# Is having kids ethical? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 15, 2010, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817 "2010-09-15T05:04:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/81 "2010-09-16T19:19:37Z")
[QUOTE=Isabel8] Personally, I’d happily trade away the joys of life for a guarantee that I’d never have to undergo that type of suffering. I guess this is another way of saying, I’d be fine with never having been born. I’m sure others will feel differently. [/QUOTE] Come see the dis-logic inherent in the statement! Help! Help! I’m being recessed… Seriously…do you not see the contradictions here? If life is so worthless, why do you still cling to it? Why are you still alive? And if, miserable as you are, you still DO cling to something you say is so worthless as life, then does that not tell you something? It certainly tells me something important about both you and the discussion…that being that you really don’t believe the line you are putting out, and that neither do the others (including the OP), because if you did we wouldn’t be having these discussions, because you’d be dead and I’d be off playing with the kids… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/82 "2010-09-16T19:38:11Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > > > Because the alternative (nonexistance) is worse. > > How would you, or anyone, know ? You ever nonexisted ? 😉 Yes, I’ve nonexisted. I nonexisted before I was born. Unfortunately, since I didn’t exist, I don’t know what that was like. So … after I die, and I don’t exist anymore, I figure it will be a lot like that. And since the only frame of reference I have is existing, and armed with the knowledge that once I don’t exist anymore there is no coming back from it, much like WHAM!, I choose life. And all it’s suffering. ---
**Author:** ![Isabel8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/48db29/32.png) [@Isabel8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isabel8)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/83 "2010-09-16T19:45:10Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Come see the dis-logic inherent in the statement! Help! Help! I’m being recessed… > > Seriously…do you not see the contradictions here? If life is so worthless, why do you still cling to it? Why are you still alive? And if, miserable as you are, you still DO cling to something you say is so worthless as life, then does that not tell you something? It certainly tells me something important about both you and the discussion…that being that you really don’t believe the line you are putting out, and that neither do the others (including the OP), because if you did we wouldn’t be having these discussions, because you’d be dead and I’d be off playing with the kids… > > -XT I’m not sure what your problem is, but I don’t think I’ve given you any reason to be rude to me. Firstly, I am certainly not miserable. To say that, over the course of a lifetime, the joy of life isn’t worth the pain, does not imply that a person must currently be miserable, or even slightly unhappy. Secondly, I think that suicide is a perfectly reasonable course of action for a person who thinks the way I do. Taking into account only my own best interest, yes, it would be a logical thing to do. However, I also consider the interest of my loved ones, and, for now, I’m willing to remain alive in order to spare them from pain. FWIW, I think it’s very likely that I will, at some point, voluntarily end my life. Perhaps if I was diagnosed with a serious illness, or perhaps when I’m older, after my parents are gone. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/84 "2010-09-16T19:48:09Z")
> [@EVERYNAMEISTAKEN](#): > > I contend that life brings with it much suffering, and that for this reason to impose life on someone else and force that suffering upon them is unethical. There is good in life, but this good does not erase the bad. This is a matter of opinion, with which I happen to violently disagree. I know there are possibly quite a lot of people in the world for whom the equation doesn’t balance, and maybe some more who just perceive it that way for one reason or another, but I, for one, am happy to be here. Without life, there is no suffering, but without life, there is also no possibility to appreciate happiness, joy, elation, ecstacy, love, passion, laughter, comfort, chocolate, cheese, beer, orgasms, sunsets, custard, etc, etc. Obviously I would not be here to be sad that I was missing all of those things and more if I was not here, but I am here, and I am glad of it, therefore, in at least one case, having a child was not unethical. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/85 "2010-09-16T19:49:14Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > > > Because the alternative (nonexistance) is worse. > > How would you, or anyone, know ? You ever nonexisted ? 😉 > > ETA > @\*\*Malthus \*\*: Buddhism doesn’t appeal to me much either. All right, I don’t know all too much about it, but if I’m not mistaken, the gist of it is to reach a state where you neither want nor need anything. Which, to me, is akin to being an empty vessel. At peace, perhaps, but at the cost of, well, _living_. How is buddhahood different from apathy with an altruistic twist ? No, the point is to eliminate the “clinging” or “neediness” within yourself that is making you _experience_ life as suffering. The sort of inner adolescent who says stuff like “I’m sad, and so I think everyone would be better off if they had never been born”. This is an attitude which everyone has a _bit_ of - the notion that _our_ thwarted desires (for health, for goods, for meaning, whatever) are fundamental laws, like gravity. It offers a plan to avoid this: the so-called “Eightfold Path” divided into three basic divisions, basically: thinking ‘correctly’ about the true causes of suffering (clinginess); to act correctly and ethically; and meditation. Now, I’m not a Buddhist, because though I think they make some good points, I do not see the world as composed of “clinging”. In short, it is not that the buddhist never wants or needs anything, it is rather that the buddhist is not _overcome_ or _driven_ by wants or needs, to the point where they dispair about life. Rather, Buddhism is supposed to _liberate_ the buddhist from the wounds of existence, so that they can actually experience life as joy and not as suffering. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/86 "2010-09-16T20:00:15Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > > [@EVERYNAMEISTAKEN](#): > > > > I contend that life brings with it much suffering, and that for this reason to impose life on someone else and force that suffering upon them is unethical. There is good in life, but this good does not erase the bad. > > This is a matter of opinion, with which I happen to violently disagree. I know there are possibly quite a lot of people in the world for whom the equation doesn’t balance, and maybe some more who just perceive it that way for one reason or another, but I, for one, am happy to be here. Without life, there is no suffering, but without life, there is also no possibility to appreciate happiness, joy, elation, ecstacy, love, passion, laughter, comfort, chocolate, cheese, beer, orgasms, sunsets, custard, etc, etc. > > Obviously I would not be here to be sad that I was missing all of those things and more if I was not here, but I am here, and I am glad of it, therefore, in at least one case, having a child was not unethical. It’s worth it just for the beer and orgasms. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/87 "2010-09-16T20:02:17Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > > [@Voyager](#): > > > > You think the effort to keep kids too young to have kids from having them is preventing them from wanting to have them when it is appropriate? Have any evidence, or even examples, of this? No Dopers I can remember who don’t want kids have given this as a reason. > > many women who desire to have children, but are beyond childbearing age. Ah, so it is God’s fault. 😉 Actually, our society devotes a good bit of effort into helping women who have a hard time having children to do so. > [@](#): > > Same thing is Eve was decieve by the serpent, desirable for gaining wisdom, along with beauty and good for food (one less mouth to feed). Huh? Are you calling my daughter’s advisor Eve or the serpent? They actually get along quite well. > [@](#): > > It should not be pressure but desire, the motivation is wrong here. As I said, they were both trying, but 60 years ago people didn’t discuss the details of their reproductive life quite as freely as they do today. I can conceive ( 🙂 ) of cases where women were pressured to have kids, but we both were quite wanted. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > But today reasons not to have kids seem to be self-imposed, and not coming from social pressure, except indirectly. Hell, a living wage so that it was more possible for one parent to stay home a few years with the kids would do a lot to ease the pressure, I think. > > At one time one parent could provide for needs and the child’s requirement for love. Now it is that two incomes did the same as onje used to, except the child does not get the continual Love as before. yes s/he may have a PlayStation 5.1 but it is Love of a parent s/her needs and is being denied. I think love is quite independent of who works. Couples who both have to work don’t do it to get an Xbox. Don’t you think a parent who is forced to give up a career he or she loves to stay home with a kid might not give as much love as someone who is happy both working and parenting? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/88 "2010-09-16T20:03:06Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > It’s worth it just for the beer and orgasms. Frankly, it’s worth it for the custard. Everything else is a bonus. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/89 "2010-09-16T20:54:51Z")
> [@Walker\_in\_Eternity](#): > > So, with hindslght maybe I should change my argument to it is ethical to not have kids as it reduces the population and brings humanity a step closer to extinction which is probably, on balance, better for the universe as a whole. > > BTW, for the record I am obviously hypocritical about this as I have two kids, but have developed my more misanthropic views more recently. Of course it is ethical to not have kids. It is not ethical to force someone to have kids, and I doubt it is very ethical to force people to not have kids. A population crash would not be a good thing, since we need a decent number of young people to support older people. If everyone had two kids at most, the population would soon decline to reasonable levels since there will always be people who cannot or who do not wish to have kids. (I have two also.) I argued above that it is ethical to have kids you can support. I think I might be able to argue that having too many kids for the world to support if everyone did it is not all that ethical. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/90 "2010-09-16T21:22:21Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > …The sort of inner adolescent who says stuff like “I’m sad, and so I think everyone would be better off if they had never been born”… This is sort of scary if you think about it for too long, because it doesn’t seem like it would be a million-mile journey from there to “I think it would be better if everybody stopped living”. Maybe it’s just my imagination. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/91 "2010-09-16T22:20:17Z")
> [@Walker\_in\_Eternity](#): > > So, with hindslght maybe I should change my argument to it is ethical to not have kids as it reduces the population and brings humanity a step closer to extinction which is probably, on balance, better for the universe as a whole. “Better for the universe as a whole”? How can anything be either better or worse “for the universe as a whole”? ---
**Author:** ![Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blut_Aus_Nord)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/92 "2010-09-16T22:35:44Z")
I think the question is misleading. I think your choice to have or not have children is ethical or unethical depending on the intentions behind your choice. For example, knowing that you would be a unfit parent, or that you live in an environment unfit for a child, not having children would be an ethical decision. On the other hand, if you are confident in your potential ability as a parent, and you have made efforts to create an enriching environment for a child, then that person having children would be just as ethical a decision as the last person not having children. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/93 "2010-09-16T22:45:46Z")
> [@Chakra Nadmara](#): > > I think the question is misleading. I think your choice to have or not have children is ethical or unethical depending on the intentions behind your choice. For example, knowing that you would be a unfit parent, or that you live in an environment unfit for a child, not having children would be an ethical decision. On the other hand, if you are confident in your potential ability as a parent, and you have made efforts to create an enriching environment for a child, then that person having children would be just as ethical a decision as the last person not having children. Wel, yeah, that’s how most people look at it - as an individual issue. But if I understand the OP correctly, they are asking a different question - namely the ethics of bringing a new life into the world, _irrespective_ of personal factors: the thesis being that having children is wrong _per se_, even if you are the best and most loving parent in the world. In a word, antinatalism. Sorta reminds me of the sect imagined by the Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges, I believe in \* A Universal History of Infamy\*, modeled on the Gnostics, that thought that ‘mirrors and parenthood were both abhorrent’ because ‘they both sinfully multiply the image of humanity’. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![rhubarbarin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eb9ed0/32.png) [@rhubarbarin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rhubarbarin)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/94 "2010-09-17T02:33:53Z")
> [@Walker\_in\_Eternity](#): > > > [@marshmallow](#): > > > > That position is called antinatalism. There are good arguments for it, and it tends to make people fairly uncomfortable when you flesh it out, but it doesn’t really mean much. Absent a big rock hitting the earth people aren’t going to stop breeding. > > > > You can take it further, too. If you accept antinatalism you can argue that it would be moral to take active steps to cause the extinction of mankind. Because if we are allowed to continue our technological progress there is a risk, however slight, that humanity will colonize the stars. Think of the billions, possibly trillions of humans stretching out for 100 billion years into the future. That’s a lot of suffering that could be prevented if we act now. > > > > I’ll be in my volcano lair. > > I don’t think we need to cause the extinction of the human race directly, but by imposing breeding limits we can shrink the population to a managable size. > > I don’t think that having kids is inherently moral or immoral and just because we die is no reason not to live, but most of the problems that we currently have in the world today are due to the fact that there are just too many people. > > See the[OPT website](http://www.optimumpopulation.org/) and follow the links to the graphs of population growth and use of resources. > > Not wanting to hijack the thread, but I have a couple of points to make regarding people. If we accept that manmade global warming is real, and I do, then the logical thing to do is limit the amount of people. We can limit the amount of carbon an individual uses, but even a small amount multiplied by 6.8billion is a large amount. If we had a significantly smaller population we could all drive Range Rovers and there would not be a problem. > > Stephen Hawking recently said that [mankind must colonise space](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/aug/09/stephen-hawking-human-race-colonise-space)or die out. This is probably true, but I have to consider the question, would it be better if we did die out? > > Weighing all of the good stuff; science, art, literature, good deeds, against the bad; ignorance, stupidity, religion and the terrorism it brings, wars, politics, corporations strip mining the planet, I have to say that I think we should stay at home and die out rather than inflicting all that on the universe and whom/what ever we may share it with. > > So, with hindslght maybe I should change my argument to it is ethical to not have kids as it reduces the population and brings humanity a step closer to extinction which is probably, on balance, better for the universe as a whole. > > BTW, for the record I am obviously hypocritical about this as I have two kids, but have developed my more misanthropic views more recently. I don’t follow your logic. There are too many people for us all to drive Range Rovers, true - but instead of limiting the amount of children people can have, why not conserve resources by outlawing Range Rovers? I don’t see why the push is to reduce total birth rate rather than reducing general wastefulness. We few Americans use more resources than billions of people in poor countries, yet we worry about ‘overpopulation’… ---
**Author:** ![BayouHazard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d78d45/32.png) [@BayouHazard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BayouHazard)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/95 "2010-09-17T05:11:16Z")
On the whole, I’m pretty much with Kobal2…and I don’t have any kids. I take three different psych meds now…and life has it’s high points, but mostly, it sucks. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/96 "2010-09-17T06:04:25Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I suppose some will say it is and some will say it’s not. But it exists beyond any doubt or question. > > Saying “life isn’t worth it because love is imaginary/self-delusion” is no more logical than me saying “life is worth it because sadness is imaginary/self-delusion.” You don’t get to dismiss real things because they’re inconvenient to your position. I’m not saying that at all, and I don’t think **lurking guest** was saying it either. If I read his screed correctly, it boils down to “love makes you do the whacky”. That is to say, loving your partner, or yourself, or X leads you to have kids, in spite of the notion that the odds are stacked against the happiness of the child. > [@](#): > > “Objective” and “Rational” don’t, in this context, mean what you think they do. Love may not be “objective,” but why must only objective things be added to the positive side of the ledger? So subjective things add happiness. So what? Fact is, they make people happy. I’m not sure where you read that in my words. Love’s extremely nice. It’s a wonderful feeling to, err, feel. I’m just aware that it doesn’t ultimately stem from an objective or reasonable part of me. When I say love isn’t rational or objective, this is not a put down or a judgement of value. > [@](#): > > But that said, again, you’re arguing from a position that makes no sense. “Emotion” cannot trump “Reality.” Emotion IS A PART OF REALITY. Emotions are not separated from the universe, or reality, or what we are as living creatures; it’s a central part of what we are. If you’re going to dismiss positive emotions, you’d also need to dismiss all the negative ones, too, but in any event you can’t dismiss them. Love, anger, happiness, sadness, joy and suffering are real things. Again, not dismissing. I’m extremely fond of love ;). But you’re right, reality is probably not the right word. Reason would be more adequate. IOW, emotions (good or bad) make you do the whacky. And I’m fine with that. ---
**Author:** ![Walker\_in\_Eternity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/46a35a/32.png) [@Walker\_in\_Eternity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walker_in_Eternity)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/97 "2010-09-17T08:15:25Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > [ > This is just absurd. It’s ludicrous. The universe is not better or worse off for having human beings in it. Aside from the fact that 99.999999999999% (or some figure like that) of the universe will never have human beings in it, how is “the universe” worse off with or without people? It was no better or worse a place a billion years ago before there were humans and it will be no better or worse a place a billion or so years from now when there won’t be any humans. “Better” and “Worse” are value judgments created by human beings; the universe doesn’t think of things as "Better or “Worse.” The universe is the sum total of space, time and matter. It doesn’t care how the matter is arranged. I wasn’t talking about the universe as an entity, but if there is any other form of life out there inhabiting the universe it is probably better off not meeting us, particularly if it is less technologically advanced than us. Look at all the examples of where colonists have decimated indigenous populations that were less technologically, not culturally, adavnced than themselves. We, the Brits, did it, you Americans did it and still are. What I should have said was, we should stay here and die out because any hypothetical inhabitants of the universe will be better off not meeting us. ---
**Author:** ![pbbth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f9ae1b/32.png) [@pbbth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pbbth)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/98 "2010-09-17T18:37:29Z")
I can’t imagine how awful life must be for someone to believe that life is nothing but toil and no matter how many good things happen it is still full of suck and no one should be brought into the world ever again. Seriously, have you never had a piece of chocolate cake? Have you never laid in bed and listened to the rhythmic sound of your lover breathing as you drifted off to sleep? Have you never built a snowman? Have you never seen [this youtube video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb9RJlHvjXQ&feature=fvst)? Never snorgled a kitten’s belly? If someone told me tomorrow that I had to endure several hours of torture a day but after that I got to eat some cake, pet a kitty, build a snowman and make love to my husband I would totally consider that a win. Considering that I can do all those things (weather permitting) without the hours of torture I think my life might just be perfect and I thank all that is holy in this world that my parents didn’t try to spare me from the horrors of life. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/99 "2010-09-17T19:13:50Z")
Have you never been mellow? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817/100 "2010-09-17T19:34:44Z")
> [@Walker\_in\_Eternity](#): > > I wasn’t talking about the universe as an entity, but if there is any other form of life out there inhabiting the universe it is probably better off not meeting us, particularly if it is less technologically advanced than us. Since this is never going to happen, it’s not relevant. We are not leaving this solar system. This is our home, and that is it. My descendants will live and die on Earth. We’re not even leaving this planet in substantial numbers. Mars would be a huge, huge accomplishment to put people on on a permanent basis, and anything further won’t be done. In the billion to one chance that some of our descendants DO leave this solar system, their civilization, and perhaps even biology, will be unrecognizable to us. They won’t be human in the sense we currently understand it. Adopting a stance of antinatalism 'cause you’re worried about what we’ll do to the hapless natives of 54 Piscium Gamma is very much like deciding you’re not going to go out to play golf because you’re worried you might be eaten by a velociraptor. It’s absurd. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-having-kids-ethical/553817.md?page=6)