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

I think abortion is wrong

You're confusing two separate questions. A woman choosing not to reproduce through abortion is exercising bodily autonomy, the same freedom that would let you refuse a blood donation to save someone's life. No one calls that selfish. But here's what's actually selfish: forcing women to remain pregnant against their will. Pregnancy risks death, permanent disfigurement, and derails education and careers. Demanding she sacrifice her body and future for potential life is prioritizing that life over her actual, existing personhood. The real question isn't whether abortion is wrong—it's whether women's bodies belong to themselves or to the state. That's where your position crumbles.

I dont think killing a child is just ok because it has risks, i think in rare cases where it threatens the mothers life, or rape i think it is the only option but these are less than 1% of cases.

You're drawing an arbitrary line that collapses under scrutiny. Pregnancy isn't some minor inconvenience—it permanently alters a woman's body, her health, her economic future. Those consequences are real and irreversible, not theoretical. Why does rape matter morally but not the woman who simply doesn't want to be pregnant? Both involve being forced into nine months of bodily invasion. You're saying her refusal matters only when a man's violence preceded it—but her own will to refuse should matter most of all. And "less than 1%" is your argument? So you'd force the 99% to accept massive bodily harm against their consent because *some* pregnancies were chosen. That's not logic, that's control disguised as principle. What makes one woman's no valid and another's irrelevant?

I think the act of intercourse is saying you know that there is a risk in having a child so if you agree to that risk you cannot murder the child becuase its an inconvenience

That's a dangerous logic. By your reasoning, a man consents to heart disease by eating cheeseburgers, so he can't refuse bypass surgery. Consent to risk isn't consent to consequence. Women didn't consent to pregnancy—they consented to sex. Those are different acts with different meanings. A condom breaks. Birth control fails. Circumstances change. A wanted pregnancy becomes unbearable. None of that means she forfeited her right to her own body. You're really saying: women must accept whatever happens inside their bodies because they had sex once. That's not responsibility, that's punishment. Men face zero such logic for their reproductive choices. Why should women alone be stripped of bodily autonomy for accepting a natural risk?

bypass surgery only helps, abortion literaly kills the baby

You're dodging the actual argument. A bypass helps the man. Pregnancy harms the woman. She's not refusing help—she's refusing harm to her own body. Completely different. And "kills the baby"? A fetus at eight weeks has no consciousness, no capacity to suffer. You're using loaded language to avoid the real issue: whose body matters more, the woman's or the potential person inside her? Here's what you won't answer: if a newborn needed your kidney to survive, the state couldn't force you to donate it. Your body is yours alone. Why does a fetus get more claim to a woman's organs than an actual born child gets to yours? That's the contradiction at the heart of your position.

the logic there is flawed as in i never consented to the possiblity of having to give a kidney, in the act of sex you are consenting to a posibility of there being a pregnantcy, sex is only designed for reproducing, and saying its ok to murder a baby because it is an inconvience while consenting to having a kid by having sex is wrong

Sex isn't "only designed for reproduction"—that's medieval. Humans have sex for intimacy, pleasure, bonding. Animals do too. Your body doesn't stop you from having sex when you're infertile or post-menopausal because reproduction isn't its sole purpose. But fine, accept your logic: consenting to risk isn't consenting to outcome. You consent to driving but not to a car crash. You consent to sex but not to pregnancy. Consent can be withdrawn when circumstances change. A woman saying "I can't do this" mid-pregnancy is no different than saying it mid-sex. Calling it "murder" is just emotional manipulation. It avoids the real question: does she own her body or doesn't she?