Rage Against the Breeders

Jonathan V. Last at The Weekly Standard has written an article about the rising tide of anti-childbearing sentiment, in which he writes:

It is a quirk of the movement that while the most committed childfree people tend to be women, being childfree is not primarily a feminist pose. In The Childless Revolution, Madelyn Cain describes three types of childfree women: “those who are positively childfree, those who are religiously childfree, and those who are environmentally childfree.” It is this last aspect that undergirds much of the movement, particularly at the policy level. 

On the connection between being childfree and the environment, or more precisely,  population control and "climate change," see also our new Salvo article, Baby Freeze.

Back to Jonathan Last:

Yet for all the Malthusian worry-warting, at the street-level, being childfree is mostly about disdain for conservative traditionalists. Thus, the childfree refer to parents as “breeders” and mothers who breastfeed as “moomies” (as in cow). Those are the nicer terms. (The site happilychildfree.com cheerfully catalogues childfree slang.)

Now if someone posted a list of offensive names for an ethnic group...

Comments

[GL]

There are many good people who are denied the supreme blessing of children, and for these we have the respect and sympathy always due to those who, from no fault of their own, are denied any of the other great blessings of life. But the man or woman who deliberately forego these blessings, whether from viciousness, coldness, shallow-heartedness, self-indulgence, or mere failure to appreciate aright the difference between the all-important and the unimportant,--why, such a creature merits contempt as hearty as any visited upon the soldier who runs away in battle, or upon the man who refuses to work for the support of those dependent upon him, and who tho able-bodied is yet content to eat in idleness the bread which others provide.

Theodore Roosevelt, "On American Motherhood," a speech given in Washington on March 13, 1905, before the National Congress of Mothers.

[Chris van Avery]

I suppose what's important to them is they've found a way not only to feel superior, but to express their superiority to others.

[Michael Bauman]

Chris,
It sounds very much like you've "found a way not only to feel superior, but to express [your] superiority to others."

[Laura Carroll]

Childfree author of Families of Two here..I've interviewed and talked with hundreds of childfree--Fact: childfree is NOT mostly about disdain for conservative traditionalists. Those who do not want children come from all walks of life, including all walks of political and religious life. Fact: A majority do NOT refer to parents as “breeders” and mothers who breastfeed as “moomies.” Rather than a rising tide in anti-childbearing sentiment, more I see a widening divide between parents and non-parents because both sides do more judging than mutual understanding. I say let’s stop the right and wrong coming from both sides. It gets us nowhere toward understanding and accepting each other and our different choices in life.
~Laura Carroll http://lauracarroll.com

[Chris van Avery]

Michael,
You got all that from one sentence? Could I not concluded the same about you from your sentence?

Laura,
Your points about generalizations are well taken, and I for one suspect the subset of adults with no children wouldn't want to be associated with the kind of language the referenced lexicon uses. Words mean things though, and to consciously reject a term in common usage (childless) and invent a new word (childfree), strikes me as a subtle slander against those with children. If not, why exploit the word "free" in your adopted label, apparently implying that you posess something of greater value than a parent does?

[Michael Bauman]

Chris,
No, quoting you against you is not the same as you quoting me quoting you.

Laura,
You are exactly right. While it might be true that having children is a blessing, it's also true that not all blessings are for all persons. Those who follow God's call into parenthood do a wonderful thing -- as do those who follow God's leading in a different direction. All too often, in my view, folks on both sides denigrate those who have made different choices, or who follow divergent calls, as if there were only one path of blessedness for all married Christians. While it is true that our destiny is to have the mind of Christ and to be transformed into his image and character, it is also true that child rearing is not required for that transformation even for married folks, just as it was not required for Him.

[The other Michael Bauman]

Michael, here's a problem I see with your analysis. The primary purpose of marriage is to be fruitful and multiply. While such fruitfulness can and does extend into other areas than child rearing, begatting is integral. To buy into purposeful childless marriages is to truncate the nature and purpose of marriage as revealed in the Scripture and the traditional teaching of the Church. This is especially so since many of the methods used to not have children induce early abortions.

The call to a Chrisitan marriage includes the call to parenting children. It is not about indiviudal choices. That is simply the way of the world. It is about choosing God or oneself. If one chooses God then the choice is marriage and family or a celibate life.

Of course no one need stoop to demeaning ad hominum attacks on others, but we don't need to acquiese to the the secular approach either.

[GL]

I'm sorry, Laura, but "our different choices in life" reflect profoundly different world views. Those who are childless by choice (not by circumstance) have every right at law to make that choice, but don't expect that choice to be accepted by those who believe that we are called to be open to life. Your choice simply is not the traditional Christian understanding of what is acceptable in this regard -- unless, of course, you are celibate.

Michael, certainly our Lord and St. Paul both praised the celibate life, but when one is not called to such a life, there is not the slightest Biblical warrant for our picking and choosing which blessings of God to accept or reject. When we do so, we are substituting our judgment for what is best for us for His. We are, in fact, denying that He knows best what would be a blessing for us. Doing so discloses either a distrust in God's wisdom or His beneficence or both. Scripture states repeatedly that children are a blessing from God; seeking deliberately to be childless (unless one is celibate) is a rejection of that blessing. Thus St. John Chrysostom wrote of those who use contraception, "What then? Do you contemn the gift of God [children], and fight with His laws? What is a curse [childlessness], do you seek as though it were a blessing?"

I challenge you, Michael, to cite a single orthodox Christian pastor or scholar who wrote before the last quarter of the 19th century who believed that Christians could choose to be childless except through living a celibate life. I can cite scores who explicitly taught otherwise. Such a view is a modern innovation without any support in Scripture or in Church history.

[Michael Bauman]

The directive to be be fruitful and to multiply in Genesis is given in immediate connection with the command to subdue the earth. Subduing the earth, of course, cannot be done with just two persons. Today, with nearly 7 billion neighbors, the earth is no longer empty. We have enough persons to subdue the earth. If you think 7 billion persons is not enough for the task, then have more children, by all means. God bless you in that pursuit. But do not take that command out of its context in Genesis and then transform it into a command for all marriages for all times. It is not.

[GL]

"We have enough persons to subdue the earth. . . . But do not take that command out of its context in Genesis and then transform it into a command for all marriages for all times. It is not."

And what is your authority for such an interpretation? Again, my challenge: cite a single orthodox Christian pastor or scholar who wrote before the last quarter of the 19th century who believed that Christians could choose to be childless except through living a celibate life.

I can cite scores who explicitly taught otherwise. Your position is a modern innovation without any support in Scripture or in Church history.

By the way, you'll note that I did not cite the multiple times (not just in Genesis) in which God pronounced the blessing "be fruitful and multiply" or words to that effect. I cited the fact that Scripture calls children a blessing of God. Psalm 127 even says that a quiverful is a blessing. What Scripture can you cite for your view?

[Rob G]

"Words mean things though, and to consciously reject a term in common usage (childless) and invent a new word (childfree), strikes me as a subtle slander against those with children."

Not to mention a subtle slander against children themselves. No, make no mistake -- the "childfree" mentality is a complete and total capitulation to modernism and is anti-Christian to the core. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if "childfree" advocates also are homosexual marriage supporters.

[Michael Bauman]

GL,
1). I was responding to my esteemed namesake, who alluded to the Genesis verses about which I was speaking.

2). Accurate interpretation of a text, any text (whether Biblical or non-Biblical texts), is a matter of careful, grammatical, and historical exegesis, not authority. The issue of textual interpretation is hermeneutical, not ecclesiastical. We can learn to read texts without a church -- just as you did this text, or Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, or a an oration by Cicero, or a Psalm by David.

3). I have just shown you a text from Scripture and explained its meaning, in its proper context. I've also shown how it is normally read out of context and, therefore, misunderstood and misapplied by the church(es). Now you're going to have to go to the text to show that the text means something else than what I argued. If you can make that case from the text, then let's hear the case you make. If you are unable to make a compelling hermeneutical case, then say so. Accuracy, not authority, that's the pursuit. Again, despite the way some folks want to do exegesis, the issue of interpretation is hermeneutical, not ecclesiastical, especially if one appeals to a church that got the OT canon wrong and has misinterpreted texts (from both Testaments) rather badly and rather frequently.

Michael, my friend:
The explicitly articulated purpose for marriage in Genesis is the cure of Adam's loneliness, not procreation. The cure for the only thing God Himself called "not good" was the creation of Eve, i.e., marriage. Unity, intimacy, and the banishment of loneliness were the purpose of marriage. Procreation was commanded for the purpose of subduing the earth. Procreation is not the primary purpose of marriage. Naturally, within a marriage that is characterized by things like unity, intimacy and the banishment of loneliness, is the best place to have and to raise children. But that is not its primary purpose, not according to the text.

I said nothing at all about abortion. I oppose abortion as fully as anyone, and have probably stopped more abortions that most Christians. No one was advocating abortion or being in the least sympathetic to it. The position is not abortion friendly or abortion inclined. It was uncharitable and false to bring abortion up in this way, and it was a misdirected move toward guilt by association. The equivalent move would be for me to say that your view leads to more abortions because more pregnancies means more abortions. I did not argue in that fashion. Instead, I simply made an appeal to the Genesis text. You then took recourse to abortion, unjustifiably. A close reading of Genesis does not lead to abortion. Nor is Genesis abortion inclined or abortion friendly.

[GL]

"Accurate interpretation of a text, any text (whether Biblical or non-Biblical texts), is a matter of careful, grammatical, and historical exegesis, not authority. The issue of textual interpretation is hermeneutical, not ecclesiastical."

So why should I accept your hermeneutic over, say, St. John Chrysostom, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and many others whom I could cite who disagree with you?

I, by the way, reject your premise, but that is another matter and one which I will not debate with you, though I will cite one Scriptural text to oppose your position: 1 Timothy 3:15

"I have just shown you a text from Scripture and explained its meaning, in its proper context. I've also shown how it is normally read out of context and, therefore, misunderstood and misapplied by the church(es). Now you're going to have to go to the text to show that the text means something else than what I argued."

Well, again, I didn't cite that particular Scriptural basis for my case, so you are now trying to get me to refute your challenge to my case based on an argument which I did not make to support it. I don't think I'll rise to your bait. I accept the uniform teaching of all orthodox Christian pastors and scholars who addressed the issue for the first 18-and-a-half centuries of the faith. If you want to promote an innovation, the burden is on you to prove it. All you've done is make assertions, not proofs. That may satisfy you and those who have prejudged the case. I doubt it will persuade very many who have not prejudged the matter.

I can't help but wonder, however, why you believe your hermeneutical methods are correct while every orthodox Christian pastor and scholar who addressed the issue for the first 18-and-a-half centuries of the faith is wrong? I would be more open to your view if you could cite even one orthodox Christian pastor or scholar who addressed the issue during the first 18-and-a-half centuries of the faith who agrees with your interpretation and the conclusions which you draw therefrom. I've been making the same challenge for half-a-dozen years now and I'm still waiting for one such cite. I suspect that I will continue to wait.

[TimC]

While I probably shouldn't presume to speak for another person, I don't believe that "The other Michael Bauman" was in any way using abortion uncharitably or to establish guilt by association. He was simply pointing out that the most common methods used by married folk to remain "childfree" have a certain probability of inducing abortion as a byproduct of their function. Considered over the course of lifetime of use, it is quite possible that hormonal contraceptives (such as the Pill) are obtaining abortions for those who use them and engage in the marital act. This is widely documented and should not be controversial.

Thus people or bodies (as the church) who oppose abortion should logically be expected to turn a critical eye toward (at the very least) the use of hormonal contraceptives.

[The Other Michael Bauman]

Tim C, you are correct. You made my point more clearly than I did. Thank you. In addition to the hormonal contraceptives there is the IUD which also induces abortions.

The very term 'childfree' could only be created out of an abortion mentality, IMO. It is a nihlist mentality.

In addition, God keeps sending children. I think He knows best on the matter if there are enough or not.

There is a much broader and more complete understanding of the Genesis passages mentioned so far which I am only marginally capable of making in this company, but when I get in front of my Bible and other resources, I'll give it a try.

P.S.
Any Christian who supports childless marriage by choice is likely asking to become a dhimmi under Islamic rule or an enemy of the state under Chinese rule or some other tryanny.

[GL]

Just to be clear on the number of times God blessed a couple or a group of people using the terms "fruitful and multiply" or words to that effect, see the following search I did in the ESV: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=fruitful+and+multiply.

Let us assume it was not a command, either for the immediate hearers or for the human race in general. The language used in Scripture most assuredly declares it a blessing. And even if you conclude that the blessings in those cases were only for the immediate hearer, there are numerous other examples from Scripture in which God declared fertility a blessing without using this phrase or similar words. For example, see Deuteronomy 7:13-14, Psalm 107 (especially verse 38), Psalm 115 (especially verse 14), Psalm 128 (especially verses 3-4), Proverbs 17:6, to name a few. Most often cited is Psalm 127. There is nothing in Psalm 127 (or some of the other examples I cited) which would support a case that the passage was referring only to a blessing on a particular couple of group as opposed to a general blessing on mankind. Indeed, one of the purposes for which God ordained marriage was the procreation of Godly offspring. See Malachi 2:14-15.

On the other hand, childlessness is presented as unfortunate, at best, and, at worst, a curse. See, for example, Exodus 23:25-26, Jeremiah 18:21, and Hosea 9:11.

Where in Scripture do you find any support for the case that humans may refuse blessings from God without sinning and where do you see any support that a married couple may refuse to procreate offspring per Malachi 2 without sinning?

I will now wait patiently for your reply to this and to my earlier and repeated request for any citation to any orthodox Christian writing before the last quarter of the 19th century who supports you assertions.

[Benighted Savage]

We can learn to read texts without a church -- just as you did this text, or Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, or a an oration by Cicero, or a Psalm by David.

So, a text by you = a political speech by Lincoln = an oration by Cicero = one of David's Psalms. That's a mighty disparate collection of texts to regard as equivalents. Exactly what Hermeneutik are you applying?

[GL]

Michael Bauman: "Procreation was commanded for the purpose of subduing the earth. Procreation is not the primary purpose of marriage."

Malachi 2:15a: "Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring."

From Matthew Henry's Commentary on Malachi 2:

And wherefore did he make but one woman for one man? It was that he might seek a godly seed —a seed of God (so the word is), a seed that should bear the image of God, be employed in the service of God, and be devoted to his glory and honour,—that every man having his own wife, and but one, according to the law, (1 Co. 7:2), they might live in chaste and holy love, under the directions and restraints of the divine law, and not, as brute beasts, under the dominion of lust, and thus might propagate the nature of man in such a way as might make it most likely to participate of a divine nature,—that the children, being born in holy matrimony, which is an ordinance of God, and by which the inclinations of nature are kept under the regulations of God’s command, might thus be made a seed to serve him, and be bred, as they are born, under his direction and dominion. Note, The raising up of a godly seed, which shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation, is one great end of the institution of marriage; but that is a good reason why the marriage-bed should be kept undefiled and the marriage bond inviolable. Husbands and wives must therefore live in the fear of God, that their seed may be a godly seed, else were they unclean, but now they are holy, as children of the covenant, the marriage-covenant, which was a type of the covenant of grace, and the conjugal union, when thus preserved entire, of the mystical union between Christ and his church, in which he seeks and secures to himself a godly seed.

Apparently Michael is using a different hermeneutic than did Matthew Henry.

Interestingly enough, the compilers of the Book of Common Prayer reached the same conclusion:

Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony, Book of Common Prayer (1662)

[The other Michael Bauman]

Marriage is a profound and deep mystery ( Eph 5:32). However, it is clear from Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Church, as GL points out, and the social importance of marriage in all societies, one thing marriage is not is simply two people making an individual choice to share their lives and their property without any intent to reproduce. The relevant passage in Genesis is in chapter 2:15-18.

“The Lord God took man and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded Adam saying, ‘You may eat food from every tree in the garden; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you many not eat; for in whatever day you eat from it, you shall die by death.’ And the Lord God said, ‘It is not good for man to be alone, I will make him a helper comparable to him.’”

Clearly, my friend Michael’s statement that Eve was simply given to assuage Adam’s loneliness is contradicted. Men and women are made by God to dress and keep the earth together with Him. We are to bring froth fruit so that all of God’s creation may glorify Him in its fecundity. Marriage is central to understanding and participating in the Incarnation of our Lord Himself--as the Church and her members are brides of Christ Himself who are called to bring forth fruit in due season or be cursed {the cursing of the fig tree and the parable of the servants given gold}.

Marriage is a sacrament. As all sacraments it is designed to allow the Holy Spirit to bless, sanctify and bring more life to this earth. Marriage is thus Trinitarian: two people becoming one in Christ so that there union can bring concrete blessings to this earth, i.e., children. To deny the sacramental and incarnational substance of marriage is to risk a great deal. It could be considered akin to the ancestral sin of Adam and Eve eating of the forbidden fruit simply because it looked and tasted good.

From the Orthodox Marriage service:
“…grant that this thy handmaid may, in all things be pleasing unto her husband; and that this thy servant may love and cherish his wife; that they may live according to thy will. Bless them, O Lord our God as thou didst bless Abraham and Sarah; Bless them, O Lord our God, as thou didst bless Isaac and Rebecca; Bless them O Lord our God, as thou didst bless Joachim and Anna: Bless them, O Lord our God, as thou didst bless Zacharias and Elizabeth….

Clearly children are seen here as a heavenly reward for being obedient to God’s will in submitting to each other and to Christ in love. Further, it is clear that children from marriage are an integral part of God’s will for us:

“Grant them fair children, and concord of soul and body; exalt them like the cedars of Lebanon, like a luxuriant vine, that, having sufficiency in all things they may abound in every good work that is good and acceptable unto thee. And let them behold their children’s children round about their table, like a newly-planted olive orchard…”

Our savior promised us that we will have life, in Him, and have life abundantly. What more perfect evidence of that than the glory of children in a marriage dedicated to Him. To consciously reject that gift is to remove oneself from that blessing. Such behavior cannot be a normal part of Christian life.

[GL]

The other Michael wrote: "Marriage is a profound and deep mystery ( Eph 5:32). However, it is clear from Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Church, as GL points out, and the social importance of marriage in all societies, one thing marriage is not is simply two people making an individual choice to share their lives and their property without any intent to reproduce."

Indeed. In Sheldon Vanauken's award-winning autobiography, "A Severe Mercy", Vanauken reproduced eighteen letters written to him by C.S. Lewis after the death of Vanauken's wife. In one of those letters, Lewis admonished Vanauken for his "voluntary sterility" and for having denied his wife the experience of maternity. Lewis wrote:

Christians . . . would of course agree that man and wife are "one flesh" . . . . But surely they would add that this One Flesh must not (and in the long run cannot) "live to itself" any more than the single individual. It was not made . . . to be its Own End. It was made for God and (in Him) for its neighbours — first and foremost among them the children it ought to have produced.

[Michael Bauman]

Benighted,
You read a text according to its genre, it's author's intention, and according to grammatical/historical exegesis. That is, we must discern what sort of literature we are reading, when it was written, by whom it was written, for what purpose it was written, and then read it, as best we can, the way any discerning readers would have read it when it was first produced. That normally means reading the words in their grammatical, textual, and historical context.

Naturally, you want to take into account how others have read a text, in case they can see things you overlook. But other readers, whether they are ancient or modern readers, have to perform the same interpretive task we do. It remains an open question whether they, or we, have done a good job. That question is best resolved by constantly and repeatedly making recourse back to the text in view.

[Rob G]

"Naturally, you want to take into account how others have read a text, in case they can see things you overlook. But other readers, whether they are ancient or modern readers, have to perform the same interpretive task we do."

And if some, being pre-Enlightenment exegetes, do not limit themselves to the grammatical/historical method, then what? Does the g/h method automatically trump that of the pre-moderns? If so, why?

[Benighted Savage]

Michael Bauman wrote:

You read a text according to its genre, it's author's intention, and according to grammatical/historical exegesis. That is, we must discern what sort of literature we are reading, when it was written, by whom it was written, for what purpose it was written, and then read it, as best we can, the way any discerning readers would have read it when it was first produced. That normally means reading the words in their grammatical, textual, and historical context.

Yes, you were quite clear about this in your previous post. I have two questions:

1.) If reading Scripture is like reading any other text -- at least in terms of some sort of critical/comparative method -- then what are we to make of Biblical Authority? It seems to me that your type of method here would go hand-in-hand with a de-previleging of the Bible and a challenging of its claim to sacred power and uniqueness. And who or what would then have authority?

2.) Your elevation of hermeneutik method appears to be at the expense of pre-18th or 19th century Christian theology and Christian tradition (as, I think, GL and Rob G have pointed out). If you, by some sort of intrepretive fiat, eschew theology and tradition in pursuit of some sort of "purer" version of Scripture, don't you risk creating a "natural history" version of Christianity (sort of like what Spinoza did to Judaism)? And, if you discover through your Biblical criticism some "truer" doctrine, aren't you proclaiming for yourself a prophetic role when you relate that discovery to others?

Those are just some thoughts that came to mind. Sorry about all the questions. However, what puzzles me about both of your posts is you don't mention a prayerful attitude towards the reading and understanding of Scripture. Not once. Don't you think that asking for God's grace while trying to understand some difficult passage in the Bible is at least as important as trying to divine authorial intent or applying some grammatical/historical method, if not more so?

[John Willard]

Michael Bauman,

By what authority do you reject or accept books as belonging to the Biblical Canon? I imagine you would cite the historical Church as your authority. If so, wouldn't you then have to view the Bible as the Church's book, and thus interpreting it in the light of the way that the Church has interpreted it?

For example, you could interpret the Bible in an Arian way, rejecting the Church's historical voice on Christ's divinity, and elevating your own interpretation. But in doing so, aren't you also forced to reject the specific books of the Bible as authoritative, since their authority rests on the unified witness of the historical Church?

[GL]

So Michael, would you please apply your methods to Malachi 2 and to Psalm 127? I'd like to read the resulting interpretation.

[Carmon Friedrich]

It is so weird to have two Michael Baumans arguing this topic. I hope you never meet each other person; your anti-matter selves may create a reaction that causes a black hole into which life as we know it would disappear, then this whole discussion would be moot.

Clicking on Dr. Michael Bauman's link to his website, I find it disturbing that while he's arguing for being child-free, he's free to inculcate his ideas into other people's children at HIllsdale College and through Summit Ministries. I'm sure some Christian parents would be very surprised if they knew his positions on this. I do hope he will come back and answer the other Michael Bauman's last questions. I'm curious as to how he would interpret those passages, too.

Carmon Friedrich, joyful mother of 10

[Proudly Childfree]

Before all you spew your venom toward the childfree consider this:

You want to believe that we "hate" children when the truth is that most of us do not. We have just decided that that way of life is not for us. Perhaps you are just jealous of our free time, extra income, and much less stressful lives we have?

As far as "Who's going to take care of us?" when we get older....same as you, the nursing homes. So often I see too many people dump off their elderly parents drop them off when they get to be a burden. You know if everyone who had kids ended up being taken care of them when they were elderly then nursing homes and hospices would have long gone out of business.

So we are becoming extinct? Where do you think we came from? We had parents you know. Don't be surprised if your kids end up not wanting any of their own too, can't force your desire to be a grandparent on them if that's not what they want for their own lives.

As far as not being remembered, let me give you a few names of childfree people who are hard to forget: Rosa Parks, Marie Curie, Dr. Seuss, Mother Theresa and Jesus.

[GL]

"Perhaps you are just jealous of our free time, extra income, and much less stressful lives we have?"

Well, of course. But what is that but selfishness? What you are plainly saying is that YOUR "free time, extra income, and much less stressful lives" is so important to you that your would-be children, grandchildren, etc. should be deprived the opportunity to ever exist. If you killed someone already living in order to secure YOUR "free time, extra income, and much less stressful lives" what would we conclude other than that you hated them and, yet, you've done worse than killed your would-be children, for had you permitted them existence first and then killed them they would live on, so Christians believe, forever. And of even greater importance is that Scripture teaches us that in our marriages, God seeks "Godly offspring". You are deliberately seeking, then, to deprive God of what He seeks.

As I noted above, it is not incumbent on us to have children (God might choose not to bless us with children) or even to perform the act by which children are conceived (Our Lord and St. Paul each commended the celibate life for those called to it, as were they and Mother Theresa). The problem arises when a couple performs the act by which children are naturally conceived but seek unnatural means to make the act infertile or, as C.S. Lewis described it, "[t] cut off pleasures from the consequences and conditions which they have by nature, detaching, as it were, the precious phrase from its irrelevant context." In those cases, the couple seeks to separate what God has joined together, marital intimacy and conception. And why? Again, because YOU judge YOUR "free time, extra income, and much less stressful lives" to be a greater value to YOU than THEIR existence. Why are you proud of that, Proudly Childfree?

My wife could easily earn a six figure salary if she didn't have four children to care for (our decision to be open to life has, without a doubt, cost us millions of dollars over the course of our lives) and we certainly had more time and less stress before our children were born than we do now, but THEIR right to live (and the right to live of their children, grandchildren, etc.) is greater than OUR "free time, extra income, and much less stressful lives".

[Beth from TN]

I consider the many, many blessings that have come with my five children to so far trump a bit of free time, an earlier retirement, and less stress by so much that the latter aren't even in the game. It has not once, even in the most troubled times, occurred to me to envy the childless. What an odd thought.

[ReligionFREEandChildFREE]

What is odd is how you religious types tend to judge us so quickly. Wasn't there some rule about that in your holy book?
Hopefully the next generation will be more open-minded.

[Michael Bauman (not Dr.)]

"....judge us so quickly." Said judgementally of course.

One can be neither religion free, nor child free. It is ontologically impossible.

[LUKE1732]

RF&CF,

You do have a religion. Being "open-minded" is one of its commandments. Being "judgmental" is one of its mortal sins.

"Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."

“Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions.“

- Gilbert Keith Chesterton

[LUKE1732]

RF&CF, you really need to have children. At least volunteer to work with some. When you assume the responsibility for telling another little human what is "right" and what is "wrong", you'll get to practice making proper judgments in the first place and you'll get to test the boundaries of your "open-mindedness". You'll open yourself to the full mystery of the human adventure and you'll learn to set aside your need to "be your own person". You'll actually be a player in the development of "the next generation" that you're so concerned about.

[GL]

What is odd is how you religious types tend to judge us so quickly. Wasn't there some rule about that in your holy book?
Hopefully the next generation will be more open-minded.

Of course, the next generation will be reared by those who procreate the next generation.

So your philosophy is live and . . . not let live, not even let exist, not even for a second. Do you really consider that a nice, open philosophy? You're open to ideas, but not to life; you're open to concepts, but not to your own would-be flesh and blood. You'll deprive others of existence, but you consider yourself non-judgmental. In fact, you've judged the lives of your would-be children and their innumerable would-be descendants for innumerable generations not worth the cost to YOU. The fact is, we all make judgments and the judgment you've made is that the lives of untold thousands or even millions of humans who might have descended from you are simply not worth it.

[Gregory Laughlin]

The best answer to Proudly Childfree and to ReligionFREEandChildFREE is the words of Theodore Roosevelt which I posted at the very beginning of this thread.

[A Mere Lurker]

Yet another example of our secular culture calling good evil and evil good. I have been chastized for destroying the planet and for practicing general irresponsiblity because we have a large family (meaning, more than 2). Whenever this happens, I think back upon the richness of something like Spenser's Epithalamion...

Poure out your blessing on us plentiously,
And happy influence upon us raine,
That we may raise a large posterity,
Which from the earth, which they may long possesse
With lasting happinesse,
Up to your haughty pallaces may mount;
And, for the guerdon of theyr glorious merit,
May heavenly tabernacles there inherit,
Of blessed Saints for to increase the count.

Some truths really are undeniable, and like the secularist who speaks of the influences of womb-life on children and adults, even RFCF's thankfully deleted hate spewed towards God betrays a recognition of the upside-downness of this worldview.

[HappyMom]

HTBCF, I don't think anyone here is suggesting you should not have the right to choose not to have children. However, your complaint that others have to "pay for them through taxes" rings a bit hollow. Who do you think will fill the jobs and pay taxes when you've retired? Who will produce your food, or cook for and serve you at the restaurants you enjoy? Who will staff the nursing homes, doctors' offices, and hospitals when you need care in your old age?

RF&CF, you are concerned about the next generation. So am I, which is why I am investing my life in training my children in the virtues of love, generosity, kindness, fidelity, honesty, courage, and patience, to name a few. I am so thankful for the privilege of being able to share and shape their lives. They all look forward to raising families of their own someday, but not because I force that expectation upon them. Rather, they are hopeful for the future, and desire to pour love from their own hearts into raising the next generation.

[ari]

Um, some of the child-free disputed that their ilk call people names like "breeder." I've been called those names, in public. I have three well- behaved, lovely, healthy children, and they were called nasty names by acquaintances. My spouse has been told by a former associate that she would save a drowning kitten before she would save any of his children. He stopped doing business with her. Whatever else ya'll are as individuals, any self- proclaimed members of your "group" or "type"- I've learned to stay awy. I don't know what darkness is in your heart.

For that matter, at least one mothering board- Liberal Moms! Single, teenage moms! Welfare activists! Pagans! Citizens of California! Yoga teachers! Was shut down to protect the moms and their children. They were being stalked and harmed by other liberals who thought "child-free" was a great idea. I keep wondering how 'child-free' sounds in German. I think it works about like, you know, gypsy free.

ari