The female superpower

[u/pulselifeadvocates]

Embrace the awesome power of motherhood.

[u/After_Main752]

This is where the pro-choicers accuse us of treating women as babymaking machines.

[u/SheClB01 → u/After_Main752]

Because looks like it, like, woman can do a whole other things better and are not considered a superpower such as better immune systems, wider color distinction, fine motor skills, idk not only childbearing because also a lot of female born people can't do that and it's extremely insensitive to say that's the "female superpower"

[u/tomado09]

Can we dispense with this idea that everyone needs / has a "superpower"?  Reproduction is a natural and good process, but we're not superheroes.  I think our society's ego needs to come down just a bit.

To clarify: encouraging women to appreciate their amazing reproductive system (with a man's essential input) and everything it naturally produces is a good concept.  I just take issue with the "superhero" concept.

[u/EpiphanaeaSedai]

Eh, I don’t like it. Pregnancy is an ability unique to women. Reproduction is a joint male/female endeavor.

[u/BrinaFlute]

this feels more pro-natalist than pro-life.

[u/Vespinobambino → u/BrinaFlute]

Pretty much the same thing.

Or at least, anti-natalist scum are ALL pro-abort death cultists.

Some pro-aborts think they are also somehow natalists, despite actively promoting the mass murder of children, resulting in a mass reduction of birth rate, and they don't see this as self-defeating.

These people are imbeciles.

[u/bsv103 → u/Vespinobambino]

Not the same thing at all. I can acknowledge that life begins at conception, and be against the forceful ending of that life, without wanting to contribute to the process of conception, myself.

[u/Vespinobambino → u/bsv103]

I mean, there's a difference between not having kids yourself and being a misanthropic nihilist who wants humanity to die.

[u/Wormando → u/Vespinobambino]

Not being pro-natalist is not synonymous with being nihilistic or antinatalism. That’s just idiotic.

Being pro-natalism means believing we should having children for the sake of maintaining or increasing a population’s birth rates. You can be against that without being against reproduction as a whole like antinatalism does.

[u/Vespinobambino → u/Wormando]

Yes, whatever you just said is idiotic.

"Not being pro-natalism is not anti-natalism."

Uh huh.

Well, since you're not really making any sense, let's fill in this gap with some actual reason.

Given the obvious civilizational troubles created by decreasing birth rates in both the short term economic / national level and for the future of the species, any rational person should be encouraging folks having more children. Individuals should be encouraged, but it shouldn't be mandatory.

Antinatalists think it's morally repugnant to have children. They are a anti-human nihilistic death cult, and they deserve only scorn.

Moreover, the overlap between the Molochian pro-aborts and "anti-natalists" is basically just a circle.

Since we obviously need a higher birth rate, ceasing the killing of children before birth is both moral and practical - intuitively and obviously correct.

[u/Wormando → u/Vespinobambino]

My guy, I plead you, for once in your life do basic research about the stuff you’re babbling about.

Being pro-natalist means arguing that humans should reproduce for the sake of maintaining birth rates, sometimes even arguing that you should have children regardless if you want to parent or not. It’s considered a sacrifice for the greater good of society.

Being anti-natalist means opposing all human reproduction because humans as a species should not continue. That the world is not a good place to raise new generations at the moment and that increasing the human population will only make the world’s situation worse.

You can be neither. I find antinatalism a pointless ideology, but I also absolutely refuse to bully people into having children just because of some idealistic view of society. If someone doesn’t want children, then that’s their choice and their business. Period. Nobody should be forced to be a parent, as all this does is cause even more suffering through child abuse and neglect.

If you want birth rates to rise, you can approach the societal roots driving people to not have children rather than bullying them into something they are not interested in or prepared for. Parenthood is a choice and not something everyone is fit for, and I’m not interested in “encouraging” couples against a life changing decision that only they can make.

[u/Vespinobambino → u/Wormando]

Cool story.

"Humans SHOULD reproduce for the sake of civilization and the advancement of humanity," agreed, so I'm pro-natalist then.

If you think encouragement to do something good that will likely make your life better is "bullying" I got nothing for you.

If you think being optimistic about the future and encouraging parents is "bullying," I got nothing for you.

[u/Wormando → u/Vespinobambino]

Supporting policies that encourage family rearing is one thing, thinking that having children is inherently morally superior to otherwise is another entirely. The latter is what makes someone pronatalist.

Which is why it’s perfectly possible to not be either. I can disagree with antinatalism and still not consider having children an inherent moral good. It’s just a life choice like any other, and not everyone is fit for it nor interested, which is perfectly fine. They shouldn’t be pressured into a lifestyle they don’t want just because “it’s for the greater good”.

Also no, having children does not automatically “make your life better”.

[u/BrinaFlute → u/bsv103]

exactly! I know for a fact I wouldn't be able to handle the stresses of parenthood, and it would be unfair (even cruel) to make my theoretical kids have to deal with that

[u/bsv103 → u/BrinaFlute]

That's a factor for me, and I also have several conditions with genetic components that I'd rather not risk passing along. The reason that I call myself CF rather than AN is because I don't much care whether other people make similar reproductive choices to me, the single exception to which being the forceful ending of the life of their offspring.

[u/JadedandShaded → u/bsv103]

Im glad we have people like you within our movement. It strengthens the point of the prolife movement. Which is to prevent the killing of unborn human beings, not to just have babies born.

[u/bsv103 → u/JadedandShaded]

Thank you for saying that. It's nice to know that someone appreciates my perspective in here, when it feels like I mostly get pushback for not being sufficiently natalist.

[u/JadedandShaded → u/bsv103]

Ofc. Differing perspectives is what makes the prolife movement stronger, especially to outsiders who also have differing perspectives. 

[u/BrinaFlute → u/bsv103]

I totally agree.

It’s also kinda funny how some are claiming “you can’t be childfree and pro-life” because if you’re childfree, you have no desire to be pregnant or get someone else pregnant. Abortion can’t happen if there’s no pregnancy. :)

[u/bsv103 → u/BrinaFlute]

People who say that one can't be both childfree and pro-life are confusing the latter with natalism. They would seem to have internalized the "pro-birth" name that critics give it, but that would only be an accurate description if it's meant to be referring to natalism, which it rarely, if ever, is.

[u/Overgrown_fetus1305 → u/Vespinobambino]

Pro-natalism has it's own set of dangers on the flipside, it makes people ok with embryos being killed, if not actively murdered from IVF, as an acceptable sacrifice for having children (and in some cases, with sex-selective IVF on top, see e.g. Elon Musk as the most obvious example). Both ends of the spectrum carry pitfalls if not qualified with other values (which are just, opposition to baby-killing). For my part, I'm neither pronatalist nor antinatalist, I think it's bad if there's pressure towards or against having children, as long as we understand that embryonic humans are children too, and that abortion should be banned outside of likely life threats, and embryo destruction from IVF banned outright. Tbh I'd ban IVF outright, it's just too dangerous to keep legal, there's always anti-life incentives by IVF companies to lobby against embryonic personhood or laws to protect then from dying from negligence etc, and these would stick around even if you had charities or government taking the place of said companies).

Though I will say, I don't think what I'll for lack of better phrasing term pro-life antinatalism (reproducing is unethical, but no killing people from abortion IVF or the like) is necessarily a danger to prebron humans if the motivation was only a staunch dislike of the fact everyone dies and thinking it made life pointless, if I didn't believe in an afterlife, I'd probably become an incredibly reluctant one, not because I hate life, but because I hate death, and that everyone I love will die; it would be hard to think anything really mattered long term if everything good would be destroyed by entropy. Would all be while cursing the existance of death, I hasten to add. Antinatalists almost always have awful takes and then some on abortion, and often highly misanthopic views, but (much as their views are bad), given what most of them (wrongly) think about fetal personhood, and given almost none of them think there's an afterlife, it's understandable why they might come to bad conclusions fast, even with a generally good principle of wanting to reduce suffering (at least for me).

[u/pulselifeadvocates]

Of course women can do a lot of other things! Big things. Powerful things - all that don't involve motherhood. But bringing forth new life into the world via your body is something no man can do, no matter what the culture pretends. It is a unique power that should be celebrated.

[u/SpyX2]

I think this fails to function, on so many levels. I personally deeply dislike the false idea that only women are needed to reproduce. Others have pointed out similarly sexist subtexts.

[u/Overgrown_fetus1305]

I don't think gender essentialism is a good take, pro-life is just anti-baby killing, and not the same as pronatalism. The latter of which has dangers too, when people pursue IVF despite it having a massive death toll on unborn humans via deliberate embryo destruction.

[u/DapperDetail8364]

Motherhood is good for people who want to have kids. But if a woman doesn't want kids that's her choice as long as she isn't ending any innocent lives (obvi consensual sex). Pls do not make it look like pro lifers think everyone should conceive and birth as many kids as they can and treat women and girls like mindless baby making machines. 

[u/GoalAccomplished802]

Not every woman wants to embrace motherhood 🙂

[u/DapperDetail8364 → u/GoalAccomplished802]

True. And that's their choice. But still doesn't justify elective abortion. 

[u/GoalAccomplished802 → u/DapperDetail8364]

I agree

[u/GustavoistSoldier]

True.

[u/AdventureMoth]

This comes across as sexist & misses the point, I think.

[u/DapperDetail8364 → u/AdventureMoth]

Agreed. The whole point of the anti abortion movement is that abortion is wrong bc it ends innocent babies NOT "we want all women to get married to conservative anti abortion men and have as many babies as possible!!!" 

Also can I ask abt your flair? What made you pro life? R u religious or pro life atheist 

[u/AdventureMoth → u/DapperDetail8364]

I've been pro-life for as long as I can remember. I was raised Christian but I've always preferred secular arguments. (after all, lots of people I'm arguing with aren't Christian and are consequently rather unlikely to care what the Bible says)

[u/Ok-Spinach-6529]

Lil extreme, but I respect the thought.

[u/NatriumHyacinth]

Reproduction is a man’s superpower. He does his half much faster and doesn’t kill the baby even if he does take pills, drinks or smokes.

[u/SheClB01 → u/NatriumHyacinth]

Alcoholism and smoking does kill sperm though

https://www.healthline.com/health/does-alcohol-kill-sperm-2

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4639396/