the ultimate ethical debate

Shall we stir the pot? Why not.

Boo is two and around here that means she should have a sibling on the way. She doesn’t. Maybe someday she will. I hope so. But that’s not the case right now. The thing is, I feel societal pressure to deliver a sibling for Boo at this time. Everyone else is doing it and it seems that since I’m not “of the norm” right now, it gives people permission to assume and ask about Potential Baby #2. I do this too.

But then I read this editorial and I agreed with it wholeheartedly. People who choose not to have children, or not to have more children, should not have to justify or explain their decisions. Those of us who choose to have children, or more children, are the ones that should provide justification for our decision. And this is a decision that should not be taken lightly.

“The burden of proof — or at least the burden of justification — should therefore rest primarily on those who choose to have children, not on those who choose to be childless.”

The editorial doesn’t argue for or against children. It simply argues against “procreation merely to adhere to tradition, to please others, to conform to gender conventions, or to benefit [our]selves out of the inappropriate expectation that children will fix [our] problems. After all, children are neither human pets nor little therapists.”

Read the article. Read the article’s comments. Big decisions require big debate.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s