The Ethics of Having Children-Guest Post
By Honey Smith
I am a firm believer in critical thinking-figuring out what is really being said versus what appears to be being said, and using that knowledge to take action for your own reasons, not someone else’s. One of the most accepted and completely unquestioned “urges” promoted in our society is the desire to have children. Despite our supposed position in the animal world as creatures of reason and users of tools, in this regard we are considered completely helpless-slaves to our instincts, with all children considered a “good.”
Furthermore, the defining criterion for a good life partner is supposed to consist of a person’s hypothetical skill as a parent, which is what makes this discussion so relevant on a relationship blog. IMO, deciding to have children is not only one of the most unnecessary acts that can be performed in contemporary society, indeed, it’s arguable that having children is one of the most socially irresponsible decisions that a couple can make.
The Environment
The main argument for categorizing the decision to have children as socially irresponsible comes from a sustainability perspective. Obviously it takes an enormous amount of resources to raise a child that is not only physically and emotionally healthy, but also provided with the resources to make the most of his/her intelligence and/or other talents.
As we are all becoming increasingly aware, the amount of resources available to us on Earth is finite; the human race simply does not have the ability to continue to grow at its current rate. However, this growth is especially disturbing because any resource used by humans potentially comes at a loss to the numerous ecosystems upon which other living things depend. We do not have the right to continue to grow at the expense of other beings that lack the capacity to effectively defend their existence, negotiate with us, or otherwise protect themselves. Which brings us to the obvious corollary to the environment-overpopulation.
Overpopulation
Currently world population is nearly 6.7 billion and growing. Scientific bodies agree that not only does population growth need to stop, but that the current population level is not sustainable long-term. Estimates for a sustainable world population level vary, but 2 billion is the number bandied about most often in my own (admittedly limited Google) research.
This does not mean that the desire to parent is wrong or evil, or that you cannot have a child in your life should you so desire. There are millions upon millions of children who have already been brought into this world, both here in the U.S. and all over the world (particularly in developing nations). Why not adopt one of these children? I’m an atheist, but helping a child who’s already been brought into the world, often in difficult circumstances (poverty, poor health due to a mother addicted to drugs, etc.) seems far more charitable to me than privileging your own DNA for no reason other than-what? Your vanity?
Defining Couplehood for Yourself
Rather than simply accepting the values of the masses without question, the BF and I have given these issues a lot of thought and instead chosen to create a relationship based on our own shared values. For us, sex is still a means to an end-however, that end is connecting with each other, reinforcing our emotional, physical, and intellectual bond through the creation of moments that are shared with no other.
Our relationship means using our income to educate ourselves (however retroactively through paying back our student loans) so that we only need jobs that we find intellectually stimulating and fulfilling, rather than to meet a child’s needs. Or using our income to travel and experience and appreciate the world together. Whenever I hear someone say that they want to give their (future) children the life they never had, I always want to say-do you realize that if you didn’t have kids, you could afford to have the life you never had?
We have also made a decision to “give back” to society by adopting rescued animals throughout our lives, and we have made a promise that we will only contribute to animal rescue organizations and charities, rather than any organization that benefits people. We’re both vegetarians and this aligns with our values (FYI, becoming vegetarian is also the most significant thing you can do to “go green”).
A Brief Tangent on How I’d Arrange Society
Even the most casual look at census data shows that there is an inverse relationship between education/socioeconomic status and number of children. This is due (among other things) to a lack of information about and access to birth control, but also (IMO) a recognition on the part of better-off folks regarding what a huge commitment having a child is and should be. With that in mind, here’s how I’d arrange society-anyone who was interested in having a child would have to do the following:
- Pay to fill out an application and undergo a background check proving they have no felonies on record and possess the financial resources to raise a child.
- Pay to attend parenting courses prior to conception, and undergo an examination that they must pass in order to receive permission to move forward with parenthood.
- A reduction and/or reimbursement of these fees would be offered to those who were willing adopt a child rather than conceiving themselves.
- The tax benefit for having children would be revoked, to be replaced with a tax benefit for not having children and for adopting.
- Access to birth control and other forms of family planning (such as financial counselors for those who can’t afford a child but would like one) would be made widely available free, at reduced cost, and/or be made tax deductible.
Such a system would gradually lower the world population; improve the standard of living for children already in existence; ensure that parents are prepared financially, intellectually, and emotionally for the demanding and valuable work of child-rearing; and generate government revenues that could be easily earmarked for this and other social programs.
Conclusion
There are many other more personal reasons why the BF and I have made the decision not to start a family; this article merely focuses on the most systemic and widely applicable. However, we believe firmly that there is more to romantic relationships, and even life partnerships, than being a parent. Ultimately, if you compromise on any of your own values-even those that seem unrelated to parenting-then you will never be in a position to be a great parent. Furthermore, not all values are consistent with parenting, and that’s okay.
Because so many people out there accept society’s emphasis on children unquestioningly, it is very common for couples who have decided to live “child-free” to be the victims of criticism and censure and/or to have difficulty finding people near them that share their values and lifestyle. Childfree.net lists a variety of resources for individuals and couples who have made the decision to live childfree; a Google search for “child-free” comes up with additional relevant sites.
Thoughts?
You can learn more about Honey at http://honeyandlance.com/
Related posts:
- A Time Limit on Love? — Guest Post NOTE: Thi
- What I Wish I Knew When I Was 20-Guest Post By Hon
- Do We Really All Have One Soulmate? - Guest Post By Kaci
- So, There’s This Boy-Guest Post By Kaci
- Being Single is an Opportunity-Guest Post By NML Ne
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
About This Post
[...] write a guest post today at 20-forty about “The Ethics of Having Children“. Honey’s message: I won’t, it is better to adopt, too much [...]
I would hate to see the US birth rate fall faster than the rest of the world. That would create a weakness here, just when the rest of the world is looking to feed their multitudes, and a place to send their troublesome masses.
Brad K.s last blog post..About ethics of child rearing
All very good points. But the society you describe is a bit utopian and possibly run by … well, I’m not sure who would be capable of running it. A computer, maybe? UniComp? A bit scary.
I think it would be great if people would follow my ideal of “life on the planet.” And I’ll wager that every fellow man feels the same way. So who would you choose to decide what is right and what is good? I mean, we all have a good plan.
Cathouse Teris last blog post..Voulez-vous coucher avec moi?
I’m not sure what “weakness” you mean. We aren’t feeding our *own* multitudes or taking care of our *own* troubled masses…we should be reducing our population until we can provide everyone with a decent standard of living. Then, in the capacity of an example to the rest of the world, the U.S. should spearhead efforts to reduce world population abroad; sharing technology, food and investing in birth control efforts everywhere is in our best interest individually and as a species. The alternative is famine. Or should we wait for famine to strike these other countries and decimate their populations (standing by and doing nothing), and only then decide it is “safe” to start reducing our own?
Sadly, it is almost certainly a moot point. The U.S. will never approach this issue in a reasoned, informed, proactive way, so the latter scenario will almost certainly come to pass regardless.
Cathouse Teri, is that an Ira Levin reference? I’ve read so many dystopian novels I mix them up sometimes, but I LOVED “This Perfect Day”
Of course I know the plan I propose will never come to pass. All I can do is make the choice for my own life that I find socially responsible, make my arguments public, and hope other people do the same.
Indeed, it was a Levin reference?
Was hoping you’d catch it! And as I said, you do make some great points that hopefully some people will comprehend and perhaps even put into action. We can only do our little part. I especially liked it when you said:
“For us, sex is still a means to an end-however, that end is connecting with each other, reinforcing our emotional, physical, and intellectual bond through the creation of moments that are shared with no other.”
I would like to mention, though, that my boyfriend and I have no shortage of time to spend on nurturing that sort of connection. I do have three grown children and three small grandchildren. I am very involved in their lives, although they do not live nearby. This does not seem to interfere with our ability to maintain our personal closeness, the BF and me. But, as I said ~ those children are up and out on their own, raising their own. The BF has never had children and doesn’t want any. Which makes him purrrrrrrrrrrrrrfect for me!
Cathouse Teris last blog post..Voulez-vous coucher avec moi?
I just wanted to add my support to your eloquently stated position. I think the only thing I would add is a bit more of a sense of urgency.
We’ve already exceed global carrying capacity. We are now in “overshoot”. Global population is nearing 7 billion. As you observe, global carrying capacity is about 2 billion. (This assumes some level of social justice and a moderate, low by US standards, standard of living.) We will get to that 2 billion number the hard way (wars, famine, disease, and their accompanying losses of environmental quality, freedom, and social justice) OR the less hard way (immediately and drastically reducing our population voluntarily).
Yes,all of us, yes everywhere. Yes a drop in population will cause problems, but none of those problems are as big as the problems, suffering, and environmental collapse that is certain to occur if we don’t.
No technological / “alternative energy” options have the capacity or can be ramped up fast enough to avoid major global calamity. That isn’t to say we shouldn’t do them. Aggressively shifting to alternative energy is necessary, just not sufficient.
It’s also too late for any “us” vs “them” arguments or any belief that national boundaries will do much to help anyone in the long run. This is a global issue with local and nation-state consequences. For example, immigration is a consequence of overpopulation, not a cause of it. Likewise global climate change is not impressed by national boundaries.
One of the key factors in this scenario is also our sense of time. This is a slow motion crash that requires immediate action, a bit like trying to steer a supertanker on a crash course by putting in consistent input over a multi year time frame, and the one effective input is to stop making babies. The supertanker analogy is also apt because it was oil that allowed us to get this far out on a limb, and peak oil has already happened.
Given the ‘memeplexes’ of nation-state political-economic-religious institutions, no reduction in population is likely to occur from the top (at least not until it is far too late and the suffering, conflicts, starvation, disease, and social collapse can no longer be ignored. If any kind of global population reduction is to occur is will need to occur “memetically” ‘from the bottom up’. (Too bad Brad and Angelina didn’t just adopt and decided to breed, too.)
For a more comprehensive analysis of this I highly recommend Approaching the Limits http://www.paulchefurka.ca
Nicely done Honey! I completely agree with you. Having children is a decision which should be left to individual couples to decide…not society. It is a very personal decision. I love your suggestions especially having perspective parents apply to have children. Believe me, as a teacher, I see parents who would have never made it through the application process.
lisaqs last blog post..Not Eligible for Dating…Ever!
I agree with the comments so far. Your post puts the modern issues of motherhood so eloquently. I feeling the pressure on all sides to make a decision. There is an assumption from my friends and family that there can be only one decision - to have kids. You show the other side of that, and how women can be confident no matter what they decide with critical thinking.
By the way, I agree with you completely about adoption. There are so many children in this world who need love, why shouldn’t we take care of them first. Are we that vain that our kids need to look like us? Not having looked into it, I wonder also if adoption is, or just seems, cost-prohibitive.
Talking with women who are in the midst of making this important decision, I created a six-week series on the subject. It’s over the phone for women to support one another so we each can decide and move on confidently, as you have. If you know women on the fence about being a mother, I hope you’ll recommend my series starting on Sept 22.
Info: http://www.groundedinpotential.com/mommydrama.
LaureeOs last blog post..Looking for a Change? Look Around
100% agreed, and this issue has hurt me in my dating life. I would LOVE to have a kid, but if I do, I’d like to adopt for all of the reasons you mentioned.
We have a rough transition ahead, dealing with climate change and peak oil. It will be possible to maintain a good standard of living, but society will change. 20 years from now, we’ll only be able to produce 1/2 the conventional oil (there are other hydrocarbons at increased cost) currently in supply. Demand will go up. It will be a big deal. That doesn’t mean we are all going to die, it means there will be a major adjustment in how we live our lives around the world. Our parents won’t believe that, because they’ve heard it all before, but all big oil companies excepting Exxon acknowledge this fact. That is only one issue, perhaps the most important, since on average any food item you purchase has already traveled something like 1500-2000 miles. Big change is coming.
The world will change harshly and rapidly over the next 20-30 years. This does not mean we will all be impoverished living in slums and there will be catastrophe. It just means it will change. The outcome is uncertain. I bet on a difficult but doable future, and I’d much rather adopt and help someone who doesn’t have a chance than populate my own progeny.
[...] on 20-forty, Honey reviewed the ethics of having children in this day and age and argues AGAINST it. This was one of the gutsiest posts I’ve read in a [...]
And the answers to kommety be?
Beautiful!
Thank you for your eloquent post. My husband and I have been together 12 years and have no plans to have children. We are insulted left and right by people with children, or people who seem to think having children is the only point of being married. I suppose it was, once upon a time, but times have changed. We don’t have the parental urge, and would rather devote our time on this earth to enjoying life with each other as much as possible given other constraints. I am so tired of being polite while rude people ask me impertinent questions about my biological clock, or my baby-crazy sister-in-law rudely insults us, saying that having children would ‘magically solve’ all of our problems. Having school debt and now dealing with unemployment in this economy, having a child seems like a nightmare that would only get worse, and would strip us of any hope of traveling and doing the things we want to do.
If you love children and want a family, kudos to you–it’s not an easy decision. But please live and let live, and stop bullying the rest of us. It really doesn’t help your case any.