this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2026
270 points (85.9% liked)
childfree
2709 readers
236 users here now
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well you can bitch and moan all you want about breeders but the fact remains that their offspring will finance society as you age.
I am a parent myself and I see reproduction as the most egotistical thing you can do. At the same time those who do not are more or less leeches from a societal perspective.
I the end we are all free to chose paths but stop complaining about the choices others have made. Yours do not make you superior.
Leeches? You're kidding right? I pay into the taxes which fund your child's schools, WIC, libraries, Medicare and all of the other things which children benefit from, that I do not, because I do NOT have children. I'm the opposite of a leech, I contribute more and use less than most parents. You need people like me contributing monetarily, socially, and culturally and not using all of the services to make it all work. I'm not going to shit on people who have kids, because as you said we all make choices, but don't for a second think you're somehow superior because you made a different choice than me.
Yes and when you get old and stop working those kids will pay for you. You do realise that a declining population is problem for this reason, right?
You're assuming I'm not making provisions for myself and will be reliant on the system of taxes for my wellbeing. A declining population is only a problem when the entire system is in shambles. There is more than enough money and resources for every person on this earth to live comfortably; we're just busy throwing away food and spending wealth and resources bombing each other and preventing "unworthy" people from accessing basic necessities.
Don't come at me as if I'm some child hating monster who thinks all parents are bad. I replied because you called me a leech for having the audacity to choose differently than you. I respect parents for the tough job they've taken on, especially in this day and age, but that doesn't somehow make you superior. It takes a village, and not everyone in the village needs to reproduce to make it successful. Get off your high horse.
I may have come of as a hater of the childfree life but I am definitely not. I just can't stand those who complain about others having children. I am if the opinion that you have to choose to have children or not. Neither will make you superior.
It literally is not. I will be dead.
Anti-natalists do not realize this, no.
Money isn't everything. Or rather: if there are no people left to work for your money you have nothing to contribute (but your own work). You need other people kids more than they need your (relatively small) monetary contribution.
Where on earth are you going with this. You're replying as if I somehow think nobody should have kids. Nowhere did I say or even imply that, no did I denigrate those that choose to. I simply refuted that those who choose not to are leeches simply by their lack of offspring. That's a dumb statement. No society on earth has everyone reproducing; that has never and will never be a thing. There are other ways to contribute to the collective good, and society as a whole that have nothing to do with having children. Yes, people need to reproduce for our species to succeed, and I respect those who choose to do so. That doesn't make them superior though, and calling me a leech for choosing not to is asinine.
Wow. I guess I missed the part where people without kids don't have to pay taxes and just get free retirement...
Well when you get old and stop working those kids will pay back by paying taxes themselves. That is the part you missed.
So when I invest in the future by planting fruit trees I become A leech when I collect fruit off those trees?
The money needed to pay for all elderly people in society is not purely from the taxes we pay whilst we work. We who pay taxes now, are also paying for retired people. If the ratio between retired and non retired is too skewed the quality of life will reduce for the elderly and the retirement age will also have to go up to cover these costs.
I simply meant that if enough people do not provide to the pool of working adults this retirement ratio will be affected. Most economic systems in the west are based on the assumption that people will have kids. Without them there will a deficit since the pool of older people will cost a lot more than what society can handle.
I regret using the word "leech" and I agree that it was too harsh. But if enough people stop producing offspring we end up with a behaviour that is not far from parasitic in that they will at some point expect others to pay for them, others who not exist.
Given the state of the world I totally get why people do not want to have any kids. But I do not understand why people hate on parents so much when they are actually providing something of societal value. So when someone wants you to imagine what it is like to have a second job, this second job is, in fact, indirectly supporting future you as well.
Obviously some people cannot have children and that is fine. It becomes a problem when there is a wave of people who will not. Again, understandable but problematic. I kind of get r/fatpeoplehate vibes from these discussions and it made me react.
Complaining that a group is being given privileges that other people are not, such as more flexible hours and the ability to turn down traveling for work, and expressing a desire to receive the same privileges, is not the same as hating that group.
Fair point, and my mistake. But what these parents receive is humanity, not privelage. This is like a rich person complaining about poor people receiving economic support. Help should be bestowed to those in need.
You've just made it worse. You've gone from "Parents receive privileges that non-parents don't" to "Parents deserve more humanity than non-parents," then you compare non-parents to the mentally ill:
I am in favour of Universal Basic Income, the first word of that being universal. Let the rich person have a drop in their bucket while providing the basic needs of living to everybody.
When did I say that?
What makes you think I don't need a flexible schedule or the ability to turn down traveling for work?
As established earlier: Taxes that fund schools and safety nets.
Why would anyone assume that a child free person would automatically need anywhere near as flexible schedules? To do what? Tend to your horses? You seriously underestimate how much extra time raising kids take, whether due to unforseen circumstances or not. I guarantee you, even with all the supposed privileges these parents receive they are drowning by the added workload and they are more stressed at work than they were before having kids.
And once again being dismissive towards people for the sin of "not having children." That's not going to convince anyone who disagrees with you to listen to you.
It's infuriating that you don't see how incredibly fucking stupid that is. It isn't a universal truth either; it hasn't always been this way and it isn't even this way all over the world today. Hell, it doesn't even actually work currently in the US, how many retired people do you know that actually only live on Social Security? Basically fucking none because it is nowhere near enough money to retire, despite paying in an absolute fortune over their entire working lives. That same money saved in almost any other imaginable way would do more to support retirees than the awful fucking system we have now that relies on the next few generations to pay.
That's because what you are espousing the benefits of like it is the obvious and only system is just a forced fucking ponzi scheme.
Your taxes finance the retirement of the people currently retired. Your retirement is financed by kids who will work when you're retired
That is quite an assumption
They being people who breed
You read didn't that right.