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.
