Peegee

This is something I have actually given a bit of critical thought on. In many ways, society the world over does in fact set itself up for failure along these lines.
Instead of birthing a child, for example, the best thing to do instead would be to adopt a child. There are two things that kill this notion- for one, people want 'their own' child. This in itself is, at it's core, an irrational desire and only exists because of the dynamics of society itself. People pride their kin> one wants to take pride in their own kin as well.
And so a person goes insofar as to birth a child in an already overpopulated, poverty-rich world to fulfill that desire.

Secondly, in the event that a person wants to adopt, the going rate for a newborn is $20000 and that is just the application process. It is not certain even then, and yet there is no shortage of orphaned or deprived infants.
It is, though sadly, a fact that this is a major money maker for other people. They take this money and further widen the gap between the rich and the oppressed, and these babies continue to be produced a dime a dozen.

:D
you're getting distracted by the small issues. I'm saying that having children itself is an immoral and indefensible act.

Adopting versus making your own children is a more moral act. However you're still avoiding the central question: justify having children period.

A voluntary human extinction will improve innumerable lives.

If having children is indefensible, then so is [B]not[/B] adopting a child. So in all actuality, you are calling everyone who does not adopt immoral.