To Baby Or Not To Baby

Are all cat ladies miserable and are all babies happy and why does it matter?

To quote late 20th Century poet Ad Rock: 

Let me clear my throat!!!! 

Bobble head model and VP candidate, JD Vance, recently made news for being a bit obsessed with procreation. He’s suggested that parents get an extra vote for every child they have and, of course, he dropped this nugget of nonsense: “We are effectively run in this country … by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they wanna make the rest of the country miserable, too.”

That a smarmy political opportunist like Vance has some odd beliefs about the people on the other side of the aisle is not particularly worth discussing. That those beliefs can be easily picked apart for their misogynist underpinnings and patriarchal worldview is so obvious as to be unworthy of discussion as well. 

What Is Worth Discussing

Two things:

1. It should go without saying that if the Republicans want women to give up on careerist life goals and instead become stay at home moms to entire broods of nipple latchers, then they should be putting forth policies that would make that possible. Support pre-natal healthcare, child tax credits, universal basic income, rent stabilization, universal health care, day care, early childhood education, food stamps, and geo-political and environmental policies that take into account the long-term survival of our species. Basically, make it easier for people to afford having babies, easier to have healthy babies, offer more support to people trying to raise babies into functional citizens, and make the world the babies will inherit a world worth living in. 

But they don’t do that. 

They don’t do that, in my opinion, because they don’t want Americans having more babies; they want white Americans to have more babies. And they can’t really legislate for more white babies, mostly because it’s illegal and immoral and imbecilic. So they fall back on their righteous conservative inclinations which is blame and shame. 

If a woman has to join the workforce to have enough money to raise a child, she’s a bad mother for not staying home. If a woman relies on government assistance to have enough money to raise a child, she’s a bad mother for not providing for her kids. And if a woman opts to wait until she has a solid enough financial standing to raise a child or chooses not to have a child because she has other priorities in life, well then she’s not a mother and is therefore a miserable cat lady. In the end, no matter how women choose to live, they can’t win. [Note that “winning” in their eyes would be accepting the subservient role in a bonded pair with a male. I don’t call that victory.] 

Fuck that entire line of thinking back into the 18th century where it belongs. ‘Nuff said. 

2. There is, however, a more philosophical discussion to be had around baby making. The New York Times ran an article about Vance’s “cat lady” comments with this headline: “Why Are So Many Americans Choosing to Not Have Children?” That’s a reasonable question. Where this gets squirrelly is in the subhead which read: “It’s probably not selfishness, experts say. Even young adults who want children see an increasing number of obstacles.”

It’s probably not selfishness, experts say. 

Well who the fuck said it was, you pious coastal elitist numbnuts? 

Let me rephrase: I challenge the idea that not having children is selfish. In fact, I don’t just challenge it, I believe the opposite is the truer statement. 

There I said it.

And now that I’ve said it, let me explain:

I acknowledge that having children requires an incredible amount of selflessness. For women, it literally requires letting another being use their body and affect changes in their body that are permanent. Childbearing and childbirth are potentially life threatening, especially for those without quality healthcare. Deciding to become pregnant and carrying a fetus to full term is an incredible act of selflessness and bravery. 

Once the baby arrives, it requires constant attention - feeding, cleaning, cuddling, monitoring, engaging, etc. Socializing and sleep are not much of an option when there’s a newborn around. A parent’s entire life suddenly revolves around keeping a perfectly helpless human alive.

And human children in our society require at minimum an eighteen year commitment before they can legally manage their own lives, not to mention the difficulty of raising an untraumatized human being to maturity. Becoming a parent is a huge commitment and requires people to sacrifice a gazillion lifepaths that would be possible (or at minimum, easier) without children. Perhaps the greatest testament to how much sacrifice is required of a parent is the sheer number of people (mostly men) who opt out of that sacrifice. 

Okay. That’s the baseline. I agree that having and raising children requires a boatload of self sacrifice which means it requires a certain amount of selflessness. It is not inherently a selfish choice. We’re good on that. No issues.

The Question of Consent

Philosophically speaking, however, there’s an entirely different issue at play: Consent.

Eggs don’t choose to be fertilized by sperm. Zygotes don’t choose to be zygoted. Children do not consent to be born. The child has no agency in the decision to become a living being. They cannot and do not give consent.

And what would they be consenting to if they had the choice?

Well, all the beauty and pleasure and love available in the world, of course. The entire experience of being a conscious living being. The glorious opportunity to be alive! Yes, all of that. Sure.

But they would also be consenting to all the pain, all the suffering, and all the horror that exists in the world as well. 

According to the United Nations website, “Each day…more than 10,000 children die from hunger and related causes. Some 854 million people worldwide are estimated to be undernourished.” When you add other causes of death, you get this: “Around 6 million children under 15 die per year. That’s around 16,000 deaths every day, or 11 every minute.” Disease, violence, neglect, and all the other deprivations of the human and natural world are in abundant supply in this world. 

Of course, my readership lives in the global top 5% so many of those concerns aren’t entirely relevant (though they are not entirely off the table either). But even for us lucky elites, trauma is a very real possibility. As are accidents and the violence (physical, mental, emotional and otherwise) of other people. It is impossible to guarantee your child a life without suffering. 

In fact, suffering is congenital in conscious beings. Our very senses are the source of much suffering. As are our children themselves. Your child will inevitably cause others to suffer merely by being a human being - being occasionally cruel, breaking people’s hearts, not calling their mother often enough, etc.

Finally, of course, is the environmental question. Our world is currently being ecologically traumatized by the existence of humans run riot across the face of the planet. Finite resources used up, habitats destroyed, pollution produced, livestock held and butchered, refuse generated and buried. Collectively, we’re a bit of a pox on the planet. Children who have children who have children will continue that legacy unless something drastic changes. And that drastic change could be environmental calamity, in which case your children or their children or their children’s children will know a level of suffering we can barely comprehend outside of apocalyptic art – the dissolution of our global society. Woof!

So let’s get back to that first question: Is having a child selfish or selfless?

It’s harder to answer now, right? By selflessly opting to bring a human being into this world, you are guaranteeing that a human being will experience suffering (and cause it) and you cannot give them any agency in that decision – it’s entirely on you. By not bringing a child into this world, you are guaranteeing that another human being will never suffer. 

I have no children therefore my children will never suffer. I do not consider that a selfish act. 

Anti-natalism

I am not anti-natalist. I believe people should have children if they want them. But that WANT is doing a lot of heavy lifting. And I fully understand that the continued existence of humanity requires that we make new human beings. I also understand that biologically we are predisposed to having children. We are all here because someone in our lineage became pregnant and raised a child at least beyond puberty so that they too could create a child. Our genes demand survival and child bearing is really the only goal they care about (apologies for personifying genes). But the combination of a survival instinct and procreative instinct are the only reason any of us exist at all. 

And that’s the real question here: Is it better to exist and suffer than to not exist at all? People who choose to have children know their answer. People who choose not to have children can also know their answer and it isn’t a selfish one. 

Coda 

I have a niece and a god-daughter and cousins and friends’ kids who are all in my life and I love them all immensely. I try to be a good uncle, godfather, cousin and “uncle T” by setting a good example, treating them with grace and respect, and being available to them when there’s a need. Just this week I picked up a friend’s kid from day camp because both parents were unavailable – where’s my metal? I believe in community and in hope and in future generations and I can do all that without becoming a parent myself. JD Vance is just wrong about what it means to not have kids. And I love kids and I have a stake in the growth and prosperity of all the kids in my life. I mean don’t get it twisted – I often find them annoying, overly emotional, mentally undeveloped little monsters who can’t carry on a halfway interesting conversation on subjects that matter to me, but they’re great! Go have some. I’m available to occasionally help…occasionally. 

---

Internet of the Day

---

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The Good

– The Babysitter’s Club: My cousin Cameron – who incidentally is amazing with children – has released a podcast called Stoneybrook Reunion. Here’s the description: “On Stoneybrook Reunion, three 40-somethings time-travel to their childhoods to revisit stories about a fictional Connecticut town’s best babysitters. Join us as we discuss, dissect and wax rhapsodic about The Baby-Sitter’s Club book series and its cultural—and personal—impact.” This was not a series I read as a tween, but the episodes are smart, funny, and engaging. Highly recommend because the podcast is good and my cousin is awesome! 

– Hosting: I hosted my dinner party without falling on my face. My god daughter Sabine L-T. saved the day by being my sous chef and rolling out the naan dough while I cooked ‘em up on the stovetop. Note to self: if you want dinner on the table at 7:30 pre-cook the naan and just keep ‘em warm in the over because cooking 18 separate loaves takes forever. Also note to self: hosting as a single person is hard. I should have had children if for no other reason than to have help around the house. 

– Quote of the Week: “A pessimist is just an optimist who’s paying attention.” – A quote an old friend credited to me. I think the little natalist essay above proves this point - hahaha. 

The Bad:

– Trump and Black Women: I’m sure you’ve seen some of the clips. I’m sure you have your own take. But boy oh boy is this dude just a walking disaster of grievance. Rude, hostile, blithely insensitive (or just plain racist, if you prefer), and a rolling tumbleweed of inaccuracies and lies. It boggles the mind that people would want him in a position of power in our federal government. I have sympathy for folk who are hurting in this country and want someone to believe in, but that they’re backing a guy who can’t show an ounce of courtesy, much less compassion, is just beyond me. Kudos to the three journalists who showed so much grace to a bloviating blowhard and the other one who works for FOX News. (What’s her deal?). Oh and for whatever reason Trump seems incapable of understanding the very concept (much less the demonstrably reality) of a person of mixed race . His worldview is so either/or he probably never noticed that the picture on black and white TVs were really just varying shades of gray. 

The Ugly:

– Covid: I don’t have covid. But someone close to me does and we have no idea where they got it. Be vigilant y’all. Cases are on the rise. Don’t get too casual just yet. 

– Apartheid: John Oliver’s episode on the West Bank is worth a watch. I struggle to disagree with this sentiment: “What is plain for everyone to see (is) these settlements aren't just illegitimate or even just illegal, they're immoral.”

---

Finally: