Reasoned?
Your argument is based on a "reasoning" prompted by a religious bias.
noemon wrote:1) People who consciously choose to have pets instead of kids for ease of use are by definition selfish. Because opting for something easier is the very definition of being selfish. Reasoned.
Your argument is based on the Catholic doctrine that does not support birth control and ignores the many problems of a world in which over-population is a building problem.
noemon wrote:2) Fatherhood and motherhood have nothing do with humanity. Totally unreasoned nonsense.
It is biological imperative but it is not what makes us human. Not having children is not indicative of not having humanity, or the Pope would be a prime example of a "selfish person". If he wasn't so selfish he'd get married and have children.
How do you measure selfishness, anyways? It all seems vague and subjective.
noemon wrote:1) People who consciously choose to have pets instead of kids for ease of use are by definition selfish.
Only according to the Pope, and you happen to agree with him. It is an appeal to authority. A logical fallacy. The Pope said it, so it must be true, even if there is absolutely no way to truly discern this, and your agreement is based on completely emotional "reasoning".
Many people don't have kids because they simply cannot afford to have them, might be infertile, jobs that don't allow for maternity leave, etc. Your opinion and the Pope's is thoughtless.
noemon wrote:2) A decline in the cognition of groups due to the dysgenic effect is an adverse negative effect on humanity. Reasoned and proven.
This argument isn't relevant to what the Pope said, but it makes more sense than you basing it on something as abstract as "selfishness", which you cannot determine and cannot measure.
“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson