Survival of the Selfless
Finally I found a friend who feels the same way I do about over-population, adoption and the selfish reasons parents give for having children. She shatters the stereotype that voluntarily childless women are self-centered, immature or materialistic but instead exemplifies the selfLESS reasons for not having children in today's world. I realize I'm going to upset a few parents out there but reflect for a moment. Read over the following list and ask yourself how these reasons for not having children can be misconstrued as selfish?
1. There are so many children already here who need foster parenting, adoption or charity why have your own?
2. When two people have to work to support the child, the child is usually raised by day care and that's upsetting.
3. There's a strain on environmental resources - the world is already overpopulated and unable to support the people already here.
4. Increase in overpopulation - having children geometrically increases this problem and all of the problems that come with it.
5. Choice not mandate - parenthood has to be a choice, not everyone is meant to be a parent and the church and medical society are guilty for encouraging thoughtless procreation.
7. Danger - the world is a dangerous place and it is not right to bring a child into it.
Now check over some of the reasons I heard or read for having children of your own:
1. Personal Biological Urge - to satisfy a biological urge triggered in a women's thought process.
2. Personal Extension - carrying on the genetic heritage, family name or personal image of the parent.
3. Personal Status - culture affords parents respect just for being a parent.
4. Personal Competence - gratification from facing the challenge of parenting and proof of personal achievement.
5. Personal Power - some find the power they have over children gratifying
6. Moral worth - some feel it is a good and selfless act to put the life of another first, or that it is a moral obligation to have children.
Now, you tell me who's being selfish when a couple chooses to have their own instead of adopt? For more information: Childfree-by-Choice and Population Connection and of course, this Alternative Choice website.
posted by Sonja Stark of PilotGirl™ @ 7:12 AM
4 Comments:
Again you ask another intellgent question,and for alot of the right reasons.But I think you will have problems getting most people to see your side.I for one do agree with your thought process,but maybe ask this one question of yourself.Would you have prefered not to have been born?That is the real question one must ask of oneself first,yes we have no control over that but think about it for awhile then see where you stand,but if you make people think about your question maybe you will change some minds.As you say there are other ways to carry on familes then thru direct D.N.A. linkage.
Hi, Sony,
I just saw this post on having children and couldn't agree with you more. I love children but have never seen any reason to have them myself. With children comes great responsibility and if you're not willing to accept that responsibility wholeheartedly, it's not fair either to the child or to yourself. In addition to the six reasons you mention, I've also noticed a seventh - that people have children so that *someone* in the world will *have* to love them - i.e., that the child *owes* them for having been brought into the world.
The fact that this doesn't always work doesn't seem to deter parents and just causes resentment and tension down the line since, on the child's part, is was not a relationship entered into voluntarily.
What's important about a parent-child relationship (and any relationship) is love and mutual respect. This is far more likely to happen (though, of course, not certain) with an adoption than a birth since it's a parent's conscious choice to help out a child.
Something I've often observed is your Reason #5 - that people have children so as to have someone to dominate. It is sadly very common.
If you are in a position to do so - and it's a mistake to do so if you don't have adequate resources to care for a child - and truly want to be a parent so as to help a child through this world (and we all need help), then it makes far more sense to adopt a child than to bring one more into the world when there are already so many who need help. We really and truly already have enough people in this world and need to take care of those who are already here (and be certain they can care for themselves!).
It is incredible to me Sony that someone as bright and articulate as you can write this sour grapes missive. My god, the reason to have children is biological. Because people with good genes produce good citizens, and the world needs more good people to grow up and do good things. In the US and in most western countries the birthrate is less than 2.1 per woman. In the US it is about 1.7, that means the only way to increase the population is through immigration. In Japan it is a huge problem since the birthrate is 1.2 or so. That is tragic, as pretty soon there will be no young native born people.
I had two children...and snipped after two, reasoning that it is responsible to have just two. Nothing in the world is more precious to me than playing with my grandson, and my daughter is raising a bright and well mannered little citizen. Power to her!
I wish you and other bright young people were having children, because we need to have more intelligent and well grounded people to combat the problems of the future.
I can certainly understand the biological urge to have your own children but I don't see that as an argument against adoption. I'd say Sony's argument is still valid - that there are literally millions of children who need good homes and why not help at least one of them out?
My friends down the street, otherwise in perfect health, were not able to conceive. They adopted a beautiful girl and are now the proudest parents in the city.
You have a choice whom you adopt and it would only make sense that you choose the healthiest, brightest child you can find.
There are always two sides to the nature versus nurture equation and nurture is at least (in my book) as important as genes.
James Michener was adopted and made his adopted parents, who loved him and encouraged him, proud - but children are 'up for adoption' because their biological parents don't want them or know they can't care for them properly.
Additionally, there's no guarantee that intelligent parents will create intelligent children.
Just offhand, in fact, I can think of two examples of this, in at least one case because they waited too long.
By the same token, parents with average intelligence often bring highly intelligent into the world - and, hopefully, are smart enough to know that the intelligence has to be nurtured and see that this happens.
As far as increasing the US population through immigration.... well, this is a nation of immigrants and has been its entire history. Yet immigrants have been responsible for some of the greatest inventions the US can lay claim to. Nikolas Tesla is one shining example of this and there are many others.
More recently, we have the story of Anousheh Ansari, an amazing woman born in Iran who first came to the US after high school, not speaking a word of English, getting her master's degree in electrical engineering, founding a highly successful electronics / communications company in Texas, the first Iranian woman in space (and only the fourth overall) - and she paid her own way, one more immigrant who's done very well for herself.
I agree that Sony's bright, young, and intelligent and I'm sure she'd have intelligent, well-grounded children - but they would not have to be her biological children since I'm certain she would nurture any child she took under her wing as well as any she might give birth to, but why should she?
Another factor is that you can only do one thing at a time and that some women are far better suited to the role of mothers than others - just as some women are gifted filmmakers and others are not.
Some women can combine these roles but there's certainly no biological necessity to.
If it's a case of legacy, Sony will hand down a legacy of great writing and wonderful films and photographs which are just as important as one more child on this earth.
As far as I know, Orson Welles had no children and as far as I'm concerned does not need to have had any since what he brought to the world was his genius as an actor and director. He may have no biological descendants but he has spiritual descendants.
Post a Comment
<< Home