Children, A Treasure?
Not to some people. I read THIS article and was disgusted to read how people are starting to think that having children is a terrible thing to do.
You’ll get no argument that we are not using our resources very well. But to say that the solution is less children instead of being responsible with our resources instead of being gluttonously greedy is a real stretch.
From a theological standpoint, I believe one of the most important things we can do is help our spirit brothers and sisters come get bodies. Now this doesn’t mean you have a baby every year. Get real. What it does mean is that having children is precious, important and part of God’s plan.
I really think the real reason not as many children are being born is because people think it will spoil their lives. They can’t be as selfish, they lose freedom, they lose their independence, etc…
What they miss out on is what I’ve come to realize being a parent. Absolutely nothing teaches you more about God, the world, and about yourself more then being a parent. You learn so much about joy, pain, sorrow, happiness, anger, patience, wisdom and humility. And that’s if your lucky.
Having children a mistake? Not in my book.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
I do believe it’s better for people who don’t want children (for whatever reasons, even the stupid or selfish reasons) to not have them. I also question the ethics of people who spend many thousands of dollars for fertility treatments so they can have a biological child instead of adopting, since parenting is about your choices & actions rather than your DNA.
You and I are among those for whom parenting has been far more positive than negative in shaping us into better people with richer lives. It might have been partly luck, but a lot of conscious effort went into it, too. Neither of us may be the perfect mom, but we do our very best most of the time, and that’s good enough.
I don’t think it’s the least bit anti-environmental to have children — it’s sure not as bad as the conspicuous consumption of so many “childfree” people out there. And while I question the sanity of people like the Duggar family, who have 17 kids, I figure if they can support them financially (and they do!) then it’s their call.
December 24th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Have to say, I agree with Lil. I am saddened by the lack of responsibility that is shown by those who end up having children who honestly shouldn’t (drug addicts, children [i.e. anyone under the age of 18], etc). These children end up losing out on so much of life simply because of where they were born into.
I applaud those who have decided that they do not wish to have children, for whatever reason, if only because they would not make a good parent for an unwanted child. They recognize this, and instead of bringing a child into the world and then resenting it, they chose instead to not have children at all.
I also agree that, with so many children who are out there, waiting for families to love and share their life with them, I don’t agree with the mad dash for fertility drugs. If you want a child, it doesn’t *need* to be a biological child for it to be loved completely.
All children should be loved, wanted, cared for and raised by parents who, no matter their ethnicity or religous background, will give them a stable, loving and nurturing home to be in.
~M
December 24th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
I think its a given here that children should be born to those who want them. What I’m disgusted with is the idea that not having children is ecologically friendly.
I do not believe that children should be having children, nor should those who are not emotionally ready to have them and be parents. I can understand, “I’m not ready to be a parent” That is a perfectly valid reason to not have children. But I have heard one person say they wouldn’t have children because it would mess with their retirement plan. I”m sorry, I consider that a miserable reason. Honest, maybe, but still a miserable reason.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
The only positive thing I can say about their reasoning is that at least they are honest about what they want out of life, and they won’t have children. The reason itself may be selfish, but it’s theirs, and at least they aren’t going to guilt themselves into having a child simply because it would be less selfish.
If people want to be selfish, that’s their own issue - having a child and then resenting them for messing with their “future” (whatever that might be) is to me worse than simply being personally selfish. I had a friend who did that. Got pregnant because she “had” to have a specific guy marry her and take care of her - then got upset at the baby for “ruining” her weight, and “ruining” her social life… that’s pretty darn selfish, if you ask me, and didn’t do anything positive for the child, either.
Placing it under an “ecologically friendly” mask is something else entirely - instead of thinking they are “ecologically friendly”, it should be looked at as being personally responsible for their own actions, whether their actions are selfish or not. While I can say that, if everyone were personally responsible for their own actions and actually became aware of how their actions affected everyone (and everything) around them, it would eventually be environmentally positive, it is not a direct cause and effect argument - which is what “ecologically friendly” should (and most times does) mean.
Besides - if they’re honestly that selfish, it’s obvious to me that they aren’t emotionally ready to have kids… And won’t be anytime soon. LOL.
~M
December 27th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Yeah, I have my own friend stories of people who do things for the wrong reasons and it does ruin all the lives involved.
What I was trying to get at is that those who are lucky enough to have children are doing something rather special. And I certainly don’t agree that having children is putting our environment in danger.