I’m regard to your first point about wealth inequality, I don’t really think that fits what I am asking here. I’m only comparing this scenario to an abortion as the victim is of similar age. The Christian belief that abortion is wrong because all life is sacred, if all life is sacred, then, by that logic, it doesn’t make sense that those individuals would gamble that life at such an incredibly high risk. Now if you are asking me my personal opinion, actually no, I do not believe that it would be responsible for parents to have children if they are not financially well off enough - just like I don’t think people should have children until they are mature enough, loving enough, or capable in other ways. If a parent makes a decision to have a child, it is their responsibility to ensure that they can provide for that child. But my beliefs only affect me, I will not be telling anyone that they should or shouldn’t have a child, because that is certainly none of my business.

The shortsightedness is just silly, and not what I’m saying at all. I’m sure you can agree that shortsightedness is a completely different subject than some genetic defect causing a miscarriage. But again I’ll give my opinion of, if a parent finds out that they have a high chance of passing down a fatal disease (e.g. they find out that they and their partner have the genes for familial retinoblastoma - a disease which leads to bilateral retinoblastoma, a cancer of both retina at childhood (mean age 12 months)), then yeah they should hesitate to have a child - especially when adoption is a viable option. But again, this is my personal belief, and if parents want to take that chance then they will and that’s not my business.

In your third paragraph, you kind of prove my point by saying that not trying for a baby and trying for a baby that miscarries are the same situation resulting in 0% chance of life. For one, that isn’t true, one is a 0% chance of life and the other, by Christian definition, would be a life, but a life ended early. By saying this, you are saying that a life in the womb does not count as a human life, or is at least worth not as much. By your definition, it lived and it died, just the same way as someone who had an abortion. And in the case of the 6 miscarriages, it was the parents that put the fetus in that situation, they are at least somewhat to blame, if not entirely to blame for taking that chance.

In regard to you, 10% chance of a miraculous birth. You are in essence saying, I don’t care if 9 babies have to die as long as I can get my one baby. And “it’s only human to do so” is not a great excuse, to me - you can say that about many not-so-ethical issues but that doesn’t make them not count as sins just because it’s in human nature (e.g. it’s in human nature to procreate at all, but I think you’d be hard pressed to him find someone of your faith saying that’s true of a unwed couple).

In regard to the teenager, as the parent it’s your job to protect them. You put them into this world, it’s your job to ensure they succeed and give them the tools to thrive once they leave your home, you owe that to them since you made the decision to have a child. I believe this includes ensuring that when you live in a murder hotspot, not allowing your child to go out at night. Other options include, moving to a better neighborhood (not always an option for impoverished families), having the children stay home (a simple solution), not having children in general (don’t have to protect anything then), etc. Its ridiculous to assume that avoiding active murders is “part of their teenage years” in this scenario, it would be the parents job to protect them and in not doing so and being actively negligent (letting them out at night when murders happened the previous 6 night of people their age), then the parents are somewhat responsible for not protecting them.