> dedicating the next 20 years of your own life (and the major part of your income) Dedicating time and money does not make something unselfish, so this can't

> dedicating the next 20 years of your own life (and the major part of your income) Dedicating time and money does not make something unselfish, so this can't really be used as justification to show that having a child is not selfish. We can start with a lower bar -- having children is definitely not selfless, right? Most people have children to give their life purpose and meaning, or because they believe they will be good parents and want to see if they can raise a child that will find success in the world. So at the very least, I think we can agree that a parent gains something by virtue of having a child, and they have a child so that they can benefit in this way. Ergo, having a child is not selfless, we can at least agree on that, right? Next we can move onto showing why it is actually quite selfish. Let's just look up the word "selfish" to find some footing: > (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. So if I can demonstrate that the parents lacks consideration for others when having a child, that should sufficiently demonstrate that the parents are acting selfishly, yes? So who benefits (other than the parents) from the child being born? I can only think of one party you may suggest -- the child. But the child has not been born yet, so how can the parent be acting out of consideration for their unborn child? Can you act in the interest of something that does not exist? This is where we get into the matter of opinion. Can an unborn child have desires? If no, then the parent is definitely acting selfishly. The only one who desires the child be born is the parent, so this is by definition selfish. If yes, then you may say that the child desires to be born, and the parent is acting out of consideration for this desire. But if you are in this camp, you must also admit there is a chance the child desires not to be born, yes? And if this is the case, then by bringing this child into the world without first consulting their desires, I would argue the parent is acting selfishly. They made an assumption about their child's desires, and acted without confirming them -- giving their child no say in the matter. This sounds quite selfish to me. So I think this conclusively demonstrates that having a child is indeed selfish, would you contest this? The only reasonable way to contest this argument, in my opinion of course, is by taking the religious stance and somehow "speaking" to your unborn child (through god?) to first determine if they want to be born. This is impossible to reproduce though, so it's impossible to say if anyone has ever done this, and therefore I won't bother addressing it. Of course, I'm not saying having children is "repulsive," but it's definitely selfish.