Another two thoughts I had on antinatalism, the belief that it is morally wrong to procreate, either on the basis of consent or on the basis of potential suffering. The first thought is the fact that as soon as sperm is released from the father, it tries really, really hard to break into the mother’s egg. And once it does, it immediately begins division and growth into an embryo, then a baby. The second thought is the fact that this baby, the child it eventually becomes, the adolescent, then the adult, tries really, really hard to stay alive. These facts combined tell me that life wants to begin, and wants to remain. Is that not sufficient to establish both consent to be born and a willingness to face any potential or ongoing suffering? Or do antinatalists assume some sort of spirit/body dichotomy and build from that obviously unstable foundation? And that’s today’s two cents.