I feel with this you try to pass me the ball and rationalise your not addressing the questions and the valid threads that are there on my previous post. I cannot trust you will not do the same if I address this meta-conversational claim, so I won't.
"not drink sewage?" No moral component.
"keeps you from sabotaging a nuclear plant?" Negative obligation.
"stay on the high wire?" No moral component.
"shopkeeper behave with you if he feels obligated to serve you?" No positive obligations prior to interaction.
"How about feeling obligated towards a child? How would that make your parenting?" Do not address whether a positive obligation is created or not.
I didn't answer the questions because they're not germane to the topic of whether or not choosing to have a child is choosing to create a positive obligation to that child. Hence the frustration. Upon exploring that frustration is when I noticed that you appeared to be begging the question. Since I feel that that is an unlikely behavior for you, I explored further. This is when I saw what was I thought you taking the question for granted, which is perfectly fine if you've made the case that would provide the answer to the question. Which I then noticed you did from your perspective.
This is my experience. If I am in err, then a patient correction would be welcomed.
Do you accept that if a long mathematical theory is based off of 2+2=5, we can dispense with the later steps altogether? To do so would be rational. As such, somebody who did so could not be described as rationalizing since that which is rational is ineligible for rationalization.
The quote here really stung. I've tried to address it rationally here, but will be taking some time to look deeper into it.