![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Anti-natalism (PoAC)
Mar. 13th, 2007 02:01 pmAnti-natalism in America
I've seen this before - more often from liberals than from conservatives, though I've seen it from them too, usually in the guise he mentions of not wanting to support the kids of people who can't support themselves. It angers me, every single time. And yet, I'm a part of it. I view children as a blessing to be taken in moderation. I may have one more child, but that will certainly be the end of it, and probably would have been even without the health factor that I now have to consider (each c-section is progressively more dangerous than the last.) We have planned our family quite carefully. I subscribe to the moderate view that the best way to prevent abortions is to make birth control as widely available as possible - not exactly a "children are an unmitigated blessing" viewpoint.
This is one of the areas where my heritage shows through. I cannot ever be the kind of environmentalist who believes that her own children are more of a detriment than a benefit to the planet or to society. I really can't see the point of life without children, though I understand and respect an individual's desire not to have their own. What do we live for, if not to pass on what we have, make, believe, did, are, to those who follow us?
At the same time, I find the source of this article profoundly disturbing. Chuck Colson drives me nuts. He makes a token gesture towards the fact that some conservatives think like this, too, even while ascribing the problem mostly to liberal environmentalists, and he completely ignores the part of the liberal agenda that he should really be able to see the benefit of: that is, measures that help people support their kids at a societal level. The Christian Post is far enough to the right that ideas like fair wages come in quotes in his articles, as do gay marriage and pro-choice. He supports people's right to have children indiscriminately, but also seems to support the idea that people should be able to take care of their own without much help from a social safety net. Surely, if he expects people to view children as a blessing to be accepted when given, he should also be prepared to help those families survive in a nation where twenty grand a year for health insurance, plus co-pays, excluding certain specialists, is a growing phenomenon.
I see myself as sitting somewhere close to the middle ground on this one. I'm not sure how skewed that viewpoint is. What I do know is that it galls me to have a huge failing on the left, pointed out by the likes of Chuck Colson in his holier-than-liberals attitude.
I've seen this before - more often from liberals than from conservatives, though I've seen it from them too, usually in the guise he mentions of not wanting to support the kids of people who can't support themselves. It angers me, every single time. And yet, I'm a part of it. I view children as a blessing to be taken in moderation. I may have one more child, but that will certainly be the end of it, and probably would have been even without the health factor that I now have to consider (each c-section is progressively more dangerous than the last.) We have planned our family quite carefully. I subscribe to the moderate view that the best way to prevent abortions is to make birth control as widely available as possible - not exactly a "children are an unmitigated blessing" viewpoint.
This is one of the areas where my heritage shows through. I cannot ever be the kind of environmentalist who believes that her own children are more of a detriment than a benefit to the planet or to society. I really can't see the point of life without children, though I understand and respect an individual's desire not to have their own. What do we live for, if not to pass on what we have, make, believe, did, are, to those who follow us?
At the same time, I find the source of this article profoundly disturbing. Chuck Colson drives me nuts. He makes a token gesture towards the fact that some conservatives think like this, too, even while ascribing the problem mostly to liberal environmentalists, and he completely ignores the part of the liberal agenda that he should really be able to see the benefit of: that is, measures that help people support their kids at a societal level. The Christian Post is far enough to the right that ideas like fair wages come in quotes in his articles, as do gay marriage and pro-choice. He supports people's right to have children indiscriminately, but also seems to support the idea that people should be able to take care of their own without much help from a social safety net. Surely, if he expects people to view children as a blessing to be accepted when given, he should also be prepared to help those families survive in a nation where twenty grand a year for health insurance, plus co-pays, excluding certain specialists, is a growing phenomenon.
I see myself as sitting somewhere close to the middle ground on this one. I'm not sure how skewed that viewpoint is. What I do know is that it galls me to have a huge failing on the left, pointed out by the likes of Chuck Colson in his holier-than-liberals attitude.