I didn't downvote, but if I had, it wouldn't be for that reason. It would be because having kids or not having kids is something many people speak of cavalierly as if it is totally in our control and this is often not true. If birth control fails, there are places where abortion is hard to come by (including large parts of the U.S., from what I gather). These attitudes disproportionately negatively impact women.
Much of human sexual morality is rooted in the thorny issue that mother nature makes sex pleasurable in large part to get you to reproduce and efforts to enjoy sex without it leading to babies are often unsuccessful. So, we have a long human tradition of things like shotgun weddings.
If every comment you come across accounts for the full spectrum of human and geopolitical variability, they would stop being comments and start being novellas.
It is possible to leave comments that are not novellas and that also are not sweepingly dismissive of underlying reality. All birth control methods have failure rates. None of them promises 100% protection -- except celibacy (assuming no one gets raped), which most married couples are not keen to practice.
I'm curious, if we take the failure rate of responsible protected sex, post-vasectomy sex, etc, for the planet...
... does that even start to contribute to replacing the existing population, or is it a statistical blip? Is this just a dead end you're trying to lead me down?
It doesn't, but it suggests that people should consider it far more than they do. Given how often marriages end as a direct or indirect result of children, you'd think it would come up more.
Much of human sexual morality is rooted in the thorny issue that mother nature makes sex pleasurable in large part to get you to reproduce and efforts to enjoy sex without it leading to babies are often unsuccessful. So, we have a long human tradition of things like shotgun weddings.