Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.

[Pyrrho]

...

If I had the choice between extinction and anything else at all, I would choose anything else. This is obviously the thing to do.

I have seen people post such sentiments before, but I do not agree at all.  There are things that are worse than dying, and there are things that are worse than the extinction of the human race (which, however, is not part of the poll, as millions of people starving to death does not necessarily entail human extinction).  I happen to think, though, that not having children is not one of them.  Some others seem to disagree.

Your having children doesn't mean anything at all if those same children will grow up to die of hunger or because of some other closely related factor one day.

Certainly, if one knows that one's children will starve to death, and one is able to not have them, then it does seem like it is less than a good idea to have them.  Apparently, though, several people believe that the right to have them anyway trumps such considerations.

My guess, though, is that they are not thinking of it that way, and are thinking of other people's children starving to death.  That, too, reveals interesting things about people.

We have rights, yes, but those rights don't mean anything in and of themselves. This is especially true if by having these rights you are giving up other, more important rights in the process[or if you are at the same time imposing on other people's rights]: like the right to live for example.

The idea of the relationship between one's rights and the rights of others is central to the question.  When rights come into conflict, it is interesting to see which rights different people regard as paramount, and even more interesting when they explain their reasoning on the subject.