Thread 82391759

Why are childfree people seen as being selfish when most of our reasoning is based on not wanting people to suffer, while natalist always list reasons like having someone to wipe their poop when they are old or legacy?

the framing of this question is off, just like how faggots tried to use "Cisgender" instead of saying "normal" to try to make you people seem like the reasonable ones
"Natalists" are just normal people who have normal human urges to procreate, just like you have them to eat, sleep, orgasm, breathe, etc
They are the normal ones
"childfree" "people" are worthless, but it's ok, they're taking care of their own problem by not passing on their genes. they will be old, lonely and forgotten in no time

>>82391759 (OP)
Because it's a benefit to them.
You either don't see it as a worthy benefit, or your morals prevent you from having children.
People always had children because it benefit them, times are more peaceful now so we're more liberal than ever, but picture that you're some random peasant about a thousand years ago with nothing but the small amount of farmland you own, You'd have a child simply for extra helping hands on the farmland.
Guys want to have housewives so they don't have to cook and clean themselves, isn't that selfish aswell?

>>82391777
Its not about being normal or not normal, I'm talking about the selfishness argument. If your argument is that I am abnormal or defective, fine, but selfish doesn't really work.

>>82391824
>Because it's a benefit to them.
Yeah I can see that, especially when children were basically free labor. I'm not attacking the desire, but the accusation of selfishness applies more to natalist than the childfree.