Is ‘The Girl With All The Gifts’ Antinatalist? – An Essay by G.B. Gabbler — Further Annotations

Introduction: If you don’t know what antinatalism is. We all know that I really. Hate. Natalism. And we all know that I recommended The Girl With All The Gifts. But does it pass my standards of being antinatalist? Let’s break it down. Spoilers from here on out, curious cats. Essay: In the film version of The Girl With All […]

via Is ‘The Girl With All The Gifts’ Antinatalist? – An Essay by G.B. Gabbler — Further Annotations

“In the first place there is no instinctive purpose for the sex drive…”

“In the first place there is no instinctive purpose for the sex drive; people, not nature, give it a purpose. Sex can be used to express love, show affection, provide physical pleasure, or it can be used for procreation. Nature endowed women with the capability of having children but there is no innate drive which says they must use that capability. More than anything else it was the inability of women to prevent pregnancy which made them think that procreation was the reason for their sexual desires. In the past, birth control methods were either inadequate or totally lacking so when women made love they made babies. There was a pretty good correlation between copulation and procreation and that gave rise to some faulty cause-and-effect thinking: Sexuality creates a physical drive that must be satisfied. The satisfaction of that drive often causes pregnancy. Ergo, the reason for the drive was to become a mother.

This false logic put procreation in the same category as eating, drinking, sleeping, defecating, and breathing. The distinction that people failed to draw was that the latter drives have to be satisfied in order for people to go on living. They are true instincts. A woman, on the other hand, who fails to have children does not die. Consider the food intake instinct. People can diet, fast…but they cannot go on indefinitely without food…The basic nature of an instinct is that it cannot be ignored for long without causing harm. But women can use some method of birth control each time they have intercourse and never suffer as a result. If procreation were an instinct, women would die from extended use of contraception. Since they do not, it is obvious that having babies is not a biological drive.” – Anna and Arnold Silverman, The Case Against Having Children.

Book Review: Sacred Choices: The Right to Contraception and Abortion in Ten World Religions by Daniel C. Maguire

I discovered this gem in the library I work at. I was thrilled that specific passages had been highlighted by a previous reader–someone agreed with me.

For all you VHEMTers and Anti-natalists that continually have to deal with friends and relatives throwing religious reasons at you for their breeding…throw this book back at them.

Or, if violence isn’t your thing, here’s some important quotes from the book you can copy and paste to passive aggressively cyber-protest:

“The two sides in the abortion debate need not be so bitterly divided. There are things we could all agree on. We could all agree that there are too many abortions! We could also all agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, since that is the key problem.”

“The major religions were spawned in a world where our species lived on the scary brink of depopulation. It is not surprising that these religions would be part of the chorus pushing for fertility…As Univeristy of Pennsylvania professor William LaFleur says, the ancient religions ‘turned reproductivity into a mode of being godly. The multiplication of one’s kind became both an index of divine favor and a way of receiving such favor.’ However, we will see that these same religions developed teaching that would permit, even require, a limit to births.”

“Let me use Roman Catholicism as one example of ongoing change. In the past, it taught that contraceptive sex could never be justified. We see this changing in many Catholic theologians like Christine Gudorf, whom we will be meeting in this book. Gudorf says that not only is contraception not wrong, but that sex should normally be contraceptive and the decision to use sex to have a baby is one that has to be justified. It can be justified if you can give that baby all that it deserves and if you are bringing the child into an environment that is not already overburdened.”

“We are not bunny rabbits or bacteria. We are people, the animal rationale, the reasoning animal, and we have to reproduce in a reasonable ways so that life on this uniquely privileged planet can survive and thrive.”

‘The bible does not condemn abortion. The closest it gets is in Exodus 21:22, which speaks of accidental abortion. This imposes a financial penalty on a man who caused a woman to miscarry “in the course of a brawl” (NEB). The issue here is the father’s right to progeny; he could fine you for the misdeed, but he could not claim “an eye for an eye” as if a person had been killed. Thus, a conservative theologian John Connery S.J., said, “the fetus did not have the same status as the mother in Hebrew Law.”’

By it in paperback or Kindle.

Read my review policy here.

The Case Against Having Children:

“In the first place there is no instinctive purpose for the sex drive; people, not nature, give it a purpose. Sex can be used to express love, show affection, provide physical pleasure, or it can be used for procreation. Nature endowed women with the capability of having children but there is no innate drive which says they must use that capability. More than anything else it was the inability of women to prevent pregnancy which made them think that procreation was the reason for their sexual desires. In the past, birth control methods were either inadequate or totally lacking so when women made love they made babies. There was a pretty good correlation between copulation and procreation and that gave rise to some faulty cause-and-effect thinking: Sexuality creates a physical drive that must be satisfied. The satisfaction of that drive often causes pregnancy. Ergo, the reason for the drive was to become a mother.


This false logic put procreation in the same category as eating, drinking, sleeping, defecating, and breathing. The distinction that people failed to draw was that the latter drives have to be satisfied in order for people to go on living. They are true instincts. A woman, on the other hand, who fails to have children does not die. Consider the food intake instinct. People can diet, fast…but they cannot go on indefinitely without food…The basic nature of an instinct is that it cannot be ignored for long without causing harm. But women can use some method of birth control each time they have intercourse and never suffer as a result. If procreation were an instinct, women would die from extended use of contraception. Since they do not, it is obvious that having babies is not a biological drive.” – Anna and Arnold Silverman, The Case Against Having Children.

The Burden – By Amanda Ross

My short story “The Burden” was recently posted on The Strange and the Curious. It’s a minimalist Science Fiction story (more like dialogue) about a snapshot conversation between a Human and an Alien.

 

P.S. The Strange and the Curious is accepting submissions!

The Strange and The Curious...

“You see, your world is becoming overpopulated,” The Alien said. “Something must be done.”

“So you’re just – just going to kill all of us?” The Human replied.

View original post 1,402 more words