I'm not seeking to convert you out of antinatalism, but the absolute conviction that you have found the ultimate truth, and that everyone else is a fool for not following suit — staticphoton

I don’t have such a conviction or I wouldn’t be here, again. I do however have quite the strong conviction that you’re being a hypocrite to your own values. Especially since you keep avoiding giving straight answers.

Also I could accuse you of the same conviction for natalism. But I don’t.

I would have to know something better than cleaning sewage to be able to decide whether cleaning sewage sucked — staticphoton

Alright let me change the question a bit. Would that psycho be wrong for doing what he did?

Do you believe Beethoven’s parents should not have had Ludwig because he suffered through deafness? Yes no harm no foul, but then again, no Moonlight sonata. — NOS4A2

Yes. I do believe that. Because then who would be harmed. It’s not like there is some announcer telling people what their children would have accomplished when they decide not to have children. Tell me who is harmed in a world without Beethoven? No one will “miss” the moonlight sonata will they.

On the other hand, who is not harmed in a world without hitler? Plenty of people.

This is another asymmetry when it comes to giving birth vs not doing so. Giving birth to a criminal hurts people, giving birth to an entrepreneur benefits people. So it’s good vs bad. On the other hand not giving birth to entrepreneur doesn’t harm anyone but not giving birth to a criminal saves a lot of people. So it’s good vs neutral.

(This argument might not makes sense I'm not sure I just came up with it)

Well, like you said, no one is harmed, but it denies the world and posterity a human being who may alter the course of history for the better. — NOS4A2

Or for the worse. Do you believe the world would have been a better place if hitler’s parents hadn’t had him? Yes. You can’t just assume your child will be groundbreakingly successful. Might as well try to win the lottery with that luck.


That’s really the point here. The crucial point to understand about antinatalism is that no one actually believes making happy people is a good thing. Sure making people happy is good, but making happy people is neutral at best. As I’ve shown with the “3 starving people” example.

I ask you the same question I asked the other guy: if I knew your next 10 children would be successful and happy are you morally obliged to have them? I highly doubt you’ll say yes. That should show you that not even you think that creating happy people is good in and of itself.

Happiness is only good for those who exist, it’s not good in and of itself.

I don’t have such a conviction or I wouldn’t be here, again. I do however have quite the strong conviction that you’re being a hypocrite to your own values. Especially since you keep avoiding giving straight answers — khaled

My values are live and let live. Your values are nobody lives.
I believe everyone should be entitled to do what they believe is right. You believe only your values are right.
And that makes me a hypocrite lol.

Your values are nobody lives — staticphoton

Simply incorrect. If that were the case why would I stop at antinatalism? Why not be a pro mortalist? Why stick so such a losing strategy for achieving my supposed goal?

My values are mine but the highest one among them is: I can’t enforce my values on others, and I think you share this too (as do most people). You’re just making an exception for procreation

I believe everyone should be entitled to do what they believe is right. — staticphoton

Me too. Do you not also believe that no one should be entitled to make OTHERS do hat THEY believe is valuable?

You believe only your values are right. — staticphoton

Incorrect, you just haven’t shown any evidence that you even understand my argument because you’re missing the point half the time and not giving straight answers to questions

And that makes me a hypocrite lol. — staticphoton

No it doesn’t. Believing that no one is entitled to enforce their beliefs on others in every other scenario except procreation does.


Again, would that psycho be right for what he did? You’re still not answering questions which is quite ironic because the quote you quoted is literally me telling you to please answer the questions.

Again, would that psycho be right for what he did? You’re still not answering questions which is quite ironic because the quote you quoted is literally me telling you to please answer the questions — khaled

If a Psycho is harming someone, that is bad.

Me too. Do you not also believe that no one should be entitled to make OTHERS do hat THEY believe is valuable? — khaled

Nobody should be entitled to make others do what they believe is valuable.

Making someone do something means extracting them out of condition A and inserting them into condition B.

However if condition A doesn't exist, and the individual doesn't exist previous to being inserted into condition B, then "making them do something" is a meaningless statement. A pre-existing condition is still not existing.

You actually truly believe that? So again I ask

You have 3 starving people and 2 solutions
A: feed them
B: materialize 100 satiated people such that you create more pleasure than in A

Would you seriously pick B? — khaled

Please do not lure me like this, as the two questions are incomparable.

The theft of happiness that we're discussing is comparable to: Would you feed them if there was a chance for them to be allergic, even if the chance was 99%?

And I would take the 1% as the opposite choice is certain doom; I wouldn't be sparing them anything, like you think, if I took pity from the fear of an allergic reaction. That pity is outright thievery.

But to answer your query:
Intuitively answering A ought be the proper choice as it fixes the posited problem, whereas choosing B most likely wouldn't fix it, at least not directly, right?

But if I were to offer the three starving these two choices and they all chose B, would it be moral to choose A anyway? No, I do not think it would.

So I would offer the three the aforementioned choices, and grant each their wish or grant the one unanimously chosen if the former is not allowed.

Also let me ask you another question: do you think someone is ever morally obliged to have children? — khaled

No, man is not morally obliged to have children.
But man ought to be morally obliged not to deny children.

That is wise when dealing with other people you don’t know. The default is to do the action that doesn’t risk harm. Would you appreciate it if someone destroyed your house in an attempt to add a room to it when you didn’t ask him to do so. — khaled

It is slavery to fear.
I told you once - do not warm the pan, prior to catching the fish.
You're making decisions for the child you're not even willing to give a chance.
You're not sparing it harm, you're sparing yourself the responsibility if it comes to harm and unwilling to risk that it might enjoy its life with gratitude to spare.
Something I've seen from my many interactions with disabled children; they don't want your pity, they want to live.

Who is harmed by me not having children? Where is this failure? — khaled

The world as a whole.
But mostly the children.
Your failure is the failure to see past the corrupt idea that kids don't desire to live.
In short, s failure of transmission from the child to you.

My values are mine but the highest one among them is: I can’t enforce my values on others, and I think you share this too (as do most people). You’re just making an exception for procreation — khaled

You come across a deeply religious man and explain antinatalism. He responds that the directive from God is to be fruitful and multiply, and that to contradict God using human reasoning is folly. He is morally bound to obey God, and he profoundly believes that God, in one way or another, will fulfill His promise.

At this point you have two choices:

A: Make an exception for the religious man.
B: Decide the religious man is a dumb shit because he believes in God above reason.

If you choose A then you are not completely true to your cause. If you choose B then you are a radical fundamentalist, you are the hypocrite.

The very foundation of your argument is that human reason provides the ultimate answer for all ethical questions and is above all other forms of moral guidance.

That is a belief. It is a belief you have faith on. If that belief fails, the rest of your argument crumbles.

The very foundation of your argument is that human reason provides the ultimate answer for all ethical questions and is above all other forms of moral guidance. — staticphoton

So you don’t believe human reason has the answer for this ethical question? Why are you reasoning about it then? And why didn’t you say so at the very start?


I would do A in that case although I don’t know where you got the idea that I was trying to be true to any cause in the first place. I’d be convinced with a good counter argument

If a Psycho is harming someone, that is bad — staticphoton

Doesn’t birth risk harming someone?

Making someone do something means extracting them out of condition A and inserting them into condition B. — staticphoton

Does it? I see no need for this highly complicated definition. Making someone do something, is making someone do something. It doesn’t matter if that person existed at the time the decision was made to make them do something. If the result of an action is: B is doing something without having expressed he agrees with it then that action is making B do something

You’re for some reason stuck on whether or not there existed someone beforehand as if that mattered. So then I ask you to explain why you think genetically modifying children to suffer is wrong. After all, genetic modification is done on sperm and egg so it’s not actually doing anything to the child, so why is it wrong? I don’t care if you don’t respond to anything else as long as you respond to this

The theft of happiness that we're discussing — Shamshir

It’s not theft if no one is stolen from and no one is harmed is it? Calling it theft might make it sound wrong but you haven’t actually presented a logical reason for why

Would you feed them if there was a chance for them to be allergic, even if the chance was 99%? — Shamshir

Of course. But these examples aren’t alike at all. Here, it is 99% chance of suffering (feeding them) vs 100% chance of suffering (not feeding them) so obviously I’d pick the 99%. In the case of birth it’s whatever% vs 0% so obviously I’d pick 0%

But if I were to offer the three starving these two choices and they all chose B, would it be moral to choose A anyway? — Shamshir

First off this would never happen as they have absolutely nothing to gain from adding the 100 people. Note we’re not considering the benefits those 100 people might bring later for this example because that will add unnecessary complexity for the point I’m trying to make. In the same way that were not considering “but what if the 3 people were criminals” and other such cases.

Secondly, of course it would be moral to choose A anyway. After all, you don’t owe these people to feed or help them in any way. You’re the one who is going to be implementing the solution out of your own desire so whatever solution you choose to implement is fine, as long as they don’t object to it. So you’re not allowed to force feed them for example if they want to starve for whatever reason. Let’s think of another example real quick to show this: if you asked a beggar if he preferred 1$ or 5$ and he said he preferred 5 would it be ok to give him 1 anyways? Of course it would!

No, man is not morally obliged to have children.
But man ought to be morally obliged not to deny children — Shamshir

You are proposing A and not A at the same time

Man is not morally obliged to have children
Man ought to be morally obliged (aka is morally obliged) not to not have children (aka to have children)
So: Man is morally obliged to have children and not morally obliged at the same time

You're making decisions for the child you're not even willing to give a chance. — Shamshir

And natalism is making decisions for a child which actually risk his wellbeing without there being any need to. I’ll take making decisions for a child without giving them a chance any day, especially since it doesn’t actually hurt anyone

You're not sparing it harm, you're sparing yourself the responsibility if it comes to harm and unwilling to risk that it might enjoy its life with gratitude to spare. — Shamshir

This is wrong on so many levels. Quite simply not true. Not only are my motivations irrelevant to my argument anyway, but you have them wrong as well. If these were my motivations, I wouldn’t be looking to adopt in the future would I? But I am looking to do so. And even if I was doing all of this to “avoid responsibility” that wouldn’t take anything away from whether or not my argument makes sense AND saying I’m avoiding responsibility would have to assume I had the responsibility to have children which is a position you somehow hold simultaneously while saying I don’t actually have a responsibility to have children

Something I've seen from my many interactions with disabled children; they don't want your pity, they want to live. — Shamshir

I would know. My brother has a mutation and can’t do much at 12 except walk and eat. Your arguments seem to be getting more and more personal only to fall even harder on their face.

Your failure is the failure to see past the corrupt idea that kids don't desire to live. — Shamshir

Point me to the kid that wants to live who I would be denying life by not having children. Also, just because kids want to live doesn’t morally oblige me to have them does it? If you believe that you’d have as many kids as you could but you don’t do you? That would make you pretty much just as guilty as an antinatalist wouldn’t it? Having 1 or 2 kids is nothing in comparison to he number you COULD have, look at all this happiness you’re denying. You absolute monster

But mostly the children. — Shamshir

Which children? The non existent ones? The non existent children are harmed?

The world as a whole. — Shamshir

How is the world harmed by me not having children? Maybe my child would have turned out to be another hitler despite my best efforts. Also who cares about the world being harmed when the alternative causes a child to be harmed. I don’t have an obligation not to harm “worlds”, I have an obligation not to harm people.

So you don’t believe human reason has the answer for this ethical question? Why are you reasoning about it then? And why didn’t you say so at the very start? — khaled

That's correct, I don't believe a reasoned logic can be used to determine whether humans should be born or not.
At the very start the argument struck me so absurd and counterintuitive that I assumed a logical refusal would not be too hard, but I was wrong. From a purely logical and cold-reasoned perspective the argument is ironclad.
I was not trying to convince you otherwise, my postings were a personal exercise to show that a simple line of logical reason cannot be used to justify the end of birthing, I believed I could battle you at your playing plane, but I discovered I can't.
Without realizing it I was trying to drag the fight into my plane using a lure of pseudo-logical reasoning, but as long as you remain comfortable in your waters you'll stay there.

Yes, I deeply believe there is more to existence than reason can explain (although this belief is not necessarily religious), but since I entered this discussion with intent, just to discover that I don't have the tools or the language to show you why, I have to acknowledge you as victorious.

I would do A in that case although I don’t know where you got the idea that I was trying to be true to any cause in the first place. — khaled

Well in that case there is still hope for you haha.

I would know. My brother has a mutation and can’t do much at 12 except walk and eat. Your arguments seem to be getting more and more personal only to fall even harder on their face. — khaled

No, you wouldn't - because these kids can't do either.

You're like a horse with blinders, completely oblivious to everything but your front.

You say you can't harm nonexistent children? Very well.
But if you accept that, follow through and realise you can't spare them harm.

Your idea is void by your own rebuttal.
You're just afraid and if you'd commit to that

Maybe my child would have turned out to be another hitler despite my best efforts. — khaled

instead of putting up this idiotic front, this conversation wouldn't be so needlessly dragged out.

That's correct, I don't believe a reasoned logic can be used to determine whether humans should be born or not. — staticphoton

You could’ve said that at the start m8. I take back calling you a hypocrite. If you believe that you’re Gucci. I don’t agree with it, think it’s bogus, and think this belief will so much more harm than good but I can’t judge.

Have a good day.

You say you can't harm nonexistent children? Very well.
But if you accept that, follow through and realise you can't spare them harm. — Shamshir

I agree completely. Not giving birth is not sparing anyone harm. It is not a good thing. I have never claimed that antinatalism means that not having children is good. You and NO4S... (sorry don’t know ur name) for some reason thought the same thing. I never once claimed not having children is good. What I did claim is that having children is bad.

Not having children doesn’t spare anyone and it doesn’t harm anyone. So it has a neutral value.
Having children risks harming someone. So it has a negative value.

So obviously don’t have children. Simple. You are being willfully blind to the fact that the argument makes logical sense.

Your idea is void by your own rebuttal. — Shamshir

No it isn’t, and I’ve just shown why.

You're just afraid and if you'd commit to that — Shamshir

No I’m not as I’ve just shown. In fact, I think YOU'RE afraid to committing to saying that not having children is harming someone because you refused to reply to any of the ridiculous consequences of such a belief, such as that it would make you almost as guilty as an antinatalist for having 2 kids instead of 200. Because of all the happiness you’re denying non existent people (as if that’s a problem)

instead of putting up this idiotic front, this conversation wouldn't be so needlessly dragged out. — Shamshir

Isn’t saying your child will do the world a great good an equally idiotic front? You’re the one that started evaluating the potential impact of children on others not me. Your literal first comment was “and what if the child will do the world a magnanimous good”. I’m pointing out that there isn’t also a chance they do a magnanimous evil.

Your entire argument seemed to rest on saying that I’m harming someone by not giving birth to children. Since you just conceded that isn’t the case, where does antinatalism not make logical sense?

Having children risks harming someone. So it has a negative value.

So obviously don’t have children. Simple. You are being willfully blind to the fact that the argument makes logical sense. — khaled

The argument is you equating risk with loss, while being blind to anything and everything potentially good.

You sound just like I did five years ago - completely sunk with insecurity.
You're quivering from potential harm while resting on the crutch of security, patting yourself on the back thinking that your not having children has indubitably spared the world or your children.

I've stated quite clearly that having a child is a risk you're not obliged to, but that it is the only rewarding choice.
Your idea that not having children is in any way beneficial is a fraudulent justification of your irresponsibility and sloth.

Considering your current state of mind, perhaps as a natural irony, it would be best that you didn't have children as you'd be an inept parent, more harmful than beneficial.
In this, ironically, you're justified.

The argument is you equating risk with loss, while being blind to anything and everything potentially good. — Shamshir

Yes. And as I've shown, neither you nor anyone actually believes creating happy people is good in and of itself. If you want to debate that you're welcome, but judging by the rest of your post, the debate won't be very productive as you seem to be incapable saying anything relevant.

And risking harming other people without their consent for no good reason IS A LOSS. I don't see anything that appeals to the parent's desire to have children as a good reason. And I don't see anything appealing to greather entities such as "the world" or "God" or "the natural order" as a good reason.

Is there anything in the above paragraph you disagree with?

I've stated quite clearly that having a child is a risk you're not obliged to, but that it is the only rewarding choice. — Shamshir

Ohhhhhhh. Have a kid because it's "rewarding". Ohhhhhh. I guess we just don't care about the kid's opinion then. "Let's risk giving someone every sort of harm possible because I find it rewarding". I would like to inform you that I find this reasoning absolutely apphaling. Hey, I heard rapists say rape is pretty rewarding. Might be something you're into with that kind of reasoning. (Trying a new approach here as you seem to be incapable of following logical arguments and want to devolve this conversation to using emotional appeals and ad hominem, have it your way sir)

Your idea that not having children is in any way beneficial is a fraudulent justification of your irresponsibility and sloth. — Shamshir

Again. I wouldn't be looking to adopt then would I? You're being willfully blind to the point that it's getting pretty irritating actually. I'm getting close to calling you a moron and leaving it at that. Like, seriouly, I have had to write everything to you at least twice (I feel like terrapin talking to myself). You seem to need a refresher on every single point every 2 comments. Or you're being willfully blind which is what I suspect.

Considering your current state of mind, perhaps as a natural irony, it would be best that you didn't have children as you'd be an inept parent, more harmful than beneficial. — Shamshir

Ad hominem is garbage. Just like the rest of your comment.

I'm getting close to calling you a moron and leaving it at that — khaled

But you won't, for the same reasons you won't have kids - you can't commit.

Poor self-inflicted little martyr~

are you willing to argue or no?

you can't commit. — Shamshir

You’re projecting. It’s you who can’t commit to your own moral premises all the way to end.

I'm coming back to this because your arrogance is insufferable.

neither you nor anyone actually believes creating happy people is good in and of itself — khaled

I do.

And risking harming other people without their consent for no good reason IS A LOSS. — khaled

I disagree, because inherently a bad experience isn't worth avoiding more than a good experience is worth having.

I don't see anything that appeals to the parent's desire to have children as a good reason — khaled

I do.

And I don't see anything appealing to greater entities such as "the world" or "God" or "the natural order" as a good reason — khaled

I do.

I guess we just don't care about the kid's opinion then — khaled

A non-existing being doesn't have an opinion.

your arrogance is insufferable — leo

In my defense, the other guy is also quite insufferable. Shamshir or whatever his name was.

I do — leo

Let’s test that. You have 3 starving people And 2 solutions. Which do you employ

A: feed them
B: materialize 100 satiated and happy people so that you create more pleasure/happiness than in A

I’m pretty sure you’d say A is the better option right? Because B doesn’t actually help anyone. Doesn’t that show that creating happy people has no value in and of itself. Or at least negligible value.

More proof would be that I’m pretty sure everyone here considers having a child and dumping them on the street somewhere when the parents can afford to take care of them wrong. But why would that be the case? If creating happy people was good in itself then making sure your child is happy should have been an option not an obligation right? In the same way that charity is an option not an obligation. This is assuming one doesn’t have an obligation to do good but an obligation not to do bad. But we clearly think of keeping a child happy as an obligation to the parent not a charity. That implies that not keeping a child happy is bad, not that keeping the child happy is good. We don’t think someone is morally good just for being a decent parent do we? We EXPECT that. That’s not what we do with other good behaviors. You’re not expected to donate to charity for example but you’re encouraged.

I disagree, because inherently a bad experience isn't worth avoiding more than a good experience is worth having. — leo

Does that justify rape, theft, murder, etc? Sure inherently it is as you say, but ethics doesn’t deal with what actions are “inherently” good or bad (at least not the ethics I’m doing) it deals with what’s subjectively good or bad. Your statement can be used to critique any ethical position, so it’s not so much a problem with antinatalism.

I don't see anything that appeals to the parent's desire to have children as a good reason
— khaled

I do. — leo

Do you happen to see the rapist’s desire a good reason for rape? I don’t think so. So are you saying that you do because:

A: it’s a matter of degree, the parents can do whatever they want to someone without consent because what they’re doing isn’t that bad
B: it’s a matter of principle, anyone can do anything to anyone consent or not

I’m pretty sure A but just asking anyways

And I don't see anything appealing to greater entities such as "the world" or "God" or "the natural order" as a good reason
— khaled

I do. — leo

Your child might not. So why are you taking the risk for them? For “the world”? Would you be fine if a religious zealot raided your home for “God”? If you’re not fine with that, why risk putting a child in a position where similar to you they’re told that their suffering is for “the world”? Do you think they’ll be fine with that?

A non-existing being doesn't have an opinion. — leo

Does that make it ok to genetically engineer babies to suffer on purpose? They can’t say no can they?

Also the point is that they WILL become an existing being with opinions and their opinions of the world may be highly negative. So simply don’t take the risk for them when you can avoid it.

Let’s test that. You have 3 starving people And 2 solutions. Which do you employ

A: feed them
B: materialize 100 satiated and happy people so that you create more pleasure/happiness than in A — khaled

I'd go with B. The people in A might turn out to be nagging antinatalists. The other 100 might be able to drown them out. :grin:

cool. Also I didn’t even start this post.

In my defense, the other guy is also quite insufferable. Shamshir or whatever his name was. — khaled

Can it, weenie.

I'd go with B. The people in A might turn out to be nagging antinatalists. The other 100 might be able to drown them out. :grin: — Terrapin Station

Also the point is that they WILL become an existing being with opinions and their opinions of the world may be highly negative. So simply don’t take the risk for them when you can avoid it. — khaled

What's interesting about the implications of this type of thinking is that humans are sort of a "group-think" entity which is working towards..."something" (humanity? scientific advancement? to go where no man has gone before? to maximize happiness throughout the cosmos? to increase the amount of "stuff" we create?). This "something" is not quite clear, but certainly the agenda here is that the group-think entity must carry on and box-out and stamp-out any questioning of the agenda. It certainly stems from unconscious cues taken from socialized norms.

But the problem here is the reality is a lot of "dealing with". A group-think entity that desire's more individuals to be challenged with the "dealing with" game. Here is the thing- what are people trying to get out of the new people? What end result is there? What is it that people must experience? Here is how this looks:

Person A needs to experience X because I like experiencing X and they must like X too.

Person A won't experience more undue harm (more harm than one would want for reasons of "meaning" or "growth".

The parent knows neither of these things as a 100% true, so now the person moves to statistical thinking. Statistically, people seem more well-adjusted than not well-adjusted, they like being alive, and do not experience more undue harm than is deemed too much. Thus the "dealing with" game must be the default for people to desire. Even if 68% of people like the dealing with game, this is deemed enough of a green light to have more people apparently.

This all reminds of Plato's notion of The Good. It's like everyone thinks they are a form of the Good and creating more people is participating in The Good. Good is that which we are striving for. Virtuousness, balance, peace, tranquility, flow, self-actualization- these are all words we try to convey for experiencing The Good. So really natalists (at their most philosophical and least selfish) are like Platonists thinking they are spreading more of Good by having more people. Harm is just something to be incorporated into The Good or to be overcome for the sake of the Good.

As @khaled stated though, anything that causes harm for another when it wasn't necessary, is causing harm to an individual for an agenda. But the natalist will say, if the the agenda is The Good (or some other positive synonym), isn't that justified? Because certainly, no one prior to existence needed any experiences. Thus the experiences themselves come BEFORE the personality that will develop and HAVE these experiences. Thus it is an agenda of some sort of concept- The Good or something of the like, that people want to be propagated.

The outcome is more work, more dealing with situations, more strife, but supposedly the strife is supposed to be good for the person as it can be incorporated and in some sort of Hegelian dialectic, make the person stronger with the negative incorporation.

People also do not think the fringes. They don't think of the worst case scenarios- the person with the mental disorders, the person with the physical setback, etc. This is deemed as collateral damage, and will simply be post-facto justified as part of the incorporation of pain to become better. Thus the natalists will have their own self-provided airtight case. They will not consider that:

1) Harm is unnecessary to create for someone
2) Causing individual harm for an agenda is not justified (even The Good)
3) As long as a majority of humanity say they like life in any self-reported formal or informal way, it is justified that future people should be born
4) Collateral damage of the worst case scenarios are overlooked as long as it can be incorporated into an overcoming or learning experience for that person and they will be deemed better for it.

As we see here, there is no way this type of thinking cannot be overcome as long as harm can be justified on behalf of a majority of people reporting they like life, and think that agendas are more important than causing individual harm unnecessarily. That seems to be the main themes here it seems with natalists.

I would like to conjure the ghost of @Bitter Crank and @Baden and @csalisbury for their input.

As we see here, there is no way this type of thinking cannot be overcome as long as harm can be justified on behalf of a majority of people reporting they like life, and think that agendas are more important than causing individual harm unnecessarily. That seems to be the main themes here it seems with natalists. — schopenhauer1

But then those same people are apphaled by rapists, murderers, totaitarian governments, terrorist groups, etc..... That's the inconsistency here.

It is ONLY ever the main theme for them when it comes to birth as I’ve asked them to come up with one other example where they think this type of thinking is acceptable and they have yet to come up with one.

I believe it is wrong to make babies.

I also believe that the urge to make babies is one of the strongest urges a person can feel.

I think some things are wrong and go against human nature, while other things are wrong but are congruent with human nature. The latter are blameless acts of immorality, which includes the mistake of having children.

Oh for goodness' sake, not another one. Just read the numerous discussions on this topic that we already have.

Thanks for the warm welcome. -- Do you really expect newbies to scroll through thousands of thread titles to check if the this topic has already been discussed? I guess that all (!) interesting topics have been discussed several times in a forum that exists for years.