Cash Rules Everything Around [Us]
Who it was is unimportant, but a casual acquaintance today shared the joyous news that he and his wife are expecting their third child. Fantastic.
He then shared that this will be their last child, as he has just received a vasectomy. "Every one of those buggers carries a dollar sign," he said. "We're done."
There are absolutely cases where a family's financial situation needs to prevent them from having children. I'm on board. But for this to be a legitimate consideration, it ought to be for the prevention of true poverty, as opposed to the prevention of lost wealth. [I'm privy to the knowledge that this individual's case qualifies for the latter.]
Don't get me wrong, there are other legitimate reasons to hang up the people-making endeavor. But to shut it down only for the protection of future financial wealth seems grossly out-of-whack to me. It's effectively saying that money is more important than a potential nth child, in his case 4th.
I know that's not the message most people intend to send. But send it they do, and sad it is. [And like Yoda I talk.]
posted by Lyons at
4:17 PM
6 Comments:
The implication in your post is that people are obligated to have as many children as they can reasonably support (financially and, presumably, emotionally). That's quite a leap of assumption. If a person's/couple's/family's happiness is proportional to having a finite number of children -- with three kids instead of four kids, I can live in a nicer neighborhood, send my kids to better schools, take them on more enjoyable vacations, give them more undivided attention -- isn't that legitimate? If a person/couple feels they would make poor parents, that they would be happier without children, is it somehow immoral not to have them?
If you disagree on either point, it's not a self-evident argument ...
12:28 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
12:29 PM
I don't think my post implies that. If it does, that's not my intent.
What I mean to argue is that the increase of future wealth should not be the reason to not have kids. ALL ELSE being equal, children are always a greater good than money.
You touch on something that I didn't blog about, but I nonetheless feel quite passionate for. I am an only child, so I'm first-hand ignorant; do you know a single individual who would ever trade what sibling or siblings they have for a heightened pro forma share of what wealth their parents have? I have never met one.
To me, if that is a universal feeling (I suspect it is), it proves that a sibling is a greater gift to a child-in-existence than heightened material possession ("nicer neighborhood, ... better schools, ...more enjoyable vacations, ...more undivided attention").
I'm painting with a broad brush. A ton of exceptions apply. In general terms, though, I'm on to something.
5:25 PM
Of course you wouldn't trade your siblings for "heightened pro forma share," as you put it. That's because we love our siblings unconditionally. If I had 5 other siblings, I'm sure I would love them all equally. That said, I'm happy I only have one sibling, for myriad reasons, not the least of which is it allowed the both of us to go to the colleges of our choice.
You make the best of the situation you're given -- but if you can control the factors that dictate the situation, it seems not only responsible, but logical, to do so.
I would never fault someone for having a massive family, provided the children aren't outright suffering because of it, but I also think family planning entails more than just not getting knocked up before you're married.
7:10 PM
I think it also has something to do with whether you think this world or the next is more "important"
2:57 PM
I'll bite, Steve ...
10:50 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home