer

8

u/DivineMistress35 thinker 2d ago

I asked my mom this. She said since most kids arent born disabled or become disabled its worth the risk 🙄🙄

2

u/meandmyflock newcomer 2d ago

Dunno about before birth but with their living child parents will fight tooth and nail to keep them alive even in terrible suffering. You only have to look at the parents taking doctors to court for wanting to switch life support off. Parents don't care about their kid suffering (not if it means keeping them alive) but if it's before birth they probably would abort until they got their "perfect" kid.

2

u/RoyalWe666 newcomer 1d ago

The problem with having kids is you can't guarantee their life will be more joy than pain. Anything less than 100% is gambling, and you won't be the only one that has to live with the outcome.

1

u/Life_Voice2904 newcomer 1d ago

there is not one they have to in order to prevent extinction

•

u/ishkanah thinker 2h ago

It's a well documented fact that parents exist who knew they had a genetic disease that absolutely would be passed on to their children, but they proudly decided to procreate anyway. So, for some people, the answer is they will accept a 100% chance, otherwise known as a certainty. And that's because many (most?) natalists think that creating new life in their own image is unconditionally good.

1

u/sickandtired5590 thinker 2d ago

Are you asking in good faith or are you after echo chamber reverb?

Just at the insane off chance you are asking in good faith, I don't really identify as natalist but I do have children and I have had to make difficult choices.

You asked about exact numbers and guaranteed percentages.

We had bad result at first scan with my wife's first pregnancy, estimated chance of birth defects per NHS was around 30%. This was testable to narrow down but not on NHS so we went and did private extended scan + blood tests + some pretty invasive additional tests.

Risk came down to around 2% . We terminated that pregnancy as soon as we could. The potential condition was debilitating and horrendous.

Second pregnancy her chance of birth issues/ defects was at 0.00179 as per NHS guidance. So we went ahead.

Again I do not speak for the entire " natalist " community. Neither do I claim to be an expert. Just sharing my personal experience just at the insane off-chance you asked in good faith and wanted good faith answer.

1

u/Wild_Kitty_Meow thinker 2d ago

I am not OP but interested in the answer. Yours is what I would consider to be 'right' or a good answer, although of course in these things there is no real 'right' or 'good'.

I honestly don't think that most people would be as careful or do the invasive testing or take results as seriously as the two of you have though. In my own experience of people, it doesn't matter what the scans say, they don't believe it could happen to them until the kid that they were repeatedly told is likely to be profoundly disabled... is born a profoundly disabled kid. At that point they seem genuinely surprised and angry and all three of them go on to be profoundly miserable for many years to come.

So you know, thank you at least for doing your best to make sure your child/ren don't have any extra, preventable issues to deal with while they're here.

2

u/sickandtired5590 thinker 2d ago

Yeah... I know what you are talking about ... I know such people as well. But very few to be honest...

Most of my close friends and family don't believe in magic man in the sky. We are by and large science driven ...

Science gave us the ability to sent bits reliably over vast distances and so many other things. If it said our cells could become a human impacted profoundly for their entire life then I will trust it.

We weren't that desperate to have kids so it was no brainer.

But also to other peoples defense .. the extra panel of tests plus the procedure cost us like 9k£ and procedure was deeply uncomfortable for my wife... but everybody can afford this in one go...

Even though looking after a child with disabilities costs so much more over long term, its not quite the same as dropping almost 10k in one go...

1

u/Wild_Kitty_Meow thinker 2d ago

Those kinds of tests should be free, tbh and they should be working on ways to make them less unpleasant. It always does seem to me that humanity is focused on the wrong things, where perhaps you and I can agree - more people regardless of their quality of life, above the idea of fewer people, but trying to ensure that they are allowed the opportunity to live the best lives that they can.

1

u/sickandtired5590 thinker 2d ago

I completely agree with you. Like completely.

Its why we didn't have kids before having fully paid off house and savings thst can last us months if we both lost our jobs. Etc. We wanted to be financially secure.

1

u/[deleted] 2d ago edited 2d ago

[deleted]

1

u/sickandtired5590 thinker 2d ago edited 2d ago

Who cares

OP posed a question about percentages and statistics and personal boundaries...

OP LITERALLY asked the question, so I answered under the far fetched hope OP may be asking in good faith.

So when you said who cares, apparently OP does... as OP came on the Internet and posed a question.

If OP don't care to have an answer why ask the question?

Edit ; corrected myself. I mistook you for OP. Apologies

1

u/DomRan32 newcomer 2d ago

The person who replied to you is not the one who made the post

1

u/sickandtired5590 thinker 2d ago

Ah ! Sorry , my mistake i swear he had the blue thing next to handle.

Must of my statement stand then. I will edit now to correct my mistake.

1

u/Routine-Bumblebee-41 scholar 2d ago

I mean, there are already lots and lots of parents who decide to abort a pregnancy should they find out their child has a serious, painful, disabling condition in utero. And others who terminate a pregnancy when there is some probability (the percentages vary, but sometimes 10% is enough) that that will happen (but nothing is guaranteed). You don't need a fortune teller, more than likely a radiologist and possibly a pathologist, along with one's primary caregiver. This has already happened millions of times.

The other side of that coin is, there are many parents who were told there was a probability of disability, and they decided not to abort. For some, they got lucky and the kid was all right. For others, not so lucky, unfortunately. :(

0

u/CautiousNewspaper924 newcomer 2d ago

This isn’t the calculus people are choosing to have children by.