[Born in a Rage]

The whole thing is silly if you ask me.

Maybe people who are only children do 'better' than people who come from a family of ten children...should we try to stop people from having so many kids?

Maybe people who have extended family around them (aunts, uncles, grandparents) do 'better' than people who have no extended family around...should we tell people not to move away from their extended families?

Maybe people who come from mixed marriages don't do as well as those who come from unmixed marriages...should we tell people who to love?

Maybe people who grow up in poverty don't do as well as people who are born into wealthy families...should we now tell poor people that they shouldn't have any children?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Maybe people who are only children do 'better' than people who come from a family of ten children...should we try to stop people from having so many kids?"

Maybe people who have extended family around them (aunts, uncles, grandparents) do 'better' than people who have no extended family around...should we tell people not to move away from their extended families?

"Mother" and "father" are essential components of personal and genetic identity, to say the least, and aunts etc. are not.

If I'm not mistaken, what you're getting at is, "Can we welcome children who don't come in optimal conditions?" And the answer is a big, vehement YES!, assuming that you're not deliberately depriving the child of some part of his common human birthright.

That "deliberately" part is important. Children grow up and even thrive under all kinds of sub-optimal conditions; but father-deprivation is one of the most serious deprivations; and to deliberately beget a child into this kind of deprivation is as seriously wrong than to deliberately design a child to be armless, or eyeless, or deaf.

If a child's parents were blind, and they preferred a blind child so they had him blinded by some prenatal maiming, would your attitude be, "So, he was born! Get over it!"?