> The parents birth and raise the kids to make those choices--this isn't a difficult concept to understand.
It's still the kids' choice and the kids' labor. They deserve the credit for doing the work, and receive that credit through their wages. Society doesn't present bad (or merely unfortunate) parents with a bill when they raise kids who end up being a burden; the flip side of that is that they don't get a prize when their kids turn out to be over-achievers.
Most kids, over the course of their lifetimes, will end up consuming about as much as they produce, which means bringing them into society is not some grand favor to the human race on the part of the parents. Unfortunately, the rare cases where the balance strongly favors production over consumption (i.e. gaining wealth) tend to invite more suspicion than appreciation.
> That's an interesting perspective that is completely divorced from the context of this conversation--it's entirely irrelevant and non-responsive to anything, in fact.
The only thing "completely divorced from the context of this conversation" is this nonsense I just quoted. You claimed that parents subsidize the lives of single people by having and raising kids who then go on to produce things for single people. I responded, completely relevantly and on-topic, by pointing out that considering the fruits of the kids' labor to be a subsidy paid by their parents presumes that the parents own their kids and the fruits of their kids' labor, a situation most commonly known as "slavery". If they don't own the labor (and they do not—it's the kids' labor, not theirs) then they aren't subsidizing anything. Their efforts as parents are a gift to their children alone, not to society.