Search Results (3)

We should not have children because (i) we have no child-regarding reasons to do so, (ii) we have child-regarding reasons not to do so, and (iii) although we have other-regarding reasons to do so, these reasons are not decisive. Objections to (i) include that life is always good and that possible individuals would choose life if given the opportunity. These fail if there is no duty to create even a good life (the argument from asymmetry), all lives are bad (the argument from quality of life), and potential parents are not entitled to produce lives without the permission of the offspring (the argument from assumed consent). The failure of the objections is not, however, self-evidently inevitable if a hedonistic axiology is used. It becomes inevitable with a switch to an autonomy-respecting, need-based theory of value. There is no need to become existent (i), and there is a need to avoid frustration, pain, and suffering once an individual has been brought into existence (ii). Since any life can be or turn out to be very bad, potential parents put their children in harm’s way by creating them (the argument from risk). To see this and to see how the preferences of the potential parents do not change the situation (iii), it is necessary to assume a concept of gambling that allows genuinely serious harm in case the player loses. Full article

Antinatalism is an umbrella term for numerous moral dilemmas associated with procreation. In the past few years, the deterioration of environmental conditions, social difficulties, global worsening of people’s mental health, and pandemics have induced discussion about antinatalism. Therefore, we aimed to characterize antinatalists in the Polish population in terms of the frequency and description of the main reasons behind this phenomenon. The cross-sectional study was performed in the Polish population. An online, four-part survey was performed between 19 and 25 January 2022. The study group comprised 1240 respondents. Antinatalists (n = 472, 38%) were defined as people who do not have children and want to be childless in the future, whereas pronatalists (n = 768, 62%) consisted of people who want to have offspring in the future and/or already have children. The opinion that climate change is a significant reason not to have a child appeared twice as often among antinatalists. Additionally, the performed binary logistic regression model highlighted the importance of the fear of climate change as an independent factor facilitating an antinatalistic attitude. Regarding females, the following factors discouraging them from having a child were observed: fear of child’s congenital diseases, pregnancy complications, dissatisfaction with medical services, and fear of exacerbation of maternal chronic diseases. Anxiety, depression, and stress were not found to be statistically different between pro- and antinatalist groups. However, further analysis revealed that female antinatalists were significantly more depressive and anxious. Our study helps us to understand why, as mentioned beforehand, around 38% of respondents prefer to stay childless. In conclusion, antinatalism views have become relatively prevalent in society, and its reasons include environmental antinatalism and medical factors, including depression and anxiety. However, better access to medical services and changes in climate politics were not found to be significant factors in encouraging society to decide to have offspring. Full article

The purpose of this concept analysis is to explore childlessness and provide understanding to professionals involved in the field of infertility. Walker and Avant’s method was used to identify descriptions, antecedents, consequences, and empirical referents of the concept. A model with related and contrary cases was developed. The analysis was based on the definition of the term in major dictionaries in the Greek, Lithuanian, Finnish, Maltese, and Turkish languages, while further literature searches utilized the Web of Science, PubMed, PsychInfo, Medline, Google Scholar, and National Thesis Databases. The literature search was limited to papers/books published in the authors’ national languages and English. As a result, childlessness is defined as the absence of children in the life of an individual, and this can be voluntary or involuntary. However, the deeper analysis of the concept may be preceded and amplified through cultural, psychological, biological, philosophical, theological, sociological, anthropological, and linguistic aspects throughout history. These elements presented challenges for childless individuals, ultimately influencing their choices to resort to alternative ways of becoming parents, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), surrogacy, adoption, or other forms of childbearing. Historically, childlessness has been viewed with negative connotations due to its potential impact on the survival of the human species. This negativity can be directed even to individuals who may decide to opt to voluntarily remain childfree. The long-term impact of the experience, both on an individual and collective level, continues to cause pain to those who are involuntarily childless. In conclusion, health professionals and other stakeholders who have a deep understanding of childlessness, including the antecedents and attributes, can minimize the potential negative consequences of those factors contributing to childlessness, whether voluntary or involuntary. In fact, they can capitalize on a powerful impact of change adaptation by providing support to those in their practice to recover the lost homeostasis. Full article