Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} Procreation Is Murder The Case for Voluntary Human Extinction by Anti Procreation Procreation Is Murder: The Case for Voluntary Human Extinction by Anti Procreation. by Kristen Walker Hatten, September 28, 2013. I first learned of the Church of Euthanasia in high school, when a friend of mine gave me one of their bumper stickers. It was years later, when the Internet became a part of our lives, that I finally looked them up. I�m telling you about them today because this pro-death cult is the logical end result of our death-obsessed culture. The �church�s� origin story is both ridiculous and disturbing: The Church of Euthanasia was inspired by a dream, in which Rev. Chris Korda confronted an alien intelligence known as The Being who speaks for the inhabitants of Earth in other dimensions. The Being warned that our planet�s ecosystem is failing, and that our leaders deny this. � Rev. Korda awoke from the dream moaning the Church�s infamous slogan, Save the Planet � Kill Yourself. The explanation goes on to bemoan the dangers of �climate change� and �overpopulation,� and then gets right to the crux of their message: Even a major war or epidemic hardly dents the rate of growth, and modern wars have tremendous environmental consequences. It is for these practical reasons, as well as moral ones, that Euthanasians support only voluntary forms of population reduction, including suicide, free abortion, and sodomy, which they define as any sexual act not intended for procreation. They are also fiercely vegetarian, and support cannibalism for those who insist on eating flesh. Whoa, whoa, whoa, you might be thinking. These are crazy fringe extremists, and as pro-lifers we don�t really need to worry about them. Really? The �church� was founded in 1992. I found out about it two years later, at age fifteen, from a friend in an AP History class in a suburban high school in Texas. And that was almost twenty years ago. Every once in a while, somebody new � maybe somebody young and impressionable � finds out about the Church of Euthanasia, and thinks it�s a little bit awesome. Or maybe a lot awesome. Here is what the �church� has to say about abortion: It has become politically correct to be �pro-choice�, but the very euphemism itself reveals deep misgivings within the people who call themselves pro-choice. The Church of Euthanasia is not pro-choice. The Church of Euthanasia is pro-abortion. �Sister Catherine� goes on to say that because people are too irresponsible for birth control, �[t]he time has come for abortion to be encouraged as birth control.� The �sister� particularly loves RU486, calling surgical abortion �crude.� She adds: Where are all those fetuses going, anyway? Judging by the number of pro-life lunatics that manage to get hold of them, too many are winding up in dumpsters. How typically American! Let�s recycle those fetuses, by combining two of the pillars of the church. Fetus pate, anyone? The church�s one commandment is �Thou shalt not procreate.� A lot of people seem to have no trouble following this commandment and upholding the four pillars. The Church currently has hundreds of card-carrying members who�ve taken the vow, plus clergy, directors, and thousands of �e-members� on the Internet. We have members as far away as Italy and Latvia, though the majority are still in the USA. How lucky for America. In case you�re thinking these are just a handful of wackos, be advised they link to several other �anti-humanist� organizations from their site, such as the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement and Gaia Liberation Front, whose philosophy is summed up as �the Humans must be completely exterminated, ASAP.� It is dangerous to dismiss these people as mere extremists. The truth is, they�re only carrying a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia mentality to its logical end. If abortion is a responsible and acceptable act � as it is, according to pro-choicers � then what is abortion�s exact opposite, procreation? The Antinatalism Booklist. Crítica de la moral afirmativa (Spanish) Gedisa, 1996 A critique of affirmative morality – a reflection on death, birth and the value of life ( English version) Julio Cabrera Editions, 2014 By Julio Cabrera. Projeto de Ética Negativa, (Project of Negative Ethics) (Portuguese) Edicões Mandacaru, 1989 Second edition: A Ética e Suas Negações (Ethics and its negations) (Portuguese) Rocco, 2011 By Julio Cabrera. Section for David Benatar. The Human Predicament A Candid Guide to Life’s Biggest Questions Oxford University Press, June 7, 2017 By David Benatar. Debating Procreation: Is it Wrong to Reproduce? Oxford University Press, June 1, 2015 By David Benatar and David Wasserman. Procreation and Parenthood: The Ethics of Bearing and Rearing Children Oxford University Press, November 11, 2010 By David Archard and David Benatar. Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence Oxford University Press, October 19, 2006 Nebýt či být : O utrpení, které přináší příchod na tento svět (Czech version) Dybbuk, 2013 By David Benatar. Section for Karim Akerma. Antinalismus – Ein Handbuch (Antinatalism – A Handbook) (German) Epubli, February 24, 2017 By Karim Akerma. Verebben der Menschheit?: Neganthropie und Anthropodizee (Enlightening humanity?: Neganthropy and Anthropodizee) (German) Verlag Karl Alber, 2000 By Karim Akerma. Verebben der Menschheit? Neganthropie und Anthropodizee (Ebbing away of mankind? Neganthropy and Anthropodicy) (German) Verlag Karl Alber, 2000 By Karim Akerma. Soll eine Menschheit sein? Eine fundamentalethische Frage (Should Mankind Exist? A Fundamental Ethical Question) (German) Traude Junghans, 1995 By Karim Akerma. Antinatalist Books. True Detective and Philosophy: A Deeper Kind of Darkness The Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture Series, November 20, 2017 by Jacob Graham and Tom Sparrow. Antinatalismus (German) Books on Demand, April 28, 2017 by Gunther R Eberhard. Anti-Natalism: Rejectionist Philosophy from Buddhism to Benatar Jul 26, 2016 By Ken Coates (Ramesh Mishra) Argumentos antinatalistas (Spanish) January 1, 2015 By Moris Polanco. Every Cradle Is a Grave: Rethinking the Ethics of Birth and Suicide Nine-Banded Books, November 21, 2014 By Sarah Perry. Du refus d’être père – Contours de l’infécondité masculine (The refusal to be a father – Outlines of male infertility) (French) January 2014 By François Faucon. No Baby No Cry: Christian Antinatalism 2013 By Martin Smith. La création d’une existence ne sert que ceux qui existent déjà (Creating an existence only serves those that already exist) (French) Atramenta, November 2013 By Emile Berlherm. Naître est-il dans l’intérêt de l’enfant? (Is birth in the interest of the child?) October, 2011 By Jean-Christophe Lurenbaum. Fluch der Geburt – Thesen einer Uberlebensethik (Curse of Birth – Theses of a Survival Ethic) (German) Edition Gegensich, 2011 By Gunter Bleibohm. The Conspiracy against the Human Race: A Contrivance of Horror Hippocampus Press, 2010 La conspiración contra la especie humana (Spanish version) Valdemar, 2015 Spisek przeciwko ludzkiej rasie (Polish version) Okultura, 2015 By Thomas Ligotti. Confessions Of An Antinatalist Nine-Banded Books, April 20, 2010 By Jim Crawford (There exists a second edition with an additional Q&A section) L’Art de Guillotiner Les Procreateurs: Manifeste Anti-nataliste (The Art of Beheading Procreators: Antinatalist Manifesto) (French) Le Mort-Qui- Trompe, 2006 By Theophile de Giraud. Bienheureux les stériles (Blessed are the barren) (French) Presses du Midi, 2002 By Philippe Annaba. De l’inconvénient d’être né (French) Galimard, 1973 The Trouble With Being Born (English version) Seaver Books, 1976 Del inconveniente de haber nacido (Spanish version) Taurus, 1981 Vom Nachteil, geboren zu sein (German version) Suhrkamp Verlag, 1979 L’inconveniente di essere nati (Italian version) Adelphi, 1991 Doğmuş Olmanın Sakıncası (Turkish version) Ankara Opus Yayınları, 1998 O niedogodności narodzin (Polish version) Oficyna Literacka, 1996 Despre neajunsul de a te fififi născut (Romanian version) Editura Humanitas, 2011 By Emil Cioran (Aphorisms) Nein zum Leben – Ein Essay (No To Life – An Essay) (German) Safchbuch Fischer, 1992 By Martin Neuffer. Om Det Tragiske (On The Tragic) (Norwegian) Pax, 1941 By Peter Wessel Zapffe. Pessimistische Kardinalsätze: Ein Vademekum für die freiesten Geister (Pessimistic Cardinal Records: A Vademecum for the Free Spirits) Herrosé Zimsen Verlag, 1905 By Helene Druskowitz. The Philosophy of Samuel Beckett Calder, 2001 By John Calder (The author is not an antinatalist, but describes antinatalist worldview of his longtime friend, Samuel Beckett) Der Neo-Nihilismus. Anti-Militarismus – Sexualleben (Ende der Menschheit) [The Neo-nihilism. Anti-Militarism – Sexual Life (End of Humanity)] Verlag Max Sängewald, 1903 By Kurnig. Books that includes antinatalist philosophy, ideas and quotes, but not exclusively. Glimpses of Truth: Morality, Karma, Procreation April 5, 2017 By Pikesh Srivastava (Schopenhauer’s philosophy in view of modern biology, chapters on antinatalism) Rethinking Procreation Dog Ear Publishing, January 11, 2017 By Dr Rick Vega. Peroratas (Spanish) Alfaguara, 2013 By Fernando Vallejo. Keeping Ourselves in the Dark Nine-Banded Books, Mar 31, 2015 By Colin Feltham (Chapter on antinatalism in light of Depressive Realism) The Book of al-Ma’arri CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2015 By Al-Ma’arri Abul ‘ala. (Includes arabic antinatalist poems from approx. 900-1000 A.D) Théorie du corps amoureux / Theory of the loving body (French) Grasset, 2000 By Michel Onfray. Journal hédoniste: Tome 2, Les Vertus de la foudre / Hedonist Journal: Volume 2, The Virtues of Lightning (French) Grasset, 1998 By Michel Onfray. La mort dans l’âme: tango avec Cioran (French) Odile Jacob, 2011 By Elisa Brune. The Spirit of Buddhism Kessinger Publishing, 2005 By Hari Singh Gour (The author is not antinatalist, but he thinks Buddha was an antinatalist and his teachings were antinatalist.) Autobiographische Schriften (German) Verlag Peter Lang, 1981. Gathering evidence: a memoir (English version) Knopf, 1985 By Thomas Bernhard (Half-autobiographical book, includes antinatalist thoughts.) Jeg velger sannheten: En dialog mellom Peter Wessel Zapffe og Herman Tønnessen (I choose the truth: A dialogue between Peter Wessel Zapffe and Herman Tønnessen) (Norwegian) Universitets forlaget, 1983 By Herman Tønnessen and Peter Wessel Zapffe. Studies in Pessimism: The Essays G. Allen & Unwin, 1890 By Arthur Schopenhauer. Selected Essays of Schopenhauer G. Bell and Sons, 1926 By Arthur Schopenhauer. Geschlecht und Charakter. Eine prinzipielle Untersuchung (German) Wilhelm Braumüller, 1903 Sex & Character (English version) W. Heinemann, 1906 By Otto Weininger (A misogynistic book with an antinatalist conclusion.) Il silenzio del corpo. Materiali per studio di medicina (Italian) Adelphi, 1979 The Silence of the Body: Materials for the Study of Medicine (English version) Farrar Straus & Giroux, 1993 By Guido Ceronetti(Aphorisms) Insetti senza frontiere (Italian) Adelphi, 2009 By Guido Ceronetti (Aphorisms) Maldetti. Pensieri in soluzione acida (Italian) Edizioni Joker, 2007 By Giovanni Soriano (Aphorisms) Finché c’è vita non c’è speranza. Diario aforistico 2003-2009 (Italian) Kimerik, 2010 By Giovanni Soriano (Aphorisms) Malomondo. In lode della stupidità (Italian) Fazi, 2013 By Giovanni Soriano (Aphorisms) L’âme est un vaste pays Grasset, 1984 By Roland Jaccard (Aphorisms) Un climatiseur en enfer Editions Zoé, 2000 By Roland Jaccard (Aphorisms) Sexe et sarcasmes Presses Universitaires de France, 2009 By Roland Jaccard (Aphorisms) Some of the Dharma Viking Penguin, 1997 By Jack Kerouac. Self-published Antinatalist Books. Love Void Love: Dreams from the Abyss: Writings of Things and Other Things; With Forays Into Harm-Reduction; & The Final Revelation is Death: Corporeal Anecdote and Philosophy March 6, 2019 By Josiah S. Cooper. A New Approach to Procreative Ethics April 5, 2017 By Francois Tremblay. Ever Deeper Honesty 2017 By Unknown. Procreation Is Murder: The Case for Voluntary Human Extinction March 18, 2017 By Anti Procreation (Jiwoon Hwang) Notes on Carrion: 200 Aphorisms, Musings and Fragments on Antinatalism and Pessimism February 18, 2016 By Joe Somber (Aphorisms) Black Hole: 200 Aphorisms, Fragments and Musings on Antinatalism, Pessimism and the Tragedy of Existence January 30, 2016 By Joe Somber (Aphorisms) A última filosofia: An essay about antinatalism (Portuguese) June 28, 2012 By Rafael Tages Melo. Antinatalist Literary Fiction/Poetry. Saaransh: The Dark One Self-published, August 3, 2017 by Vandana Gupta (Poetry) Hypocritical Thoughts Self-published, January 25, 2017 By David Ross. The David Rossian Reader Self-published, January 20, 2017 By David Ross. Spectres of Confusion Self-published, June 24, 2016 By Anonymous. too much human Self-published, June 23, 2016 By David McLean. Slow Arrow Self-published, July 9, 2016 By Anonymous. The Spectacle of the Void December 1, 2014 By David Peak. An Individual Will Self-published, October 4th 2014 By J.G. Ellis. The Gag Gift Self-published, 2014 By G.A. Jahn. The Talkative Corpse: A Love Letter Self-published, April 9, 2013 By Ann K. Sterzinger and Michael Browarski. Among Nightingales 2012 By Frank Lee Scott (ConferenceReport) À l’enfant que je n’aurai pas Broché (To the child I will not have) (French) éditions NiL, 2011 By Linda Le. NVSQVAM (nowhere) Nine-Banded Books, June 2011 By Ann Sterzinger. The Sunset Limited: A Novel in Dramatic Form Oct 24 2006 By Cormac McCarthy. Le Berceau (French) Presses du Midi, 2005 By Annaba Philippe. The Office of Reports (Meta-ethical story about the advisability of counseling before birth). (Spanish) 1978-1994 By Julio Cabrera. Der erschossene Storch (The shot stork) (German) Wilhelm Goldmann Verlag, 1930 By Karl Ettlinger. Essay:Believers in Hell should not procreate, and should embrace antinatalism. The doctrine of eternal Hell has long been a part of many (though far from all) denominations of religions such as Christianity and Islam. Regardless of its veracity or lack thereof, this idea has certainly been beneficial to organized religion's fear-based control over people, and it is still promoted even to this day, with the religious orthodoxy denouncing as heretical figures such as Bishop Carlton Pearson who decide to abandon this doctrine in favor of universal reconciliation. In 2011, largely in response to the controversy sparked in the religious community by Michigan pastor Rob Bell's book "Love Wins", the Southern Baptist Convention went as far as to announce a re-affirmation on their belief in Hell as "eternal conscious punishment", effectively proclaiming that many millions of Americans, and billions worldwide, are destined for this fate. In response to this extreme doctrine, many good hell-fearing people naturally conclude that their moral imperative is to save as many souls as possible, and accordingly, they try to evangelize and convert unbelievers to their own religion. However, these people are mistaken about their priorities, because the effectiveness of religious evangelism pales in comparison to a much more important moral imperative that stems from believing in Hell, one that religious people seem curiously eager to ignore: abstaining from procreation, and embracing antinatalism. Although existence (or non-existence) before conception is rarely discussed or even thought about in religious circles (curiously, given their eloquence on life after death), it is generally implicitly agreed that the non-existent are in no danger of going to Hell and cannot be in need of saving. It is the act of conceiving a child, of bringing a new soul into existence, that creates this infinite danger in the first place. Given these unfathomable stakes imposed on the child simply by bringing him/her into the world, belief in an eternal Hell (whether the believer knows it or not) inherently carries the conclusion that the act of procreation is immeasurably more reckless, more heinous, more harmful and more unethical than the finite amount of violence, killing, rape, torture and other suffering that any human has ever caused on this planet. These facts remain regardless of how good the intentions of the Hell-believing parent might be, or their confidence in their ability to keep their child on the straight and narrow path for their entire life even after the death of the parent (a confidence which is demonstrably often misplaced), or any other factor regarding parenting. They also remain regardless of how immeasurably blissful salvation in Heaven might be: even an infinite right cannot justify an infinite wrong, just as saving a person's life would not exempt one from being charged for later murdering (or even criminally harming) them. Any concept of Heaven must take second place to the primary moral imperative for the Hell-believer, which is to eliminate, if possible, the danger of eternal torment for any new souls - and this can only be done by preventing them from being conceived in the first place, meaning abstaining from having any children and actively working to discourage others from procreating. In fact, the ideal situation, based on a belief in Hell, would be the cessation of procreation and of the human race altogether (in accordance with the aims of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement). As extreme as these statements may sound to some, they are nothing more than ramifications of the monstrously extreme doctrine of eternal Hell. The fact that the Southern Baptist Convention and other religious bodies and individuals expressing and promoting belief in Hell are not embracing antinatalism - and that Hell-believing demographics have some of the highest birth rates in the world - could imply that on some deep unconscious level they do not really believe what they say they do, or have not fully grasped the devastating implications of the doctrine they endorse. More cynically, in the case of powerful religious bodies, while the doctrine of Hell is effective for maintaining fear-based control, the moral imperative of antinatalism stemming from it is most decidedly not. Any sincere Hell-believer who follows their belief to its inescapable ethical conclusions, and who wishes to have a child, would do well to adopt one of the many already existing children in need. This would allow all the benefits and joys of parenting (including the opportunity to try to raise and direct the child onto the path of salvation) while avoiding the unspeakable and unforgivable moral repugnance that Hell-belief entails for procreation. It must be said that there are many denominations of Christianity, Islam etc., and countless religious individuals, who do not believe in eternal Hell, and for them these conclusions do not apply. It must also be stressed that the argument in this essay - that antinatalism is an inescapable moral imperative that results from believing in an endless Hell - does not entail any opinion on the value of antinatalism or on procreation for those who do not believe in this doctrine. The doctrine of eternal Hell has been an effective control mechanism for many centuries, as mentioned already, and it has been and continues to be responsible for an enormous amount of fear, suffering and violence in the world. The only way that all this could be excused would be if the doctrine were true. However, if this were the case, procreation would be unambiguously evil for all of us, and we would all have an obligation to abstain from procreation to the point of voluntary human extinction in order to prevent the creation of any more souls destined for infinite and eternal torment. Conversely, should the doctrine be false and Hell not exist, then the religious bodies and people responsible for promoting this evil delusion would deserve to be held accountable for all the pointless suffering that it continues to inflict on people. And in both cases, these people need to be held to account for the inevitable moral consequences that stem from the doctrine they promote, and recognized as being either delusional, or insincere in their beliefs, or extremely negligent, or horrifically indifferent to suffering, if they fail to embrace antinatalism. Responding to Sam Burke's Argument That Christianity Entails Anti-Natalism. "Responding to Sam Burke's Argument that Christianity Entails Anti-Natalism" [1] is an entry written by Evan Minton on his blog Cerebral Faith and reposted on the website CrossExamined.org, [2] attempting to argue that the doctrine of Hell does not make procreation immoral. The following is a side-by-side rebuttal. Contents. Minton: RationalWiki: In the comment section of one of the posts on the Cerebral Faith facebook page, Sam Burke commented "If I found out Christianity was true, I would do everything in my power to stop people from having kids so that more people don’t go to Hell. According to Matthew 7:13 only a few people will find the way to Heaven. Almost everyone who is born will end up being burned in eternal conscious pain for eternity according to the Bible. A trillion years and the person will not be a second closer to being out of Hell. Any parent who truly believes and understands this, and knows their kids will statistically probably end up in Hell and has kids anyway hates them. Having children violates “love your neighbor as yourself” on that viewpoint. If Hell, then Anti-Natalism. And not to mention if the Age of Accountability is true we should conceive kids just for the sake of aborting them and therefore “populating Heaven.” And I am Pro-Life!! Or infants are damned unless they accept Jesus as their savior from the time they are born. Christianity is utterly hopeless, depressing, etc. No compassionate person could want Christianity and all that it entails to be true.” Francois Tremblay paraphrased the argument thus: "If one is a Christian, believes in the existence of Hell, and that one cannot be guaranteed of not going to Hell (for even if one believes in Jesus today and believes that this is all one needs to do to go to Heaven, one can never be guaranteed that he will steadfast in that belief for the rest of his life), then it seems that the probability of any given new human life going to Hell is more than trivial. And now, for the kicker: since Hell is an eternal, that is to say infinite, punishment, and any proportion of an infinite term must necessarily be infinite as well, we must conclude that the Christian breeder who creates a new life is guilty of bringing about infinite suffering into the world!" [3] First, God Has Made Salvation Available to All, Anyone Damned Has Only Themselves to Blame [ edit ] God The Father gave up God the Son (i.e., Jesus) to die for the sins of the world ! The Greek word translated “world” here is kosmos, and it is most often used to either describe all of humanity, the entire planet, or the entire physical universe. If you are a part of the world, then God loves you and became a man to atone for your sins. I’m a part of the world. You’re a part of the world. Adolf Hitler was a part of the world. Osama Bin Laden was a part of the world. The random person who drove by my house yesterday is a part of the world. Every human being is included in this passage. Moreover, whosoever out of the group that God loved (i.e., the world) who places their faith in Jesus will not perish but have eternal life. Jesus said that God didn’t send His Son into the world to condemn it, but to save the world through him. Also, Minton's implicit assumption that genuine belief is a choice is questionable. Many ex-Christian atheists report that they did not simply choose to stop believing: they found themselves gradually becoming less convinced of God's existence, [5] [6] during which time some may have gone through a truly angst-filled crisis of faith and prayed to God for support or guidance which was not forthcoming. No matter whether a person abandons Christianity (or any other religion), or simply does not adopt it in the first place, the evolution of their worldview in many cases is, as a Psychology Today writer put it, "primarily the result of brain function combined with access to knowledge, information, and a social setting allowing disbelief. Given the right conditions, the result will be an individual who does not accept supernatural explanations." [7] Granted, there is a grain of truth in the idea that belief has an indirect voluntary element, in that one can choose to expose oneself to information and environments that may influence one's worldview. But not subscribing to or not feeling convinced by one particular religion out of many, or not taking its written text at face value, can in no way be equated to actively and deliberately "resisting the Holy Spirit" or "sending (oneself) into Hell" — in the same way that Christians are not typically held to be actively "resisting" each and every one of the 2000+ gods they don't believe in (Allah, Vishnu, Zeus etc.) Secondly, He Is Assuming That Parents Have No More Say in The Eternal Destiny of their Children Than Birthing Them. [ edit ] Sam Burke is assuming that parents have no more say in the eternal destiny of their children than merely birthing them and letting them decide for themselves. However, Proverbs 22:6 says “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.” It is Minton, not Burke, who is making the unwarranted assumption about the power of parents to shape their children's destiny here, denying the fact that the children will have minds of their own, have experiences and make discoveries in the world that the parents did not, and, in all probability, live on for several more decades after the parents have died. All these factors will afford countless opportunities for the children to develop ways of thinking that might well be completely different from that of their parents. The number of ex-Christian atheists who grew up in strictly evangelical and/or fundamentalist homes is testament to this fact. It is generally true that if you raise your child right, he’ll grow up right. Theologically, one should expose their children to sound doctrine at a young age, and teach them apologetics from a young age. You can start with having them read books like “The Case For Christ For Kids” by Lee Strobel, “The Case For Faith For Kids” by Lee Strobel, “The Mystery Of The Picture: Where Did The Universe Come From? Did It Come From Nothing?” by Mary Katherine Mammen and Neil Mammen, and “The Awesome Book Of Bible Answers For Kids” by Josh McDowell and Kevin Johnson. When they enter high school, you can move them on to more advanced material like the regular “The Case For Christ” by Lee Strobel, “My Redeemer Lives: Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus” by Evan Minton, and others. See my blog post “Teach Your Children Apologetics” for a larger list. Keeping in mind that an eternity of suffering in Hell is infinitely bad, procreation would only be morally acceptable if the new child's risk of such a fate was zero . Therefore, the assurance that "It is generally true that if you raise your child right, he'll grow up right" is simply not good enough. Even if it were true 99.99% of the time, this would still be inadequate to justify procreation, because even one soul going to Hell would amount to an infinity of suffering. Hell-believers who procreate have a responsibility to their children not just to minimise, but to completely and utterly eliminate, the risk of Hell for them — and this level of certainty cannot be achieved through any amount of education, indoctrination, Christian literature or apologetics. The only reliable safeguard is not to procreate in the first place. The Hell-believer who wishes to have a child might consider adopting a child who has already been brought into existence, meaning that the damage (i.e. the creation of infinite risk) has already been done. While your kids should look at the evidence for Christianity’s truth, You should be a well-informed Christian and be able their questions as well. As J. Warner Wallace once said, you are the first apologist your child will ever be exposed to. I think fewer young people would leave the church if we were prepared to make a reasonable case for Christianity instead of emphasizing feeling based experiences, and (this especially goes for youth pastors) entertainment. When I become a father, I will ensure that if my child grows up and apostatizes, it won’t be for intellectual reasons (John 3:19-20). Here Minton acknowledges that significant numbers of young people leave the church. But, once again, he sidesteps the issue: if the doctrine of eternal Hell were true, then even one young person leaving the church would be a sign that the person's parents acted immorally in bringing him/her into the world and into the risk of eternal torture. The answer to the problem of your offspring going to Hell isn't to refrain from having them, but to make sure that they know the Living God. Why? As stated before, the former is 100% guaranteed to safeguard them from Hell; the latter is not. Many who at one time "know" the Living God come to the realisation later on that they "know" something different instead. Thirdly, While Jesus Said More Would Be In Hell Than Heaven, He Never Gave Exact Numbers [ edit ] You have no idea the ratio of damned to saved and neither do I. It's difficult to read Matthew 7:13-14 and not get the idea that Jesus said there would be more damned than saved. However, Jesus didn’t give an exact ratio. For example, Jesus never said that for every 1 person who is saved, 100 are lost. For all we know, for every 1 saved, only 2 or 3 are lost. You can’t calculate the probability that your offspring will, by the end of his life, have spurned The Holy Spirit. We’re not in a position to tally the exact number of saved to lost. All Jesus said is that many would enter the death gate and few would enter the life gate. That’s not exactly what I’d call mathematical precision. You do not have to know the exact ratio to know that >50% is a completely unacceptable risk. If you were on board a plane with more than a 50% chance of crashing, would you be calmed by the fact that you didn't have any "mathematical precision" regarding the exact probability? Even this analogy is very generous to the Hell- believer, because the cost of failure is simply death, not eternal suffering. Revelation 7:9 observes, “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands.” Millions and millions of people will be in Heaven from all over the world. The number of people in Heaven has no bearing on the question of subjecting a new soul to the risk of eternal torment in Hell. Finally, Annihilationism Is an Option [ edit ] Burke’s criticism presupposes a very specific view of Hell; the Eternal Conscious Torment view. However, what if Annihilationism is true? Annihilationism is the view that the damned do not, in fact, suffer eternal conscious torment. Rather, on some forms of annihilationism, they suffer for a little while are eventually annihilated, or they annihilated immediately upon being judged by God. Thus, annihilationism is absolutely no different than Atheism and Deism concerning the afterlife. The only difference is that Atheists and Deists believe that everyone is annihilated, whereas the Christian annihilationist only believes some are. Since I do not adhere to annihilationism, I have tried to respond to Burke’s argument while presupposing ECT. However, in the case that Burke or others find my response unsatisfying, I would advise them to look into the case for annihilationism. I don’t want Burke or others to reject Christianity on the basis of a secondary doctrine that I could be wrong about. If I did that, I'd be no different than Christians who require people to give up assent to Darwinian Evolution. If I’m wrong and annihilationism is true, then it has even less force than it would on ECT. Minton is correct on this point: the "if Hell then antinatalism" argument obviously does not apply to any religious people who do not subscribe to the doctrine of eternal Hell, including those who believe in annihilationism or universalism. However, this view is the position of an extremely small majority of Christians, and most regard it as highly heretical. Such a viewpoint is contradicted not only by the Nicene Creed, but by numerous Bible verses, such as Matthew 13:42, Revelation 20:15, Revelation 21:8 and Mark 9:43. Annihilationism has no real scriptural support and is therefore almost certainly the product of cognitive dissonance among Christians who are uncomfortable with the less comfortable aspects of their religion, as well as seeking to gloss over the contradictions inherent in it. While Unitarian Universalism is the most extreme example of this phenomenon, other Christians engage in it as well, such as Protestants with their "age of accountability", and with the near- universal rejection among the Christian rank-and-file of the concept of infant damnation, which any even remotely unbiased reading of the Bible suggests. Final observations [ edit ] In defending an extreme doctrine that involves the concept of infinity while denying and side-stepping the logical implications of that doctrine for the Hell-believer, Minton is trying to have his cake and eat it too. The combination of his first and second arguments here amounts to the Hell-believing parent saying to their child: "Yes, in bringing you into the world I created the infinite risk that you might suffer for ever and ever, but I think I've made it up to you adequately by doing my best to minimise that risk that I created. It doesn't matter that I was the one who set you up to fail in the first place; if you fail it's entirely your own fault." The position that belief or disbelief is entirely a choice flies in the face of the real-life situations and psychology of those who de-convert due to no longer feeling convinced by the tenets of or evidence for Christianity — often not through their own choice, but through a complex plethora of information, experiences, and other factors that lead them to have a change of heart. All this aside, the arguments presented by Minton here do not change the fact that, based on a belief in Hell, to procreate is to create the risk of infinite suffering for a new soul. Because anything infinite necessarily dwarfs anything finite, the moral imperative on the shoulders of anyone who truly believes in eternal Hell is to practise and promote antinatalism — even, if possible, to the extent of attempting to bring about the end of all procreation on earth so that the human race dies out, if this will save even one future person (let alone thousands, millions or billions) from incurring the risk of eternal suffering. Movement for Voluntary Human Extinction. The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (English Voluntary Human Extinction Movement or VHEMT , Note 1 for short) is an environmental movement based in the United States that calls all people to refrain from playing to cause Gradual and voluntary extinction of humanity . VHEMT supports the extinction mainly because this would prevent the environmental degradation. The group states that a decline in human population would reduce a significant amount of human suffering. The extinction of non-human species and the scarcity of resources required by humans are factors frequently cited by the group as evidence of the damage caused by human overpopulation . History. The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement was founded in 1991 by Les U. Knight , 2 3 Note 2 a resident of Portland, Oregon , 2 who was raised in a large family. 5 After engaging in the environmental movement as a college student in the 1970s, Knight attributed most of the dangers faced by the planet to human overpopulation. After reaching this conclusion, he joined the organization Zero Population Growth , 2 today known as Population Connection . He also chose to undergo vasectomy at the age of 25. 5 He later concluded that the extinction of mankind would be the best solution to Earth’s environmental problems. 2 Believes that this idea has also been held by some other people in the course of human history. 6. In 1991, Knight began publishing the VHEMT newsletter, 2 known as These Exit Times (“These Times Out”). 3 In the newsletter, he asked readers not to procreate to promote human extinction. 2 VHEMT has also published cartoons, 7 including a comic book called “Bonobo Baby”, starring a woman who renounces procreation in favor of adopting a bonobo . 3 In 1996, Knight created a website for VHEMT; 8 was available in eleven languages ​for 2010. 9 The VHMET logo features the letter “V” (of Volunteer) and an inverted planet (that is, with the north down). 10 ratings 3. Organization and promotion. VHEMT functions as a broad informal network rather than as a formal organization, 11 and does not compile a list of members. Daniel Metz of Willamette University stated in 1995 that the VHEMT mailing list had just under 400 subscribers. 2 Six years later, Fox News said the list had only 230 subscribers. 12 Knight said anyone who agrees with their ideology is a member of the movement, in February and this includes “millions of people”. 13 notes 4. Knight serves as a spokesman for VHEMT. 2 It attends conferences and environmental events, where it gives information on the population growth. 9 The message of VHEMT, however, has been made known mainly by media coverage, rather than by events and its newsletter. 8 VHEMT sells buttons and t-shirts, 8 as well as decals for cars that read “Thank you for not breeding” . 3. Ideology. Knight argues that the human population is much larger than the Earth can bear, and that allowing humans to gradually die is the best thing that can be done for the terrestrial biosphere. 15 This is due to their belief that humans are “incompatible with the biosphere , ” 3 and that human existence is only self – serving, without ecological benefit. 16 It argues that the vast majority of human societies have not lived sustainable lifestyles , 5 and that attempts to bring about environmentally friendly lifestyles do not change the fact that human existence is harmful to the Earth. 3 Human extinction is promoted on the grounds that it will prevent human suffering and the extinction of other species ; Knight points out that many species are threatened by the rise of the human population. 2 12 15. James Ormrod, a psychologist who outlined the group in the journal Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society , notes that VHEMT’s “most fundamental belief” is that “humans should stop reproducing,” and that some people consider themselves members Of the group, but do not actually support human extinction. 8 Knight, however, believes that even if humans become more environmentally friendly, they could still return to environmentally destructive lifestyles and therefore should be eliminated. 5 The inhabitants of first-world countries bear the greatest responsibility for change, according to Knight, as they consume a large proportion of resources. 17. Knight believes that animal species are more important than human achievements, such as art. He argues that species high up in the food chain are less important than the lower listed species, and therefore humans are not very valuable to the planet. 3 His ideology is drawn in part from deep ecology , and sometimes he refers to Earth as Gaia . 18 Note that human extinction is inevitable, and it is better to avoid concomitant soon become extinct extinctions. 15 The potential for evolution for other organisms is also cited as a benefit. Referring to Fig. Knight also plays non-reproduction as an altruistic choice , 5 characterizing it as a way to prevent involuntary human suffering. 19 The death of children from preventable causes is cited as an example of unnecessary suffering. 5 Knight asserts that non-reproduction would eventually leave humans to lead idyllic lifestyles in an environment comparable to the Garden of Eden , 20 and maintains that the last remaining humans would be proud of their work. 21 Other benefits of the cessation of human reproduction that he cites include the end of abortion, war, and famine. 20 Reproduction is viewed as a type of child abuse; Knight argues that the quality of human life will worsen if resources are consumed by a growing population instead of being spent in solving existing problems. 18 It speculates that if people stop reproducing, they would use their energies in other occupations, such as gardening, 3 and suggests adoption and foster care as outlets for people who want children. 5 VHEMT rejects population control programs imposed by governments in favor of voluntary population decline, 2 supporting only the use of birth control and willpower to prevent pregnancy. 3 Knight states that coercive tactics will hardly ever permanently lower human population, citing the fact that mankind has survived catastrophic wars, famines, and viruses. 9 Although the name of his bulletin reminds him of the suicide manual , Final Exit , 16 the idea of ​mass suicide is rejected, 17 and they have adopted the slogan “Let us live a long time and then disappear” (in English, “May we live long and die out “ ). 5 A survey of VHEMT members in 1995 found that most of them felt a strong moral obligation to protect the Earth, distrusted the ability of political processes to prevent environmental damage, and were willing to give up some of their rights for the cause. Members of VHEMT who firmly believed that “civilization [is] destined to collapse” were the most likely to adopt these beliefs. 22 However, VHEMT does not take any open political stance. Referring to Fig. VHEMT promotes a more extreme ideology than Population Action International , a group that argues that humanity should reduce – but not eliminate – its population to care for the planet. However, the VHEMT platform is more moderate and serious than the ” Church of Euthanasia, ” which advocates population decline through suicide and cannibalism. 12 20 The 1995 survey found that 36% considered themselves members of Earth First! ( First Earth ! , a radical environmental movement) or donated to the group during the previous five years. 2. 3. Receiving. Knight states that the ideology of his group goes against the natalism proper to contemporary society. He believes that this pressure has prevented many people from supporting, or even discussing, the issue of population control. 5 He admits that his group is unlikely to succeed, but contends that trying to reduce the Earth’s population is the only moral choice. 3. The reception of Knight’s idea in the mainstream media has been varied. Writing in the San Francisco Chronicle , Gregory Dicum states that there is “undeniable logic” in VHEMT’s arguments, but he doubts the success of Knight’s ideas, arguing that many people want children and can not be deterred. 5 Stephen Jarvis echoes this skepticism in The Independent , noting that VHEMT faces great difficulty because of the reproductive drive of the human being. 3 In The Guardian , Guy Dammann applauds the movement’s goal as “laudable in many ways,” but argues that it is absurd to believe that humans will voluntarily seek extinction. 24 In the same document, Abby O’Reilly writes that because having children is often seen as a measure of success, VHEMT’s goal is hard to attain. 25 Knight contends in answer to these arguments that although sexual desire is natural, the human desire to have children is the result of enculturation . 3. The Archdiocese of New York has criticized Knight’s platform, arguing that the existence of humanity is of divine order. 12 Ormrod claims that Knight “could be said to abandon profound ecology in favor of frank misanthropy .” Note that Knight’s statement that the last remaining humans in an extinction scenario would have an abundance of resources promotes their cause on the basis of “resulting benefits to humans.” Ormrod views this type of argument as counterintuitive, arguing that it borrows the language of “modern consumer societies.” He criticizes Knight for what he sees as a failure to develop a consistent and unambiguous ideology. 18 The Economist describes Malthusian nonsense as Knight’s claim that voluntary human extinction is advisable because of limited resources. The paper also states that compassion for the planet does not necessarily require the pursuit of human extinction. 2 Sociologist Frank Furedi also considered as a group VHEMT Malthusian , classifying them as a kind of environmental organization that “[think] the worst of the human species.” 26 Writing in Spiked , Josie Appleton argues that the group is indifferent to humanity, rather than “anti-human.” 27. Brian Bethune writes in Maclean’s that Knight’s logic is “as absurd as it is impregnable.” However, he doubts Knight’s claim that the last survivors of the human species would have pleasurable lives, and suspect that “a collective loss of will to live” would prevail. 20 In response to the platform Knight, journalist Sheldon Richman argues that humans are “active agents” and can change their behavior. He contends that people are able to solve the problems facing the Earth. 15 Alan Weisman , author of The World Without Us , suggests a limit of one child per family as a preferable alternative to abstention from reproduction. twenty. Katharine Mieszkowski of Salon.com recommends that childless people adopt VHEMT’s arguments when they face “probing questions” about their childlessness. 28 Writing in the Journal for Critical Animal Studies , Carmen Dell’Aversano notes that VHEMT seeks to renounce children as a symbol of perpetual human progress. She characterizes the movement as a form of ” queer oppositional politics ” (or “rare”) because it rejects perpetual reproduction as a form of motivation. He argues that the movement seeks to come to a new definition of “civil order”, as Lee Edelmen suggested queer theory should do . Dell’Aversano believes that VHEMT fulfills Edelman’s mandate because they embody the death drive instead of ideas that focus on the reproduction of the past. 29. Although the organization of Knight has been presented in a book called Kooks: A Guide to the Outer Limits of Human Belief ( “Eccentrics: A Guide to the outer limits of human belief”), two journalist of The Guardian Oliver Burkeman note In a telephone conversation, Knight seems “rather sane and self-deprecating.” 30 Weisman echoes this sentiment, characterizing Knight as “thoughtful, soft-spoken, articulate, and quite serious.” 27 Philosophers Steven Best and Douglas Kellner see the position of VHEMT as extreme, but note that the movement was formed in response to extreme positions found in the “modern humanism”. 31. Sympathizers. The biologist populations at Stanford University Paul R. Ehrlich , patron of the organization for optimum population called Population Matters , received on November 5, 2009 the prestigious Margalef of Ecology awarded by the Generalitat of Catalonia . Ehrlich maintains his speech since 1968 published The Population Bomb ( The population explosion ): “spare people on the planet and who have more than two children should be seen as a danger.” 32.