Wednesday, May 23, 2012

La Vie

Months ago I posted about the childfree movement (Wikipedia entry) and received a response by Laura Carroll, whose original post is quoted below the horizontal line below (Ms. Carroll gave me permission to use the content). Today I am going through the entire post and adding my thoughts and arguments (dark red boxes). For months, I couldn't work on this post because every time I tried I became exasperated. Now that summer permits frequent breaks, I can respond and avoid losing peace.

Warning: the formatting gets a little messy. Sorry!


I am religious; my arguments weren't. It's a logical fallacy (ad hominem) to rebut the person arguing instead of her argument. I don't think anyone maliciously misconstrued the argument, but identifying me with my argument is a mistake.

I wonder why I'm perceived as a guy. Admittedly, "matins" can be confusing if you don't know what it means.
Last year Grist did a piece on why the childfree had finally gone mainstream. I had to disagree. While this choice is talked about more than ever before, it’s not hit mainstream acceptance by a long shot. One big reason? Religion. This “Happily Childfree” post by a Catholic medical student is a sure reminder of how certain religions will always stand in the way…

Take a moment to read his post (it’s not long.)

Here are just two conservative Christian ways of thinking he talks about that reflect unshakable views of the childfree:

The childfree fear responsibility.

There is not one freedom for everyone. A person's freedom is determined by their state in life. An example of this principle (an example everyone might agree on): an unmarried person has the legitimate freedom to be in exclusive relationships with multiple persons sequentially; a married person does not.

The vocation of marriage, like any other, involves some change in freedoms. Among other things, married person gains the freedom to consummate their union; they lose a little of the "do what we want, when we want" freedom, which single persons have to a greater degree,* if only because they now have another person who shares their life!
He is criticizing a woman’s comment that gave her and her husband’s reasons for not having children, including overpopulation, wanting time to dedicate to each other” to continue having a deep marriage, wanting “the freedom of being able to do what we want, when we want,” and not wanting the “responsibility of how the child’s life could turn out.”

Knowing what you can and cannot do and acting accordingly is very responsible. Exercising rights without taking on the corresponding duties is not. Married persons who accept some freedoms proper to their vocation (i.e. sex) but decline the natural responsibilities are like adults who drink but don't want to choose a designated driver: irresponsible.

Another indication that the CF choice is about responsibility is the candid original comment itself, declining "responsibility of...the child's life."
Do the childfree fear responsibility just because they don’t want the responsibility of raising children? Seems to me knowing what responsibilities you want, don’t want and why is actually, well, very responsible. It is not about fearing “personal failure;” it is having the responsible, mature wherewithal to know what is best for us and what is not.

We are selfish because we have exclusive concern for our own interests.

I credit Ms. Carroll here: she knows that the Church teaches that Christ's selfless action is symbolized in marriage and sexual intercourse between husband and wife. However, we are not blind to the many other forms of self-giving; in fact, we see better than most of the culture how love is not synonymous with sex. Nor are we unable to imagine possible selfish motives of some parents. But the intentions of some do not alter the nature of an act (for instance, if someone donates to the poor to network among philanthropists, his selfish motivation does not change the excellence of the act). Why the Church holds that marriage is a symbol of selflessness might require another post (or book).
Just because we don’t have kids means we are only concerned about our interests? Why is it that church just can’t budge off of the idea that procreation is “the” symbolic” selfless act? How is it that the church (and this guy) fail to see the many ways those who have no children give to their families, loved ones, communities and the world? How can it be so blind not to see how much selfishness there can be in the act of parenthood?

There is a third unshakable view related to the world in general. It doesn’t only come from the conservative Christian community, but from other segments of the population as well:

Overpopulation is a myth.

I have nothing else to say if the math didn't make sense. I agree that over-consumption is a problem, but not because it will deplete all of our natural resources. It's a problem because of the vices it feeds. In short: over-consumption is directly worse for us than it is for the environment.
This guy does math to make the point that even with the current 7 billion, there is 9500 square feet for his family of nine, and asks why isn’t it as obvious to others as it is to her that there is still plenty of room for more people on the planet. Room, maybe, but survivability of those growing numbers, and the rest of living creatures and things on the planet? Talk about a limited view.

Now there are population”experts” who would agree that population isn’t the problem, but the more I learn from the whole field of experts, population is indeed the problem, and the consumption that goes with it.

Parenthood is a choice and always will be. However, this choice is made before marriage when the vocation of marriage and its particular fruits (including, but not limited to, children) are chosen. Granted, not all who choose parenthood by marrying are able to conceive children. But openness to children is an important part of the disposition necessary for this vocation.
As the saying goes, we’ve come a long way baby, but views like these remind me we have a ways to go to changing the societal views on parenthood truly being a choice.

Childfree Christians: How do you react to this guy’s piece? How does the church view the childfree in your experience? How can stubborn negative views be influenced to truly change?


*A side comment from me: no one has the freedom to absolutely do what "what [they] want, when [they] want. Think realistically: other people exist and limit those freedoms, legitimately and illegitimately. Think about humility: sin limits our freedoms (c.f. Rom 7:15 and 7:23, Mt 26:41). Think about goodness: doing what is right limits our 'freedom' to do wrong things and makes us truly free to do what is holy. A conversation about the childfree should be about limits to freedom and which are appropriate.

28 comments:

  1. You really need to get a life and stop worrying about what other people chose to do or not do with their bodies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Completely agree with the above comment. Get a grip, get a life. We don't have kids because we don't want them. There is no other reason - and it's none of your business anyways.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow. Just... wow.

    WHY do you even care about this??? Has it ever occurred to you that MANY of us just don't like children?? Or don't want to deal with a screaming, crying, eating, defecating baby (for two+ years)???

    You're also assuming that most (if not all) child-free people are religious. There are many of us who are not. So, when you throw out your *opinion* and then use "biblical facts" (what an oxymoron!!) to bulk up your argument, in my mind it renders your *opinion* null and void.

    Add this one to your reading list: "The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice" by Christopher Hitchens (although you probably wouldn't read something by an atheist). Might give you a different perspective on that particular "heroine".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for recommending the book. I actually do read atheists' books; I surprised my parents one year by asking for The God Delusion and God is Not Great for my birthday. River Out of Eden was a nice read (Dawkins is very conversational...I only read a chapter of The Selfish Gene, but it was pleasant; one feels like one's talking to him). To be honest, I may not be able to fit The Missionary Position onto the reading list. However, I wanted to tell you that atheists' books are not taboo and, in fact, have precedent.

      I don't think that most childfree people are religious; what makes you say that? I am also wondering about what biblical references I made. Can you clarify what you meant?

      Delete
  4. What happened to "Judge not lest ye be judged?" I have one word....Hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You bring up an important quote; navy4ever mentioned it, too.

      We can all judge that certain actions are wrong, like murder. Never, however, should anyone treat a person badly after seeing them commit that action. Do you agree?

      In my blog, I can talk about actions without changing my behavior to the people who commit them. For example, bootlegging ebooks is against the law and I blogged about it (critiquing that action). Even though most of my medical school peers own pirated ebooks, I am still as kind to them as I would be anyway (loving them). This is my perspective toward the childfree, too.

      Delete
  5. To quote you:
    "Knowing what you can and cannot do and acting accordingly is very responsible. Exercising rights without taking on the corresponding duties is not. Married persons who accept some freedoms proper to their vocation (i.e. sex) but decline the natural responsibilities are like adults who drink but don't want to choose a designated driver: irresponsible."

    #1. Are you saying that Christian childfree people are the same as drunk drivers???
    #2. Can you show me a single verse in the Bible that says this: "it is sinful to have a marriage and intentionally remain childless"? The Bible is an enormous book and NOT ONCE is that subject broached.
    #3. Ditto previous comment, why do you care about what non-Catholics are doing? As a Christian your focus needs to be on loving people and leading them to salvation, not bashing others for their lifestyle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi navy4ever.
      1. Christian childfree people (and childfree people in general) are not the same as drunk drivers. I said they are "like" them and specified how--both groups accept a freedom and decline an accompanying duty. Another analogy I could've used is moonlighting medical students (who practice medicine, exerting a freedom, without earning a license, the accompanying duty). Do you see the point I was making?

      We could talk about whether raising children is a duty that comes with sex...that seems to be the heart of the issue.

      2. I don't like to appeal to revealed/supernatural/biblical evidence when I don't have to. So, my reasons that couples should not intentionally have children aren't biblically based. They're based on what marriage is (deep, total self-gift to your spouse).

      3. I don't bash or judge other people, but I do think certain actions are wrong. I can write about the actions/lifestyles and at the same time love people.

      I care about what non-Catholics are doing because my love isn't limited to one Church.

      Let me know what you think.

      Delete
  6. Thanks to all for reading my opinions. Would anyone like to explain his or her reasons for choosing the childfree lifestyle? Some of your comments indicated that you disagree, but didn't show me why you want to avoid having children. This is a broad question to all; I have some responses to particular individuals, too.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't understand why you think marriage and children have to go together. I don't see what is wrong with being married and intentionally not having kids if that is what both people want. If both partner agree on this before marriage. where do you get your definition of marriage if its not from the bible or your religion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tabatha, thank you for your insight; the source of my definition of marriage, and why I think marriage is tied to children are important questions!

      My definition of marriage comes from nature and common experience. Marriage (working definition: "a long-term committment to share one's whole self and life with another of the opposite sex") and children go together because the consummation of the self-gift of spouses (sex) is designed by nature to produce offspring. That's pure biology.

      Wading deeper into experience, though, I also find that the desire for children runs deeply in us. Perhaps this springs from a desire to live forever or an urge to love or foster others. I was struck by Laura Carroll's excellent observation that CF individuals love and foster others; this observation illustrates our deep, common desire to spend life loving. What do you think?

      Delete
  8. I think people should be able to define what marriage means to them on their own terms. That is an ok definition of marriage for you but for someone else it might not be. I am sterile by choice so even if I get married I will never have kids. I chose to get myself sterilized because I don't want kids. I don't think the desire for children runs deep with everyone. with most people yes but I've spent enough time in childfree groups and with parents a like to know that this is not the case for everyone. And it may be true that most people have a common desire to spend life loving but they don't all love the same things, some love animals more than they will ever love people. Some childfree people had horrible childhoods which may have impacted their choice to have kid. Some of them had great childhoods but just never had any desire to have their own kids, some of these people want to get married some of them don't. Biology is not destiny. Human beings are intelligent enough to be able to make that choice to ignore what we are biologically designed to do and instead do what makes us happy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Tabatha. I apologize for not getting back to you promptly.

      I agree with you that human beings are intelligent beyond other instinct-driven species, and that this intelligence allows us to pursue happiness--I couldn't agree more and I'm really impressed that you drive your point home to such foundational ideas.

      Can you tell me why you think people should be able to define "marriage" on their own terms? I think of marriage as something unchanging, so that the word (like "woman") denotes a complex thing, but one that can't be correctly defined differently within each person.

      Delete
  9. I think people should be able to define what marriage means to them because not everyone comes from the same background. You will never be able to get the entire human race to agree on ONE definition of marriage. Marriage is such a personal thing that it should be between the two people who have to live with the marriage(weather it be a man and a woman or two women or two men or even more than two people as long as everyone consents to that) to define what that means to them. Definitions of words do change. I think if a man can legally become a woman and have surgery and take hormones to change his appearance and legally be considered a woman than the definition of a woman is more fluid than you think. Marriage is something that changes, many states within the US and many other countries allow gay marriage. This is not something that used to be legal. Gay people can not naturally have kids on their own without some kind of intervention. It wouldn't be fair to suggest that people who don't want kids shouldn't get the same benefits from being married that other people get because they do want or can have kids. What about people who are born infertile? should they not be allowed to marry either because they can't have children together? does it make a difference if people who are born infertile embrace that and are happy they will never have kids and intentionally seek out a partner who feels the same about never having kids? because I've talked to people just like that. Since I'm not a religious person I think of marriage as something that is man made. Humans came up with idea of marriage and made it what it is today. So we should be able to define and redefine what it means if we want. It seems to me to be more of a legal institution than anything else that gives the spouses extra privileges they would not otherwise have. If you are going to use natural to define marriage, what is natural to some people is not going to be natural to everyone. (I tried to fix typos but may not have caught everything).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't notice any typos. :)

      I noticed you emphasize that marriage is man-made and a legal institution. So, whatever the law states (on, for instance, transgender surgery, gay marriage, or even polygamy) expresses the people's definition of marriage. Since marriage is a man-made institution, its definition is as fluid as the desires of people contracting marriages. Am I restating your position well? I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

      Delete
  10. Looks like you summed it up pretty well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good, I'm so glad. "Marriage," then could include a man and a woman (either open to having children or planning not to have children), a same-sex couple (who may or may not want children), and a man with several women (or a woman with several men).

      What would you say unites all these relationships so that they can all be called by one name ("marriage")?

      Delete
  11. As far as I know the only thing that unites all of these is the Law. I know its currently illegal in most states for gay people to get married(here in the US) and its legal in a few states or there are things like Civil unions which anyone can get that gives them the same legal benefits of marriage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But...why can the law unite them all in one legal entity ("marriage")? What is the basis for the unity? We wouldn't want the law to be unfounded or unjustified.

      Delete
  12. people decide the laws, thats why they can change the laws when old law no longer fit the society they were created for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Tabatha, I just realized that I never replied! The school year swept me away and I just remembered that we were in the middle of a conversation.

      I don't think all laws are conventional and changeable. Some (what I call "natural" law) are common to all people and not subject to anyone's decision. For example: if I take one of your belongings from you without cause, you probably think that I am being unjust or unfair. You might rightly feel angry and want your possession returned to you. Your desire for restitution is a sign that I've broken a law.

      But who made that law? I don't think it was either of us or whatever culture we were born into. Infants who know nothing about culture and who don't follow what their parents impose get angry when a toy is taken from them. Isn't this an example of a law that is not created by a society?

      Delete
  13. Yes but its one thing to take away someone elses property and another to tell them that if they get married they must be open to children. I worked so I could afford the things I have and if someone else takes them from me that is stealing. But if I get married and don't have children by say getting myself sterilized before hand who am I harming? I can't harm a child that doesn't exist. I wouldn't marry a man who wanted kids so I'm not harming him. I am not harming society because there are plenty of people that do want and will have children whether they are married or not.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There are definitely differences between those two examples! But it seems we agree that there are some laws that aren't man-made?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I would agree that some laws are not man made and are more common sense right from wrong kind of things that most people would agree on. stealing is wrong, murder is wrong. But there are things that fall into a grey area.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, Tabatha--I commented without hitting "reply" to you, and I think this meant you weren't sent the comment.

      Where do the laws that aren't man-made come from?

      Delete
  16. Where do you think the laws that aren't man-made come from?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's good to hear from you! I agree that there are laws about what's right and wrong that aren't man made, which you said above.

      If we agree that common sense is basic good judgement, then I agree that these laws are in common sense. But I disagree that these laws come from our common sense.

      I think basic ideas like "murder is wrong" don't come from our common sense. Instead, they come from an objective moral code. This moral code exists outside of our ideas, like the answer key to a test. Some parts of this code are so obvious that most people agree on them and adopt them as common sense; other parts are harder to agree on, but they're just as objective.

      What do you think?

      Delete