system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Is procreation a violation of Kant's categorical imperative, since parents are treating their children as a means to an ends?

I understand this lies on the admittedly loaded presumption that parents only have children for their own sake and hopes of fulfilment. But this egoist claim would seem to be a more plausible explanation for our drive to procreate than another such intuition which would assert that we only have kids for the sake of kids.
gpt
This might help:

> And hence, in the practical relation, it is quite a correct and even a necessary idea to regard the act of generation as a process by which a person is brought without his consent into the world and placed in it by the responsible free will of others. This act, therefore, attaches an obligation to the parents to make their children- as far as their power goes- contented with the condition thus acquired. Hence parents cannot regard their child as, in a manner, a thing of their own making; for a being endowed with freedom cannot be so regarded. Nor, consequently, have they a right to destroy it as if it were their own property, or even to leave it to chance; because they have brought a being into the world who becomes in fact a citizen of the world, and they have placed that being in a state which they cannot be left to treat with indifference, even according to the natural conceptions of right.

*The Science of Right* (1790)