>>81659336
>A mother for example will go on to have who knows how many kids in the future, causally she does a lot of damage.
Yeah. If there was a way to have kids without it leading to predictable damage - that's malicious negligence. This wouldn't be an anti-natalist position, and the realistic responsibility distribution is seen. The legalislation systems have the technical details covered well enough.
>That is what all evil is, a contradiction between two principles.
I can't agree, as one can be openly evil without contradicting any camouflage. Being covert is just typically more efficient.