Having children is unethical

SIDE NOTE - Given there are only 24 hours to respond and I am currently studying for the SAT's, I apologize in advance for any accidental forfeiture due to the business of my schoolwork.As I am not sure how my opponent wished to format the debate, I will start as such:First, I will explain the importance of family as a value.I will also supply definitions in this section as well.Second, I will refute my opponent's contentions.Lastly, I will provide my own.Good luck to my opponent!Family is basic and natural to human existence. Clearly, it is closer to the natural state of mankind than any other social organization. Indeed, some argue that the family is more intrinsic than the individual. Children, the beginning form of any adult, are born with an intrinsic need for their parents. This need exists prior to the need to express one's individuality or to fulfill one's aspirations, proving that having children and developing a family is the first and foremost value. Furthermore, the family is fundamental to the development of other values in people. It is the family which has the greatest influence on the development of the future members of society. Of all the social institutions, it is the family which is the most resilient. History has overthrown or changed other institutions; the family has remained relatively the same since the start of mankind.As my opponent has not offered any definitions in the first argument, by formal rules of debate, all definitions given by the opposing council (me) are flowed through the entire round and are not eligible for refutation. No other definitions, for any words, may be brought up past the point of the introductory arguments.[1]Ethics is defined as:"The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group or culture." [2]Children is defined as:"a person between birth and full growth;" [3]Having is defined as:"to hold, possess, or accept in some relation, as of kindred or relative position:" [4]Thus, for Pro to win the debate, he must prove that having children goes against the rules of conduct to a particular class of human actions or a particular group or culture. However, as both of my opponent's contentions (and therefore his whole argument) are based on worldwide numbers and consequences, the "particular group or culture" is defaulted to all of humanity. Having children is also not specifically biologically giving birth, so since we must accept my definitions by rules of debate, "having children" also includes adoption.The first two of Pro's contentions go against morality, what is right and what is wrong, rather than going against the rules of conduct of humanity (ethics). As I have explained in my opening paragraph, having a family is part of he natural conduct of human civilization, and thus is entirely ethical no matter how great the population is. His second contention is also completely refuted because it goes against the definition of this debate of having children.His last argument is philosophical in nature, stating that having children is selfish. However, as I stated in my opening paragraph, family is the natural state of human civilization. It also is based on an opinion, "Life is short and tragic", which does not apply the entire population of the world (which is the group that is defined for this debate), and thus is an invalid contention.Given the limited character amount, my only contention I offer is that family is a natural process, and thus is the fundamental conduct of human life, therefore verbatim following the rules of something being ethical. The instinctive process embedded in humans due to years of evolution and natural selection is to have children, and is self-evidently an ethical choice.[1] http://www.saskdebate.com...[2] http://www.diffen.com...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...