In the first few days after Donald Trump’s election in November 2024, purchases of emergency contraceptives spiked, with two companies reporting sales about 1,000% higher than the preceding week. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood reported a 760% increase in appointments for IUDs the day after his win.
Many Americans are fearful that the incoming administration could further curb reproductive rights, 2½ years after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion. Today, roughly one-third of states ban the procedure almost entirely or after the first 6 weeks of pregnancy – before many women and girls realize that they’re pregnant.
Several nominees for Trump’s second administration oppose abortion rights. But some of his allies have suggested that not having children is itself a moral failing.
In a 2019 speech, for example, Vice President-elect JD Vance said that people “become more attached to their communities, to their families, to their country because they have children.” In 2021, he tweeted that low birth rates “have made many elites sociopaths.” During a Trump rally in 2024, Arkansas Gov Sarah Huckabee Sanders said her children are a “permanent reminder of what’s important” and “keep me humble.” Kamala Harris – who has two stepchildren, but no biological children – “doesn’t have anything keeping her humble,” Sanders said.
Beyond politics, many people hold similar views. People from New York Times columnist Ross Douthat to Pope Francis have described decreasing birth rates as a sign of self-centered cultures.
Plenty of childless people want children but can’t have them. Other people may not want kids for personal or economic reasons. But advocates for “anti-natalism,” a relatively new social movement, argue giving birth is immoral. The anti-natalists I’ve interviewed push back against the idea that childlessness is selfishness. They believe they are protecting their unborn children, not neglecting them: that childlessness is the ethical choice.
Then and now
In the 1970s, the word “anti-natalism” referred to policies designed to reduce a country’s fertility rate, such as the campaign to sterilize millions of men in India during the state of emergency from 1975-1977. Such policies were designed to address concerns of overpopulation and poverty, spurred in part by growing environmental awareness.
In the following decades, niche environmental movements such as the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement were influenced by this trend and encouraged people to stop having children for the sake of the planet.
However, anti-natalism first came to denote a moral philosophy in 2006, when two key books were published: “The Art of Guillotining Procreators,” by Belgian activist Théophile de Giraud, and “Better Never to Have Been,” by South African philosopher David Benatar.
Rather than emphasize the damage new humans cause to the planet, this new anti-natalism emphasizes the harm life brings to the unborn. By not having children, these philosophers argue, people help the unborn avoid the inherent painfulness of life. The unborn cannot experience life’s pleasures, either – but as Benatar writes, “those who never exist cannot be deprived.”
Anti-natalism took off among a collection of online communities but reached a broader audience in 2019, when Raphael Samuel, a Mumbai businessman, attempted to sue his parents for giving birth to him without his consent. The stunt sparked public conversation about the ethics of procreation and prompted the formation of the activist group Childfree India.
Various anti-natalist groups have formed across the globe since, including a subreddit with about 230,000 members. Stop Having Kids, founded in the U.S. in March 2021, has hosted demonstrations spanning Canada, Bangladesh and Poland. That same year, Asagi Hozumi and Yuichi Furuno created Antinatalism Japan and have been holding frequent outreach events in Tokyo since 2023. In early 2024, an Israeli activist named Nimrod Harel planned a European tour to promote anti-natalism in more than 30 cities.
Stake in the future
Criticism of anti-natalists comes in many different flavors. Most frequently, however, anti-natalists complain that they are called selfish: that critics assume they are prioritizing their own freedom over raising the next generation. “I never understood people who say ‘not having children is selfish,’” one anti-natalist wrote in their community group chat. “Name me one reason you are (having children) for the child’s sake.”
Deciding not to have children can be motivated by a desire for freedom and self-actualization, but it doesn’t have to be. Often, among the anti-natalist online communities I study, the point of not having children is precisely to protect them.
Shyama, an anti-natalist from Bengaluru, India, used to teach low-income children. After witnessing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on her students, she hopes to pivot toward a career in mental health research for children and adolescents.
She speaks about her own children, but only in hypothetical terms, having vowed not to have kids. When she reads about bad news, she feels relieved that her children never have to suffer like that. She refuses birth for their sake. When her friends accused her of challenging other people’s right to have a child, she told me that “this was less unfair than bringing another life into this world and imposing an entire lifetime of inevitable suffering on it.”
Some critics respond that having children gives parents a stake in the future. Philosopher Samuel Scheffler, for instance, argues that having children personalizes the future, anchoring parents to a community that extends beyond their own lifetimes.
Anti-natalists, however, refuse to equate children with a stake in the future. Anugraha Kumar, a Marxist anti-natalist, told me that most leaders within the Communist Party of India are childless. Without needing to support a family, they are free to fight for a better future.
Secularizing birth
Throughout history, catastrophic events have provoked reflection about the ethics of reproduction. After the Holocaust and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Jewish and Japanese writers documented some survivors’ apprehensions about giving birth. According to anthropologist Jade Sasser, anxieties about climate change, the economy and political turmoil have fueled current questions about whether to have a family.
But I have argued that this narrative downplays deeper shifts in how many modern societies understand birth.
Traditionally, birth was often considered entwined with religion: something predestined, or even shaped by divine intervention. In many of the societies where anti-natalist groups have formed, however, parents have far more control over whether to give birth, when and to whom – and birth is viewed in a more secular way.
Birth is less often viewed as part of divine order but often likened to a lottery: a game of chance where parents roll the die and their children suffer the consequences. Japanese anti-natalists, for example, sometimes compare their birth to gachapon: vending machines that spit out a toy at random each time someone inserts money.
Parents choose to “spin the wheel of life,” an anti-natalist from Philadelphia told me, without knowing what kind of life they will create. Without a way to acquire consent from the unborn, he added, “This is not a risk that is ours to take.”
Jack Jiang is a PhD Student in Anthropology, The New School, New York City.
The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. The Conversation is wholly responsible for the content.
© The Conversation
33 Comments
TaiwanIsNotChina
Well its only selfish in regards to their own family. Other families should be thankful.
Jay
Sounds like an article about the ultimate champions of doing nothing and calling it virtue. Imagine patting yourself on the back for "saving" hypothetical children by REFUSING to create them, all while reaping the benefits of a society built by people who didn't subscribe to their selfish nihilistic nonsense. Just another sick symptom of the Globalist Uber Progressive death cult.
The truth is, even at it's best it's nothing more than selfishness disguised as selflessness - a convenient excuse to avoid responsibility, contribution, or sacrifice, and sit around smugly while humanity declines.
TaiwanIsNotChina
The global population is still growing and already is more than the Earth can sustain.
Jay
Also people MUST consider the real-world consequences of a childless existence. Studies consistently show that childless people - particularly women - experience PROFOUND REGRET later in life. Yes, it it's heartbreaking, but when the glow of youthful freedom fades, and the reality of growing old without a family sets in, the "child-free by choice" crowd most likely WILL find itself grappling with loneliness, purposelessness, and - for many of them - a legacy of nothing.
Women in particular are sold the lie that career and personal indulgence will fill the void where family should be, only to discover too late that no paycheck, holiday, or fleeting hook-up can replace the love and fulfillment of raising children.
Having kids is challenging, I know that, but it's also the most rewarding and selfless act, offering purpose, love, and a legacy that far outweighs the fleeting comforts of being without them. To CHOOSE a childless life is to deny you (and your partner if applicable) the profound joy, purpose, and fulfillment that comes from nurturing the next generation.
Jay
No TINC, the "overpopulation" myth has been debunked repeatedly. The REAL crisis is the declining populations in many countries - including the one you live in - which leaves economies and societies to crumble under the weight of aging demographics. The world's resources are mismanaged, NOT insufficient, and blaming babies for bad policies is absolute nihilistic, GLOBALIST nonsense.
TaiwanIsNotChina
Immigration is always an option.
TaiwanIsNotChina
For reference, I had one parent die in an elder care home and the other on hospice in a nursing home, so really the most you can hope for for your sacrifice is for weekly visits/phone calls from your children.
Zaphod
A better future for who? For the non-existing children? For their future-less country? Or for Anugraha Kumar and "most leaders" themselves when they age in society full of old people? Talk about cognitive dissonance.
Ken
China had the one child policy for while years ago, people who immigrated from China could care less about who you are or what you have, they just wanted to protect their family or live a more peaceful lifestyle where they had more control over how they can choose to live their lives
Some dude
Also people MUST consider the real-world consequences of a childless existence. Studies consistently show that childless people - particularly women - experience PROFOUND REGRET later in life. Yes, it it's heartbreaking, but when the glow of youthful freedom fades, and the reality of growing old without a family sets in, the "child-free by choice" crowd most likely WILL find itself grappling with loneliness, purposelessness, and - for many of them - a legacy of nothing.
Well, let's take me for instance.
My wife and I are only one year apart in age, and she is considerably beyond the age where she could safely have children. We decided long before we got married that we didn't want kids. There are kids in our extended family down in the south of Japan, and we see them quite often.
Instead, we have plenty of time to pursue things that interest us, we can travel together without the extra complexity of taking kids along, and so far we have resolutely failed in experiencing profound regret.
Anyway, your theory is based on the assumption that people who have children always have fantastic relationships with those children and that the children will therefore gladly look after their parents when the parents are older. It would be nice if it were that simple, but it's not.
One thing I note is that while it is unusual for childless people to criticise those who have children, the reverse is often not the case, as you demonstrate here. Your dislike of, and prejudice towards, childless couples is very obvious.
Bob Fosse
Having children in absolutely no way indicates the moral character of anybody and it is foolish to believe so.
Let people choose for themselves. Bible bashers are generally the most judgmental. Try reading it.
Zaphod
Bob Fosse
The article however describes people who make the moral argument against children.
Did anybody mention the bible here? It is your choice to bring it up.
Bob Fosse
That’s their right. They can’t be criticized for it. Abstaining from parenthood is far better than doing a poor job of of it.
Moriah
Parents with children gain the incentive to think about the future and ensuring that they hand a stable society to the next generation.
Geeter Mckluskie
Morality is simply the agreed upon behaviour, implicit or explicit, between two or more people. That's it. That's all. So, depending on which group you belong to (morality is nested in the group, be the group as small as a couple or as big as a community, nation or the entire human race) having children may in fact be considered "moral". "Be fruitful and multiply" is an edict from one such group.
Geeter Mckluskie
Agreed. Having children should not be taken lightly. It requires a herculean effort to always put the needs and care of others above the wants of oneself. Too many people are not prepared nor even willing to make such a sacrifice. As a result, abuse or neglect often follows as a matter of course.
Zaphod
Bob Fosse
Nobody made a morality argument. It is you who is trying to bring in "morality" and "the bible". Why the gaslighting?
Zaphod
Moriah
Exactly. Having children is a built-in guarantee that you have interest in the future of your society. That is why childless politicians are dangerous.
Zaphod
Geeter Mckluskie
Nobody said anything like "be fruitful and multiply", so why the fake quotation marks? Why the gaslighing?
Geeter Mckluskie
This point was to address the claim that
"Having children in absolutely no way indicates the moral character of anybody"
The point being addressed was whether or not having children is "moral".
In some groups it is. As morality is nested in the group it depends on the group whether or not something is "moral".
For one group "Be fruitful and multiply" is and edict, ergo a moral principal for that group...ergo "Having children in absolutely no way indicates the moral character of anybody" is demonstrably false.
Zaphod
Geeter Mckluskie
Point taken. I still disagree with the attempt to twist the issue into a discussion about "morality", aka linked to religion, instead of simply talking in terms of common sense, intelligence and secular ethics. I.e. how does the "no children" crowd match their idea with Kants categorical imperative.
Geeter Mckluskie
Some groups are religious others aren't. For example, some groups feel that it's necessary to intervene to alter a person's biological anatomy because they deem it to be the "right thing" for the person who believes himself or herself to be the opposite sex that their human anatomy "presents". There are "moral" arguments surrounding such issues, not all of which are nested in religion. I just used that single edict to illustrate that the claim ""Having children in absolutely no way indicates the moral character of anybody". Well, in some ways it does...as the edict "Be fruitful and multiply" demonstrates.
Cephus
JayToday 06:42 am JST
"Sounds like an article about the ultimate champions of doing nothing and calling it virtue. Imagine patting yourself on the back for "saving" hypothetical children by REFUSING to create them, all while reaping the benefits of a society built by people who didn't subscribe to their selfish nihilistic nonsense. Just another sick symptom of the Globalist Uber Progressive death cult.
The truth is, even at it's best it's nothing more than selfishness disguised as selflessness - a convenient excuse to avoid responsibility, contribution, or sacrifice, and sit around smugly while humanity declines.."
EGGXactly!!!
Zaphod
Geeter Mckluskie
You can discuss the issue of the "no child" nihilism without muddying the waters by bringing in religion.
Hito Bito
"The global population is still growing and already is more than the Earth can sustain." Patent nonsense. Plenty of resources. Proving the alarmists wrong over and over and over again, since Malthus and even earlier. It's all about ALLOCATION, NOT supply. Of literally anything. Where there's a will...
"You can discuss the issue of the "no child" nihilism without muddying the waters by bringing in religion." True. Just like you might try discussing the issue of having no children without sloppily misapplying the slanderous term "nihilism" to it, eh? Unless you in fact make your posts simply to grind some moralist axe of yours, that is...
Geeter Mckluskie
Indeed, you can. You can also talk about "morality" in terms of "selfish" or "unselfish" behaviour vis a vis having children or not, without it being a form of "gaslighting".
robert maes
My wife and I both, we decided and agreed we wanted no children of our own. Several reasons.
one, our lifestyle. I move on average every 2 years to another country because of my job in sports.
second, we think he only real problem in the world is overpopulation and other problems are symptoms of that
third. The selfish reason that we want to live our lives and we realise that we might not be great parents, so better not. We both have bad relationships with our respective parents.
we made this decision for ourselves and are happy to see other families with children happy. We are happy too in our decision.
lastly I see that many of todays parents lack the skills, morals, ethics and selfishness to be good parents. We admit we might lack skill and selfishness, so did we not make the right decision then ?
Ah_so
People make the decisions that are best for them, based on their lifestyles. Your suggestions of "loneliness" and "purposelessness" are more from your imagination, not rigorous analysis of data. Yes, some do, obviously.
Your views appear to be driven more by your evangelical christian zeal shown in the cult article thread, rather than regard for what people actually want.
It is sometimes depicted that child free adults are selfish, yet one of the constant reasons presented for having children is to have a captive audience to keep you happy in old age. Now that is very clearly selfish.
Zaphod
Ah_so
Why this obsessive need to drag "christianity" into an unrelated discussion? Is there a reason?
Nobody said anything about "captive audience". The fact that people who have children have an obvious interest in the future of their society, vs those who nihilistically just look at their own lifespan do not, is in the definition itself. You do not need christianity or any other artificial teaching to see that.
Jay
I don't particularly need to address this as Zaphod has already dismantled your points, but I'll add this: claiming that people make the best decisions for themselves based on their "lifestyles" is the kind of wishful thinking that gave us fast food diets, crippling credit card debt, and TikTok addiction.
I get that the 'loneliness' and 'purposelessness' can come off as harsh, but unfortunately they're not figments of imagination - they're well-documented realities for many who choose to go child-free, especially later in life. Numerous studies show far higher rates of depression and regret among child-free individuals, and dismissing these realities as "evangelical Christian zeal" might be a convenient label for you, but it really is a lazy deflection from uncomfortable truths.
And here's the kicker: that uncomfortable truth will only grow more uncomfortable as the years progress, when the fleeting freedom of youth gives way to the stark realities of aging alone. And without children or meaningful contributions to future generations, what exactly will your legacy be?
Ah_so
Because Jay brought it into the conversation on cults and it is clear what perspective he is writing from - a conservative evangelical one most likely (arguably a cult in itself).
Jay
Um, so now the real question is: can you actually tell the difference between a discussion about religion and one about having kids, or are you just throwing "evangelical" at anything that makes you uncomfortable? Do you also walk into bakeries and accuse them of preaching because they sell hot cross buns?
Hawk
Which studies?