No, those are your unkind assumptions again.

I find the style of argumentation you have sometimes presented, where you state extremes to the point where it would achieve exactly the opposite from what you claim you're after, to be silly. I was quite clear in my criticism of the particular argument that was strongly suggesting that no women should have children. I did not say or imply that anyone should be forced or coerced into subjugation. That's entirely on you. (Likewise, you keep making points about being unable to care for children, despite the original poster already saying he wasn't talking about that case: "I want to be clear that I’m not talking about couples who make this decision for health-related reasons or lack of stability or financial resources, or any other reasonable excuse.").

I agree with about 3/4 of what you said in this reply--and disagree with the approach of the original poster (too much effort put into shaming the childless rather than extolling the virtues of good parenting--though if the childless are trying to grab more of society's resources for themselves to the detriment of children (as some responders were!), I absolutely think there should be strong pushback against that), and the idea that depopulation is a pressing concern is unwarranted, though the message that parenting is under-appreciated is both true and timely.

However, I am uniformly opposed to all bad arguments. If it is a bad argument in support of a bad idea, the whole endeavor is rubbish. If it is a bad argument in support of a good idea, when those who have bad ideas find the obvious flaws in the argument they will (unfairly, but naturally) assume the good idea itself is flawed. Either way, it's bad. Fun for flame wars, maybe, but bad for any other purpose.