I do not agree with your opinion because your words imply that if a person is not well-off, he should not have children, but I want to say that even if he is not well-off, he should still have children. Many people can become well-off by having children.
I don't think so, sure, there may be exceptions but as I have observed, if parents are not doing well enough by themselves before having kid, having kid won't make any difference, if not put them in worse position than before.
Lol, that's nice burn, but in my defense, I would be perfectly fine in non-existence.
Sorry I am late to the conversation OP. What is this "I" you write of if you do not exist?
Not sure what you mean — I exist right now, so I mention 'I'.
Why not? Not giving birth harms none, i.e, even if people decide to have no children for egotistical/selfish reasons, no harm is caused. Meanwhile, to breed kids just so they help you with field work is well you are literally creating a laborers. I don't know about you, but it certainly does not sound good to me.
Yes, and the laborers they raised, brought another generation of laborers to the world. That was the life's cycle back then. However, who are you to claim it was done for egoistical and selfish purposes? What authority do you have to claim that? It's a matter of human beings struggling to survive and evolve along several generations, while passing their legacy ahead.
Laborers create laborers, mediocrity breeds mediocrity. I don't think these children of laborers ever realize what quality of life is, and what they could have achieved in life had they been born to a "well-off" family.
...and I am not claiming anything, it was you who stated at first that people are selfish/egotistical these days, hence they don't decide to breed meanwhile here is me confused because those "selfish/egostical" people do no harm to anybody while you are grateful to laborers for creating laborers.
Lol, that's nice burn, but in my defense, I would be perfectly fine in non-existence.
Well, then try getting some help. It's not a good sign to think such things.
May be me reading Schopenhauer has got me pessimistic.
Moreover, we've witnessed numerous children growing up without parents and later become successful. This means your child survival is completely not in your hand but in the hands of the creator. With or without you, they'll be what they are destined to be in the future. You're only responsible for giving birth to them and you shouldn't deny them that right.
Why do you think fucking is your responsibility and then destiny is in hands of creator?
By the way, religion did not specifically mentioned having several kids but asked the followers to multiply. The number of kids you have is completely your decision to make. However, maintaining that you won't have kids at all seems to be against the word of God.
Man, I would love to hear that word of God from God's mouth, and not from religious books.