... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqywUFMdGmg

... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGjLVAuYvOE

I'm simply arguing that the imposition argument is dead. It shouldn't be being used in the manner in which it is; because it's sloppy. I'm not a vampire and I'm not waving about some mystical credit card valuing life. Gary makes some persuasive arguments, and many I can see his point. But the imposition argument is no longer being used in good practice nor in good faith. Not when the phrase "Life is an imposition" is being tossed around. Argument below: Life could rightly and benignly be considered a consequence of the parents but not an imposition of the parents. -An imposition is some burden that is placed on a subject. Not a definition of the subject. The subject has to exist prior to it being imposed upon. Find one example or definition that differs from this. (Just try to separate yourself from your life and still retain a subject.) So once again I say that the antinatalist argument is connotatively negative out of the gate due to their use of this improper imposition argument. This is due to an imposition being a burden. burden has negative value. So this argument is one to say 'life is a burden' or 'life has burdens within it'. In any case this is the premise and so if life IS a burden then it is easy to equate the buddhist philosophy that life IS suffering. This equivalence is much different than saying Life is a container which houses suffering. So even if one wrongly grants the 'Life is an imposition' argument they wrongly make life an equivalent to imposition as opposed to simply a container for it. This argument with it's negative premises allows for further negatives to follow such as life is suffering, life is painful and before you know it life is negative comes as conclusion. connotatively negative premises connotatively negative conclusion. One says that an act of volition on the part of the parents makes life an imposition. Even with volition the fact of life's presence does not constitute that the subject has had life imposed upon it. For the subject is a life. Once again something has to first be in order to be imposed upon. The antinatalist argument starts without a being and then by it's mere presence one is defined as being imposed upon. If anything is true a proper definition of imposition would have the child imposing upon life not life imposing upon the child. The fact of your being is not an imposition. It is a consequence I'm not distorting language I'm policing it. Notice how saying 'life is a consequence' is much more benign and true than the value ladened phrase 'life is an imposition' . The real distorters of the language are the antinatalists themselves. For without the imposition argument they cannot create fictional states of non existence in order to value higher than the fact of existing ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uBIAF3HleQ

... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgni2aoxS84