> "Third, and more conceptually, there is an ethical dilemma of bringing a person to life without their consent; this argument is far more divisive and difficult to pin down but must still be considered." Okay, this is where "ethics" has gone way too far. What are we supposed to do, ask the egg before it's fertilized if it wants to live? It's simply not possible. I agree that having children in this day and age is unethical for the other reasons listed, and more. The current pandemic is a situation in which one would *not* want to bring a helpless, vulnerable child into this world, for example. Talk about irresponsible (this doesn't apply to babies conceived before the pandemic, but born during it). But philosophizing consent to down to the very cells and atoms that make up a person is just TOO cerebral, and it weakens the arguments for 1) this topic, and 2) the topic of consent, because people will tend to not take this seriously with such a farfetched theory being widely spread. To be sure, this is a really well-written argument. I'm just concerned that people will tune out entirely on the last point, and might choose to disagree when originally they might have agreed.

**TL;DR: Ethics should not be a matter of black and white. What is not the most ethical action is not necessarily unethical. In the case of having children, one can argue that not having children represents the most ethical choice. However, that judgment does not make having children unethical.** Climate change should not become an entirely personal responsibility. Having children does not itself exponentially increase one’s carbon footprint. The carbon footprint increase comes from the consumption related to having children. In other words, parents do not necessarily choose for their children to have a carbon-heavy lifestyle. They simply do not have a choice in that matter. Ethics tend to show kindness to people without a choice. Particularly, in this case, one can have a far more primary agent that bears the blame: our overall carbon-heavy production system. One should not translate the fault of the entire production system to every consumer. Eating meat is not unethical. The industrialized food production system is. Using plastic is not unethical. The prevalence of plastics in consumer products is. In the same way, calling having children unethical represents an unfair transfer of responsibility to individuals without a choice. Forcing people to choose between having children and caring for the environment is problematic. One should have the right to do both. When they cannot, one should at least not receive unfavorable ethical judgment for a forced choice. Adopting children may favor more ethical than having children, but that does not make the latter unethical. In ethical judgments, stakeholders do not all share the same say in a situation. When it comes to having children, the parents represent the most direct and primary stakeholders. For the children waiting for the adoption, their interests are only indirectly impacted. The primary stakeholders, the parents, are not making active harmful decisions. They do not have children to hurt the interests of those waiting for adoption. It just so happens that those children’s interests are indirectly hurt by their choice. Whether that constitutes an unethical decision represents a complicated debate. I incline to say no because in most ethical judgments related to reproduction we seem to prioritize the individual rights of parents. Take the most famous example of abortion. Pro-choice groups emphasize the rights of women to decide beyond the influences of other people, such as the women’s family members and religious pressures. The argument goes that the women have the most primary stake in this decision beyond others indirectly impacted. By the same logic, should we not respect the choice of the primary agents (the parents) over those indirectly impacted (the orphans). To clarify, I do not intend to argue against the premise that not having children represents the most ethical choice of all things considered. Instead, I dispute the thinking that such a reality makes having children unethical. In other words, having children represents an ethically neutral choice. In ethical judgment, deviation away from the best choice does not immediately imply ethical choices. In this argument, I have shown that little malintent or primary blames is associated with having children. Hence, having children does not constitute an unethical choice.

---If It was really unethical, how did you end up on this god's green earth? Because something is unethical, doesn't mean it does not happen right? Lying is unethical too, yet people lie all the time... I got here because my parents did not think about the morality of reproduction, just like dogs and cats don't think about it, they blindly respond to their biological urges, it's irrational and emotional... I don't condemn people who reproduce, they can't help it, just like dogs and cats can't help it... Let's try it another way, I challenge you (anyone really) to find me one, only one 100% unselfish reason to reproduce, only one reason that does not instrumentalize the unborn in any way... I contend that no one can come up with a valid one...