And this is my problem with childfree-ness. The cultish behavior. The ‘cult of the child’ ‘breeder’ derogation that is always brought up and thrown in the face of people, and even the less extreme like yourself give kudos to those who use such childish argumentation. There is no cult of the child, there is the species that can only survive through propagation. So it’s not a matter of whether or not parenthood is an ‘unalloyed good’. That’s childish nonsense. What parenthood is, is an ‘unalloyed necessity’. It’s more important than any other profession. No matter what it is you do for the human race, it’s a less important, less essential job than parenthood. Sure, the supply of parents is great, and as such that makes the value of an individual parent of less value than professions where demand exceeds supply like Doctors and Nurses. But, the fact of the matter is, if you do not have a recognition and deference to the position of parenthood in general, then your position isn’t merely that you do not want to have children. It is at its core, anti-natalist. This can be shown by the soft bigotry shown in derogatory terms like, “Cult of the child.”, or “Breeders”.
jackmanii’s position is merely bigotted. He’s taken it further than simply a freedom of choice argument. I guess it’s useful as this discussion wouldn’t have legs considering everyone who has posted here is in favor of freedom of choice. So there needs to be SOMEONE to argue the unreasonable position. But I think it’s important to point out that it’s a form of bigotry, and it shouldn’t be any more culturally acceptable to say, “Cult of the Child”, or “Breeder” than it is to call someone a nigger or a spic.
Anti-Natalist positions deserve no respect whatsoever. However, the choice to remain childless isn’t anti-natalist. But scratch someone who refers to themselves as ‘childfree’ and 9 times out of 10 you find you’re talking to an anti-natalist bigot.