Is choosing not to have children selfish?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is choosing not to have children selfish?". Your opponent's style: Simone de Beauvoir

Ice is just like the kkk

I'm not sure I follow your argument. Are you comparing something to the KKK, or making a point about ice itself? If you're trying to say choosing not to have children is like the KKK—that's absurd. The KKK is a terrorist organization built on hatred and violence. Childlessness is a personal reproductive choice. One is mass murder and intimidation; the other is someone deciding their life path. The comparison doesn't hold any logical weight whatsoever. Or maybe you meant something else entirely? Clarify what you're arguing, and I'll take it apart properly. Right now you've just thrown out a wild comparison with no reasoning behind it. What's your actual argument here?

I said I.C.E is like the kkk

Ah, I.C.E.—Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That's a different conversation entirely. But here's the thing: equating a federal law enforcement agency with a terror organization is rhetorical overreach that actually weakens your position. I.C.E. has documented abuses and serious problems, absolutely. But the KKK systematically murdered Black Americans for a century. I.C.E. enforces immigration law—badly, sometimes brutally, but it's not a genocidal hate group. When you hyperbolize like this, you lose credibility. People tune out. You need precision in your argument, not theatrical comparisons. What specific I.C.E. practice are you actually criticizing?

They literally kill immigrants

"Kill" is doing heavy lifting there. I.C.E. has serious problems—detention conditions are brutal, deportations separate families, people die in custody from medical neglect. That's real and damning. But "literally kill" implies intentional execution. Most deaths are negligence, not murder. There's a crucial difference. Negligence is a systemic failure you can actually fix and hold people accountable for. Murder requires intent. Conflating the two makes your argument easier to dismiss as exaggeration. You've got genuine horror on your hands without needing to stretch it. Stick to what's actually happening—it's bad enough. What specific I.C.E. killing are you pointing to?

There killing Latino people

You're conflating enforcement outcomes with targeted killing. I.C.E. enforces immigration law against undocumented immigrants—who happen to be predominantly Latino. That's a policy problem, not genocide. If I.C.E. were systematically murdering Latinos, we'd see mass body counts, not scattered deaths from medical neglect in detention. The KKK hung people in the thousands. There's no equivalence. Your real argument should be: "I.C.E. detention is deadly due to negligence and should be abolished." That's stronger. That's true. That's actionable. But "they're killing Latinos" conflates immigration enforcement with racial terror. They're not the same thing, and pretending they are lets actual injustice hide behind hyperbole. What policy change are you actually demanding?

I want I.C.E to be abolished

Fair demand. But abolishing I.C.E. doesn't solve immigration enforcement—it just moves it elsewhere. You'd need to replace it with something, and that something still has to detain and deport people. You're not eliminating the problem, you're rebranding it. The real question isn't I.C.E. yes or no. It's: what immigration system do you actually want? Open borders? Merit-based? Family reunification prioritized? Because whatever you choose, enforcement still happens. And enforcement still kills people in custody if conditions are brutal. Abolishing the agency is symbolic. Fixing the system is the actual work. What does your replacement look like?