Oldphan

Hi, I would love to see a discussion of this article? https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics/article/imposing-a-lifestyle-a-new-argument-for-antinatalism/D31CFBA4E8BB207D7C24A68E415A8AB0#article By Matti Häyry & Amanda Sukenick Abstract Antinatalism is an emerging philosophy and practice that challenges pronatalism, the prevailing philosophy and practice in reproductive matters. We explore justifications of antinatalism—the arguments from the quality of life, the risk of an intolerable life, the lack of consent, and the asymmetry of good and bad—and argue that none of them supports a concrete, understandable, and convincing moral case for not having children. We identify concentration on possible future individuals who may or may not come to be as the main culprit for the failure and suggest that the focus should be shifted to people who already exist. Pronatalism’s hegemonic status in contemporary societies imposes upon us a lifestyle that we have not chosen yet find almost impossible to abandon. We explicate the nature of this imposition and consider the implications of its exposure to different stakeholders with varying stands on the practice of antinatalism. Imposition as a term has figured in reproductive debates before, but the argument from postnatal, mental, and cultural imposition we launch is new. It is the hitherto overlooked and underdeveloped justification of antinatalism that should be solid and comprehensible enough to be used even by activists in support of their work. And please also enjoy this humorous video about the article ; ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEsymkpno8U