Happening to agree with zuma on this one, I find it interesting that NOT A SINGLE ONE of the parents and would-be parents on this thread have addressed this point.
To me, even if you can toss out/shoot down the rest of zuma’s arguments, this one’s pretty tough to counter, no matter what your motives are. Because even if they’re as altruistic as “wanting to share joy/wealth/etc. with others”, you’re basically saying, “yes, i want to share the joy that is this world, but, ummm, I’m really only interested in doing it with someone I created from my own DNA. Thanks anyway.”
Which IMHO, is a EXTREMELY selfish position, in light of the thousands and thousands of kids waiting for adoption in the USA alone (to say nothing of the rest of the world).
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think having kids in and of itself is selfish. I just think insisting they be your blood relatives is.
You won’t get an argument from me on whether it’s unnatural to choose not to have children. It’s also quite natural to die of disease or injury or whatever, too. But the human intellect has figured out ways to be able to prevent these things from happening sometimes. So my human intellect chooses to ignore my body’s clamor to have kids. There are times when my body’s drive makes that uncomfortable. There are times when I get misty over the idea of having kids. But then I go back to the extremely well-thought out (believe me, we’ve been over and over this) reasons for not having kids. And I don’t change my mind. And my husband doesn’t change his.
Back to the selfishness argument: you can put a selfish spin on anything someone does. Gave up their life to save someone else? Did it just to look like a martyr/hero and feel good about themselves, did it to get into heaven on good-deed points. Gave a million bucks to charity? Ditto. Had children and tried to raise them right? Wanted to look good, wanted to puff up our egos about the fact that our genes were worth passing on, wanted to have someone to take care of us when we are old…
You can do that with just about anything if you’re cynical enough.
I can’t think of an unselfish reason to decide to have kids. Parents-to-be are considering the love and joy they will share, how good their kids will be, continuing their bloodline, etc.
I hope I didn’t miss it already, but if someone can give a reason for deciding to have kids that is not parent-centric, please share.
eople have children because they enjoy having them. It makes them happy. In economic terms, they are maximizing utility.
Considerable economic thought has been given to this problem, and there have been three basic theories:
PEOPLE HAVE KIDS BECAUSE THEY DERIVE ECONOMIC BENEFITS. This varies from “We need kids to work on the farm” to “we need kids to take care of us in our old age.”
Right now this theory is not entirely well supported. The evidence would suggest having children generally does NOT confer economic benefits, in any situation.
PEOPLE HAVE CHILDREN AS A COMPLETE ACCIDENT. Lots of people believe this, and certainly we see it happen a lot. It seems to be th opinion of a lot of well-intentioned people than folks in Third World countries are retarded or soemthing and don’t know sex results in babies. Despite obvious individual cases, in general this isn’t the case either.
PEOPLE HAVE KIDS AS A CONSUMPTION GOOD. Not to eat, but to enjoy. The evidence now available suggests that people have children for the same reason they pay for trips to Las Vegas - because they enjoy them.
In that sense, you can’t say it’s illogical to have kids, but you can say it’s “selfish.”
Parents are not doing it for the child, since the decision, in most cases, i hope, anyway, was made to add little dylan to the family. That decision was made to fulfill the parents’ wishes. To make them happier, i guess.
Not that there’s anything wrong with breeding to make you happier… but I think that bringing a new life onto the planet to fulfill your own happiness is pretty selfish, considering there are lots of little dylans in the world ready to be adopted, albeit not as cute and new-born as your own genetic spawn.
OK, so, i’m asking parents out there: Why did you have children? I’m really not trying to invoke a great debate, even tho i posted it here. I just really can’t balance the cost/benefit spreadsheet on this one
My theory is that there is some genetic quality which makes people want to create miniature versions of themselves, of which my DNA has somehow left out.
And finally, do parents consider the act of procreation a selfish choice which is only done to make themselves happier, or do they have some other reason for doing this? **
[/QUOTE]
My husband and I originally planned to homegrow six kids and adopt three. We figured we’d start with homegrown kids because then we could learn about the whole process and make our mistakes on kids we actually brought into the world. When our first pregnancy ended in miscarriage, and it took a little over a year to get pregnant again, we figured that we would adopt just as soon as social workers would feel we were emotionally and financially stable. (We were young and poor at the time.)
Then, as iampunha said (he’s my darling oldest baby boy ), we had four and figured that was all we could handle.
Dunno how that fits into your picture, schief2.
BTW, I have no problem with people deciding not to have kids. I do have a problem with abortion and abortifacients such as the morning-after pill, so I think if contraception doesn’t work, people should let the baby go to term. Also, I’m very glad that abortion was illegal and socially unrespectable when my parents got pregnant with me, to their chagrin.
It seems to me that if you aren’t ready to have a baby, then you aren’t ready to have sex. I know lots of people will disagree on that, but it sure makes sense to me.
Having children is selfish because adopting a child would be “more altruistic” by some measure. Shall we extend that?
**not having children is selfish because you could be adopting children
adopting one child is selfish because you could have adopted two
giving 10% of your income to charity is selfish because you could have given more
eating a meal is selfish because you could have sent the food to starving North Koreans
Living is selfish because you are consuming resources that coud be given to al those dylans waiting to be adopted
**
Pardon me if I am unimpressed with the rigor of this argument. Adoption is a fine act. It has potential benefits for society on two fronts: raising a good human being & caring for a needy being. It does not follow from this that all choices that are not adoption are selfish. It does not even follow that adoption is not selfish, if one buys any of the other “reasons” given so far for the selfishness of the desire to act as a parent.
So far, it seems that every voluntary act a person might take would fit the definition of “selfish” that some of you are espousing: if you want to do it, then you are being selfish. Am I to assume, then, that altruism can only be imposed from without? My – how pervasively cynical and yet ultimately unconvincing.
I’ll fall on the grenade, here. And say something that might reveal myself to be the blackhearted soul that I am. Part of my view on children (or should I say, my child, as I only have one and unless I change my mind, I’m sticking to that number) is that it is an extremely challenging but rewarding project we’re embarking on together. As iamphuna said, we’re sharing what’s good about ourselves, our marriage, the world, etc.
Getting a kick out of the fact that it’s our own DNA in the little project is very real–although not the primary motivator. I love myself, I love my spouse, so it’s an extension of that to be interested in using a combination of same to create our family. Of course, that isn’t possible (or desired) for everyone. Which brings us to adoption (by choice or necessity).
It’s common knowledge that newborn babies are the most “in demand.” People will wait for those, sometimes five years, rather than adopt an older child. I think that’s because–and I apologize for the crassness of this–people want to rawest materials possible. They want that tabula to be rasa. With older children, I think there is a fear that they have suffered something in life that will ultimately make the raising of the child, or the addition to their family, too difficult to be handled. Then they won’t be sharing what’s best in themselves or their marriage–they’ll be in survival mode. Do they think those children deserve loving homes and dedicated parents? Absolutely. Do they think they’re the ones who can provide that? Apparently not. Selfish, yes. Realistic, yes. Perhaps not wholly accurate, since they could probably rally (just as they would if their own child, or newborn adoptee, ended up with problems). But I suspect that’s what many families are thinking when they pass on adopting a child.
Furthermore, they might not even actually THINK about it. I think many people tend to think of family very narrowly. When I’m in supermarket, I think about my family’s budget and what we can afford. I don’t tend to think about how if we ate the store brand of potted meat product instead of REAL Spam, I could send the extra money to hungry people. Just like people who are considering expanding a family may not immediately consider how they could instead help orphans by adopting.
That’s one take on it, anyway. I didn’t mean for it to sound as cavalier or harsh as it might have.
due to the two possible meanings of the word “selfish”. In one sense, it can be used to describe any action undertaken primarily for the good of the actor. As such, it does not have such a negative connotation. (The OP seemed to use it this way).
The negative connotation of the word selfish is when someone looks after their own interests to the detriment of others who also have valid interests.
I think the first usage is accurate, in the vast majority of cases. The second is not.
1 (procreating/not procreating) is selfless and righteous; (not procreating/procreating) is selfish and wormlike.
or
2 Everything’s selfish; all decisions are equal; everything’s the same as everything else.
One argument fears a relativistic mire; the other tosses a rock at any strong assertion. Same as it ever was …
Both of you: Having children and raising them is, for lack of a better word, a more profound experience than most others. It changes us more, it gets to us on more emotional levels, it sets our lives against a broader backdrop of human life. It’s not quite the same as any other leisure activity or “lifestyle” choice; it gets to us. Maybe it only gets to us because we’re contingent, imperfect beings; but that’s all we are and will be.
I’ll admit that, from the outside, the results of parenting can be revolting (I have to share a city with some guy whose license plate frame is “HAPPINESS IS … BEING MACKENZIE’S DADDY!!”). But if we live or die by the conduct of everyone we agree with, then we all fall down dead.
Understand that I’m not arguing that parenting is a “higher” calling than anything else; I’m saying it’s a richly nuanced, thrilling, humbling emotional experience, one that we shouldn’t deny to anyone. Not even theoretically.
Come to think of it, human existence can be fairly thrilling (despite the fact that we’re parasites on a dying earth, these dangerous times, rakka rakka). I don’t think our lives are so vile that I should feel guilty about creating another one.
Why? Because of a failure in quality control at the Trojan factory. And as so many others have already said, any action can be construed as selfish with the right spin.
As far as adoption is concerned, well, my sister was pregnant about 5 or so years ago. She asked me if my wife and I would beinterested in adopting her child, and after a lot of thought and speechifying to each other we decided against it. A great deal of our decision had to do with the childs maternal grandfather, but we were also still getting used to the idea of our daughter. Was our decision selfish? You bet your ass it was. Others, faced with the same situation may have decided differently, but different strokes, I suppose.
pkbites:
Bosh! It’s nothing of the sort. You are entitled to your opinion, and if you want to debate it, then I will cheerfully do so. But to use reactionary rhetoric such as you did reminds me too much of those who shouted “Murderer!” at young women who were trying to enter Planned Parenthood. There are more reasons than you can imagine that someone would wish to abort, distilling it down to murder does nothing to help your argument.
1 (procreating/not procreating) is selfless and righteous; (not procreating/procreating) is selfish and wormlike.
or
2 Everything’s selfish; all decisions are equal; everything’s the same as everything else.
One argument fears a relativistic mire; the other tosses a rock at any strong assertion. Same as it ever was …
Both of you: Having children and raising them is, for lack of a better word, a more profound experience than most others. It changes us more, it gets to us on more emotional levels, it sets our lives against a broader backdrop of human life. It’s not quite the same as any other leisure activity or “lifestyle” choice; it gets to us. Maybe it only gets to us because we’re contingent, imperfect beings; but that’s all we are and will be.
I’ll admit that, from the outside, the results of parenting can be revolting (I have to share a city with some guy whose license plate frame is “HAPPINESS IS … BEING MACKENZIE’S DADDY!!”). But if we live or die by the conduct of everyone we agree with, then we all fall down dead.
Understand that I’m not arguing that parenting is a “higher” calling than anything else; I’m saying it’s a richly nuanced, thrilling, humbling emotional experience, one that we shouldn’t deny to anyone. Not even theoretically.
Come to think of it, human existence can be fairly thrilling (despite the fact that we’re parasites on a dying earth, these dangerous times, rakka rakka). I don’t think our lives are so vile that I should feel guilty about creating another one.
A lot of this work was done by Gary Becker (applying economic arguments to many personal/household decisions being one of his fortes). While this theory may not hold in more developed countries where children are expensive and do not provide future return to the parents, it has higher validity in less developed countries. The incremental cost of another child is low and s/he does provide resources in traditional farming or cottage industry economies. Culturally, children are expected to provide payments to their elderly parents. In MDCs, having children may be a net economic loss to the parents, but the investment made in raising the child, and in making education investments, will provide benefits to that next generation.
Utility measures dependent on the tastes of the parents are of course accounted for in these calculations. Given the cost/benefit analysis and bundle of tastes, a family will produce the optimal number of children. In theory, anyway.
As a father, I don’t know if I can explain why we wanted to have children. It was something we decided together. My feelings about it were similar to my feelings about marriage. It wasn’t something that I needed but it is something that has improved my life. So we didn’t have to have children, but we wanted to (clear, no?)
Looking back at my three years of fatherhood, it certainly helps that this child is my descendant when he’s screaming about something and you’re getting frustrated and you can’t take it anymore. I know that I don’t have the patitence to do this with a child I’m not related to. But that’s based on my experience. If we had adopted, I’m sure that I would learn to deal with that too.
The decision about timing was based on financial considerations, my school calendar, my wife’s desire not to be pregnant while 40, getting a house in time, and a host of other smaller factors.
But here’s the kicker: we still look at each other and say “What were we thinking?” The sheer gall of us to decide to create this new life and think we can raise it to adulthood.
I agree entirely with CrankyAsAnOldMan when he says
We want to make this child and send him out into the world to be a person - not a little us (not a chance of that happening - he is so different from us in many ways) - the “making the world better for his existance” reason I guess. But it is so much more than that - I just can’t articulate it.
So … I talked to my wife. Her reasons for having children were because she was going to have them already. I explain. It was not a matter of choosing them for herself, they had already chosen her. They were going to happen by accident if they didn’t happen by choice.
As she says
And for me, as I noticed last night, having a child allows you to experience life magnified through the lens of a child’s experience. As a grown-up I have categorized everything and become jaded about things. To a child (well, this one at least) everything is beautiful and great and new. Somedays I try to just live in the moment, but it is very difficult.
