> In your analogy, if you donate a bunch to a church led by a pastor whose brother is your boss at work, No. This is not my analogy. This is further stipulatio

> In your analogy, if you donate a bunch to a church led by a pastor whose brother is your boss at work, No. This is not my analogy. This is further stipulation that you've added to my analogy that changes the moral calculus completely. My analogy is just volunteering your time to help old people at your church. By your reasoning, this would be considered selfish because you are choosing to patronize members of your own church with your good works, rather than random people. > My main point though is that pro-natalists should really stop pressing the "it's selfless"/"not having children is selfish" FWIW, there are plenty of people making the argument that having children is selfish (our exchange here being a good example of such). What do you expect people to do when you call the single most important endeavor of their life, which entails massive amounts of personal sacrifice, basically selfish? And, truly, to call having children selfish shows that you have essentially no conception of what parenting entails. If you want to argue that it's irresponsible because children have an environmental impact, then I still think you're wrong, but you're not preposterously wrong. Just subtly wrong (IMO).