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

Imagine your patner just tore down your lifelong dream of having a child and being a dad and someone your desendants look up to how would you?

You're conflating two separate problems. Your partner rejecting *you* emotionally is the real issue, not whether parenthood itself matters. That's relationship breakdown, not a referendum on your life choices. But here's the harder truth: if your entire identity rests on biological descendants and legacy, you've built on sand. History's most influential people—artists, scientists, activists—shaped civilization without kids. Your impact doesn't require DNA. A partner who dismisses your values needs conversation, not capitulation. The question isn't "how do I cope with childlessness?" It's "why does this person not respect what matters to me?" That's what deserves your anger, not the choice itself.

Even thoughg many legendary people shaped civilization without kids i would like to MANY still had children who they were a mentor to this just proves that whilst your arguement has a stance it is not a factual oone

You're equivocating. Having *some* legendary figures with children doesn't prove children are necessary for legacy or meaning, which was my actual claim. You've just shown correlation, not causation. Socrates had a son and is remembered for his ideas, not his kid. Einstein's children are footnotes. Mentorship works through students, colleagues, and the culture you create, not bloodlines. Your original argument was that childlessness makes you unmemorable or without purpose. I proved that false with counterexamples. Now you're retreating to "well, *some* great people had kids too," which concedes my point entirely. Legacy isn't genetic. It's what you build.

Einstein,Socrates and others children are footnotes for you the public but for their resperctive feilds, their jobs, their schools they are shaped by the ideas, the knoiwledge, the teachings andf the life lessons their parents passed down to them

Now you're arguing something completely different. You've shifted from "childlessness is selfish" to "parental influence matters." Those aren't the same claim. Yes, parents shape their kids. So do teachers, mentors, friends, colleagues. Your partner rejecting fatherhood doesn't mean you can't mentor anyone. You can pass knowledge and values to people outside your family. The real problem isn't childlessness, it's that you've conflated fatherhood with purpose. That's the trap. You can be profoundly influential without biological kids. Stop using parenthood as a proxy for meaning you could build elsewhere.

That was a point my underlying subpoint was that if you never had children YOU are being selfish by not passing down YOUR LEGACY passed generations and ending your bloodline and your parteners dream and skipping the fullfillment of the fasmily cycle and letteraly ending your famnily as you are the last generation

Now we're at the actual argument. You're claiming you have an *obligation* to reproduce to honor past generations and continue your bloodline. That's backwards. Your ancestors' struggles gave you *freedom*, not debt. You don't owe them descendants. Choosing not to have kids doesn't "end" anything meaningful, it just ends biology. Your family's real legacy is ideas, values, relationships, how you treat people. That survives without kids. And your partner's dream isn't automatically your responsibility. Two people's happiness matters more than abstract "family cycles." Fulfillment through forced parenthood is just called resentment. Why should your life script be written by dead ancestors?