“Life Is a Sexually Transmitted Virus”? Why Anti-Natalism Misses the Truth
A Christian Response to Anti-Natalism
Anti-natalism is a philosophy that, in its essence, argues that because human life is filled with suffering, and because—according to a naturalistic worldview—it has no purpose beyond what can be created within itself, the only appropriate or moral thing to do is not to have children.
At first glance, this view is shocking and disturbing. It pushes against our natural human desire to advance the species and to see new generations thrive. Yet, it also carries a sense of intellectual honesty and logical consistency. Anti-natalism is nihilism taken to its natural conclusions.
As a Christian, however, I believe something very different: that every human being—no matter age, race, intellectual ability, or any other factor—is created in the image of God and therefore has inherent value and purpose. Life is not meaningless, even when marked by suffering.
One of my first reactions when reading David Benatar’s The Human Predicament was his frequent reliance on moral terms like “good” and “evil.” His argument hinges on the belief that conscious life is an evil because of the pain experienced in this life. But where do these categories come from? He seems to rely upon a shared Western understanding of morality, an understanding which is deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian worldview. To call something evil is to assume an objective standard of good and evil, but such a standard cannot be consistently sustained within naturalism.
Benatar also writes:
"There is no value in labor pains or in pain resulting from terminal diseases, for example. While the pain associated with kidney stones might now lead somebody to seek medical help, for most of human history, such pain served no purpose, as there was absolutely nothing anybody could do about kidney stones."
While I will not defend kidney stones as one who has suffered under their weight multiple times, this argument again ignores the Christian worldview: labor pains, disease, and all suffering entered the world through sin and evil. Pain may have a biological purpose, but it is also a reflection of a broken creation, not evidence that life itself is meaningless.
However, one of the biggest inconsistencies in Benatar’s reasoning is this: if we are simply products of evolution, why does good or evil matter? If we are just the result of random chance, a collection of dead atoms with no intrinsic cosmic value but only subjective earthly value, why would it matter that another being suffers? Pain and suffering are real, but their significance is grounded in the value and worth of life itself. Evil is real—but to build an argument upon it is to saw off the very limb on which one is standing.
The apostle Paul addresses this tension directly in 1 Corinthians 15:19: “If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.” Without the resurrection, our suffering has no ultimate meaning, and we are left without hope (1 Thessalonians 4:13). Benatar’s argument assumes life’s value while denying the foundation that gives value its ultimate reality.
Another striking aspect of The Human Predicament is Benatar’s treatment of immortality and the afterlife. While his work is necessarily limited in scope and cannot address every objection, he dismisses theistic arguments without engagement, assuming them to be mere fantasy. He writes:
"Are we really to believe that decomposed, cremated, atomically incinerated, and ingested bodies are to be reconstituted and reanimated? The challenges in understanding the mechanics of this dwarf even other notable problems, such as the logistics of physically accommodating all the resurrected."
This simple dismissal ignores the fact of the Creator of the universe on whom Benatar is basing his morality. The Christian claim is not that life is free of pain, but that God Himself has entered into our suffering through Christ, taken it upon Himself at the cross, and triumphed over it in the resurrection. Resurrection is not a human feat to be mechanically explained, but a divine act of God who alone holds life and death in His hands.
In recent years, anti-natalism has seen a surprising rise, particularly among younger generations in Western societies. Surveys suggest a growing number of people now consciously choose to remain childless, often citing global suffering, climate concerns, or the perceived futility of life as reasons. One such person reflected: “I have decided not to have children because I do not wish to bring anyone into a world of suffering that I cannot guarantee they will survive or flourish in.”
This trend raises significant concerns for Christians and society at large. Anti-natalism is not merely a personal lifestyle choice—it is a philosophical rejection of life’s inherent value and purpose. It stands in direct opposition to the biblical mandate for humanity to be fruitful, multiply, and steward the earth (Genesis 1:28). It treats human life as dispensable, rather than recognizing each person as made in the image of God.
Benatar further devalues human life when he writes:
"Another way in which agency plays some role in the human predicament is through procreation, the sexually transmitted virus that spreads existence and also spreads the existential predicament."
To refer to procreation—the very act by which humanity continues and bears the image of God across the earth—as a “sexually transmitted virus” is deeply dehumanizing. It reduces each human life to a problem, a burden, or a mechanism of suffering, rather than recognizing every child as a unique bearer of God’s image with intrinsic worth and eternal significance.
Benatar’s view is bleak, but in many ways, it is one of the few consistent atheistic positions. If life is nothing more than biology and chance, then suffering may indeed outweigh joy. But if the Christian story is true, then every cry of pain, every longing for meaning, every yearning for joy points us beyond ourselves to the God who made us, loves us, and redeems us.
Where anti-natalism sees life as a curse to be avoided, Christianity sees life as a gift to be cherished, even in its brokenness, because it finds its fulfillment not in itself but in Christ. Far from telling us not to bring children into the world, the gospel tells us to “be fruitful and multiply” and to raise up the next generation to know the Lord. Where anti-natalism ends in despair, the gospel begins in hope.
In the end, the question is not whether life contains suffering—it does. The question is whether suffering has the final word. For the Christian, the answer is a resounding no. The cross and empty tomb assure us that death itself has been defeated and that eternal life with God is the destiny of all who trust in Christ.
That is why, despite the weight of suffering, we can welcome new life into this world with joy. Every child is not just a biological accident, but a soul bearing the image of God, destined for eternity. Christians are called to advance the image of God across the earth, to cultivate life, and to participate in God’s redemptive work through every generation. Anti-natalism denies this calling, undermines the value of human life, and ultimately runs counter to the hope found in Christ.