Hi!

Before the mob descends, check the spelling of “irration”.

Great piece!

Wow.  To all the anti-child forces afoot, a message from my wife and me: 2 down, 10 or so more to go. Don’t worry, we won’t be on welfare. In fact, I’m just supplying workers to support the oppressive tax burden your social security will place on society. Gotta do my part to support your unhealthy lifestyles!

Economically, it amazes me that anyone would want to limit children. Children are the future work-force. A lady at the daycare our kids go to (we’ll homeschool once we can afford it) told us, “well, you have a boy and a girl. You’re done, right?” “Nope, we need about 10 more.” She looked terrified. “More income for your daycare, right?”

I wonder what the public response would be if The Washington Post had published an article on people who wished to be “black free” and argued for the rationality of avoiding black people???

It appears that hatred of children is a form of bigotry acceptable to those who claim to be “rational” and “progressive”.

Wow, where did your first article get cross-posted? It obviously showed up on a nutjob blog somewhere. That’s the only way I can imagine so many crazies showing up.

By the way, there was an awful lot of kicking and screaming about poopy diapers. Changing diapers is easy. It’s called love. Try it sometime.

Mark:

Live forever.

When I grow up, I want to de-screed like you!

May your beard grow ever longer!

“Enjoy crappy diapers, ungrateful spawn and lack of money.  Me and my CF husband will be sleeping in, going on great trips and saving loads of money so we can have a great retirement.”

This poster obviously knows how to properly prioritize things in life. I’d be surprised if she and her husband even retire together.

If you can’t beat ‘em out, breed ‘em out!  My wife is due with number two in a few months and we’re certainly not stopping there.

The world has a population of 6,697,254,041 according to the World Bank.
Isn’t that enough miracles?

My wife and I are both new converts, newly-weds, and soon-to-be (five months) parents. My wife is going for what I propose be known as the sacramental triple-crown: confirmation, marriage, and the baptism of our first born in a single calendar year.

We couldn’t be happier.

Enjoy crappy diapers, ungrateful spawn and lack of money…

Am I detecting a bit of projection here?

To clear up some of the confusion and misconceptions I’ve read above and in the previous article: The childfree are a wide-ranging group of people. Yes, there are some militant crazies among us, but that’s true of any subset of the population. You Catholics have some, too. Most childfree folks want a “live and let live” world with regard to reproduction choices, and project that with their own attitudes. But, as with any group, the militants are far louder, and draw more attention. They are still the minority.—- Also, you’ll find mixed opinions about the existence of a movement throughout the childfree community. There are a few who think there is one, but most do not. “Movement” implies crusading for converts, organizing into a cohesive unit to achieve certain goals, etc. It’s not an accurate term in this case. The childfree are just people who made different decisions for their lives and lifestyles, and simply wish to stop being hassled about it, tired of being insulted because their choices are different. Those who spew venom all over the ‘net and claim we’re some sort of “radical movement” generally fall into two groups: childfree militants and people who fear those who live differently from themselves.

RE: Welfare and the welfare state.

Our family consists of 2 kids, 1 in heaven and one one on the way (and more God willing) If for some reason I qualify for welfare in the future it’s certainly not because I’m not working hard or have a good paying job.  It’s because my wife wants to raise our children outside of state control (i.e. homeschool). Which requires her to stay home.

It is most certainly for the greater glory of God and our personal sanctity if we are impoverished and ridiculed for our impracticality.

So I’d take welfare in a welfare state, no questions asked - no pledges given.  The state created the mess that turned normative behaviour into craziness.  Jesus tells us to make friends with dishonest money, not to serve it!  There’s no more dishonest money than tax money!

Another commenter recounted: “A lady at the daycare our kids go to . . . told us, ‘well, you have a boy and a girl. You’re done, right?’ ‘Nope, we need about 10 more.’ She looked terrified.”

I would have looked at that female and asked, “Who in the h*ll appointed you our family’s number-of-children-Nazi, lady?”

After reading an article about the “child-free movement” I tried hard to imagine what I could do to persuade such people that they were wrong to have such a negative view of children. (Not to persuade them to have children themselves, since that’s their own business, but just to show them how good it is to have children, how being a parent is an awesome and irreplaceable gift.)
I couldn’t do it. There’s no arguing with or persuading a person who has such odd views. It’s like someone who genuinely doesn’t like music, ANY music. And who, further, finds people who do like music to be elitist, petty, selfish, deranged, and oppressive. Who feels threatened when a music-lover tries to explain the joy of making and listening to music, and gets worried that non-music-lovers will be subjected to music forcibly.
Music just is good. Every normal person, even those who don’t themselves feel called to make music, and who perhaps don’t listen to it constantly (that would be me, for example) still can see its goodness.
Same with kids. It is normal and right to want to be a parent, to find joy in raising a child or two or more, and to look on it as a universal good, despite sometimes challenging circumstances.

Crappy diapers, like death and taxes, are a fact of life. 

You either deal with crappy diapers with your kids, or your own when you are old and alone and you have no adult children to change them for you.

While I can’t say I understand the decision to not want children, what is confusing me even more is the judgemental tone of this article and all of you commenting on it.  I don’t believe in abortion, birth control, or anything like that, but it’s certainly not my place to go calling people evil just because they choose not be parents!  It’s not like they are hurting anyone. Why are you all so mean? Mark Shea, I think you should choose your words more carefully next time…Jesus isn’t going to turn these people away any more than he’s going to turn you away.  It’s hard to show love for all people, but I think it would be a better world if we try.

Well done!

Mark, I think your article touched a sensitive nerve which these people are desperately trying to pretend doesn’t exist.  The truth is those who opt for childlessness (I will never use the term Child free…since free is usually affixed to something negative, not positive ) are opting for nihilism and calling it sacrifice.  They know deep down that they are extinguishing themselves, that there will be no-one at the end of their lives to take care of them and they will encounter death alone with nothing but their ideologies and their stuff which really will turn out to be cold comfort when they’re staring out the window of a hospital gazing down at a city that could care less whether they live or die.  They will try to suture that wound with like-minded friendships, friendships which will turn out to be shallow, since the dissolution of selfishness that occurs as a result of becoming a parent or committing one’s life to God won’t occur.  Their friends will all be fair-weather.

They may think right now they are braver and more noble than their Christian fellows who are laughing with their kids in the playground or sharing ice-cream with them at the beach.  They have sacrificed parenthood for environmentalism, or as a silent protest against the state of the world.  The reality is that they have made a fools sacrifice, the sacrifice of lemmings who wander off of cliffs.  For those who say that “I will never bring children into this terrible world” I always say “How will you expect the world to ever improve”.  Nothing breaks down arrogance and selfishness like staring into the face of your own child.  Old people simmering in their anachronistic fantasies of being revolutionaries and protesting against “the man” are not going to make the world a better place.  Young people deciding to opt for real love, to choose life in the face of death and to spread their babies out in front of them like banners of war, a war fought with laughter, hard work and self-giving, are the ones who are going to be victorious in the end.

Wow, there certainly is a lot of paranoia out there about what is considered to be the “childfree movement”.

Newsflash: there is no movement. There are some people, who for various reasons of their own, have decided not to have children. Some of these people dislike children. Others love them. Some work with them and take care of them. Some are even step-parents. The only thing in common is that they do not want any of their own, whether biological or adopted.

I’m sure all of those of you out there who consider children to be a blessing truly want the best for those children. Children deserve to be loved and wanted by their parents. People who don’t want children just shouldn’t have them. And you can’t force someone to want something that they do not want. Pressuring people to be untrue to themselves leads only to misery.

So, if you love children, then be grateful that childfree people have the courage to say “It’s not for me” in the face of all the opprobrium that statement attracts, in the face of religious, societal and familial pressure, and refrain from reproducing. People who love children should welcome the childfree, because it is a thoughtful decision and causes no harm.

There are numerous assumptions being made here about the childfree, namely that they are child-despising hedonists to the core. If you claim to be Christians, perhaps a little understanding is in order. If you claim to be rational, then it’s time to think about how condemnatory your statements are. Having children is not the only way to act as a positive influence in the world.  I understand that a great many notable Catholics never had children. I’d like to leave you with this thought: Do you think Mother Theresa would have been a better person for having had children, or was she just selfish and shallow, arrogant and selfish?

Just to clarify to Catholics (and others) who are intentionally childfree in their marriages, it is not judgmental for the Church to oppose this or speak out against it. God created sex for the procreation of children as an expression of the union of the spouses (children are even a “sacrament” in the sense that in their very bodies, they signify this union - “honey, she has your eyes and my nose”). Those married Christians who refuse to have children to so at their own peril and the risk of losing both marriage and soul. A marriage that is intentionally held back from achieving its purpose, from being fruitful, is a lukewarm marriage, and in canon law, may not even be a marriage at all. We don’t judge, but we must proclaim. Mark Shea has done just that, specifically against the childfree of the militant variety.

Many thanks, Mark!

Kalinka:

Did you even bother to read a word I said?  You managed to rehash every trope and misreading I chronicled in this blog entry.  Amazing.  And you even wedged in the “rational” wheeze.

Do you think Mother Theresa would have been a better person for having had children, or was she just selfish and shallow, arrogant and selfish?

Apples and oranges.  Mother Teresa, like all religious, was called to a celibate lifestyle.

Ah yes.  Quote mine a few statements from individuals and attribute them to an entire group of people.  That’s not intellectually dishonest.  Nope, not at all.

While I can’t say I understand the decision to not want children, what is confusing me even more is the judgemental tone of this article and all of you commenting on it.  I don’t believe in abortion, birth control, or anything like that, but it’s certainly not my place to go calling people evil just because they choose not be parents!

As gently as possible, Taylor:  you just incinerated a straw-man. 

As Mark stated:  “I, for one, have no interest in how people order their private affairs.  I do, however, think that people who cheer for more AIDS deaths and who want to pass laws telling other people they can’t have children are, well, archetypally evil.”

You know what—Mark’s right.  That mindset *is* evil.  Full stop.

Many of the other comments he quotes are pure evil, too.  “Ungrateful spawn?”  Yikes, lady.

I have friends who are child-free and they don’t feel the need to hurl judgmental thunderbolts celebrating AIDS, rant about the danger of ungrateful spawn and soiled diapers, or otherwise bemoan how nasty being a parent is.  I return the favor by not suggesting they are selfish, addicted to materialism, etc—because they’re not.  I don’t find their reasons compelling, but they aren’t frivolous, either (“We take such great vacations, you jealous proles!”).

If you’re child-free, you might want to do a better job of policing the ranks of those who write garbage like that quoted above (and you know there’s a lot worse out there).  Sighing about the tiny minority of extremists won’t cut it.

That way, you’ll get a lot more sympathy when you fret about other people’s judgmentalism.

Cosette:

Feel free to go back to the comments on the original piece.  I didn’t quote mine.  I merely pared down to a few representative quotes the great gush of narcissism and malice that flooded the comments.

You’re going on about AIDS in this article a bit too much. Are you sure you don’t have it yourself?

Well, all I know is that my kids are going to grow with me in the love of Christ and hopefully be able to teach others how to follow His teachings without resorting to name-calling.  I hope that when they grow up, go to college, go to work, if they meet someone who does not want children, they do not call them “evil” or “insane”, but instead guide them to the teachings of God.  That’s not what this article is doing!  Do you think someone unfamiliar with God and religion would read this article and be compelled to follow Christ? I have seen so many “religious” people writing articles that fly in the face of the teachings, and I am tired of it! Mark Shea, would you not say “Peace be with you” in mass to a person who did not want children?  I would hope you would smile and give peace with love in your heart, because that is what Jesus wants of us all.

Oh, and Dale Price: Sorry I didn’t see your comment before I posted my new one!  I don’t know where the author is finding people who say AIDS is good, and babies are evil and all that…I am in high school and know some very rude and mean people who don’t even think that way.  People will say anything on the Internet to get a rise out of other people.

P.S. I am not child-free…I thought I said that in my first post but I guess not

Just as an FYI for those people out there who associate this article for the entire childfree population rather than the CF zealots. Those of us who are childfree but aren’t militant about it, like myself and the majority of the childfree population, aren’t likely to post a response to an article such as this, therefore our relatively mild opinions aren’t represented. A great majority of the inflammatory responses you are receiving are not necessarily the opinion of the CF population as a whole. I have several friends who are childfree by choice, not one of them believes that AIDs is a welcome development for the human population. Nor do any of us belief in restricting or limiting the number of children a couple can have. And *gasp* I am also happy for my friends and family who announce their pregnancies because they are happy. I don’t force my beliefs of being childfree down my childed friends’ throats, nor do they force their beliefs down mine.

Sort of a mean spirited article for a Catholic magazine… Luke 6:27-31. 

An interesting point of order: the Mormon Church chose not to respond to any negative press received from the HBO series about them… it only gives more publicity.  So why rise in vengeance?  Any Hollywood celebrity knows all press is good press.

So I guess the 49,999th baby is a worthless pile. That hospital needs to re-examine itself; baby worship is a bad road to go down.

MargaretC: What the heck? We’re choosing not to have kids, that is in no way comparable to hiding out from an aspect of society.

Sibyl Same with kids. It is normal and right to want to be a parent, to find joy in raising a child or two or more, and to look on it as a universal good, despite sometimes challenging circumstances.

So now us Childfree are insane. Didn’t the bible say something about not judging others?

Barbara that there will be no-one at the end of their lives to take care of them

Nurses won’t exist in the future?

They will try to suture that wound with like-minded friendships, friendships which will turn out to be shallow, since the dissolution of selfishness that occurs as a result of becoming a parent or committing one’s life to God won’t occur.

So we only become emotionally fufilled human beings if we have a kid. Mark needs to write an article on how his side has some evil people. Good lord.

Micah Those married Christians who refuse to have children to so at their own peril and the risk of losing both marriage and soul.

So now we’re going to hell for not having kids. The hate here would make the Devil laugh.

P.S. Mark you might want to email John Scalzi, a fellow columnist, he went through an encounter with the childfree. He even went after me personally in a column.

baby worship is a bad road to go down.

 
Ah, sir, say not so!

So I guess the 49,999th baby is a worthless pile.

More crystalline logic from the Rationalists.

Kelly, it’s pretty unbelievable that you completely missed the point that badly.

Dear Mark: What is a Rationalist?

P.S. Celebrating the 50,000 baby is just creepy.

Ha, ha, ha. Who can take those childless, joyless freaks seriously? 
Seriously, it’s called natural law for a reason and people so selfish and distorted not to even begin to know right and wrong are just unnatural (extra irony for their appeal to environmentalism/naturism).
You simply can’t know certain joys or sorrows (among these the deepest & best life can offer) outside the state of parenthood, the most common state to which we are called.
Says the father of 5 (so far, but only married 7 years, so watch out).  I don’t pay taxes, taxes pay me - but I may earn enough one day. I’ve also lived the past 5 years as a missionary in Latin America, which provides a better perspective on life than this insane society where the richest and most deranged 2% are the voices heard.

Yeah, having a baby I’m not in any way capable of taking care of is selfish.

Well, I certainly blew that bit of sarcasm. Whatever. It’s not wrong not to have kids.

I have been a member of various childfree communities and forums for nearly a decade now, and not once have I ever heard any of the members cheer on AIDS. Furthermore, in every occasion where a member suggested that women be forcefully sterilized so that they can no longer bring more children into the world, they were immediately shamed by the other members.

In every occasion where someone expressed extreme hatred of children to the point of talking eugenics, they were banned from the community and shunned by the other members.

The ability to have full autonomy over our bodies is one of the most important beliefs in the childfree community, and the vast majority believe it should go both ways—that is, for people who do, and don’t want children.

All groups will have extremists. You should know this, being a Catholic. There is always a small portion that are louder and rowdier than the rest, and the childfree group is no exception.

Is it really fair to pick out a few unsavory comments and use those to generalize an entire group of people? To use it to exacerbate the stereotypes surrounding childfree people?

Smug catholics. Hence why I left the church, that and many other reasons. Many of you have and will have children. That is great. Many of your children will turn their backs on the church when old enough to choose. You can indoctrinate them, but as we all know all people choose their own course through life. Religion is playing less a role and your children are growing up in that society. All my siblings including myself were raised in a very strict catholic traditional household and we All left the church as adults. Some of the comments on here don’t seem loving and christianlike to me. I don’t think God would be a smug a** like many of the holier than thou commenters.

I do not want children. I take care of my sick and elderly mother and have been doing so for the past 15 years. Whenever she is in the hospital, people are always surprrised I am there everyday, as they do not see the adult children of patients taking care of them. Parenthood does not mean you won’t be abandoned by your chhildren when you are old. I suggest saving your money so you can have good quality health care when you are older. I would also never have children because I would never want another soul to suffer even one tenth of the sadness and grief I have experienced in life—it is better to never bee born.

Oh please.

For everyone claiming the childfree will be alone in their old age, let me tell you something - I volunteer at retirement homes chock full of people who had kids - and not one of them comes to visit, or offers to clean those ‘crappy bums’ as some poster called it. They are lonely, desperate for a phone call or a visit, and those so-called ‘blessings’ can’t make time in their busy schedule to visit the ones who brought them into this world. I have seen it over and over again and it makes me cry - and makes me all the more determined to visit these people to show them someone does care. How sad is it that a stranger cares more than their own kids?

If you are only having children to ‘support you in your old age’ - HAH! Your time will come. I’d rather rely on properly qualified caretakers to watch over me, thanks so much.

Greetings to Stacey, who identifies with being child free, and seems to be as embarrassed about the radical fringe of the child free crowd as devout Catholics are about the radicals on the fringes of the Church.  There is much more to be gained by a peaceful dialog with people who can respectfully disagree with eachother than by exposing the extremism of the extremists.  If Stacey disagrees with Mark’s views on the entire concept of childfree, at least she does agree with him that the radical voices are destructive, and very much to be eschewed.  Please, let’s all move back to the middle and share our opinions respectfully.  Otherwise we provide an audience for viewpoints that are best left to stew in their own juices.

Mandy,
You’re right, we don’t only have kids to support us in our old age. We have kids because they’re a gift that God gives us. Period.

  Its a mystery worth pondering why we are allowed to participate by our love in the love of the Creator of Life but we are. So, you see, its not about us. Not at all about the little orbits that we set for our individual lives but about God taking us out of little orbits & launching us into something much much bigger beyond ourselves. Of course, that can only be accomplished with a generous ‘Yes’ on our part first.

If God wants to give me the gift of a child he better start out by giving me a couple million bucks so I can afford to raise the kid.

Dear Lots,
  Oh dear, you have it exactly backwards, don’t you see? Jesus said, “Did I not tell you if you only believe, you would see the glory of God?” Translation: Belief preceeds gift.

I believe in God and Jesus. I don’t believe in the ‘be fruitful and multiply’ part.

Jealousy of those who chose not to procreate? Check.

Fearful of those who dont make the same choices you do? Check.

Fearful of those who arent brainwashed like you? Check.

Wiling to demonize them in order to cover up your insecurities and make you feel better? Check.

Excuse me, I’m going to finish my homework and art projects for my career, that, GASP, doesnt involve children. Oh horror, a woman not chained to the kitchen and a dozen screaming children that her husband wanted in order to stroke his little ego! Oh no, those poor little men.

Hello everyone!

I’m 26 and childfree, i’m also christian and I’m very disappointed by some of the comments posted here.
I do not mind people having kids (as long as they take their job seriously and rise them the best they can). I just don’t want to have kids of my own.
See, that’s the most important thing about the childfree, it’s about having a choice and choosing something different than the rest of the people. It’s about wanting the others to accept that we ARE normal! We just think differently from you, but there’s nothing wrong with that.
If I remember clearly, God asked Maria if she wanted to bear god’s child, and she said yes (good for her and the christians, by the way). But see, my point is that God gave her a CHOICE.

For the rest (the AID’s thing and telling people how many children they should have) that is nonsense and is surely not supported by the majority of the childfree community. Our moto is more “live and let live” so telling somebody what he has to do is an absolute no-go. And wishing somebody whatever illness that, I have to agree with the author, is mean and evil.

So bye everyone! try to be more comprehensive, will you?

You know, it’s funny. Isn’t it really best when Christians of all stripes quietly and reverently live out the vocation that Almighty God calls them to, including the number of children He sees fit to send? And then, that they should attend to their own garden, and leave others to attend to theirs?

My husband and I would have welcomed children had the Lord sent them. We used NFP not to prevent pregnancy, but to increase the likelihood of conception. Early in our marriage, I used to make pilgrimages to ask for the blessing of children, however He saw fit not to send them. (“As it hath pleased the Lord, so let it be done; Blessed be the name of the Lord.”) Anyway, by the time we reached our early 40s, neither of us was dying to have little ones in our home anymore; we were OK with things as they were. When I realized I was accepting with being childless, I wondered if I was right to do so, and I was I asked my regular spiritual director - a most orthodox, learned, and holy priest - if my husband and I were obliged to take additional measures above and beyond (such as to adopt or to pursue fertility treatments) and he told me “no, you’re to be open to life, and to leave the rest to God. Which you both have done.”

So, we’re OK with that. We rarely discuss our situation with anyone outside the family, and undoubtedly, there are “family-size Nazis” at our parish, who have seen us without children at Mass, and have thought in their hearts, “oh! they have no children; they’ve been contracepting.” Little do they know!

Nazis of others are not behaving as Christians. “Pants vs. dresses” Nazis; “Family-size” Nazis; Liturgy-Nazis; “Homeschool vs. Catholic” school Nazis. It wouldn’t surprise me if the ancient Desert Fathers fled their local Christian communities to the wilderness areas in large measure to escape the “Nazis” about this-or-that within the Christian community of their own day.

I can’t really relate to the bitter “cf” crowd.  My children give me so much joy. Each one is so delightful and individual. When someone asks if we are done, I point out that if we had thought that way one baby ago, the adorable child they are watching would NOT EXIST. That thought gives me chills.  I suspect the truly bitter ones would applaud the non-existence of that child. If so, I have to agree with the notion of evil being behind it.  I am a non-welfare, stay-at-home homeschooling mom of 5 plus one in heaven plus one on the way.  I’d never call my children spawn.  That’s just pure ugliness.  Thinking of children that way says more about you than about children.  They are gifts…to me, to my family, and to you.  One of them may cure your disease someday…or be changing YOUR diapers.  Regarding diaper changing—it is probably one of the easiest things about childcare.  The fact that diapers are keeping people from cooperating in the creative act and generating new souls for heaven is a disgrace.  I am sad for them—sad that they may never have the opportunity and honor to know what it is to be a mother or a father—and that it would have been by choice.  To those who long to have their own child and have been unsuccessful, you’re in our prayers.

Jennifer, I have a feeling your kids arent going to grow up to cure cancer or anyone elses diseases if you’re homeschooling them and you have five, another on the way. How sad. I’m sure everyone is glad Hitler’s mom chose to procreate.

Sarah:  “Jennifer, I have a feeling your kids arent going to grow up to cure cancer or anyone elses diseases if you’re homeschooling them and you have five, another on the way. How sad. I’m sure everyone is glad Hitler’s mom chose to procreate. “

Could you have possibly chosen a more tactless and mean-spirited juxtaposition?  The kindest interpretation of this that I can find is “Well, the person who cures a disease is a special one-in-a-million child, so yours won’t like be it.”  Ok, but why throw in the homeschooling reference?  Why throw in the Hitler (also one-in-a-million or more) reference at the end?  The comments of the anti-child crowd on this post are more than enough to show that Mr Shea did not “quote mine”, contra Cosette.

Reply #1- for Marion:

You’ve done nothing wrong.  I know couples in the same situation.  I can even name one famous couple who were unsuccessful in having children - Gilbert and Frances Chesterton.  In fact, should GKC ever be canonized, I would nominate him as the patron of couples who are childless by circumstance.  (I’d also bring up Frances for sainthood, with an honorary title of martyr for having to put up with Gilbert.  Our esteemed host knows of which I speak, and the spirit in which I offer the proposal).

Jennifer asked: “When someone asks if we are done, I point out that if we had thought that way one baby ago, the adorable child they are watching would NOT EXIST.”

To families who are asked if they are done having baby, I suggest the following approach:

Inquirer: “Three (or four) kids! So? Are you done?”

Parent: “What are your current account balances - checking, savings, and any CDs, 401K, everything?”

Inquirer: “What? What did you ask me that for? I just asked you if you’re done having kids.”

Parent: “I heard you. And I’ll tell you the answer to your question after you tell me the answer to mine.”

Inquirer: “My bank balances are none of your business!”

Parent: “OK. Fair enough. And whether my spouse and I choose to have one child or twenty is none of your business, either!”

Charming Mark. When someone takes the time to respond in a reasoned way to a vitrolic article, brimming with incorrect assumptions, then all that you can do is snark.

I’ll treasure your thoughtful comments, I’m sure.

Reply #2 - for Teresa

First of all, you and your mother have my prayers (my mother is also in a nursing home, suffering from Lou Gehrig’s).

I would also never have children because I would never want another soul to suffer even one tenth of the sadness and grief I have experienced in life—it is better to never been born.

What about the happiness and joy you’ve had?  Wouldn’t you want to share that?  And love to boost the happiness and carry you through the sadness and pain?  My two young sons bring a smile to my mother’s face and gives my father something to look forward to.  They bring a needed touch of happiness to a very painful situation What the future holds for my boys, God only knows.  But I want to find out, and do my best to bring them up the right way.  And I’m happy that, whatever else may happen, they came along at the right moment for my family.

Again, you and your mother have my prayers, and I wish you peace.

OK, Kalinka, let’s go over your points one by one:

(1) “Newsflash: there is no [childfree] movement.”

Really? Did you read the Weekly Standard article ark linked to in his first piece?

(2) “People who don’t want children just shouldn’t have them. And you can’t force someone to want something that they do not want.”

Where was Mark suggesting that anyone do this? In fact, he says just the opposite: “people can do whatever they want in their private lives.  You don’t want kids?  It’s your life.  Knock yourself out.”

(3) “There are numerous assumptions being made here about the childfree, namely that they are child-despising hedonists to the core.”

I see more quotations than assumptions. And these aren’t from the professional crazies - Mark quotes from people who have read his blog and respond with such heart-warming comments as “Babies: expensive, smell bad.”

(3) “So, if you love children, then be grateful that childfree people have the courage to say “It’s not for me” in the face of all the opprobrium that statement attracts, in the face of religious, societal and familial pressure, and refrain from reproducing.”

Yes, the pressure for me to reproduce is truly overwhemlming - I get stopped in the grocery store with my three kids all the time demanding WHY I haven’t had at least seven by now!

(4) “Having children is not the only way to act as a positive influence in the world.”

Who said it was?

Maybe this is why Mark asked you to re-read his piece.

Sarah, I assure you, any family additions are welcomed joyfully.  Our only sadness is from missing the one who preceded us to heaven.  He was a precious sweet little boy.  Your unfortunate comments say vastly more about you than me, homeschoolers, or Hitler.  As to the future of my children, their inherent dignity and specialness is not based on disease curing or any other genius level achievement.  I only make the point that those who choose to not have children are depriving themselves of a unique love relationship and depriving society of whoever those children would have become.  It is fortunate for you (and society) that your parents did not share your sentiments regarding children.  FYI, several of our well known thinkers and inventors were homeschooled.  May God bless you.

You know whats funny, Jennifer? My mom did share my sentiments. Because she had two abortions because she was not ready to have kids at those particular times. So, your argument is invalid. And I am glad she does. She knows she is more than just a broodmare that pins their worth on how many crotch droppings she can squeeze out before she hits infertility.

I’m glad you think you know more than qualified teachers and school systems that have been trained their entire lives in the subjects they teach. What do you teach your doomed children, intelligent design, hoping they can cure diseases with those lies filling their head?

I wish I lived in your magical little la la land. Must be nice and cozy there.

Of the childfree I have come into contact with NOT ONE celebrates the death of AIDS victims.  NOT ONE believes in mandating the number of children people have.  Many of them have nieces, nephews and children of friends that they spend time with.  Many volunteer for organizations benefitting children.  I for one, have taught Sunday School for children from toddlers to 6th graders, have volunteered at a children’s hospital, and spend much time caring for nieces and nephews.  Do not assume that all childfree are child-haters on a mission to force the human race to extinction.  I delight in the pregnancies and births of my friends and family.  To group all childfree together is just like grouping all teachers together, all basketball fans together, all Catholics together.  No two individuals are alike and I believe that most of us are inherently good and hope for the good of our fellow humans.  I believe it is safe to say that the majority of childfree are just like the majority of Catholics:  kind, generous and loving human beings.  The childfree people celebrating death are a minority.  Just like the Catholic parishes dealing with scandal.  No one blames all Catholics for the problems in the Church, so it is unfair for you to place blame on all childfree for those that are wrongfully trying to force their heinous views onto others.  And before you say that you do not blame all childfree for the radical minority let me quote from a comment you left on your own article “the reality is that their own troops are (as the article demonstrates) all about forcing people not to have kids”.  I certainly do not consider any member of that group one of my “troops” any more than I imagine you consider a sexually deviant priest to be one of yours.  The childfree “movement” that I’m most familiar with is the one that hopes people would spend more time thoughtfully considering their ability to care and provide for children BEFORE conceiving them.  So many children live in poverty and have parents on drugs and in prison.  There might be far fewer suffering children in this world if their parents had thought better about their ability to parent before producing them.  Also, the reason people are bringing Catholicism into the conversation is because you posted your article on a Catholic website.

I’m glad you think you know more than qualified teachers and school systems that have been trained their entire lives in the subjects they teach. What do you teach your doomed children, intelligent design, hoping they can cure diseases with those lies filling their head?

I don’t think you know a single thing about homeschooling.  I know quite a few of them.  They grow up to be social and well-adjusted (a result of hanging out with a range of people), and with a more well-rounded education than any school system can give them, along with the added advantage of being allowed to develop their natural abilities and talents - including the sciences.  I’ve known homeschooled kids to go on to engineering school and medical school.  So before you mock someone for taking on the resposibility of educating their own children, maybe you ought to look into it more.  You might be surprised.

Wow, Sarah; Jennifer gives you a measured and positive response and all you can do is launch personal insults.

Was it you who was lecturing just a little while ago about jealousy, fear, demonization and brainwashing?

to Dave P: thank you for your prayers.  My mother is not in a nursing hime though, I take care of her full time.  I can never imagine wanting to look after another human being again.  Also, a child would only bring me stress, I know I could not look after one, and I do believe that the sad and terrible experiences in life outweigh the good.  How many kids end up kidnapped or killed, how many end up killing their own parents, etc etc.  I’d rather not bring another person into this terrible world.

@Sarah:
 

“She knows she is more than just a broodmare that pins their worth on how many crotch droppings she can squeeze out before she hits infertility.”

 
Human beings as “crotch droppings.” QED. Add that to the list with “cockroach,” “piece of tail,” “dog,” “spook” and other dehumanizing terms of contempt for our fellow man. Anyone who talks like this regards human dignity as a very overrated commodity. Watch out for that person.

@SDG You rock, bro! All we can do is pray for Sarah, that she finds the peace she needs to deal with whatever issues it is she’s working through. There are apparently some dark forces at work there.

Well, sin hurts everyone.  If you’re sinning and your conscience won’t call you on it, then I will; in charity, God willing.  That being said, you ARE free to make your own choices.  What worries me is the fact that there is something out there called “childfree”.  The point of making a point about it in the first place is to work to normalize the practice in our culture.  That’s what worries me.  The success of normalizing not having children would have some obvious negative consequences for our culture.  To those who disagree, what’s your reasoning?

Sarah, (chuckling) I don’t yet live in my magical la-la land.  I long for it and hope to reach it by God’s grace, for it is there that I will again see my precious son and hold him close.  You know, Sarah, we rely on God’s infinite mercy and love.  We believe that, through God’s mercy, you have two siblings praying for you even now.  God always draws good from evil.  Regarding homeschooling (reluctant as this was not the original topic), there are plentiful sources singing its praises.  Homeschoolers statistically do as well or better than their peers on tests.  Check out hslda.org for starters.  Now, you may find a few backwoods grammatically and/or mathematically challenged homeschooling parents, but most are quite capable.  You’ll just have to guess to which category I belong.  :)  God bless.

Sarah, who homeschooled you? Are you really talking that way about one of your parents?
 
FWIW, my mother was an education program specialist who evaluated and supported school districts all over my state. Every one of my family members has been involved in education. We are homeschooling and my mother couldn’t be happier.
 
Sadly, you couldn’t possibly do any more to validate and confirm everything Mark has written if you set out to do it. You come off like a caricature of angry feminist loathing, someone who regards the female reproductive system as a nasty trick and babies as disgusting tokens of patriarchal oppression. I don’t say this with any rancor. I could care less what venom you write about me.

Jennifer

I can’t really relate to the bitter “cf” crowd.

Me neither. If you’re fine with me not having a kid, I’m fine with you having a kid.

My children give me so much joy. Each one is so delightful and individual. When someone asks if we are done, I point out that if we had thought that way one baby ago, the adorable child they are watching would NOT EXIST.

I don’t get it. The kid is here. Fine. You don’t have to have another one.

That thought gives me chills.  I suspect the truly bitter ones would applaud the non-existence of that child. If so, I have to agree with the notion of evil being behind it.

That’s not evil. I am glad there aren’t fifty million more kids in the world. Why add to the whole situation?

I am a non-welfare, stay-at-home homeschooling mom of 5 plus one in heaven plus one on the way.  I’d never call my children spawn.  That’s just pure ugliness.  Thinking of children that way says more about you than about children.

Curious, what -does- it say about the you you refer to?

They are gifts…to me, to my family, and to you.

If they are gifts to me can I discipline them when they misbehave?

One of them may cure your disease someday…or be changing YOUR diapers.

I sure as heck hope so. Someone has to do it. Does this mean I have to have kids now? No. Does this mean I even have to LIKE your kid? Again, no.

Regarding diaper changing—it is probably one of the easiest things about childcare.  The fact that diapers are keeping people from cooperating in the creative act and generating new souls for heaven is a disgrace.

God can handle the soul thing without me. And if someone chooses not to have a kid simply because they do not want to deal with diapers, then that is a perfectly valid choice.

I am sad for them—sad that they may never have the opportunity and honor to know what it is to be a mother or a father—and that it would have been by choice.

I’ve been with my dog Eddie for fifteen years. That’s dad enough for me, thank you.

  To those who long to have their own child and have been unsuccessful, you’re in our prayers.

Yes, these people are choosing to TRY to have a child. The operative word being ‘choice’.

Jennifer
I only make the point that those who choose to not have children are depriving themselves of a unique love relationship and depriving society of whoever those children would have become.

If you could garuntee that my potential kid would cure cancer, I would have a child.

You cannot garuntee this. In the mean time I donate to charity.

JonW
That’s what worries me.  The success of normalizing not having children would have some obvious negative consequences for our culture.  To those who disagree, what’s your reasoning?

I disagree because I don’t believe there are obvious negative consequences.

Allowing society to realize it’s perfectly okay to -choose- not to have kids can only benefit all.

Someone here (and yes it’s weird I lost track) was saying people who choose not to have kids will feel miserable because they are going against God’s wishes.

So we will suffer for not having kids.

This person has just called God a rapist. How beautiful.

Lots42
“I disagree because I don’t believe there are obvious negative consequences. Allowing society to realize it’s perfectly okay to -choose- not to have kids can only benefit all.”

Normalizing not having children means that it becomes the norm, not that you merely have the choice not to, which of course you already have.  Whence my point.

Jesus didn’t have any children. Does that mean he went to hell too?

Lots42, I agree that you have a choice.  We all do.  There are those on both sides who firmly believe everyone else should make the same choice.  Names are called, such as “brood mare” as if that is all a mother of several amounts to or “spawn” and “crotch droppings” for her children.  Sometimes we all get defensive assuming that everyone is as mean-spirited as the name-callers—on both sides.  Bottom line is: we all have a choice.  For those who believe in God, our choice is between us and God.  Thank you for being candid without being uncharitable.

Jesus didn’t have any children. Does that mean he went to hell too?

Yes, if you don’t have kids you go to Hell. That’s exactly what everyone here is saying (severely exaggerated eye roll).

That’s why we Catholics don’t believe that any of our priests or bishops went to—ow! I seriously think I just sprained by eye socket—Heaven, even the ones we call Saints (but wait, by definition that means they’re in Heaven—Doh!!).

The point is we all have our calling. We’re all called to live a moral life to the best of your ability (being reasonably celibate if single, not engaging in contraceptive acts if you’re married or shacking up). If you do that and children just happen to never enter into your life, you’ll probably do just fine.

For what it’s worth, though, Jesus did go to Hell. He just didn’t stay there for very long.

Victor: Excellent comment as usual. Just one thing: I read it out loud to my family, and my 12-year-old son pointed out that the single are not called to be celibate, though the celibate are by definition single. (Well, he didn’t put it quite that way. But he did call out the issue, and added, “Papa, you said everyone misuses that word.” Which I guess I did.)

I’m Dog-Free By Choice. I don’t like dogs, and so I choose to never own a dog.

You won’t see me going on about it, starting a website about it, or otherwise foaming at the mouth about it.

Because that would be weird.

freedom:  “Smug catholics. Hence why I left the church, that and many other reasons. Many of you have and will have children. That is great. Many of your children will turn their backs on the church when old enough to choose. You can indoctrinate them, but as we all know all people choose their own course through life. Religion is playing less a role and your children are growing up in that society. All my siblings including myself were raised in a very strict catholic traditional household and we All left the church as adults. Some of the comments on here don’t seem loving and christianlike to me. I don’t think God would be a smug a** like many of the holier than thou commenters. “

The irony of this comment is that while berating Catholics for having a “holier than thou” attitude, it still manages to carry a sanctimonious tone.  It’s like all the folks who cite Luke 6:27-31 and parallel texts without really understanding those texts:  “judge not, lest ye be judged” is often quoted in the most self-righteous (and thus judgmental) manner.

Sorry, that should have been Luke 6:36-37, though 6:27-31 is certainly a parallel text to that.

@SDG—Yeah, I think I meant chaste, not celibate, but we’re all (married and single) called to be chaste, so… I guess I could stay “abstinate”, but people would get that confused with “obstinate” and to be fair I guess the two do have a lot in common.

Anyway, contra whatever anyone else here says, you’re definitely raising your kids right (or they’re just naturally super intelligent or both)! There is no question about that! :-) When I was growing up I thought that “Celibate” was a Madonna song.

I accept that the “child-free” movement is very diverse; but perhaps the problem is the moniker “child-free” itself. I personally had never heard it until a couple years ago. It gives the impression that children themselves are bad things, as it sounds analogous to “BPA-free” water bottles or “lead-free” gasoline. I reckon it is supposed to replace “childless” with a more positive connotation, and I also suppose people writing “I’m child-free” instead of saying things like “I’ve chosen not to have a child” belongs to the same sloganeering tendency from which we get “pro-life/anti-choice” and “pro-choice/anti-life”; but suffice it to say, if you accept a sloganeered label, you ARE part of a movement, whether you contribute to a registered PAC or not.

The irony here is that Catholics more than most Christians see the value in choosing a different path than the “family-and-procreation” one; but the understanding of that other path is tied to an allegedly arcane view of sexuality: that sex and procreation are not just biologically but teleologically linked, so that a couple “speaks” the language of union and procreation every time that they join together sexually, even though that joining doesn’t invariably result in a child. The problem, then, from this point of view is not going without children, but trying to have a loving sexually active relationship while intentionally excluding children. You can do it for a time, or for a lifetime if the reasons are serious enough (life and death), but if you build your marriage upon it, you’re building on shaky ground, or rather, an internal contradiction.

Moreover, the downsides to children are obvious, and the upsides in terms of exploiting the children are also obvious (including “they’ll support us in our old age” ... or Michael Scott’s “I want to have a hundred children so I have a hundred people who can’t say no to being my friend”), whereas the simple goodness of human being and of perpetuating it is subtle and can disappear from view. If the “child-free” movement is evil, it’s precisely because it spreads the judgment that Teresa made—better never to have been born. THAT is evil, but it only makes me feel for Teresa, not condemn her, because I’ve often felt that way.

I should add that I’m concerned about “overpopulation” and do not (yet) have children myself; some people no doubt are called to have twelve children, and I don’t begrudge them that, but our resources would collapse if everyone did for a couple hundred years. It’s silly to think of having children as a maximization game; they are each infinitely valuable, and the basic math of infinity is that infinity plus infinity equals infinity.

Victor
Yes, if you don’t have kids you go to Hell. That’s exactly what everyone here is saying (severely exaggerated eye roll).

Not everyone, just one person here and nobody seems to have disagreed with him except the other childfree.

Kradcliffe

I’m Dog-Free By Choice. I don’t like dogs, and so I choose to never own a dog.

Because that would be weird.

What is weird is the intense societal pressure, religous or not, for people to -have- kids.

And the following might or might not be relevant: It -is- in the Bible for people to be careful in the judging. Someone who doesn’t believe in the Bible can still quote passages in a relevant way.

What is weird is the intense societal pressure, religous or not, for people to -have- kids.

Exactly what society have you been living in?

It -is- in the Bible for people to be careful in the judging. Someone who doesn’t believe in the Bible can still quote passages in a relevant way.

Someone who doesn’t believe in the Bible can also learn what it means before falling back on the stock, “You disagree with my lifestyle, therefore you’re judging” nonsense.

<i> What is weird is the intense societal pressure, religous or not, for people to -have- kids. <i>

I think Darwin could explain why it’s actually quite normal.

Lots42:“Someone here (and yes it’s weird I lost track) was saying people who choose not to have kids will feel miserable because they are going against God’s wishes. So we will suffer for not having kids. This person has just called God a rapist. How beautiful. “

Upon a cursory reading of the comments (I’m not going to go for a thorough search for a comment which you claim to have seen but didn’t bother to cite yourself), the closest thing I can find is by Mica:
“Just to clarify to Catholics (and others) who are intentionally childfree in their marriages, it is not judgmental for the Church to oppose this or speak out against it. God created sex for the procreation of children as an expression of the union of the spouses (children are even a “sacrament” in the sense that in their very bodies, they signify this union - “honey, she has your eyes and my nose”). Those married Christians who refuse to have children to so at their own peril and the risk of losing both marriage and soul. A marriage that is intentionally held back from achieving its purpose, from being fruitful, is a lukewarm marriage, and in canon law, may not even be a marriage at all. We don’t judge, but we must proclaim. Mark Shea has done just that, specifically against the childfree of the militant variety.”
Who you’ve already lambasted by saying “So now we’re going to hell for not having kids. The hate here would make the Devil laugh,” despite the fact that this is not at all what he’s claiming.  Give the text a more careful reading:  if you’re intentionally holding a marriage back from its procreative end, then you risk losing both your marriage and your soul.  On the former matter, we have at least the statistical evidence that marriage “end” in divorce at a far lower frequency among NFP-practicing couples (read: open to life) as opposed to couples who contracept and worse (read:  not open to life at this stage of their lives and perhaps beyond); a quick google search yields somewhere between 0.2-6% divorce rate among those couples—http://www.physiciansforlife.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=193—compared with somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% for the population for the first marriage, and higher for second and third marriages:  http://www.divorcerate.org/).
Now let’s consider the claim against the soul.  There are three agents necessary in the creation of a child; if you are a Catholic—indeed, a Christian or other theist who believes in a Creator and that humans are endowed with a soul—then you already know this.  Since you have been making references to you own belief in God, I will assume this is true of you.  The three agents are, in any case, the Man, the Woman, and God:  the first two to provide the biological elements, God to create the soul, which He does upon conception.  But God does not create life against His own will, which means that to intentionally subvert your own biological ability to conceive (e.g. to contracept) means to attempt to thwart God’s will that a new life should come into existence.
But this is the very definition of a sinful act:  to act against God’s will.  Sin means separation from God, which means to die unrepentant in a state of serious sin is to die in a state such that your own soul has separated itself from God.  This separation from God is the nature of hell, ergo you endanger your soul (to hell itself) by deliberately thwarting God’s will.  Since contraception is such a thwarting of God’s will, it places your soul in danger of hell, meaning that the deliberate subversion of your natural ability to procreate in a marriage does, in fact, risk your soul.  Since you were presumably ignorant of these facts, what Mica has attempted to do is render an act of spiritual mercy, by instructing the ignorant and/or admonishing a sinner; that is, he is attempting to “be merciful even as his Father in heaven is merciful” (the context to Luke 6:36-37 and parallel texts cited above), which would hardly “make the Devil laugh.”  What may perhaps make the devil laugh is the attitude that all of this is akin to calling God a rapist.

Equss Nom Veritas
But God does not create life against His own will, which means that to intentionally subvert your own biological ability to conceive (e.g. to contracept) means to attempt to thwart God’s will that a new life should come into existence.
But this is the very definition of a sinful act:  to act against God’s will.  Sin means separation from God, which means to die unrepentant in a state of serious sin is to die in a state such that your own soul has separated itself from God.  This separation from God is the nature of hell, ergo you endanger your soul (to hell itself) by deliberately thwarting God’s will.  Since contraception is such a thwarting of God’s will, it places your soul in danger of hell, meaning that the deliberate subversion of your natural ability to procreate in a marriage does, in fact, risk your soul. 

So in other words, if you choose not to have kids God will send you to hell.

I’d rather go to hell then go to the heaven your God has. Thank goodness I don’t believe in your God that punishes one so horrifically for choosing not to have kids. (I believe in a God that rewards anyone with heaven for trying to do good).

Andy

Exactly what society have you been living in?

America. It took Usenet to make me realize ‘Hey, there are tons of people who do not wish to have kids. I am not alone!’

John B
- What is weird is the intense societal pressure, religous or not, for people to -have- kids. -

I think Darwin could explain why it’s actually quite normal. </I>

Yeah, well, if I’m willing to go against the Creator Himself on the whole kid thing, I don’t think a couple scientific papers are going to change my mind.

If one googles ‘childfree’ and the word ‘bingo’ one will see many examples where people are pressured into having kids. Many times said people are in no way ready to have kids even if they wanted to. The pressure is bad enough but poor and or sick people being pressured is just hundreds of times weirder.

Equus
Upon a cursory reading of the comments (I’m not going to go for a thorough search for a comment which you claim to have seen but didn’t bother to cite yourself)

Very well, I most heartily screwed that part up. Mea culpa.

There are three agents necessary in the creation of a child; if you are a Catholic—indeed, a Christian or other theist who believes in a Creator and that humans are endowed with a soul—then you already know this.  Since you have been making references to you own belief in God, I will assume this is true of you.  The three agents are, in any case, the Man, the Woman, and God:  the first two to provide the biological elements, God to create the soul, which He does upon conception.

The ‘upon conception’ part is new to me. I thought it was common religous belief that the soul hangs around in heaven somewhere for a long time -before- conception. Of course this changes my opinion not one iota. Jesus could manifest before me in my living room right now and ask for me to go have a kid and I would still say ‘No’.

I really wish people in the CF movement would stop to consider the fact that their whole being here necessitates that their parents NOT be in agreement with their motives…

I don’t know if the pressure to procreate is as much societal as it is biological. If you repress that tendency towards procreation (by saying it’s just a societal pressure, for example), you’re bound to experience some form of loss (if you maintain that the pressure to eat is solely societal, you’re bound to get hungry eventually) which could manifest itself in the sort of denial we’re seeing here. Just a theory.

Lots24:“So in other words, if you choose not to have kids God will send you to hell.  I’d rather go to hell then go to the heaven your God has. Thank goodness I don’t believe in your God that punishes one so horrifically for choosing not to have kids. (I believe in a God that rewards anyone with heaven for trying to do good).”

Uh, actually I don’t believe God punishes us in this way.  Rather, I believe that we punish ourselves.  God only allows us to do it.  We separate ourselves from God by sinning.  Hence, we send ourselves to hell.

“The ‘upon conception’ part is new to me. I thought it was common religous belief that the soul hangs around in heaven somewhere for a long time -before- conception.”

Then I suppose you learned something new.  This teaching I note—upon conception—is not particularly new; the Didache (ca. 1st-2nd century) says not to murder a child via abortion; murder is an action which pertains only to living humans, so the implication is that the unborn child is a living human, implying that he has a soul (contra Saints Augustine and Aquinas).  Saint Basil (AD 329-379) writes in his first letter to Anfilochius, “She who has intentionally destroyed [the fetus] is subject to the penalty corresponding to a homicide. For us, there is no scrutinizing between the formed and unformed [fetus]; here truly justice is made not only for the unborn but also with reference to the person who is attentive only to himself/herself since so many women generally die for this very reason.”

Additional examples exist among the early Church fathers, from which the thing which I propose may be synthesized (http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/earlychurchfathers/fatherscover.html).  Not to mention the concept of ensoulment after conception smacks of a body-soul duality, against which stands the creeds of the Church (both of which believe in the resurrection of the body, and not reincarnation).  I could go on, but

“Of course this changes my opinion not one iota. Jesus could manifest before me in my living room right now and ask for me to go have a kid and I would still say ‘No’.” and “Yeah, well, if I’m willing to go against the Creator Himself on the whole kid thing, I don’t think a couple scientific papers are going to change my mind.”

Which suggests that I am probably wasting my time, since you’re not actually open to a real discussion here (unless my attempts to clarify are helpful?).  If neither science nor reasoning nor God Himself can change your mind, then there is little point in my trying to.

Andy:  “Someone who doesn’t believe in the Bible can also learn what it means before falling back on the stock, “You disagree with my lifestyle, therefore you’re judging” nonsense.”

Good call there.

Lots42, if you come back to check this, my point on Darwin was there’s nothing “weird” about people supporting the perpetuation of the species; not only our own sex drives, but our finding children cute and wanting to mentor others etc. is hard-wired into us biologically and it’s no surprise it comes out in society, regardless of how we view it morally or as some cosmic plan.

I did the google search you suggested. I really appreciated the insight—“Newsflash: Your kids are PEOPLE, not things.”

Still, a lot of the responses on this website to the well-meaning but heavy-handed “pressure” are pretty sarcastic and reduce children to chores, not people. Yes, there are plenty of non-selfish reasons not to have children, but to choose sleeping in, avoiding diapers, and lots of casual sex over rewarding and difficult relationships sure sounds selfish.

The website in fact seems to present it almost as more of an orientation than a pure choice, claiming that “formerly childfree” must never really have belonged, and that the truly childfree could never have imagined themselves having kids. Maybe it does come down to fidelity to biology.

Speaking of babies, does anyone know if Erica Gomez (the waif in the ad at the top-right of this page, currently) was taken away from Gloria Gomez? The suspense has been killing me for the past few months.

Even better question: does anyone know if actually donating to Food For The Poor makes the ad go away? That’d be a good enough incentive for me.

It’s interesting that none of the child-free folks here appear to be troubled by Sarah’s comments.

Reminds me of Muslims who claim to be moderate but never seem to be upset by terrorism by their more extremist brethren.

Nothing to say about calling children “crotch droppings”?  Nothing at all?  A telling silence.

*crickets chirping*

As mentioned in the beginning of the posts here.  I often wondered why Ob-Gyns are not more pro-life.  The economics make tremendous sense.  If I could make one sell and 4-12 followed from the same patient, I would be sitting pretty.  And the health aspects are also common sense considering nothing unnatural is occuring when not using contraception.  Pedi doctors should also be predominantly pro-life.  I am not saying that the only reason to be pro-life is economics, just saying it makes sense.

Jennifer, I read thru all 99 of these comments and, hands down, yours are the most uplifting, balanced, sensible, charitable & reflective of Catholic teaching. Thank you for taking a few minutes from your busy life to shine a bit of light on this online discussion. God has given you alot of grace, I can tell.
Sarah, I too have aborted relatives who support me by their prayers & I’m sure your sibs are supporting you too. God bless.

Another commenter noted: “It’s interesting that none of the child-free folks here appear to be troubled by Sarah’s comments . . . Nothing to say about calling children ‘crotch droppings’?  Nothing at all?  A telling silence.”

Not a member of any “child-free” movement, although am childless. The writings of the commenter calling herself(? -himself?) “Sarah” strike me as having provided about as accurate a rendition of a complete sociopath as the average person is likely to encounter (aside from readers who work in law enforcement or criminal psychiatry.)

Pretty nasty, extreme stuff. Beyond the pale, really. And, yes, it’s interesting that no one has called her(?) out on it. But, then, again, if you were to call out, oh . . . say, Hannibal Lecter, for example . . . what do you think you would accomplish?

To: “Kelly Can’t Read on Wednesday”... well, I used my real name… I pity you that your parents named you such a long, difficult name.  Is that your first and last name or just your first?  Or did you simply take the opportunity to insult me for quoting the Bible?  Do you dislike the Bible that much?  Are you that consumed by your anger that you have such misguided insults?

I can think of such better insults; yours was substandard as they go - not quite ready for your stand-up routine.  Perhaps on Youtube next to the “God Hates Fags” Baptist church zealots that “protest” my brothers in arms.  Uh oh - yes - you’ve insulted a United States Marine.  And I don’t think EITHER side wants to delve into insulting those who serve. 

Please, by all means, “Kelly Can’t Read on Wednesday”, what WAS the point of the article if other than exactly what you have in turn done.  insulted for the sheer vengeance of insults.  Casting stones, not turning the other cheek.  I really can’t even tell if you are pro or against the article, by your one liner, and simply mean post.

I believe that this is simply turning into a WWF circus.  It ceases to be a debate, and has simply become a sophomoric rally of insults.

And by the way, I read Pearl S. Buck’s “The Good Earth” on Wednesday; I didn’t listen to it on tape… I read it.

By the way; you’re welcome for fighting for freedom so that you may post this fodder.  But clearly I can’t read… or was that scope narrowed to Wednesday?  Oh wait - it was just to get my attention. 

Well, you got it.  Oorah.

After giving birth to my first daughter this year I find I fail to understand the motives of the Child-free movement.  Having a baby has changed my outlook on life in so many ways.  She is such an amazing little person, her smile turns my heart inside out.  Changing diapers is a joy because when I put her down on the changing table she grins and coos and kicks her perfectly formed 3 month old baby feet with glee.  Yes there are hard times, but nothing makes me humbler and more genuinely happy than looking at her, then feeling her warm weight on my chest when she falls asleep after nursing.  I never knew this type of love was even possible.  I would probably have agreed more with the actively childless types in the past and even considered myself incapable of becoming a mother, until I actually became one and found inner resources that I didn’t know I had.

So maybe this is where Catholics, especially those with children, are unable to relate to those who would shun this experience. It’s like the philosophy of a group of blind people who would reject surgery in order to become sighted because “there is so much ugliness in the world and besides, society is too visually oriented as it is” In that same vein I can no more describe the reality of being a mother in a way they would understand than I could describe colours to a blind person. 

Sealing yourself off from such an experience because of ideology, or because you THINK you’re incapable of it, or can’t afford it, (which is ridiculous, My husband’s family had nine children and they lived in Central America where most people make in a month what an American makes in a day, kids don’t need that much stuff, not really.)is, on the one hand, sad, on the other scary because this mentality is becoming more and more a part of daily discourse in this culture.  “Children are expensive, messy, not worth the trouble, better to have a dog” etc.  They’re also pure life, of energy and hope.

Barbara“Children are expensive, messy, not worth the trouble, better to have a dog” etc.  They’re also pure life, of energy and hope.

So are dogs.

If I had a kid, I might not have been able to take care of Eddie-Dog for fifteen years. Heck, the guy is in my arms right now.

Barbara

After giving birth to my first daughter this year I find I fail to understand the motives of the Child-free movement.

The motives are ‘We just want to be free of kids without getting metaphorical crap for it’.

I am childfree but conflicted about it. I can think of plenty of reasons not to have kids (which have already been adequately discussed), but I have the feeling I’m missing something important about the whole matter. Reading through this post and the comments has given me a heaping helping of food for thought. Thank you all for your insights.

And, yes, it’s interesting that no one has called her(?) out on it. But, then, again, if you were to call out, oh . . . say, Hannibal Lecter, for example . . . what do you think you would accomplish?

It would clearly differentiate you from the views of Hannibal Lecter.  It’s the same premise as condemning extreme rhetoric by those who call themselves pro-life.  I don’t want to be associated with that sort of thing—it stains the movement and me.

But apparently Sarah doesn’t stain CF.  Not even a little.  Lots42 showed up to defend the moral equality of dogs and children, and is copacetic with Hitler references and “crotch droppings.”

Which makes sense, really.  Hitler loved dogs.  People, not so much.

Very eye-opening.  Thanks, CF commenters for providing some dismaying evidence that the decency of my two CF friends is the exception, not the rule.

Long ago, Stacey wrote: “Yes, there are some militant crazies among us, but that’s true of any subset of the population.”  Other CFs nod.  And yet, not a peep about poster girl Sarah.  Fascinating.

And people wonder why the CF Movement looks like a freak show.

Dale Price
Lots42 showed up to defend the moral equality of dogs and children, and is copacetic with Hitler references and “crotch droppings.”

Yes, lack of commenting on something means I completely support it in every way. Why, I haven’t mentioned my opinion on starving children in Africa, this must mean I hope they all get nuked.

Nice try.  Given that this article’s theme is a polemic *against the extremist rhetoric of certain CFers*—and look, Sarah weighs in with the worst catchphrases of the genre, including a Hitler reference!—it would behoove you to rebuke that extremist rhetoric.  If you found it remotely troubling, that is.  You *still* can’t bring yourself to a repudiation, even when called on it.

Lots, I got news for you.  Your dog doesn’t love you.  Dogs aren’t capable of any concept of love, they bond with figures as pack leaders because evolution has programmed them to do so a way to acquire food.  If someone else started feeding your fifteen year old dog, he would bond with someone else as a pack leader.  If someone were to take my fifteen year old daughter and start feeding her she would be asking “Where’s my mother? why is this stranger feeding me?”.  I am telling you that you are missing out on something absolutely huge, not because of some tragedy which has placed it out of reach, but because, as Chesterton said, you “found it hard and left it untried”.  So you decided to replace it with a one-sided relationship that will not challenge you to give of yourself in anyway, that won’t leave you baffled or forced to re-examine yourself, to change or to grow.  Dogs are perfect.  They treat you like gods and never make you second guess yourself. As for me I prefer a grownup relationship.

You will not be left alone about it.  You are a walking insult to those who have spent thousands to conceive a child through in-vitro, you are a walking contradiction to even the most secular materialistic worldview which says it’s all about passing on genes. You are a representative of the death-eater culture we live in. You are as baffling to most ordinary people as someone who cuts off their own legs because “walking makes them tired”....not baffling in a “make you think” kind of way, as Jesus and the Saints who went against convention in order to bring humanity closer to God, but baffling in a “why in the world would someone do this to themselves?” type of way.  I am not a believer in the Sanctity of Choice, that is, people can do what they want and you can’t point at it and say “That is just stupid”.  and I guarantee that if there is a tiny remnant of wisdom left in you that anti-human enviro-ideology hasn’t eaten up you will eventually start to realize how dumb it really is.

Even posting under his own name, Mr Shea remains rude, condescending and bitter.

Hmm… if the intent is so muddled, and people misinterpret it, perhaps this article wasn’t well written.  Perhaps when writing while consumed with anger and thoughts of revenge that translates onto the pages of what could have been a decently written Biblical look at the CF movement.

I love America.  I love that there IS a place where freedom of religion may exist (because there are many places it doesn’t) and that people may come together with different views and coexist.  Were this an intelligent debate, filled with anything but mud and hate I might have stayed neutral.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church states marriage is a means to children and no amount of reason will sway Catholics from their doctrine; the Child Free movement began as a social club for people without children to enjoy adult company.  It has nothing to do with religion.  We are allowed opinions; living together in this great nation able to maintain our differences without fear of persecution is what unifies us as a people.  However this very page is the epitome of how the rest of the world views Americans; bitter, arrogant, entitled and completely unable to like their neighbor, let-alone love.

It’s easy to hide behind your fake names and preach hatred.  Its simple to congregate in real life and gain a frenzied momentum toward anger.  What is not easy is loving compassion toward those whom we do not understand.  And truly we don’t need to understand.. or analyze… or witness… or convince each other why one side is better.  I am appalled at the way everyone is treating each other here, feeling brave in cyberspace to call each other out by name and erase your sentences until your exact point of vengeance is met, and you press the “submit” button.

I am incredulous that the NC Register would elect to maintain this author who promotes the antithesis of the teachings of Christ.  This has soured my outlook, and saddened my heart.

Now I must excuse myself from this website.  There is truly nothing more to learn or debate.

Dale Price
it would behoove you to rebuke that extremist rhetoric.

Tell you what; I’ll detail my thoughts about Sarah when you apologize for the hateful people on ‘your’ side that are telling me I am going to hell for choosing not to have kids.

Barbara

<I>If someone else started feeding your fifteen year old dog, he would bond with someone else as a pack leader.

And will still choose to sleep in my lap.

I am telling you that you are missing out on something absolutely huge, not because of some tragedy which has placed it out of reach, but because, as Chesterton said, you “found it hard and left it untried”.

That doesn’t make sense. “I find it will be hard to have a kid so I am going to have one.” How fair is that to the kid? I am unprepared to have one in many ways. Having one would be/should be considered child abuse if I do have one.

So you decided to replace it with a one-sided relationship that will not challenge you to give of yourself in anyway,

Fifteen years of taking care of him and I gave nothing. Sure. Pull the other ones, it has bells on.

that won’t leave you baffled or forced to re-examine yourself, to change or to grow.

Kids as therapy? Again, a distasteful reason to reproduce.

  Dogs are perfect.

Well, we agree on this.

  They treat you like gods and never make you second guess yourself. As for me I prefer a grownup relationship.

Then why are you talking about having kids? Go join a bingo group.

You will not be left alone about it.

Color me not scared.

You are a walking insult to those who have spent thousands to conceive a child through in-vitro,

If someone is so socially backward that a choice of a stranger not to have kids is going to insult them…said someone should not be having kids themselves.

you are a walking contradiction to even the most secular materialistic worldview which says it’s all about passing on genes.

I might agree with you if I had any idea what sentence meant. So what if the human body is designed for passing on genes? I control my body not vice-versa.

You are a representative of the death-eater culture we live in.

The only Death-Eaters I know of are the slightly ridicilous cult from Harry Potter. Which you know, just kills people they disagree with, not condmen them to hell.

You are as baffling to most ordinary people as someone who cuts off their own legs because “walking makes them tired”....not baffling in a “make you think” kind of way, as Jesus and the Saints who went against convention in order to bring humanity closer to God, but baffling in a “why in the world would someone do this to themselves?” type of way.

Because it would be unfair to the kid. Because I don’t want a kid. Both perfectly valid reasons. If Jesus doesn’t like that, then he can give me seventy million dollars so I can afford to raise a kid.

I am not a believer in the Sanctity of Choice,

I wonder what Jesus would say about that.

that is, people can do what they want and you can’t point at it and say “That is just stupid”.

This part confuses me. I personally think it is okay to judge others.

and I guarantee that if there is a tiny remnant of wisdom left in you that anti-human enviro-ideology hasn’t eaten up you will eventually start to realize how dumb it really is.

I garuntee the world is not going to end because I don’t reproduce.

Kelly: “Were this an intelligent debate, filled with anything but mud and hate I might have stayed neutral. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states marriage is a means to children and no amount of reason will sway Catholics from their doctrine….What is not easy is loving compassion toward those whom we do not understand.  And truly we don’t need to understand.. or analyze… or witness… or convince each other why one side is better.”

I think this juxtaposition, in the course of one comment, summarizes the “moderate” child-free movement:  condescending and insulting, willing to swing about kind-sounding words (about themselves) without taking the chance to give those words a coherent definition—or, as in two comments previous from presumably the same commenter, taking passages of the Bible without context and thereby distorting their meaning as a self-righteous cudgel against judgmentalism.  There’s the assuming the other side is wrong but them condemning the other side for assuming that they are wrong.  Then there’s the bizarre sense of courage from using her real name (first name only?  so what?).  This debate is filled with mud and hate indeed, but somehow the commenter overlooks that the lion’s share of the bile is spewing forth from her own side (indeed, in a less vitriolic form from her own computer).  Funny, I seem to remember Mr Shea saying something about “projecting” in the article itself, but then I get the distinct feeling that Kelly didn’t actually read the article.

Lots“Tell you what; I’ll detail my thoughts about Sarah when you apologize for the hateful people on ‘your’ side that are telling me I am going to hell for choosing not to have kids. “

This is probably pointless, but you did say (October 1, 10:12 AM) that “I’d rather go to hell then go to the heaven your God has.”  You then continued with the rather dismissive “Thank goodness I don’t believe in your God that punishes one so horrifically for choosing not to have kids. (I believe in a God that rewards anyone with heaven for trying to do good).”  This, instead of actually either engaging the argument (explanation, really) or ignoring it.  Given that, and given your steadfast obstinacy, it is hardly hateful for someone to warn you that you risk sending yourself to hell.  Note, incidentally, the fairly extensive use of the word “risk.”  I’ve made every effort to say that you risk hell, or endangered yourself of it, not that you are for sure going to go there—only God knows you well enough to know that for certain.  I’m not trying to condemn you, only to warn you.  Obstinacy in sin is a form of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit:  the one unforgivable sin.  If you have not in sin, then you aren’t risking your soul in this way; otherwise, you are.

*that should have been “If you are not in sin [that is, if you aren’t guilty of this sin], then you aren’t risking your soul in this way.”

Lots“Tell you what; I’ll detail my thoughts about Sarah when you apologize for the hateful people on ‘your’ side that are telling me I am going to hell for choosing not to have kids. “

Could you, um, point me to where anybody said, “You are going to hell for choosing not to have kids”?  If anybody made that stupid prophecy, they were way out of line.  But I’m pretty skeptical that anybody did.  As is yet again the case with the narcissists of the CF movement, I suspect that what really happened is that you assume somebody said this when, in fact, nobody did.  But Sarah’s comments (and numerous others from other CF bigots, misanthropes, and narcissists are on record).

Mark Shea
If anybody made that stupid prophecy, they were way out of line. 

Well, ya’ did what I wanted in a way. Sarah’s words and thoughts are, in my opinion, very childish and very unhelpful. And silly. It’s certainly not the way the majority of CF people I know operate.

And for the record, I am very offended if or when someone implies I -risk- going to hell for defying the idea of procreating. I don’t believe in a God that, well, childish.

P.S. I did a little digging around. Found an older quote of mine. ‘Micah Those married Christians who refuse to have children to so at their own peril and the risk of losing both marriage and soul.’ is what touched off this sub-sub thread. But to be fair, Micah did only say I risk burning forever in hideous agony next to murderers and child abusers because I chose not to have kids.

“Very childish, and very unhelpful.  And silly.”

No, “childish” is demanding an apology before condemning bad behavior.  What Sarah said was hateful.  Period.  Your behavior is classically tribal—“no enemies to the left/right,” “me and my cousin against the stranger.” 

For the record, here’s what Micah actually said:  “Those married Christians who refuse to have children to so at their own peril and the risk of losing both marriage and soul.”

As ENV said, note the conditionality.  Also note that he didn’t read CFers out of Christianity—he conceded their Christian identity.  As opposed to, say, claiming they worship a different God. 

If Micah had said CFers were going to hell, period, that would be nasty and over-the-line.  But, since calling children “crotch droppings” and comparing them to Hitler is merely “very unhelpful, very childish and silly,” I’m going to consider Micah’s remark as “perhaps inopportune and borderline unpastoral.”

Dale Price
No, “childish” is demanding an apology before condemning bad behavior.  What Sarah said was hateful.

Childish is demanding I rail against stupid opinions simply because I share -one- opinion with the other person. “You and Jim like being Vegans! But Jim likes stealing from change jars! Condemn him for some reason! CONDEMN! You must because you are both vegans!”

Period.  Your behavior is classically tribal—“no enemies to the left/right,” “me and my cousin against the stranger.”

Isn’t this the classic straw man argument? Either way, hallucinating motives behind my words serves no one good.

For the record, here’s what Micah actually said:  “Those married Christians who refuse to have children to so at their own peril and the risk of losing both marriage and soul.”

Which is -still- horribly hateful.

As ENV said, note the conditionality.  Also note that he didn’t read CFers out of Christianity—he conceded their Christian identity.  As opposed to, say, claiming they worship a different God.

He stated they risk hell for not reproducing. Which is not the God I believe in.

If Micah had said CFers were going to hell, period, that would be nasty and over-the-line.

He still -is-.

  But, since calling children “crotch droppings” and comparing them to Hitler is merely “very unhelpful, very childish and silly,” I’m going to consider Micah’s remark as “perhaps inopportune and borderline unpastoral.”

Yeah, insulting some kids is morally better then ‘You risk burning in hell for not having a kid’. I guess we can now say calling an old lady ‘a withered hag’ is worse then going to a KKK rally.

How is it that not having children by choice is a bad thing? It is not like the choice to not have kids harms anybody. I am choosing to not have kids because I like being alone almost all hours of the day, having an education and hobbies interest me more, and I don’t like responsiblity. Other reasons are I have are my tolerance levels for a lot of things are low(much like nearly everybody in my family), kids are expensive and time consuming, pregnancy scares me to death and is too long, and babies require too much care(little sleeping for me involved). Having a traditional family seems to scare me to tears. I just simply don’t want kids, I don’t hate humanity, children or anything like that. How am I evil?

lashawn, Every single one of the sentences in your comment revolves around “me,me,me”, what I want, what I need, what I can tolerate, what I’m afraid of etc. Its our fallen nature to build ourselves tiny orbits for our tiny lives if left to ourselves. In order to live in heaven, we have to learn to live for others. If not, heaven wouldn’t be heaven, it’d be earth. And who wants that forever & ever??????

Nothing helps us learn to really live as much as living for others.

Lashawn, On second thought, the Pope said it alot better than I did:

“God is not solitude, but perfect communion. For this reason the human person, the image of God, realizes himself or herself in love, which is a sincere gift of self.”
- Pope Benedict XVI

thereserita, it is not a bad thing to know your weakness. Lashawn realizes she or he is unsuitable to be a parent. Thus, it is a good thing they are not. To use another example, I am unable to take care of Dalmations as they require a high level of attention I am physically unable to give. It would be animal cruelty to adopt a Dalmation.

Bob, I totally see your point & the Church has never ever said that Catholics are bound to have as many children as possible as quickly as possible (contrary to popular opinion!).

That said, I myself thought that I was unable to do many many things in my life until I actually had to do them and then I realized that, in fact, I could! My point was just simply that often fear hems us in and that “God can’t do the miraculous till we’re ready to do the ridiculous” like Mother A says :-)

Well, I honestly fear things that can horrifically screw up the lives of innocent children if I get them wrong.

This argument stands about as much of a chance of being resolved as the Atheist vs Religion debate that is now constant background noise. Each side has opinions that they prop up with whatever fact du jour supports their claims and the inclination of most is to spring to their keyboards and begin tapping out vitriolic responses without asking themselves if it’s even worth it. Can’t let the wrong side get the last word in now right? Anyone with a different perspective is accused of spewing hate and any comment on a general issue must be taken as a personal attack that requires an immediate demand of accommodation. This is intellectual discussion? I beg to differ folks. For the record, I am Childfree and I truly don’t care if you want to call me names. I am also a Deist so heap a few more names on my back for that as well. I have come to view religion and all of it’s trappings to be irrelevant to me. I see diametrically opposed view points in these comments and each side has done a wonderful job of vilifying the other. The point of this article was lost the second the rocks started sailing back and forth across the courtyard of discourse. I almost expected the Liberal vs Conservative crap to come out but then again, that’s a Southern Baptist tactic. Relax people. It’s not always about you personally.