Please explain to me why antinatalism is wrong without resorting to any emotional or subjective arguments

Please explain to me why antinatalism is wrong without resorting to any emotional or subjective arguments.

Because if nobody gives birth our species will die

So?

Lurk moar newfag so next time you don't get BTFO in the first post.

Or gb2 leddt

The continuation of the human race is only subjectively important.

Literal retard logic

Everything is subjective

Everything is subjective.

>BTFO
I'll wait for that to happen. Do you often have premature ejaculations?

No, not everything is subjective

The continuing existence of the universe is only subjectively important. So yeah I'd say everything is subjective.

>anti reproduction
>asks about my ejaculatory habits

Confirmed faggot, get Zyklon Ben over here now.

>>Please explain to me why antinatalism is wrong without subjective arguments even though the concept of wrong is subjective

You can't say prove me wrong, burden of proof buddy. Why is antinatalism good?

>humans started as tribes
>tribes grew to city states
>city states to kingdoms
>kingdoms to country's
We are here ^
>countries to continents
>continents to planets
once we settle another planet we can talk about globalism
Boarders protect people more than they harm them.

But that isn't necessarily wrong, though. Just saying.

And it is the whole point of antinatalism

I totally agree with anti-natalist reasoning. I think that bringing conscious life into this universe of eternal struggle is always wrong.
I think that if all people on Earth voluntarily stopped having children, that would be the best possible solution. But that's not gonna happen. Therefore we must look for second-best solutions, like e.g. National socialism, that will keep let's say sustainable non-degenerating high-quality life for all people.

Genetically suicide.

Good if you're a genetic dead end though

Why don't Antinatalists contribute to their goal by committing suicide?

I knew a Natalie once and she was nice.

Me:1
You:0

biologically speaking, it's objectively good to reproduce. morally, it's very subjective.

It's not wrong. It's THE ENTIRE MORAL OF THE BIBLE

That isn't the goal. Maybe look up the word, Nigel.

Surrogacies. That is all.

Certainly parts of Ecclesiastes would agree.

what do you mean?

I can go on for a long time on this. I believe in serpent seed. So there's Genesis. Read the curses from there. Did they have to do with knowledge? No. Only procreation. Woe unto them bearing children when Christ returns. And the 144,000 in Revelation it says are undefiled and uncorrupted by only vaginas. This fertility cult Eve worship is same thing as ISIS. The belief that the Holy Spirit is a woman. That God has a girlfriend. And that Adam used to be three different kinds of trannies

It is the best way biologically AND morally to make babby

no one is saying we should force pregnancy. we are saying we should have a culture which favors white child birth and stable family structures because it creates happy, strong and productive human beings. i don't think surrogacies would do that.... broken humans.

>biologically speaking, it's objectively good to reproduce
Not an argument.
"Biologically speaking", it's good to rape and thus spread your seed.
"Biologically speaking", it's good to kill and eat people in case of hunger. Etc...

The September 23 threads? Satan copies Christ. It is in the constellation Virgo. The vagina. He just sits there. Awaiting vaginal things. Christ was only man to not arrive by way of sex. But NO souls are put here that way. God does it. And it has nothing to do with benis bagina

Broken humans? Ronaldo did it twice. Hagar in the Bible did it. She spawned an entire religion. All this traditionalist stuff is is because we don't see that nothing is new under the sun and this is all a temporary fix. No male nor female in Christ. No marriages in Heaven. And there will be a new creation. The Church used to accept gayness. So long as you weren't a Molech worshipper. How far we've fallen. It's catching up with us

i never said anything about the good or bad about it, i only said that biologically speaking it's good. why are you putting words in my mouth?

yes, broken humans without a mother and father, as ordained by Christ. take back what you just said.

Hagar's kid Ishmael had two mothers and a father I guess. How many dads did Christ have? Where did He say what you just said He did? In fact. He excused "born eunuchs" (gays) from any of this. You know nothing

>How many dads did Christ have?
One -- the Lord.

>Where did He say what you just said He did?

GOD calls upon men and women to have children, and many times HE calls us to obey them:

>For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (titus letter 2)

>Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you

>Listen to your father who begot you, And do not despise your mother when she is old.

This means God takes parentage for granted, we can only honor our parents when we know them.