Venting Procreation is utterly repulsive and the cause of all problems

[SilentSadness]

Procreation is extremely evil. Lots of people will fight me over this if they have children or have a good relationship with their parents but at the end of the day there is no excuse for procreation. Suicide would never be needed if people didn't selfishly have children, no one would experience any suffering and there would be no conflict or injustice. Most people are against murder but really procreation is more harmful, plus every murderer was the result of procreation. The only reason most people worship procreation is because that's how natural selection works, the people who hate it die off and those who don't continue to have children. Living is a curse that's extremely difficult to get rid of because it only takes two people to continue the nightmare. If people were logical, procreation would be a horrendous crime resulting in prison time at least. Instead, even those who abuse their own children are paradoxically forgiven and praised. This is the most hopeless situation possible in my opinion, there is no chance to make this right. The suffering and injustice is self-reinforcing and self-preserving.

 

[LastLoveSong]

i would agree, the problem is that i wonder if this were to become a widely agreed upon opinion would humanity then fall apart? Because we're slaves to our own system. But im of the same thought as you that humanity is basically just a never ending trauma cycle

 

[dust-in-the-wind]

I'm a 55f that consciously chose not to have children. My parents also sucked as well. But "normal" people who are raised in a loving environment see things very differently than we do. Some people actually become suicidal if they can't have children.

 

[coolgal82]

L mentality tbh. not everyone has a terrible life, its not inherently evil to have kids its not like theyre garunteed to have awful lives. like if someone doesnt wanna have kids its fine and that should also be respected and some people are really weird about that but idk. procreation is neutral at worse but considering from what ive seen the average person enjoys their life and also improves other peoples lives.

HOWEVER there is one caveat, in that if people do not enjoy their life they should be free to end it if they wish. if people are allowed to bring people into the world, those people that are brought in should be allowed to choose to exit if they wish.

I'm a 55f that consciously chose not to have children. My parents also sucked as well. But "normal" people who are raised in a loving environment see things very differently than we do. Some people actually become suicidal if they can't have children.

also yeah like this says the fact i can never have kids is a big contributing factor to why i wanna CTB (just being trans in general is but thats one of the worst bits of being trans tbh)

 

[astr4]

imo a reasonable and balanced solution would be if we made some test or something that people need to qualify for in order to be parents. filter out the emotionally immature people. idk how to ensure that it wouldn't end up filled with biases in terms of race/class/etc but i just don't think everyone who is capable of having kids should have one just for the sake of it. feels like it should be just as hard to become a doctor as to become a parent. someone's life is in your hands after all.

 

[Darkover]

L mentality tbh. not everyone has a terrible life, its not inherently evil to have kids its not like theyre garunteed to have awful lives. like if someone doesnt wanna have kids its fine and that should also be respected and some people are really weird about that but idk. procreation is neutral at worse but considering from what ive seen the average person enjoys their life and also improves other peoples lives.

HOWEVER there is one caveat, in that if people do not enjoy their life they should be free to end it if they wish. if people are allowed to bring people into the world, those people that are brought in should be allowed to choose to exit if they wish.

Procreation is ethically worse than murder

Both involve the same highly unethical act of deciding over life or death for someone else without their consent, deciding for someone else whether they should exist or not, whether they should be an existing consciousness in this world or not. But at least the consequence of murder is the sweet release of death, while the consequence of birth is everything that death is a sweet release from.

non-existence is preferable to existence because non-existence avoids suffering altogether. Procreation, then, can be seen as imposing harm by bringing a person into a world where suffering is unavoidable. Murder, by contrast, does not impose suffering but rather removes the capacity to experience it.

Procreation is ethically worse than murder

Both involve the same highly unethical act of deciding over life or death for someone else without their consent, deciding for someone else whether they should exist or not, whether they should be an existing consciousness in this world or not. But at least the consequence of murder is the sweet release of death, while the consequence of birth is everything that death is a sweet release from.

non-existence is preferable to existence because non-existence avoids suffering altogether. Procreation, then, can be seen as imposing harm by bringing a person into a world where suffering is unavoidable. Murder, by contrast, does not impose suffering but rather removes the capacity to experience it.

Procreation is not neutral because it involves an active choice that imposes life, with all its inherent risks, suffering, and eventual death, on someone who has no ability to consent to being brought into existence. Here are several reasons why procreation carries ethical weight and cannot be considered neutral:

Every person born will experience some degree of suffering—physical pain, emotional distress, loss, or existential dread. Even in the best possible life, suffering is unavoidable.
While some may experience joy, it is not assured, and even lives filled with happiness are often punctuated by significant hardship.
By procreating, parents expose a being to suffering that did not need to exist in the first place. This imposition of harm makes procreation an ethically loaded act.

A non-existent being does not suffer from the absence of pleasure or happiness. There is no deprivation in not existing.
When someone is born, they are exposed to harm, and even small amounts of suffering are ethically significant because they impact an actual being.
Therefore, creating a life is not neutral because it transitions from a harm-free state (non-existence) to a state where harm is inevitable.

 

[coolgal82]

Procreation is ethically worse than murder

Both involve the same highly unethical act of deciding over life or death for someone else without their consent, deciding for someone else whether they should exist or not, whether they should be an existing consciousness in this world or not. But at least the consequence of murder is the sweet release of death, while the consequence of birth is everything that death is a sweet release from.

non-existence is preferable to existence because non-existence avoids suffering altogether. Procreation, then, can be seen as imposing harm by bringing a person into a world where suffering is unavoidable. Murder, by contrast, does not impose suffering but rather removes the capacity to experience it.

Procreation is not neutral because it involves an active choice that imposes life, with all its inherent risks, suffering, and eventual death, on someone who has no ability to consent to being brought into existence. Here are several reasons why procreation carries ethical weight and cannot be considered neutral:

Every person born will experience some degree of suffering—physical pain, emotional distress, loss, or existential dread. Even in the best possible life, suffering is unavoidable.
While some may experience joy, it is not assured, and even lives filled with happiness are often punctuated by significant hardship.
By procreating, parents expose a being to suffering that did not need to exist in the first place. This imposition of harm makes procreation an ethically loaded act.

A non-existent being does not suffer from the absence of pleasure or happiness. There is no deprivation in not existing.
When someone is born, they are exposed to harm, and even small amounts of suffering are ethically significant because they impact an actual being.
Therefore, creating a life is not neutral because it transitions from a harm-free state (non-existence) to a state where harm is inevitable.

once again L mentality. they dont just create happiness for themselves but also have the potential to improve the lives of others as well so you could just as easily argue that them not being there just because of potential suffering is also net negative because those people wont be impacted positively and will have worse lives as a result. (honestly i dont necessarily buy this argument but it works with your logic because i still see no issue because the average person might have some hardships but they'll have more positives)

also you cannot just say death = no suffering when there is no evidence of what happens after death. it might be simply nothing, just as much as it might be burning in pits of lava for eternity, maybe we were all burning there before getting incarnated and that was what freed us from that suffering so its less suffering to have kids. you're arguing based on stuff which we literally cannot prove one way or another lmao

 

[Darkover]

once again L mentality. they dont just create happiness for themselves but also have the potential to improve the lives of others as well so you could just as easily argue that them not being there just because of potential suffering is also net negative because those people wont be impacted positively and will have worse lives as a result.

The argument assumes that the potential for positive impact justifies the risk of suffering. While it's true that people can positively impact others, the notion that we should create lives solely for the benefit of others fails to consider the suffering the individual might endure. It also disregards the possibility that the person may not have any significant positive impact on others, or that the positive impact might be minimal in the grand scheme of life. The premise that the absence of someone leads to a "worse life" for others is subjective—there's no universal evidence that not being born is a "net negative" in the context of a person's contribution to others' happiness.

onestly i dont necessarily buy this argument but it works with your logic because i still see no issue because the average person might have some hardships but they'll have more positives)

This argument relies on a generalization that the average person's life is balanced more positively than negatively. While it's true that most people experience moments of happiness, it's also true that suffering, pain, and hardships are ubiquitous parts of life. Many people experience prolonged periods of suffering, mental health struggles, or existential challenges that overshadow their positive experiences. Assuming that the positives will always outweigh the negatives ignores the reality that for some, the suffering can be overwhelming and life-altering. Also, different people's capacity for positive experiences and resilience varies greatly, meaning the "net positive" claim is not universally applicable.

also you cannot just say death = no suffering when there is no evidence of what happens after death.

You're right that we don't have definitive evidence of what happens after death. However, the statement that "death equals no suffering" is based on the premise that death is an absence of experience—it's not necessarily claiming that something specific happens after death. It's more about the idea that, if death is truly an absence of experience (as many atheists and materialists believe), then there would be no suffering in that state. Whether or not there is something else after death is speculative, but if we accept the idea of death as the end of consciousness, it can be viewed as a cessation of suffering.

it might be simply nothing, just as much as it might be burning in pits of lava for eternity, maybe we were all burning there before getting incarnated and that was what freed us from that suffering so its less suffering to have kids

This statement is highly speculative and relies on an unfounded assumption that we might have been suffering before birth or that we could be subject to eternal torment after death. The concept of being "freed" from suffering by being born into existence is an untestable assumption. Additionally, it presents an extreme and unverifiable scenario (burning in pits of lava) to counter the idea of death as a cessation of suffering. The reality is that we simply don't know what happens after death, and it's not reasonable to use unfounded hypothetical scenarios as the basis for making conclusions about the morality of bringing new lives into the world.

you're arguing based on stuff which we literally cannot prove one way or another lmao

This is true to an extent—questions about the afterlife, the nature of consciousness, and the morality of bringing new lives into the world are based on personal belief systems, interpretations of evidence, and philosophical reasoning. However, the fact that we cannot prove something one way or another does not mean we should disregard it entirely. It means that, in the absence of definitive evidence, we must base our beliefs on the best available reasoning, while also acknowledging the limitations of our knowledge. In the case of antinatalism, the argument is based on the known realities of suffering and the potential for harm, rather than speculative assumptions about the afterlife or pre-existence.

In conclusion,your statement relies on a mixture of assumptions, generalizations, and speculative scenarios that aren't necessarily grounded in evidence. It also doesn't sufficiently address the ethical considerations surrounding the suffering that individuals may experience during their lives, and whether that justifies bringing new lives into the world.

 

[astr4]

The argument assumes that the potential for positive impact justifies the risk of suffering.

this is the crux of antinatalism for me. how can anyone tolerate that risk?? it's just very hard for me to see someone willing to take that gamble in a positive light. maybe it worked out for them, in which case that's great, but you're telling me you would gamble with someone else's life like that? even if there's a 99.99999% chance of happiness, how could i do that to a potential person if there's a chance of messing up? heck i don't even drive because the chances of hurting someone else are too high. i just can't imagine someone being willing to take that risk.

 

[coolgal82]

The argument assumes that the potential for positive impact justifies the risk of suffering. While it's true that people can positively impact others, the notion that we should create lives solely for the benefit of others fails to consider the suffering the individual might endure. It also disregards the possibility that the person may not have any significant positive impact on others, or that the positive impact might be minimal in the grand scheme of life. The premise that the absence of someone leads to a "worse life" for others is subjective—there's no universal evidence that not being born is a "net negative" in the context of a person's contribution to others' happiness.

This argument relies on a generalization that the average person's life is balanced more positively than negatively. While it's true that most people experience moments of happiness, it's also true that suffering, pain, and hardships are ubiquitous parts of life. Many people experience prolonged periods of suffering, mental health struggles, or existential challenges that overshadow their positive experiences. Assuming that the positives will always outweigh the negatives ignores the reality that for some, the suffering can be overwhelming and life-altering. Also, different people's capacity for positive experiences and resilience varies greatly, meaning the "net positive" claim is not universally applicable.

You're right that we don't have definitive evidence of what happens after death. However, the statement that "death equals no suffering" is based on the premise that death is an absence of experience—it's not necessarily claiming that something specific happens after death. It's more about the idea that, if death is truly an absence of experience (as many atheists and materialists believe), then there would be no suffering in that state. Whether or not there is something else after death is speculative, but if we accept the idea of death as the end of consciousness, it can be viewed as a cessation of suffering.


This statement is highly speculative and relies on an unfounded assumption that we might have been suffering before birth or that we could be subject to eternal torment after death. The concept of being "freed" from suffering by being born into existence is an untestable assumption. Additionally, it presents an extreme and unverifiable scenario (burning in pits of lava) to counter the idea of death as a cessation of suffering. The reality is that we simply don't know what happens after death, and it's not reasonable to use unfounded hypothetical scenarios as the basis for making conclusions about the morality of bringing new lives into the world.

This is true to an extent—questions about the afterlife, the nature of consciousness, and the morality of bringing new lives into the world are based on personal belief systems, interpretations of evidence, and philosophical reasoning. However, the fact that we cannot prove something one way or another does not mean we should disregard it entirely. It means that, in the absence of definitive evidence, we must base our beliefs on the best available reasoning, while also acknowledging the limitations of our knowledge. In the case of antinatalism, the argument is based on the known realities of suffering and the potential for harm, rather than speculative assumptions about the afterlife or pre-existence.

In conclusion,your statement relies on a mixture of assumptions, generalizations, and speculative scenarios that aren't necessarily grounded in evidence. It also doesn't sufficiently address the ethical considerations surrounding the suffering that individuals may experience during their lives, and whether that justifies bringing new lives into the world.

>In conclusion,your statement relies on a mixture of assumptions, generalizations, and speculative scenarios that aren't necessarily grounded in evidence. It also doesn't sufficiently address the ethical considerations surrounding the suffering that individuals may experience during their lives, and whether that justifies bringing new lives into the world.
im ngl i would argue yours rely on similar flawed things but like i still do believe the average person is more happy than not over the course of their life based on what ive seen so i think just making a blanket statement of "they will suffer at some point and thats not worth everything else so therefore birthing them is bad" is just kinda silly and most people only believe that because thats their experience and even if its just subconscious they have a bias to assume more people are similar to them than they think

 

[Darkover]

this is the crux of antinatalism for me. how can anyone tolerate that risk?? it's just very hard for me to see someone willing to take that gamble in a positive light. maybe it worked out for them, in which case that's great, but you're telling me you would gamble with someone else's life like that? even if there's a 99.99999% chance of happiness, how could i do that to a potential person if there's a chance of messing up? heck i don't even drive because the chances of hurting someone else are too high. i just can't imagine someone being willing to take that risk.

I completely understand where you're coming from, and your perspective really captures the core of antinatalism. The ethical dilemma you're describing revolves around the idea of creating a life with the inherent risk that it may experience suffering, no matter how small that risk might seem. The comparison to driving makes sense—you're not willing to take that risk with the possibility of harming someone else, so why would you be willing to take the much larger, irreversible risk of bringing a new person into existence, where their suffering could be far beyond your control?

 

[astr4]

i do also wanna add this thread is marked venting, i get antinatalism isn't always viewed as the most "rational" ideology but it's clear OP is coming from a place of hurt and probably feels like if they were never born they would never have had to suffer. for someone who's had very limited positive experiences it is probably really difficult to conceptualize that some people don't suffer that badly. at least that's how it is for me.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

many very horrible things can happen to any human or other sentient animal any day . no one is immune. no one should be put into that situation of danger under threat of extreme torture . furthermore to have to work every day doing chores, a job, feed themselves 3 times per day hungry all the time , getting sick regularly ( flu etc) , clean every damn thing every day . risking diseases accidents kidnappings all for no objective reason. many more nightmares in this evil world. to live as a prisoner with no way out because they made someone helping you with suicide a crime. if you can't leave a place in a guaranteed painless easy quick way then you are a prisoner. this and many more reasons why life is bad and to impose that on someone is a crime , a brain that can suffer unending constant unbearable pain.

there is no instinct to have children. i must be missing those genes ( sarcasm). many countries the birthrates are falling . south korea will disapear in a few decades : some instinct. i never wanted to have children as a male chimpanzee. people have just been taught that having children and life is good , that they want to have children ( imo) . many people don't want to have children more every day so it's not an instinct like the thirst for water that is an instinct . oh i have such a desire to have children no i don't it's an abomination to even think that i am 30 trillion cellls much less to want to reproduce this and a brain that can suffer unending constant unbearable pain.

 

[babouflo201223]

Pour être honnête, la mentalité de L. Tout le monde n'a pas une vie horrible, ce n'est pas intrinsèquement mauvais d'avoir des enfants, ce n'est pas comme s'ils étaient assurés d'avoir une vie horrible. Si quelqu'un ne veut pas avoir d'enfants, c'est bien et cela devrait également être respecté et certaines personnes sont vraiment bizarres à ce sujet, mais je ne sais pas. La procréation est neutre au pire, mais compte tenu de ce que j'ai vu, la personne moyenne profite de sa vie et améliore également la vie des autres.

Il y a cependant une mise en garde : si les gens ne profitent pas de leur vie, ils devraient être libres d'y mettre fin s'ils le souhaitent. Si les gens sont autorisés à mettre au monde des personnes, ces personnes qui y sont mises au monde devraient être autorisées à choisir d'en sortir si elles le souhaitent.


aussi ouais, comme ça, le fait que je ne puisse jamais avoir d'enfants est un facteur important qui explique pourquoi je veux être CTB (le simple fait d'être trans en général l'est, mais c'est l'un des pires aspects d'être trans pour être honnête)

You wrote a well balanced answer, it helps to think calmly about this question. Thank you.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I agree. Even on this site antinatalism seems to be very controversial but I agree and support antinatalism. The perpetuation of all problems is DNA replication which of course stems from procreation. It would be nice if all sentient beings were to immediately get sterilised right now but I think it would be even better if all sentient beings were to immediately and painlessly die right now.

The only time where I would procreate is if I had a 100% guarantee that my child were to grow up and create the red button solution that would immediately end all sentient life on this planet. Of course the antinatalism asymmetry and consent argument would still be applied to that kid but the evil that I'd be causing by engaging in procreation would be outweighed by the good that kid would do by immediately ending all sentient life. In other words, whilst I do support antinatalism, pro mortalism takes precedence for me. Sentiocentric antinatalism is basically slow pro mortalism but I prefer fast pro mortalism over slow pro mortalism as a lot of suffering would still be going on within slow pro mortalism. This is the part where I lose even the antinatalists but it makes sense to me and I'm going to stick to my beliefs regardless

 

[Namelesa]

I totally agree with procreation being bad. A person that doesn't exist yet doesn't even want or feel anything so there is no reason to bring someone into existence unless you are simply creating them for your own selfish desires. If you want to raise a child go adopt, there is a lot of children that have just been abandoned by their creators and deserve a good start to life and its suffering. The fact that they not in your bloodline shouldn't matter.

If I could go back in time I would prevent my parents from conceiving me so that I wouldn't be able to fear, loss and disappoint from not getting or not being fulfilled with my desires or feel any emptiness, boredom or pain. If no one procreated then there would be no more new suffering. Some or most of us wished to not exist at all so why support creating new life that could potentially suffer like us?

I would hate myself even more if I had a biological child. I would feel so responsible and feel like I caused their suffering cus I created them. They didn't want to exist in the first place so bringing them here by my own hand is pure bad selfishness. You wouldn't force someone to go through a surgery that could potential benefit them but could potential harm them more. This should apply to creating new life as well.

I do understand if the people living now want to continue their lives tho. They might find life to be more positive than negative (in which I am glad they don't have to suffer as much as me and others) and might fear death cus of the potential unknown of what will happen. Its their lives so they are allowed to continue it, but don't get someone new into this mess, they haven't asked for this. If I could press a button to sterilise everyone instantly without pain, I would so no one new has to deal with our problems and suffering as well as to prevent people who just not want to exist and at all and have them not have to go through the pain and effort of having to ctb to revert their birth.

 

[SilentSadness]

L mentality tbh. not everyone has a terrible life, its not inherently evil to have kids its not like theyre garunteed to have awful lives. like if someone doesnt wanna have kids its fine and that should also be respected and some people are really weird about that but idk. procreation is neutral at worse but considering from what ive seen the average person enjoys their life and also improves other peoples lives.

HOWEVER there is one caveat, in that if people do not enjoy their life they should be free to end it if they wish. if people are allowed to bring people into the world, those people that are brought in should be allowed to choose to exit if they wish.


also yeah like this says the fact i can never have kids is a big contributing factor to why i wanna CTB (just being trans in general is but thats one of the worst bits of being trans tbh)

To me the fact that people are unable to kill themselves or will have to wait until a specific age to get euthanasia is an inherent problem with life, a non existent person doesn't have to deal with that kind of problem. Life is not a utopia so it doesn't make sense to argue as if it is. For me I've seen parents abusing their children and expecting gratitude and it's just so hopeless to me, they are in the position of power and choose to be the bully. I hate the idea that it's necessary to "discipline" children, that just means it's necessary to inflict pain, so why would you have them in the first place. The worst thing to me is that people are desperate to have children instead of adopt, that just shows they have no interest in helping anyone but actually it's selfish preservation reasons. I don't even understand why parents should be the ones to raise their children, ideally they should be raised by the state to avoid abuse. There shouldn't be any issues with that solution because the purpose of procreation is to help children. Haha, no, the purpose is to benefit the parent, that's why I'm so frustrated.

 

[divinemistress36]

People have kids to fullfil their ego or cause they wont use birth control it makes me sick I tell my mom she should have aborted me . Yes, I know many people have fullfilling lives but many people also have shitty lives we gamble so much with having kids

 

[RosebyAnyName]

If people stopped procreating, there would be no society, and that would be excellent. No, I'm not advocating for genocide. That said, if every human being became permanently infertile and the human race would be fully extinct in the next hundred years, I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

Human beings are a net negative in every regard. Who cares about if humans think they do or don't deserve to exist for their own benefit? They have already destroyed the planet, have cause other species to go extinct, have replaced nature with ugly metal bricks and ugly concrete roads solely for their own comfort (which they complain about anyways), and then force their young to live in social structures they themselves created to make life as miserable as possible except the top 1%.

The human mind uniquely evolved to understand the consequences of its own actions, to reflect, to feel shame, and to feel pain that is unique to them. Then, it also went out of its way to commit the worst acts possible, far beyond what any other animal species could even fathom, and to invent new ways to suffer. To be horrible, and to have full awareness of how horrible they are, and to then perpetuate that horror instead of stop it, is the curse of being human and is inevitable.

I don't see how being alive is worth it in the first place. All you do is suffer from all that came before you, and then you're expected to thrust that suffering onto a new life. No thanks.

 

[imastain]

they dont just create happiness for themselves but also have the potential to improve the lives of others as well

right so what youre trying to convey is that procreation is good because you can be a competent slave thereby making others lives easier and fun even if it is at your expense?

 

[coolgal82]

right so what youre trying to convey is that procreation is good because you can be a competent slave thereby making others lives easier and fun even if it is at your expense?

no? what the fuck are you on about

 

[FinalVoid25]

I don't even understand why anyone would ever want to have children. It always breaks my heart seeing a baby somewhere or hearing it cry, it is utterly helpless and scared of this world, the first thing they do when they are born is cry, and I think this is because they experience this world without the filters that society automatically places over 99 % of peoples minds, they feel the true horror of existence just like we who are suicidal do later. And that bothers me the most in this life, I never once felt truly satisfied or accomplished with anything I did, everything feels like its fake, like I am a error in an automatic program that for everyone else runs perfectly smooth and I can never ever fix it and have to terminate myself to get rid of the error that is my existence.

 

[Darkover]

I don't even understand why anyone would ever want to have children. It always breaks my heart seeing a baby somewhere or hearing it cry, it is utterly helpless and scared of this world, the first thing they do when they are born is cry, and I think this is because they experience this world without the filters that society automatically places over 99 % of peoples minds, they feel the true horror of existence just like we who are suicidal do later.

From the first traumatic push through the birth canal, we landed in a situation not of our choosing. I contend that everyone is suffering from some form of PTSD due to the birth process alone,

 

[Amarajoy]

I'm a 55f that consciously chose not to have children. My parents also sucked as well. But "normal" people who are raised in a loving environment see things very differently than we do. Some people actually become suicidal if they can't have children.

Are you married if you don't mind me asking?

 

[dust-in-the-wind]

Are you married if you don't mind me asking?

I'm divorced but have a BF

 

[EvisceratedJester]

I contend that everyone is suffering from some form of PTSD due to the birth process alone

I think you need to learn what PTSD is if you actually think this...

 

[Darkover]

I think you need to learn what PTSD is if you actually think this...

it's plausible that some might carry an implicit trauma from birth that influences their behavior and mental state, PTSD is typically diagnosed when the individual experiences an event that results in enduring, distressing psychological symptoms.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

it's plausible that some might carry an implicit trauma from birth that influences their behavior and mental state, PTSD is typically diagnosed when the individual experiences an event that results in enduring, distressing psychological symptoms.

Your average person doesn't meet the criteria for PTSD and there are a lot of individuals who don't even experience a single one of the symptoms associated with that disorder. Along with that, you would also need evidence to prove that being birthed produces implicit trauma. Otherwise, you are just making a massive empty claim.

 

[Darkover]

Your average person doesn't meet the criteria for PTSD and there are a lot of individuals who don't even experience a single one of the symptoms associated with that disorder. Along with that, you would also need evidence to prove that being birthed produces implicit trauma. Otherwise, you are just making a massive empty claim.

The idea that being born can produce implicit trauma stems from studies in developmental psychology, neuroscience, and psychoanalysis. Below are key pieces of evidence and theoretical support for this claim:

---

1. The Birth Process is Physically and Psychologically Stressful

• Physiological Stress:Birth involves significant stress for the baby due to uterine contractions, compression in the birth canal, exposure to cold air, and the sudden need to breathe independently. Research shows that stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline are elevated in newborns during and immediately after birth.
  • Source: Grunau, R. E., et al. (2001). Neonatal pain and stress mechanisms.
• Sensory Overload: The transition from the womb, a quiet and dark environment, to the outside world filled with lights, sounds, and varying temperatures, can be overwhelming for a newborn.

---

2. Implicit Memory Formation

• Early-Life Experiences Shape the Brain:Although explicit memory does not form until around 2-3 years of age, the brain records implicit memories, which affect subconscious behavior and emotional responses. Trauma during birth may leave imprints on the limbic system, particularly the amygdala, which is responsible for processing fear and stress.
  • Source: Schore, A. N. (2001). The effects of early relational trauma on right brain development.
• Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology: This field highlights how birth trauma can influence later psychological development and attachment patterns. Stressful birth experiences, such as emergency cesareans or use of forceps, have been associated with anxiety and attachment difficulties in adulthood.

---

3. Birth Trauma and PTSD in Mothers and Children

• Trauma in the Infant:Studies on neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) show that premature infants exposed to stressful medical procedures can exhibit heightened stress responses and altered behavior later in life. Although not all births are traumatic, the process inherently involves risks of trauma.
  • Source: Feldman, R. (2015). Sensitive periods in human social development.
• Maternal PTSD: Mothers who experience trauma during childbirth may pass on stress to their newborns through altered caregiving behaviors or even epigenetic changes.

---

4. Attachment Theory

• Winnicott and Bowlby: Early psychological theorists posited that birth trauma could disrupt the initial bonding process between a baby and the caregiver, leading to attachment insecurity. Even minor disruptions at this stage can have ripple effects throughout life.

---

5. Somatic and Psychoanalytic Perspectives

• Body-Memory Hypotheses: Somatic therapists and psychoanalysts, like Otto Rank, suggest that birth trauma is stored in the body and subconscious, influencing physical and emotional health throughout life. Somatic therapies aim to address these early imprints by releasing stored tension and trauma.

---

6. Animal Studies

• Stress in Newborn Animals:Studies on animals demonstrate that birth stress can alter behavior and physiology, such as increased anxiety or aggression. This suggests that birth-related trauma may not be unique to humans but is a biological response.
  • Source: Rosenblatt, J. S., & Mayer, A. D. (1995). Neonatal stress and its long-term impact.

---

7. Epigenetics

• Impact of Stress on Gene Expression:Prenatal and perinatal stress can modify the infant's gene expression through epigenetic mechanisms, potentially increasing vulnerability to stress, depression, and other mental health issues later in life.
  • Source: Meaney, M. J., & Szyf, M. (2005). Maternal care as a model for experience-dependent chromatin plasticity?

---

This body of evidence supports the notion that birth, though a natural process, often involves implicit trauma. It is important to note that not everyone experiences long-term negative effects, as resilience and supportive caregiving can mitigate these early stressors.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

The idea that being born can produce implicit trauma stems from studies in developmental psychology, neuroscience, and psychoanalysis. Below are key pieces of evidence and theoretical support for this claim:

---

1. The Birth Process is Physically and Psychologically Stressful

• Physiological Stress:Birth involves significant stress for the baby due to uterine contractions, compression in the birth canal, exposure to cold air, and the sudden need to breathe independently. Research shows that stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline are elevated in newborns during and immediately after birth.
  • Source: Grunau, R. E., et al. (2001). Neonatal pain and stress mechanisms.
• Sensory Overload: The transition from the womb, a quiet and dark environment, to the outside world filled with lights, sounds, and varying temperatures, can be overwhelming for a newborn.

---

2. Implicit Memory Formation

• Early-Life Experiences Shape the Brain:Although explicit memory does not form until around 2-3 years of age, the brain records implicit memories, which affect subconscious behavior and emotional responses. Trauma during birth may leave imprints on the limbic system, particularly the amygdala, which is responsible for processing fear and stress.
  • Source: Schore, A. N. (2001). The effects of early relational trauma on right brain development.
• Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology: This field highlights how birth trauma can influence later psychological development and attachment patterns. Stressful birth experiences, such as emergency cesareans or use of forceps, have been associated with anxiety and attachment difficulties in adulthood.

---

3. Birth Trauma and PTSD in Mothers and Children

• Trauma in the Infant:Studies on neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) show that premature infants exposed to stressful medical procedures can exhibit heightened stress responses and altered behavior later in life. Although not all births are traumatic, the process inherently involves risks of trauma.
  • Source: Feldman, R. (2015). Sensitive periods in human social development.
• Maternal PTSD: Mothers who experience trauma during childbirth may pass on stress to their newborns through altered caregiving behaviors or even epigenetic changes.

---

4. Attachment Theory

• Winnicott and Bowlby: Early psychological theorists posited that birth trauma could disrupt the initial bonding process between a baby and the caregiver, leading to attachment insecurity. Even minor disruptions at this stage can have ripple effects throughout life.

---

5. Somatic and Psychoanalytic Perspectives

• Body-Memory Hypotheses: Somatic therapists and psychoanalysts, like Otto Rank, suggest that birth trauma is stored in the body and subconscious, influencing physical and emotional health throughout life. Somatic therapies aim to address these early imprints by releasing stored tension and trauma.

---

6. Animal Studies

• Stress in Newborn Animals:Studies on animals demonstrate that birth stress can alter behavior and physiology, such as increased anxiety or aggression. This suggests that birth-related trauma may not be unique to humans but is a biological response.
  • Source: Rosenblatt, J. S., & Mayer, A. D. (1995). Neonatal stress and its long-term impact.

---

7. Epigenetics

• Impact of Stress on Gene Expression:Prenatal and perinatal stress can modify the infant's gene expression through epigenetic mechanisms, potentially increasing vulnerability to stress, depression, and other mental health issues later in life.
  • Source: Meaney, M. J., & Szyf, M. (2005). Maternal care as a model for experience-dependent chromatin plasticity?

---

This body of evidence supports the notion that birth, though a natural process, often involves implicit trauma. It is important to note that not everyone experiences long-term negative effects, as resilience and supportive caregiving can mitigate these early stressors.

1. Birth being physiologically stressful doesn't equate to it being a severe enough form for trauma to induce PTSD. By that logic, everyone should display many symptoms associated with PTSD due to exposure to varying amounts of physiological stress throughout our day-to-day lives, which isn't the case. Along with that, not all mothers experience PTSD as a result of childbirth and that stress being passed on due to epigenetics doesn't equate to the birthing process necessarily causing their offspring to develop PTSD. From what I know, this more so applies to discussions surrounding the likelihood of developing PTSD, which still requires that one is exposed to severe enough trauma to develop. In no way does what you cite suggest in anyway claim that "everyone is suffering from some form of PTSD from Birthing alone".

2. This source, again, doesn't provide evidence of what you are suggesting. While I will admit to standing corrected on the trauma and implicit memories claim, at the same time, this paper is mainly suggesting that this applies to "traumatic births" (I.e. prematurity, multiple births, postpartum depression, and chronic unpredictable trauma). Your second point here also goes on to highlight this, with it specifically specifying cases of "traumatic births" rather than it talking about births in general. Along with that, some of these findings are based on animal models, so the results aren't necessarily going to be a fully accurate representation of what happens in the case of humans. To add onto this, in no way does this article support your claims either. This neither proves that the birthing process causes PTSD, nor does it prove that everyone has varying degrees of it due to it. Trauma is a vague term that can be used to describe vary levels of distressing situations, from getting lost in a grocery store as a child to being sexually abused. Even if an event can potentially be considered traumatic, that doesn't equate to it being severe enough to cause one to develop PTSD.


3. You would also need to factor in specific environmental influences, such as the medical interventions commonly used when caring for premature infants, some of which may end up factoring into increased stress levels. Along with that, what you cited also explicitly states

Although not all births are traumatic, the process inherently involves risks of trauma.

Which goes against you claims of

I contend that everyone is suffering from some form of PTSD due to the birth process alone

4. First off, Winnicot and Bowlby theories were based in psychoanalysis. This is important to note because a lot psychoanalytic theories are considered to be outdated and/or flawed.

5. Again, you are citing psychoanalysis, not modern-day psychological research.

6. This doesn't support your point about everyone having PTSD due to beiths, let alone does this quote even suggest that all births are traumatic.

7. See what I said under #2

Some of what you have cited actually ends up unintentiaionally debunking your original claim. Even here:

It is important to note that not everyone experiences long-term negative effects, as resilience and supportive caregiving can mitigate these early stressors.

Suggests otherwise when it comes your claims about everyone having varying degrees of PTSD as a result of birth. To add onto this, experiencing trauma doesn't equate to having PTSD. As I've noted before, traumatic events can vary in intensity and are not necessarily enough to induce PTSD. This doesn't even go into the fact that the likelihood of developing PTSD differs a lot on an individual scale.


Anways, I'm not going to engage any further with whatever fuck this conversation even is. I'm too tired to deal with this nonsense.