In all fairness, and despite how it is rationalized, the truth is that many people naturally realize that they just do not have it in them to reproduce and raise children. Many don’t even have enough zip to marry or even have sex.
To even try to marry and make children would injure or kill them, and their children would neither be healthy or happy, and would not, could not, live good lives.
It’s nobody’s fault, just biology, and the only two questions it creates are what percentage of our population are designed to be able to breed and what percentage isn’t; and is there some niche the non-breeders could occupy where they can help, not hurt, society as a whole.
Going back a step, there may be a good biological reasons for children to be born that are not intended to breed themselves.
One suggestion is that the first offspring gets many more dominant genes, and subsequent offspring get fewer dominant and more recessive genes. This makes sense, because more dominant genes would generally make someone stronger and healthier, but could backfire and not work, so the subsequent offspring’s recessive genes might fill the gap if the first one dies off or fails.
This might be somewhat confirmed by noticing that the more older siblings a child has, the more likely they will be a homosexual. And though it has never been studied as such, homosexuals also tend to have far more physical and psychological problems, unrelated to their sexuality.
There are many people who should not marry and who should not have children.
In the times past our culture had exalted roles for them as teachers, monks, nuns, priests, ministers, professors, and other types.
Now there is no real role for the celibate and/or the childless.
Something to think about.