I read the other day that Kate Gosselin is going to be on the next season of Dancing With The Stars (along with Buzz Aldrin, but that's a topic for an entirely different post), and, as the mere mention of her name is bound to do, it immediately threw me into a state of bilious rage. And not out of any misplaced adoration for Dancing With The Stars, mind you.
I hate this woman with the heat of a thousand fiery suns (rest assured, though — I hate her douchebag ex-husband even more). Her, and the "Octomom," and the Duggars from that "42 or However Many Kids And Counting" show that has to keep changing its name every season because the woman WILL. NOT. STOP. BREEDING.
First, let's qualify: I do not have children, and I do not plan on having any in the near future, which means I probably never will, since I am at an age where my fertility will soon be plummeting and there don't seem to be any prospective male donors on the horizon. However, I do love kids. In fact, I usually prefer them to adults. But I am not even close to having the means to financially support one right now, and I'm barely responsible enough to take care of a cat. So, to put it bluntly, shit's gotten real.
So, with the matter of my objectivity clarified and any romantic and/or militant notions now out of the way, let me lay out some of my objections to this whole mega-child thing:
1. You do not deserve a national audience just because your uterus is an assembly line.
Seriously, having a whole tribe of children does not make you special. Any woman, barring a medical condition, could have 10 kids if she tried. It's what we are DESIGNED to do. And the prevalence of fertility drugs and other "assisted reproduction" procedures, with their tendency toward multiple births, makes it an even easier feat to accomplish. Your achievement is not unique; it's just a choice.
2. This planet's not big enough for the two (trillion) of us.
It's no breaking news that the world is overpopulated. Sure, Earth is tough, she's taken a lot and still made it through, but a lot of our resources are finite. If we keep using more and more of them, they're bound to run out. What if technology can't keep up? And you can't deny that it's literally getting too crowded: if you don't believe me, Google some videos of "Japanese subway." Where are we going to keep putting these people? Maybe 6 or 8 or 20 more right now won't make a huge difference, but the more people keep reproducing at this exponential rate, the more it will eventually exacerbate the problem.
3. Brangelina's got the right idea.
I completely understand the desire to have a child of one's own, to create a life, that small miracle combining a piece of yourself and the one you love. Really — The Time Traveler's Wife and Stevie Wonder's "Isn't She Lovely" make me tear up every time I read/hear them. But it would seem one could stop at two or three, no? Especially when the cost and effort and uncertainty of fertility treatments are involved. Kate Gosselin has been on record claiming that after her twins were born, she and Jon were trying for "just one more"...and they "accidentally" had septuplets. It seems sort of selfish to me to bring so many children into the world when there are already so many who have fallen by the wayside. If you really want 16 kids, there are plenty out there that need good homes.
4. Children shouldn't be afterthoughts...
There's a line in "Eat Pray Love" (put your literary objections aside for just a moment) in which the author's sister tells her: "Having a baby is like getting a tattoo on your face. You really need to be certain it's what you want before you commit." And I agree. But the trend lately seems to be get pregnant first, get married later. I'm not saying this is morally wrong or that one needs to be married to have kids, but the order does seem to suggest a lack of planning. Such unexpected "obstacles," rewarding as they may ultimately turn out to be, can often be difficult to overcome. I do applaud those couples who decide to keep their baby and stay together and really try to work it all out, but there are also plenty of people in similar situations that don't end up that way. Being a single parent is usually a struggle, for parent and child, and it's sometimes an unnecessary one. I will not even discuss the issue of abortion.
5. ...or accessories.
And again, continuing to have child after child just because YOU want them seems kind of selfish. Children deserve equal attention and care, and even though you may love them all equally, you can't tell me that when a parent's time and energy are split 19 ways that each offspring gets an equal share.
You see, I love kids. I really do. And they don't ask to be brought into this world. The least we can do is give them every advantage and the best possible circumstances under which to grow up when they get here.
Your Honor, I rest my case.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Re: #1) Reminds me of that poster of the Duggars, with the tagline: "Vagina: It's not a clown car."
ReplyDeleteHaha, yes, I've seen that one. I love those posters. :)
ReplyDeleteTotally agree. Throw in the crack-whores who get more welfare money for each kid they have, so they keep having them. They're on my sh**-list, too.
ReplyDeletePoint in case: http://www.wsoctv.com/news/22696841/detail.html
Basically I agree with you on this matter. When seen from your point of view, & focusing on the well-fare of the child himself, you make total sense.
ReplyDeleteI would like to suggest another approach, for the mere intellectual exercise.
Multiple child birth is one of the basic campaigns of all religions I know. The modern secular point of view is the one you presented here.
If that's the case, then we have a cultural "war" between both parties.
Viewing this from a macro perspective is worrying because those religious cultures end up reproducing themselves much faster than those against it.
Yes, this is something I've definitely considered -- that it's the "crazy" people (you may have guessed by now that I'm kind of anti-religion) who are multiplying the fastest. And that large-scale religious differences frequently lead to war and suffering. It is worrying. There was some movie a while ago called "Idiocracy" that was supposed to be about something similar, too -- how the "intelligent" people weren't reproducing because they knew better, so the population just kept getting dumber and dumber. I didn't see it because it looked bad, but someone told me that was the premise. It's extreme, but it's something to think about...if you feel like scaring yourself into a depression of global proportions.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure there's already a culture war brewing, if not already in effect, right here. 'Cause you know what's REALLY important? Not letting gay people get married! There's some religion for ya! Never mind that they're the one group who physically CAN'T reproduce.
It's kind of ridiculous, this imposition of "morals" through government. It even says in the Bible that spiritual practices should be a private thing. I can't quote chapter and verse, but it's one of the few things I remember from Sunday school because it made an impression.
@Stolen Sentiments: Jesus, that's horrible. Poverty's one thing, but outright abuse and neglect makes me furious. What is wrong with these people? If you don't feel like taking care of your kids, at the very least leave them at a hospital or a church or something, where someone else will. Because holding onto them in conditions like that just because "they're MY kids!" is just shameful.
ReplyDelete"...so the population just kept getting dumber and dumber."
ReplyDeleteInevitable outcome!
"... imposition of '"morals" through government. "
Subjective "Morals" of one group based on the complete disrespect for the basic rights of another group? This goes against the fundaments of any liberal democracy & should, therefore to be anti-constitutional.
"It even says in the Bible ..."
Don't. There are many things in the Bible you don't need bigots quoting.
I agree. I don't dig the Duggars. I wish they hadn't made a tv show about them. If most of us feel this way, though, why are those shows so popular?
ReplyDeletePerhaps the shows are so popular because "most" people don't feel that way. I have a theory that is it mostly those who have too much time on their hands that do the posting on blogs like this one. A few of us run across them looking for news about the Duggars preemie and then decide to add our two cents. I like the Duggars as do most of my friends, relatives, and a
ReplyDelete@Dalia: I meant it subjectively, that's why it's in quotes. I don't think there's anything "moral" about their morals. And I only bring the Bible into it because they do it all the time, so why not beat them at their own game?
ReplyDelete@TCHC: I think that's part of the problem, that sadly, most of us DON'T feel this way. See below...
@Anon: Your theory doesn't apply. I didn't post this because I had too much time on my hands; I posted it because it's an issue I've put a lot of thought into and on which I have strong opinions. Trust me -- the posts about Survivor and "engineering porn" are the ones I make when I have too much time on my hands, not the serious topics. I'm sorry you ran across my blog in search of "news" about a family to which you have no real connection outside of a television show. *I* have a theory that people only watch those shows because they have too much time on their hands and too few meaningful pursuits of their own to fill it.
And please don't play the sympathy card: just because I disapprove of the show and the family's lifestyle doesn't mean I don't care that a child's life and health hang in the balance. I just wish it would be given some peace and privacy instead of being exploited for ratings.
The problem with Bible quoting is that any discussion becomes endless.
ReplyDeleteThere is a quote for everything, for everybody, & for every purpose.
You will always find these characters that know the Bible by heart (or so they say), and quote only what they need to make their point, even by taking the words & idea out of context. Their goal is to shut others 'sinful' mouth.
I have no problem with the Bible. I have a big problem with Bible's PR campaigns.
Wow Becca-quite a great post. Lots of discussion! Good one.
ReplyDelete@Dalia: This is true. You reminded me of that Gandhi quote I've seen on bumper stickers: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." That one, and "I love Jesus, but fear his followers."
ReplyDeleteI've talked more about Jesus with you on this blog than I have in the last 10 years combined. Ironic, no? :)
@TCHC: Thank you! Glad I got people talking.
1. Utterly agreed. But then this is why I hate "reality shows" in general: it gives people a platform who don't need one. It doesn't take a genius to comprehend that inviting the world into the sanctity of your home is going to poison your marriage, which of course draws viewers because nothing excites like a trainwreck. Between this and the family that pretended to send their kid into a Jiffy-Pop balloon in order to score a TV gig, the entire genre of these shows should be cast into the fires of hell and forgotten. I almost believe that a solid disproof of the existence of God is that He hasn't flooded the world again because of this.
ReplyDelete2. The world will almost certainly be in net population decline by the middle to end of this century, as more and more societies reach affluence and don't need to pump out an entire football team just to keep the fields tended.
But even if it weren't, overpopulation has always been a manufactured crisis: Paul Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb predicted that "hundreds of millions of people" would die due to global famine during the next two decades when he wrote it in 1968. The world population has nearly doubled since then, and improvements in technology mean there's more food per capita than at any time in human history. The panic is nothing but warmed-over crap that echoes Thomas Malthus in the late 18th Century, and it has always failed to account for one thing: human ingenuity. Malthus, Ehrlich and the rest assumed a static, unchanging world, both in terms of population growth and scientific innovation. Panic will not save us; enlightenment will.
Besides, it's not as if the Duggars singlehandedly are going to overpopulate us. The way I figure, their 19 kids make up for about fifteen or sixteen trendy zeitgeist-chasing couples who had one designer baby when they were 39 and let a Guatemalan nanny or a Belgian au pair actually raise the little bastard.
3. It's more than a "desire," it's a biological necessity, and people shouldn't feel sorry for having it any more than they should feel guilty for eating when others are starving. I know a couple who's been trying to conceive for a couple years now. At one point, they actually adopted a baby, a beautiful, tiny little girl, and it was as wonderful for them to care for her as it was awful when after a couple weeks, the birth mother changed her mind and they had to give her back. They're back into doing in vitro fertilization again. They would sell everything they own to hold their child. They loved that little girl, but it really isn't the same and never can be.
4. Again, heartily agreed. People have children for the wrong reasons, including societal pressure and just plain old irresponsibility. That's getting into a broader topic that will get me outed as a moralistic fuddy-duddy (or even worse: a Republican), so let's just leave it at that.
5. Honestly, I don't know how they do it, either, but honestly . . . do you really think one of those kids is going to be found dead at 23 of a heroin overdose? Or be wanted in five states for a crime spree? Then what's the problem? They don't seem to be contributing to any sort of societal decay you mention in point #4, their family is financially self-sufficient, and the only thing that would mark them as unusual is their bigness. But is that really that bad? It's like Thanksgiving every day.
Dang, Mike. Get your own blog. :P
ReplyDeleteI'll grant you point 2, because you've obviously done more research than me. Still, all the food and scientific innovation seems to be centered only in certain areas. Has India gotten any less crowded lately?
I said I have no problem with people wanting and having children of their own, I just don't see a need for more than a handful. Like you said, they're not tending the farm anymore. I feel for your friends, but emotional pleas won't change my mind. Maybe it's a scientifically unsound belief, but I still think having such an abundance of kids is selfish. That's why it's *my* objection. If you really want that many, adopt a few to go along with your own. It's more beneficial than fertility treatments.
"honestly . . . do you really think one of those kids is going to be found dead at 23 of a heroin overdose? Or be wanted in five states for a crime spree? Then what's the problem?"
Yes, I do, *that's* the problem. Maybe not the Duggar kids specifically, but what about the type of kids from #4? And the aforementioned "crack whores"? You can't predict those kinds of things. The more people there are, the more opportunities for things like that to happen.
Feel free to tear me to shreds some more, though. OOT has inured me to it...
Man, I'm loving this discussion. And am suddenly feeling very intellectually inferior...
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, I feel intellectually inferior about 85% of my waking life, even though Dalia keeps telling me I'm a genius.
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of, if things get really nasty we can just mention to Dalia that Mike's a conservative and watch the sparks fly... :D
WOW Becca!
ReplyDeleteYour blog is pregnant with a baby blog! :)
I forgot to add:
ReplyDeleteA- I'm not against all conservative views, just part of them. I am a complex person living in a complex world.
B- Becca is a genius with many self diagnosed pathologies, but still a genius :)
"pregnant with a baby blog!"
ReplyDeleteLMAO!!! How appropriate.
I was just exaggerating about the conservative thing. But I'm telling you, my pathologies are not just self-diagnosed. I'll fax you a doctor's note if you don't believe me. I kind of enjoy the whole aura of being "crazy." :D