You ask whether it's "less wrong" to create the child than for one adult to deny the other the chance of parenthood. That makes it sound as if the only possible wrong on the adults' side is the willing adult being denied parenthood. Wouldn't it also be wrong for the unwilling adult to be forced into parenthood? In any event, if the two adults go ahead with procreation, on grounds that it's "less wrong" to make the child, that seems like the wrong way to start the parent-child relationship. A parent's gain, in becoming a parent, shouldn't be at the child's expense. To start off the relationship on the right foot, they have to believe that giving life to the child-to-be is right, not merely "less wrong." Might it be right, under these circumstances? That's a very hard question. The crux of it is whether it's fair to the child to be given a life that will foreseeably include early loss of a parent. You might say it's fine, on grounds that in all probability the child will still have a life...

I've thought about this issue a lot, as a vegetarian with two children (now both 12). We decided it would be better to let them choose for themselves. My thinking was: if we raised them as vegetarians, they would inevitably come into contact with meat and feel curious, tempted, guilty. Out of concern for their wellbeing, I wanted to avoid that. I also thought they would experience vegetarianism as an imposition and eventually rebel against it. Plus, I wanted them to have the experience of confronting a moral issue for themselves. This is how things have turned out (so far)--When my kids were very young, all the food I prepared was vegetarian, but I bought cold cuts for sandwiches, let them order meat in restaurants and at school. At age 6, my daughter decided to stop eating meat. I practically discouraged this, giving her permission to change her mind, give in to temptation, etc. In fact, she became steadily more consistent, resolute, and outspoken. At age 12, my son made the same decision. ...

I'm guessing what the questioner is wondering is roughly this-- "Considering the way that infidelity tends to increase the probability of divorce and considering the known ill effects of divorce on children, do couples have a duty not just to each other, but also to their children, to be faithful?" My answer to that question is: yes. Then there's the question whether people should be faithful even if they've redefined marriage so that infidelity is truly a non-issue (if such people exist). And there's also the question whether we have a duty to children not to redefine marriage that way. No, and no, to those two questions. But if the question is about people in ordinary marriages, I'll go for the idea that infidelity puts children in jeopardy, so the obligation to refrain is partly to one's children.

If you haven't been reading David Benatar's book Better Never To Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence , then you might want to read it, because his argument is very much like yours. Perhaps we ought to say that there actually is some obligation to bring into existence lives that are good. This only seems counterintuitive if you make the mistake of thinking this obligation trumps all other considerations, when people are deciding whether to have children. If that were so, we'd all be under an obligation to run around making the maximum number of babies--which seems absurd. But there are lots and lots of other considerations. Perhaps having children will interfere with the enormous good I'm doing as a concert violinist. Perhaps having children in an overpopulated world has both good and bad effects. Still, we should acknowledge some obligation to bring into existence lives that are good. Thus, there is an obligation to create lives that are good to put in the balance with...

I think the two compromises you propose bring up very different issues. Letting parents choose between two types of sex education classes is problematic. Although you have personally chosen abstinence--which is entirely fine, of course--studies show that abstinence education generally (on average) changes the age of first intercourse minimally or not at all. If regular sex education generally does a better job of preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs, the school would essentially be offering a choice between better sex education and worse sex education. I don't think offering that choice fits within the mission of health education--which is to use the best methods available to steer children and young adults toward better health. The other compromise seems more sensible. Religion plays such a major role in world affairs, it is odd that a person can graduate from high school knowing next to nothing about it (as I did). It seem reasonable to at least offer comparative religion as an elective....

I don't think it's wrong to lie to children, if there's a good reason for the lie. I recall my daughter hearing the word "rape" and asking what it is at a very early age. I said I didn't know with a "that's not important" tone of voice. Sure, I could have made an honest statement about her being too young for the subject, but it seemed pointless to make her feel disrespected, or to let her go on wondering about the matter. But does it make sense to lie about where babies come from? I frankly don't understand why parents feel so giggly and embarrassed about the subject. I told my twins the facts of life gradually, probably starting around the age of 3 or 4. When they asked how sperm gets into the mother's uterus, at about age 5, I told them the truth. (They thought it was the funniest thing they'd ever heard.) If a parent lies about where babies come from, are they immoral? Some lies can cause children anxiety, and then there's reason to disapprove. For example, a friend of mine was...