Skip to main content

Choosing to not have children in America

Should we be worried that some Americans and British couples are choosing to go through life without kids?

Kathleen Parker, writing in The Washington Post, surveys a bunch of articles and news stories and sees a cultural trend of foregoing parenthood to live a life of high disposable income, full nights of sleep, and  worry-free adulthood.

It is, overall, a really great column and worth reading in full, and I agree with her primary thesis, which is that parenthood can be a pain (in the neck, rear end, and in other places and ways), but is worth it:
Mysteriously, the inevitable pain, suffering and sacrifice of parenthood are also part of that joy. What is a rose without thorns? Life without death is imponderably meaningless. I would argue that without death, there would be no love.
Indeed, what makes parenthood so relentlessly amazing — both the beauty and the beast of it — is the possibility of losing the thing you love more than your own heartbeat. Putting someone else’s interests above one’s own is the alpha and omega of parenthood.
The love and joy that (relatively unselfish and relatively mature) parents experience is of a piece with an acquired taste for the ironic, absurd, astringent, salty, and bitter-- the shift from enjoying cotton candy to dark chocolate, hot chocolate to espresso, pop to jazz, Barney to Robert Frost.

(Having written that, I wonder if children in earlier eras-- seen essentially as miniature adults-- were socialized earlier for the complex palate of life by their stories, poems, and songs. Consider the original Grimm's Fairy Tales. The vapid and cloying sweetness of contemporary kids' culture is an artifact of culturally seeing kids as kids and also a consumer market that focuses on products for kids specifically.)

A couple of counter notes, however:

First, I agree that debating over whether to have kids or use more of one's time and disposable income for self-pleasure is a "first-world problem," but not just because first-world citizens lead lives of relative luxury. It is also a "first-world problem" because women and men in the first world have better access to effective contraception (although not enough for my taste), and cultural views of women are advanced enough (although not enough for my taste) that women are actually seen as having a "choice" whether to have kids, rather than this being a non-question. These are problems everyone in the world should have.

Second, Parker assumes or concludes that the primary reason couples are choosing to be child-free is because of a shift in the culture toward selfish choices: "The pleasure principle seems to be gaining on the procreative principle." That could certainly be part of the calculus, but there are so many other factors that influence birthrates in the U.S. and other first-world countries. There are heavily Catholic first-world countries where gender roles are still lived in more traditional ways-- Italy, for example-- where the birth rate is lower than in the United States and the UK.

I don't have a problem with selling parenthood, but effective and affordable family planning resources, a culture that promotes equitable responsibility within parenthood, government and industry policies that do not punish couples (women, in particular) for having children, and an economy that wouldn't require couples to spend so much of their time and effort making ends meet-- these things would help people to choose parenthood, too.

Links:

Column by Kathleen Parker, published in The Washington Post (August 9, 2013): Of pleasure and parenthood

Robert Frost's "To Earthward" is one of the best descriptions of how one's experience of pleasure and joy changes over time. "Now no joy but lacks salt . . ."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S...

A Catholic EU health commissioner

The European Union Parliament approved a controversial choice for their top health official: The European Parliament backed a devout Catholic as EU health commissioner on Wednesday, brushing off critics who fear the Maltese politician could row back on EU policies on stem cell research, abortion and gay rights. Greens, Liberals and Socialists in the European Parliament had said they would vote against Tonio Borg, a former foreign and justice minister in Malta, saying his beliefs could influence EU policy. As commissioner, Borg's remit would include access to healthcare and contraception and the control of sexually transmitted diseases. Borg, who was in Malta on the day of the vote according to an EU Commission official, told EU lawmakers before the vote that his personal views wou...

Four ways the presidential election could change reproductive politics

Setting aside all of the claims and counterclaims of the candidates and all related white noise, there are four concrete ways that the 2012 presidential election could cause policy changes on abortion, contraception, and family planning. If Barack Obama is reelected, little will change. If Mitt Romney is elected, I predict the following: The contraceptive mandate, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, would be withdrawn.  Barriers to defunding Planned Parenthood could be removed. As it is now, federal courts are stopping the complete defunding of the organization (i.e., withdrawing all federal funding) due to their interpretation of federal legislative language. With Romney as president, that language could be modified (assuming the changes could get past a Democratic Senate). The composition of the federal judiciary, particularly the United States Supreme Court, would be modified through appointments. If, say, Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Goldberg retired, ...