Most Children are parasites

COUNTER ONE: "I accept that picking up the toy is a service, however when you consider that the child must first get the toy out, it cancels out any beneficial effect thet picking up the toy may cause, but that's only if they put the toy away right when they are done playing with it, if they leave it out, and the parent/sibling steps on it, then they comited yet another dis-service. Consider this, if I were to shoot someone, then call an abulance, would you consider the event do a service for someone? What if they died before it got there? As for the chores, I know that you didn't do any meaningful chores other than the ones you were(very) well compensated for(I was very jelous)." What happened before doesn't matter. What matters is that it's helping the adult at the moment, even if something bad was caused by the child to offset it. If you were to shoot someone and then call an ambulance? Despite the fact that it's a funny situation, that's blowing this way out of proportion. I'll give a more closely related situation. I throw a party with my parent's permission, and my friends leave trash around the house. I may have indirectly caused the trash to be scattered on the ground by inviting these people over, but if I clean the house afterwards it's still a good deed (helpful). This is more closely related because both situations involve leaving junk around the house, but later cleaning it up. What I did for chores doesn't matter. I'm surprised you would bring something (not that groundbreaking people) that happened a few years ago up in a debate. Please leave personal discussions out of the debate, as Pro and Con are both adolescents and are not the majority of children. COUNTER TWO: "Teaching them is doing yourself a service, as the children don't actually do anything. The children only do a service if they USE what they are taught(which they rarely do). This may seem like semantics but it's a BIG distiction." Please give me some proof that the majority of children rarely use learned skills. You are Pro, therefore you have the burden of proof. COUNTER THREE: "People don't always do things to benefit themselves, sometimes people do things just to be nice. We call those people alruists(dictionary. com: http://dictionary.reference.com......). We(or at least I) see commercials all the time trying to get me to send money to help people in Africa(which I would if I had anything to give), they must be getting money from somewhere, otherwise they wouldn't be able to air commercials." I believe you mean altruists, but that's neither here nor there. I see those commercials a few hundred times a month also. Please don't bring up the emotional arguments in this debate like "If I only had some money I would give it to charity." We don't need to play the emotional card. If a person chooses not to have a child, that isn't depriving anyone of a benefit/right. The child doesn't exist at the moment. Besides, if someone is nice to another, then it creates a good feeling inside, which is a benefit. This benefit is coming from the child, it doesn't matter if it was directly or indirectly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CONCLUSION: There's really not much to say here. I honestly don't think my conclusions are the least bit important to anyone.