Considered "inferior" by whom? Who in society ought to consider themselves "superior" to others in society - particularly on the basis [only] of their having had children?
By this logic, all (and I generalize) Catholic families ought to be deemed somehow "superior" in society, or many 3rd world couples (and again, I generalize) who in many cases breed beyond their ability to support their children ought to be considered "superior." And politically, anyone who supports contraception ought to be considered "inferior" - if not outright criminal (the next logical step to inferiority).
I rather appreciate the Duggars for their faith and example, but does the size of their family make them "superior" to couples who have no children?
Moreover, it ignores the other possibilities - in particular the fact that some couples simply *can't* have children. On what basis should they be considered "inferior?" And who, properly, should be looking down their noses at such couples - exalting themselves to some sort of a "superior" state because they could (or did) have children?
Frankly, if anyone is going to argue along the lines that couples "owe it to society" to breed, then it could be just as reasonably argued that society "owes it to their couples" to enable them TO breed, economically, financially, educationally,