Childfree movement
“”If you’re so pro-life and you’re so pro-child, then adopt one that’s already here that’s very unwanted and very alone and needs someone to take care of it, to get it out of a horrible situation.
People say, “Why don’t you do that?” and I say, “‘Cause I hate fuckin’ kids and couldn’t care less.” Couldn’t give a fuck.
|
| —Bill Hicks explaining why he's ineligible to be a parent[1] |
The childfree movement is a grassroots social movement advocating childlessness by choice. People who chose to be childless by choice are known as childfree. The movement was started during the 1970s. Two of the most notable childfree organizations that were established during the 1970s were the National Organization for Non-Parents and No Kidding! The childfree movement is becoming increasingly popular.[2]
Contents |
[edit] Reasons to be childfree
The international childfree movement does not share any unified political view, but many political ideologies associated with childfree interests are increasingly becoming associated with the movement. The arguments for childfreeism are classified into the following categories:
[edit] Arguments from parents' point of view
- People have the right not to have children.
- A child may violate a couple's right to privacy, perhaps by popping in on them when they are inconveniently busy making him a sibling.
- Pregnancy and childbirth disrupt a woman's career. Many feminists support birth control partially for this reason.
- When children grow up, they may become a disappointment to their parents.
- The State and/or "society" have no right to impose parenthood and child-bearing on people.
[edit] Arguments that a child may be harmed merely by its own birth
- If a parent is financially unstable or low-income, this may cause misery for the child. Since the child has nothing to do with the financial breakdown of the couple, it is unethical to give birth to a child only to cause it misery.
- A slightly more broad version of the above argument goes that to live is, by definition, to suffer, and so to have children is merely to perpetuate suffering.
- If a parent has a genetic disorder, the child may inherit it.
[edit] Philosophical arguments
- People have a responsibility toward the environment. Thus to prevent overpopulation and other environmental problems, they should choose not to have children.
- People have a responsibility to help those already here. Having children deprives people from helping them fully due to the extra burden of child-rearing and further draining resources to aid them.
- Childbirth is an act of selfishness that only serves to boost people's ego and/or is done solely as a means to benefit those who birth them.
- It is immoral to birth children into broken and/or unfree societies that will coerce them to obey and shall be exploited unfairly as long as such societies are thus maintained.
- Antinatalism is a philosophy which holds that giving birth to a child is a negative value, thus it is immoral to have a child for a specific or multiple reasons. Many of the above arguments given are often associated with the philosophy and used by its proponents.
[edit] "Selfish" and other questionable arguments
It is fairly probable that at least some of the childfree individuals who utilize one of the arguments listed above are just quacking bullshit as a smoke-screen to avoid voicing one of the following pro-childfree arguments:
- A baby keeps a person awake at night.
- A baby makes its parents into horrible-looking frumpy people in serious denial about what is really important in life, such as (pick one: fancy cars, lofty ideals).
- A baby consumes money, thus (pick one: depleting the fancy-car fund, requiring the compromise of the lofty ideals).
- Children are worthless parasites who do nothing to contribute to society.
- They smell.
- "I wish those stupid breeders would keep their damned crotch droppings out of my sight!"
Some individuals will be blunt enough to give the above reasons for not having children. It's probably for the best that such people, or those adamant to directly give the above reasons, don't have children anyway. Such statements should be proof enough they're not fit to be parents. Expecting or encouraging them to have children is about as logical as asking John Wayne Gacy to babysit or asking Ayn Rand to start a parental advice agency. It's just not a good idea in the long run, especially for the children they could bring into existence.
[edit] Also
Laws that explicitly or effectively require individuals to procreate (e.g., laws permitting marital rape) are generally frowned upon as violating civil rights. Certainly many adults would be found in violation of such laws, whether they be perpetual Babylon 5 fans virgins, confirmed bachelors, homosexuals, developmentally-disabled (where an individual wouldn't be physically or mentally capable of taking care of a child) or infertile. Still there have been taxes on childlessness and awards for big families.[citation needed]
Many countries have taken very pronatalist polices going further than soft penalizations. This is done usually by enacting very strict abortion laws to compel women to give birth even if they've no desire to have children.
Ireland is a prime example of such a country. Their anti-abortion stance comes mainly from immense pressure emanating from the Roman Catholic Church who still exercise a very strong influence on Ireland's government. As such, the government maintains very strict abortion laws with anyone caught getting being heavily penalized unless it is absolutely required to save women's lives.
Such restrictions have resulted in ire from the childfree and those in the pro-choice movement. They argue such laws making childbirth compulsory is not only legalized coercion to drive people into having children but it encourages pregnant woman to find under the radar ways to get abortions. The latter often results in very unsafe venues that result in injury or even death.
China's limitation of families to one child is one of the most prominent examples of legal limits on reproduction. Examples of total antinatalist policies include forced sterilization upon criminals (such as rapists) as either a penalty for a crime or a condition of release.[citation needed]
[edit] Organizations
There are several childfree organizations throughout the world. No Kidding! is a prominent international organization, active in New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. Its membership grew after it launched a website in the 1990s.[2]
[edit] Critics
Given the growing popularity of the decision to not have children, a number of critics, especially pro-life advocates, have begun slinging stones in response. These individuals often include, unsurprisingly, mostly right leaning people who are often militant in believing humans have an obligation to have children. Often this is due to religious reasons, worship of money economic motivations, support of keeping political systems intact or just plain ignorance.
Examples of more eyebrow raising reasons opposed to not having children include that there's a plot to depopulate the planet of people of a certain ethnic ancestry, a diabolical government plan to depopulate the human race or that there is no inherent right to not have children and that, if need be, people should be strongarmed and/or forced to have children.
The following people are notable opponents of the childfree movement.
[edit] Bryan Caplan
Bryan Caplan is an anarcho-capitalist, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and economics professor at George Mason University (three huge warning signs) who has taken issue with people's choice to remain childfree. His response is the book Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think. Besides having a huge-ass title, is his attempt to counter-argue points made by the childfree. It's also become something of a Bible used by militant natalists like himself to justify their selfish behavior in having children.
Bryan, in the book's intro, says arguing against reasons against having children is "as productive as nagging a brick wall." That statement sets up the rest of the book's tone and keeps its promise to justify people's selfishness in having kids.[3]
To save people some reading here are some of the main arguments he makes and his counter-rebuttals summarized.
- Don't want kids? Have them anyway.
- Hate kids? Have them anyway.
- Don't have any urge to be a parent? Have them anyway.
- Too busy to have kids? Have them anyway.
- Don't have the money to take care of children? Have them anyway.
- Are you a selfish prick? Have them anyway.
- Don't agree with any of my obviously faultless reasons to have kids? Go fuck yourself. (Though, presumably he like it even more if you fucked somebody of the opposite sex.)
Every reasonable excuse not to have children in the book is waved off as wrong when they obviously have merit. Caplan even attempts to put a little cherry on top of his arguments in trying attract people with a scheme he claims will allow people to have more children for less money and worry. The scheme is nothing more than typical woo. The reality is that it will still cost lots of money to have kids and that will come with its share of unavoidable burden and worry.
The book also ignores and/or barely touches points which greatly undermine his arguments. The biggest of these facts include not everyone being fit to be a parent despite the supposed benefits Caplan claims having them creates. An even bigger one is, of course, overpopulation. Caplan greatly underplays the latter in the book. This is explainable as Caplan already discussed the subject before the book's publication in an online article for the Cato Institute. The article torpedoes the book's credibility, and Caplan's, for giving sound parental advice saying that the overpopulation can be fixed... by having more children to benefit the economy. One word immediately springs to mind in describing the soundness of that plan.[4]
Caplan and his book have been criticized for stances that boil down to the stereotypical Libertarian worship of capitalism and wanton selfishness. Opponents often point out the book fails to mention huge elephants in the room such as how that the planet is finite and that unsustainable population growth is far worse than he sugarcoats it to be. That and having kids purely because you selfishly want any is not a good excuse to have them.[5]
But why worry about the planet or making responsible choices? The economy and self-interest are obviously far more important than that crap.
[edit] Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee, with his talent for making new friends, showed dislike with the childfree movement during a panel on FOX News on August 2013 regarding a recent featured article in Time Magazine about it. A shame too because the first sentence he reportedly made about it seemed like he was going to make a good point.[6]
“”Well of course you can [have a good life without children], and I recognize it for some people that's maybe the thebest decision. Especially for people, ugh, maybe who write articles like this. It's a good thing they didn't have kids, seriously. But on the other side, I don't want it ever get to the point where we diminish the idea of not only creating the next generation, but training them to be our replacements, which is the highest particular calling that I think that we have as human beings, is to create an ongoing process of humanity and then to train it to be better than we are.
|
Huckabee, despite obviously trying hard not to let slip his true reasons why he feels people have an obligation to have children, let the cat out of the bag when fellow panelist Alisyn Camerota jokingly referred indirectly to Genesis 9:7 in saying Huckabee should go forth and multiply. Huckabee responded saying " I will do... yeah, I've already done it."
Here's the Bible verse in question as taken from the King James Version when God famously addressed Noah after the Great Flood:[7]
“”And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
|
Huckabee's answer is tell-tale evidence he holds to the standard Christian fundamentalist view that it is an imperative people have children. Of course, had he and his fellow believers actually read it, the Bible, specifically Jesus Christ, in response to the subject of divorced, mentions, among other kinds of folk, those who have chosen not to have children to better practice their faith.
As the King James version puts it:[8]
“”For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it [the word of God], let him receive it.
|
In addition to this obscure remark by Jesus, Christians like Huckabee forget that the Bible has no mention of Jesus ever having children during his life making him childfree. Following the logic of fundamentalists who believe people must "be fruitful and multiply" then Jesus neglected to do so and supported people's right to not have any as the above passage shows. Of course, as he himself said that it's okay not to have children, he's not only off the hook but also nullified any obligation to have children.
[edit] Michael Snyder
The growing popularity of choosing not to have children has attracted a number of conspiracy theories who taken to the idea that the movement is part of some evil plot. Michael Snyder, a regular contributor to the Alex Jones network, wrote a piece blasting the movement as a form of brainwashing designed to destroy families, marriage and, as usual, part of some sinister plot to depopulate the planet mainly through, as usual, abortion.
It's worth pointing out Snyder says all that AFTER pointing out the average cost of raising a child in 2011 will cost approximately $234,900. More hilariously he goes on to say that there's a horrific plot to encourage children to "put off marriage until their educations are done and their careers have started." In other words: waiting until you can pay for your potential children and take care of them entirely out of your own pocket is not rational behavior.
From there Snyder goes into standard wingnut mode urging readers to reject liberal thinking, fight against thinking critically about whether having children is the right thing to do and taking precautions the selfish desire to be childfree, and even gives abstinence education a free vocal promotion too. Pretty much the usual out-of-touch radical right-wing bunk.[9]
The actual reason the childfree movement is growing, if understood, causes Snyder's article and views - not to mention the other bunk like his article - to fall to bits. The movement is the result of more people questioning whether having children is right for them. There is no dastardly plot by malicious folk who want traditional conservative values to be destroyed unless you consider encouraging critical thinking about having children to be the master plan.
Being raised in societies with good educational systems and having good education in general is why the movement is growing. This education often results in, naturally, better intelligence and critical thinking which in turn results in people better questioning things. Human behavior, like procreation, is no exception. More people are questioning the repurcussions of having children, the costs, the pros, the cons, the world they'll have to deal with, etc.
The conclusion many people come to is simple: they don't have a genuine desire to have children. The reasons they don't vary but is owed in part to people making the conscious, individual decision not to have any.
This isn't just occurring in America either, something Snyder neglects to mention in his writing. It's happening in many developed societies like Japan and Germany. Both are experiencing huge drops in their birthrates because people are choosing not to have children of their own accord. Like America, this is owed not just to critical thinking but bad economies and worsening conditions. Those elements have added to people's desire to refrain from having children which, again, Snyder fails to take into account in his rant against the childfree.
Case in point: The choice to remain childfree is a choice, not a conspiracy, that is result of people thinking critically. That and Snyder hates doing actual research for his articles as well as people making educated choices he ignorantly believes are part of some evil government scheme.
[edit] Alex Jones
Alex Jones has taken very rude shots at the childfree movement calling people who refuse to have children control freaks for criticizing people like him for having too many. He furthermore considers it a cult. Alex has said people have an obligation to have children saying its important in populating his ideal theocratic society the ongoing fight with the evil NWO. As to the widespread overpopulation that idea will obviously cause, Alex justifies it saying overpopulation is a myth to help to carry out a massive plot by governments to enact a depopulation plot.[10]
The most memorable moment Jones took on the childfree movement came during an interview with Libertarian comedian Doug Stanhope. Stanhope, being childfree himself, has advocated people not to have children or, at bare minimum, give birth to only two.[11] Besides justifying his refusal to have children due to his intense dislike of them, Stanhope states not having children will help to curb overpopulation and thus global warming. Unlike many other Libertarians, Stanhope admits both are huge problems that must be dealt with.[12].
During the interview Jones deflected or ignored the counter-arguments and facts Stanhope gave instead opting to rudely demean Stanhope's decision to not procreate. As the interview came to a close, Alex, in a very rare confession, admitted his attitude is driven by his Christian beliefs and belief in God which Stanhope should give his life over to. Stanhope, an atheist, declined though was visibly amused at Alex's surprise attempt to convert him.[13][14][15][16][17]
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
[edit] Footnotes
- ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJcebIEOkhY
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qysbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MEgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6825,1804699&dq=childfree+movement&hl=en
- ↑ Here's an excerpt of the introduction from the official page if you have the stamina to endure such tripe
- ↑ http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/05/02/bryan-caplan/population-fertility-liberty
- ↑ Here's one example of valid criticism from a childfree writer
- ↑ http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/fox-panel-asks-if-time-magazine-cover-chil
- ↑ http://biblehub.com/genesis/9-7.htm
- ↑ http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-12.htm
- ↑ http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/time-magazine-promotes-a-childless-lifestyle-as-the-path-to-the-good-life-for-u-s-couples
- ↑ He said all of that in this edition of Infowars Nightly News
- ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnQY-kZ9d_E
- ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgDhDa4HHo
- ↑ Part 1 of Doug Stanhope interview
- ↑ Part 2 of Doug Stanhope interview
- ↑ Part 3 of Doug Stanhope interview
- ↑ Part 4 of Doug Stanhope interview
- ↑ Part 5 of Doug Stanhope interview and where Jones admits his religious bias