Report Blog Entry
Before I give my take on anti-natalism, I wish to kindly make a request to my audience. Please do not harass any of the people that I mention in my commentary. The conversation needs to be kept civil at all costs. This article is meant to be a critique of another person’s views, not an attack on anyone’s character.
On the third of January, 2026, I had a conversation with my friend Starchild on the Libertarian Socialist Commune Discord server. In that conversation, we had a debate about anti-natalism. In that conversation, Starchild told me that it is irresponsible for people with severe disabilities to reproduce.
When he said that, I was shocked because the logic behind his anti-natalist stances sounded like a rebranded form of eugenics to me, but Starchild insisted that it wasn’t eugenics or otherwise a case of advocacy for restrictions on reproductive rights in any way.
So I asked him, “Do you believe reproduction is a basic human right, or is it a privilege that society should grant conditionally?”
To which Starchild replied, “Well, first off, reproduction isn’t a basic human right, as you seem to quite literally boil everything down to reformation and economics. Which, honestly, sometimes you remind me of Bernie Sanders more than anything, and if you want to know how much he’s worth, the guy’s actually a racist. He literally has the same policies regarding immigration as MAGA.”
I was confused by this comment. What do Bernie Sanders and his immigration policies have to do with reproductive rights? Needless to say, this was the most confusing part of Starchild’s debate with me that stood out.
Starchild further continued, “But that’s not even the point. You assume that all disabilities or even people’s capabilities can be boiled down to nothing to worry about or just minor quirks, which honestly is quite ableist.”
Okay, I need to clarify some things. I am under no illusion that people’s disabilities are nothing to worry about, nor do I see them as just minor quirks. I live with OCD, and my quality of life is poor because of it. That being said, I see no legitimate reason to believe that disabled people cannot be competent parents who genuinely love their children, especially when most children born to disabled parents go on to exist without disabilities themselves. Disqualifying disabled people from having children when the genetics for disabilities are found in all known humans and are rarely heritable is an arbitrary practice, but I digress.
Starchild finally closed his comment by saying, “Again, there are people who really shouldn’t be having kids (such as those with severe disabilities or no social support system); this isn’t something you’re going to get me to change my mind on, and as you’ll find, I’m not the only one in the server to share this opinion.”
So I studied his comment and replied, “I just looked at your comment carefully. Your core argument is that people who have severe disabilities or no social support system are unfit to have children.”
I then asked, “How would you define terms like ‘severe,’ ‘too disabled,’ ‘too unsupported,’ or ‘shouldn’t reproduce’ in a non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary way?”
Finally, I closed my reply with, “I thought we could all agree that disabled people are full moral agents, that risk is not the same as unfitness, and that support deficits are social failures rather than personal disqualifications.”
Starchild then replied, “When you have, like, Down syndrome, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, etc., or are, like, in a wheelchair, not to mention are on welfare, have no family or friends, etc.”
He then further continued his commentary and said, “I think you’re too quick to write off how devastating being a caretaker and being disabled can be.”
Finally, he closed his statements with, “You’re actually quite ableist, to be clearly honest. I’m going to mute you, as you don’t seem like someone arguing in good faith at all.”
Starchild then muted me and later unmuted me, only to ban me from his Discord server shortly after I let him know that I couldn’t continue the conversation because it was getting too emotionally charged and was crossing an ethical line that I was unwilling to cross.
“Oh, but Zigzag,” I hear you say. “Starchild doesn’t represent all anti-natalists. Real anti-natalism isn’t a form of rebranded eugenics but a moral philosophy against reproduction itself that applies universally to the human race rather than in a selective fashion like eugenics does.”
Well, I have bad news for you, my dear anti-natalist friend. Even when anti-natalism is applied universally rather than in a selective fashion, it still has the same problem that actual eugenics has.
It places the burden of addressing suffering on the victims of suffering by shaming them for what is essentially normal human behavior instead of placing the burden of addressing suffering on the unjust power structures where it rightfully belongs.
That is not a moral philosophy. That’s social coercion by another name. That social coercion does not need direct advocacy for sterilization policies to be an attack on people’s bodily autonomy. It just needs to frame people’s exercise of bodily autonomy as inherently immoral when that exercise of bodily autonomy doesn’t actually lead to human suffering all by itself.
Not only does that framework result in poor and marginalized people feeling pressure the most, wealthy people who don’t have disabilities can still ignore or work around it, so you have a system that penalizes the oppressed just for existing while letting the oppressors who mistreat them get off scot-free. It’s an inherently unjust framework.
I hope that I have made myself easy to understand. Shout-out to Angela Baker, the host of the “Parkrose Permaculture” YouTube channel, for inspiring me to write this SpaceHey article!
Comments
Displaying 17 of 17 comments ( View all | Add Comment )
Dana Scully
100% agree with you on this one -- Starchild's view is ironically one of the most ableist I've seen in this particular context, and it definitely smells of eugenics, considering that one of the pillars of eugenics in practice is preventing "the undesirables" from having kids. While I agree that SOME disabilities make it an *unwise decision* to have kids, I would never say a group of people "shouldn't" have kids or be restricted from having kids, that's just ridiculous.
The fact that they consider anyone wheelchair-bound to be in that category is wild. Many people in wheelchairs are perfectly capable of living full lives and caring for others. Some may not even need a wheelchair all the time.
Like I said before, it’s one thing to advocate for people to have the right to be child-free; it’s another thing to shame people for wanting to have children.
Starchild’s whole characterization of my perspective as ableist is backwards, and it does more to close off the futures of people with disabilities than anything that I could ever say.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
MonCarnifex
My perspective on this is reduced to a simple phrase: "Nobody knows where they might end up".
You could say that about anybody.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
Exactly. You never know how things might end up like. One day you might suffer an accident which will leave you paralyzed.
It's pretty much like people who say that poor people shouldn't have kids.
Sometimes it's just not your decision.
by MonCarnifex; ; Report
Honestly, it says a lot about a man’s character when he judges people for having normal human desires.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
Neko Catboi
anti natalism is like veganism, its a personal choice that you make. there are vegans who cant seem to understand that the consumers are not the reason behind factory farms, just like how having kids doesnt cause the corporate hellscape that we live in
and for the record, starchild is objectively not antinatalist and is a eugenicist, you should not have titled this blog post like it was about antinatalism and then dedicate the vast majority of it to an argument you had with some libertarian lol
The biggest problem that I have with Starchild’s application of anti-natalism is that he shames people for normal human behavior.
That’s not libertarianism.
That’s authoritarianism.
I think I just witnessed my friend fall down an alt-right pipeline.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
Ivy
I'm a bit confused by the argument and even though I'm new to the idea of anti-natalism I can tell that Starchild somehow confused the concept of not bringing new life into this world with eugenics. Even though I must say that I agree with the idead that people that can't support or raise a child -wether it's due to a disability or the financial situation- shouldn't reproduce. I feel like they phrased it wrong and came of as ableist. Even though I dont want to defend them of course!
The problem is that even in the best-case scenario where anti-natalism is applied universally rather than in a selective fashion, it still has the same problem that actual eugenics has.
It places the burden of addressing suffering on the victims of suffering by shaming them for what is essentially normal human behavior instead of placing the burden of addressing suffering on the unjust power structures where it rightfully belongs.
That kind of thinking is no better than what Gary Yourofsky did to a small ferret farm.
True revolutionaries need to look at the big picture and target unjust systems rather than individuals within a civil society.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
oldoldmold
Starchild sounds like a really difficult person to talk to, let alone try to have a conversation with.
Anyways, I agree with your take. I think positions like anti-natalism, anti-waste, and even atheism, just to name the first few that came to mind, are privileged positions to be able to have. And, because they are privileged positions, they can be harmful when used to argue against the existence or rights of an out-group.
Anti-natalism, specifically, is a privileged belief to have. I really struggle with the morality of personally bringing a child into an uncertain and seemingly self-destructing world, but I struggle to understand those who can rationalize applying their anti-natalist beliefs to others. ESPECIALLY to marginalized people. To me, it lacks empathy and is blind to the eugenics of deciding who or who is not fit to have a child.
When it comes to people with disabilities, one of my biggest concerns is that of consent. It's not a concern I can easily define nor can it be applied to a disabled population broadly. I feel that there is a level of responsibility that we must take when it comes to making sure that an individual is able to cognitively consent to reproduction and, in the case of women, pregnancy. But, I think this is a reasonable concern that isn't necessarily about the morality of a disabled person reproducing, but more about the safety and autonomy of the disabled individual.
I can't imagine favoring sterilization of ANY individual. It is so anti-humanist and, again, privileged! It's a bit baffling and I have delated so much of what I have typed already because it feels so redundant and obvious.
Black and white thinking is unproductive. Like you said, it's the system that is broken, not the individual. Sure, an individual can make the decision to not have a child if they feel that is the moral thing to do, but that will not solve the problems of the world. The power we have as individuals comes from our collective control over the systems that govern us and define our societies.
Of course we're still figuring out how to wrangle that one....
Anyways, I hope Starchild can admit to the nuance to these situations and make room for the gray areas. And also do something like volunteer their time to food banks and programs for kids where an actual difference can be made.... lol
Now that’s what I call big picture thinking!
I just wish that more leftists had this kind of perspective.
It seems that so many leftists are blind to their own privilege.
For your information, Starchild is a white man who’s one year younger than me.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
sklir
woah, people with e p i l e p s y shouldnt have children?? this person is on something... either way I 100% agree with you, and Im heavily against anti natalism as a whole...
Yeah, Starchild’s comments still sound unhinged to me when I look back and think about what he actually said that day.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
badassatron bumblebee
hmm, you kept the debate rather respectful and starchild seemed to keep jumping to conclusions xd i let out a chuckle when they referenced you to someone as a defense , i found it pretty random hh
Yeah, comparing me to Bernie Sanders isn’t the flex that he thinks it is. The fact that he resorted to a talking point like that says a lot more about him than he realizes.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
winterjadeꫂ
yea i get your point but i just dont know where starchild's arguments came from
most anti-natalists i know are quite moderate so they are quite against pressuring poor people a lot but still
It’s the same mentality behind Gary Yourofsky’s acts of vandalism against a small ferret farm. Extremism like that happens when activists begin targeting individuals in the name of targeting systems, and that is a big no-no for me.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
Jackdaw
tbh i read your blog with a misunderstanding of what the word anti-natalist meant and found myself, with pleasant surprise, agreeing with you. there's been a worrying rise of what i would like to think of as very outdated forms of thinking on the internet recently - the fact that eugenics is making a 'comeback' is truly dire.
What’s worse is that eugenics ideology is no longer the domain of obvious far-right circles.
It has become so pervasive online that it has even managed to infect leftist spaces.
What makes anti-natalism so unjust is that it places the burden of addressing suffering on the victims of suffering by shaming them for what is essentially normal human behavior instead of placing the burden of addressing suffering on the unjust power structures where it rightfully belongs.
Not enough people are pointing out this fact.
That’s not being woke; that’s being asleep to reality.
Angela Baker made two videos about anti-natalism being a form of rebranded eugenics here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnhr8-kwnYY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv4WMvxb-gA
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
yeah ive heard some reallyyy weird takes in leftist circles, especially online. even my friends have said stuff that I need to take two steps back from sometimes, it's a little scary
by Jackdaw; ; Report
I wish my fellow leftists online could see the big picture for once.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
oh absolutely, and the complete refusal to even consider compromise gets on my nerves. that and the constant whataboutism.
by Jackdaw; ; Report
I once assumed that Starchild was more willing to compromise just because he was not a tankie.
Boy, was I wrong!
I guess the fact that he welcomed tankies in his server was a red flag (no pun intended) all along.
I can work with anarchists, but I cannot work with anarchists who normalize the ideas of authoritarians by platforming them.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
gabobo
barely ever heard of anti-natalism before, i cant believe people actually take it seriously lol. look at japan, its literally going to collapse in a few years because people arent having kids, thus forcing people to work for their whole life. if everyone stopped having kids even for a couple years the effects would be detrimental for humanity later on. its just a stupid ideology tbh
not to mention that believing in reproduction not being a basic human right and impeding disabled people to reproduce for the off chance that their kids are born disabled too is the simplest form of eugenics. those ppl need to go back to the real world LMAO
by gabobo; ; Report
The whole concept of anti-natalism is an unjust idea.
It places the burden of addressing suffering on the victims of suffering by shaming them for what is essentially normal human behavior instead of placing the burden of addressing suffering on the unjust power structures where it rightfully belongs.
Too many people on the Far-Left like to target individuals in the name of targeting systems.
They don’t see the big picture, and that’s bad for the credibility of the Left as a whole, not to mention a recipe for converting socialists into fascists.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
garnilandline
i agree with you fully on this. even though i plan to not have kids cause i couldnt (in good faith) bring another child into this horrible world. thats just me tho, i still believe that reproduction is a basic human right and that everyone should be able to regardless of disability.
Thank you very much!
If you want to be child-free, you should have the freedom to make that choice.
Being child-free was never the real problem for me.
The real problem for me is shaming other people for reproducing while having disabilities.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
lola
the entire concept of anti natalism is frankly indefensible, lol! to claim that ANY demographic of people should not reproduce because of what, quality of life issues? you're claiming disabled people not only can't live happy and fulfilling lives, but shouldn't even be given a chance? literally WHAT? that person is deranged and you are not ableist
This. I just wish that my friend Starchild could see the big picture.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
gregorianne☾⁺₊✧
This is an excellent and thought provoking post. I'm currently deciding what i think abt kids myself, and i see that starchild really thinks his own choice is somehow the best and needs to be extended to the rest of people like him, because i almost fell into this trap myself. In the end, people who want kids shouldnt have to ask anyone, and even if you have a rough start in life, that doesent dictate 100% of your future satisfactions.
His rhetoric is still nonsensical bc 1) society cant even colectively decide basic things like who gets water and food, so trying to make laws like so would be insanity. 2) Kids can be born healthy, you dont really know until you see them.
I was wondering reading this, how do you aply your stance to pregnancy termination? Ive been grappling with this concept a lot, used to be on both sides.
Thanks for reading my comment!
I believe that a woman should have a right to choose what she wants to do with her own body.
Pregnancy termination should never be used as a tool of coercion.
Likewise, pregnancy itself should not be used as a tool for control.
Whether a woman wants to be pregnant or not, that should be up to her to decide.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
yes, thats the base statement, but for women who want to terminate bc the child has down syndrome for example, isnt the logic of your original post to be applied? I thought it was especially cruel to hear this argument
by gregorianne☾⁺₊✧; ; Report
Terminating a pregnancy specifically for the purpose of erasing neurodivergence is always a case of crossing an ethical line that should not be crossed.
That said, it’s still up to the pregnant woman at the end of the day.
It’s her pregnancy after all.
Personally, I feel that it would be most productive for us to make eugenics itself into a taboo rather than getting involved with women’s pregnancies directly in order to ensure that eugenics-based abortions are never normalized in our society.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
ZigZag,
would you consider it ethically wrong for a woman to terminate a pregnancy if she knew the child was genetically confirmed to have cerebral palsy? what about a genetic disorder that had a short life expectancy or an extremely low quality of life? I appreciate you adding that overall, it is a woman's choice and the argument should focus on steering away from eugenics. The advent of genetic editing science such as Crispr has disturbing implications when it comes to choosing features of your future child, especially if it comes to appearance; this should absolutely be condemned and is a form of eugenics. However, I myself would terminate a pregnancy if I knew my child would be born with extreme physical or intellectual impairment, which I believe can be distinguished from neurodivergence. I know this is somewhat of a controversial take in terms of severe cerebral palsy and I want to make it clear that I believe persons with CP are absolutely valuable and worthy human beings who have the right to exist and can live full and satisfying lives; however if I have the choice early in pregnancy I would choose for my child to not have the struggles that come along with that specific disability. I also think that as much as society needs to improve in terms of being a disability friendly space, those with extreme intellectual disorders will regardless have a lessened quality of life and struggle with difficult critical thinking and independent living, especially in the apocalyptic world we live in now. Let me know your thoughts. I am open to changing my opinion. I want to reiterate that I have nothing against those with genetic or intellectual disorders, nor do I think they are lesser humans in any way. I simply believe they have a lower quality of life through no fault of their own.
firefox
by firefoxthottie; ; Report
The problem with terminating pregnancies solely on disabilities is that it contributes to the stigmatizing environment that modern eugenics is trying to recreate.
It’s one thing to terminate a fetus that has no brain.
It’s another thing to terminate a fetus that has a different brain.
As for poor quality of life as a whole, that’s mainly a product of the social environment, so activism that addresses the social environment rather than curbing reproduction through selective abortions would just make more sense to implement.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
MJ
I somehow didnt realize that other people might have conceptualized what ive been telling myself since i was young: this world is too overpopulated and too shitty (war, restrictiions of freedom/rights, etc.) to bring new people in it. But having a belief shouldn't be forced on others and just bc Starchild thinks similarly doesn't mean we should grant or deny permission to reproduce to other people. I wont have kids of my own, but no way I'll force other to do the same.
The whole concept of reproduction being a bad thing is an ethically and morally repugnant worldview, to say the least.
It’s both very classist and very ableist at the same time.
It unfairly pressures individuals instead of systems.
Any worldview that targets individuals instead of systems always crosses a line for me.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
Prefacing my reply that I've very rarely expressed this opinion to others bc ik it's a sensitive one that impacts individual freedom, so im not an avid defender of it. More of a personal opinion on humanity in general.
Reproduction should never be a bad thing, of course. I totally get how it can so easily be used for any kind of extreme political agenda (cf the infamous German mustache man, or for weebs, literally Attack On Titan's final conflict).
Classist, ableist, homophobic, xenophobic, religion-that-isnt-the-majority-phobic, you name it.
Hadn't realized my wording could sound wrong, but im well aware and agreeing that it's mostly a system issue rather than individual one. My colleagues having children isn't the reason taxes, rent and grocery prices are rising. That's the government's problem (put aside the fact that our president literally asked the population to make more babies on live TV a while ago lol, called that "demographic re-arming"; but no one wants to bc of governmental failure to provide decent living conditions)
by MJ; ; Report
Your take on anti-natalism is one of the more reasonable takes that I’ve seen. The real problem that I have with anti-natalists is that their takes on reproduction are rather extreme.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
☆ angel ☆
prefacing my comment by emphasizing i am not combative as i agree with you. everything said is with intention to communicate clearly. :)
the perspective i bring includes living with multiple (diagnosed) disabilities that are genetic and living with the effects of low socioeconomic status. to put it plain, we were white trash. this lived experience have not made me anti-natalist but child-free by choice. i personally believe it is irresponsible to look around, see that you will not be able to provide adequate care for a child, and still choose to have one. i say "choose" deliberately in references to cases wherein these children are conceived with intention (as they should!).
i do not believe everyone is entitled to children or parenthood. if that were the case then i think that every human would have been born with the ability to reproduce. however, i do insist on one's access to bodily autonomy regardless of their level of ability. there will never be a day where i advocate for reproductive regulation as it cannot be wielded with integrity. after all, who is it that will be deciding who can or cannot have children? what qualifies someone as "too disabled?" i pray it isn't someone who answers the way your Starchild did. but there needs to be an interpersonal conversation had regarding an individual's responsibility to themselves and their children.
those of us who are child-free by choice due to this introspection could (and arguably should) be doing more as functional social support as opposed to shaming others. whether that looks like fighting for strengthened social safety nets, offering skill services, etc. is up to the individual case. this is a long way of saying that i fully agree with you. shaming poor people for doing what rich folk are doing without repercussion (and in fact being praised for) is only enforcing what They want: for poor and disabled people to lead miserable lives until they eventually die off. as community members, we are not here to shame one another but to support. why do the antagonist's job for them?
apologies if this was too long-winded or nonsensical. i came across your post as i was preparing to log off for the night. thank you for sharing this, i hope others read and take something from what you wrote.
This is a very well-thought-out response! I value this kind of feedback very much! 👍
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
6ami
I don't really have anything to add, but everything I've read seems incredible. Your perspective is amazing, considering how vague my understanding of the topic was. I will definitely look into it further.
Thanks for the feedback! If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
RoseRiffVee₊⟡击
I agree with the fact that people should have the freedom to reproduce however they want, but I'm confused about some things..
If people below the poverty line want to have kids, shouldn't they think about the possible outcomes? Like if they're already struggling, wouldn't having a child would add on to their financial burden? And the child/ren would have to face life with hardship as well.
And analyzing whatever star said, they should've mentioned WHY they're an anti-natalist? Like some people may have this belief after considering the human population, that as we all know, is growing at a fast rate.. leading to dense populations in many areas..
India and China's populations are the largest, so that fact might be ONE of the reasons why some people don't want others reproducing.. must feel chaotic and messy to them.
I don't entirely disagree with this though, but I don't know what to think anymore.
(Sorry for bad english)
First of all, people who live in poverty rarely have full control over becoming poor and staying poor.
Economic shocks, war, discrimination, disabilities, and personal tragedies can all lead you to experiencing poverty through absolutely no fault of your own.
Second, overpopulation is a known myth that has roots in white supremacy and colonial thinking.
Just the very discussion of countries in the global South like India and China in the topic of overpopulation is already a racist dog whistle that should be raising alarms.
Overpopulation isn’t the real problem we face in our modern society.
The real problem is that resources are overproduced and poorly distributed to the human population because of corporate greed in the form of financial profits being the number one priority in business.
As for Starchild himself, I knew him for a while before he banned me from his Discord server.
I know that he’s a child-free man by choice who also happens to live with autism, ADHD, and OCD.
He’s a neurodivergent man who’s child-free because he finds caring for children to be a task that’s too daunting for him to take on.
That’s a choice that he has a right to decide for himself, but my problem with him is that he judges people as immoral for wanting to have kids.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
wait so if a chinese man was bothered by so many people reproducing in his own country, would that be racism towards his own country's people?
by RoseRiffVee₊⟡击; ; Report
People of color can be convinced by white supremacists to curb the growth of their own community’s population.
That’s how India had forced sterilization programs.
China right now is suffering long-term ramifications from the one-child policy.
And yes, the one-child policy is a direct result of the racist overpopulation myth being exported overseas.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report
zigzag,
I think stating overpopulation is a white supremacist myth is untrue and a bit of black and white thinking. While I agree that the biggest problem is poor resource distribution as well as waste and gluttony in the global north, overpopulation is most definitely a concern. The fact is that we live in the world we live in and while we should work to change that, logically providing birth control/prevention (condoms, access to abortion, the pill etc.) and education worldwide, especially in countries like Africa and the global south should be advocated for. However unfair and heartbreaking, the reality is that many mothers in the global south do not have the resources to take care of the number of children they are having, through no fault of their own; they also in many cases lack consent, education, and birth control. I believe it is logical to focus on this more manageable problem of access to birth control rather than the monstrosity of the problem of resource and wealth disparity. Systems of power and control are notoriously difficult to overthrow. Even if countries in the global north weren't hoarding resources, the planet simply cannot support the immense population growth we currently are experiencing. Agricultural issues such as drought, factory farming and its methane production, rising sea levels and environmental changes causing many areas in the world to become unlivable, urban overcrowding-- all of these issues would still exist even if we lived in a world where humans weren't selfish, colonialist, white supremacist etc. I think believing we could address resource disparity as an argument against overpopulation being a problem is slightly naive and idealistic. Let me know what you think.
firefox
by firefoxthottie; ; Report
Most of the problems that you talk about are systemic phenomena that cannot be addressed through individual actions alone.
While I agree that access to birth control should be more accessible for humanity as a whole, the biggest problem that I have with anti-natalism is that it places the burden of addressing suffering on the victims of suffering by shaming them for what is essentially normal human behavior instead of placing the burden of addressing suffering on the unjust power structures where it rightfully belongs.
I am well aware of the fact that systems of power and control are difficult to address, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try.
Systemic problems require systemic solutions.
by Zigzag Buster 🇺🇦; ; Report