Is giving childbirth an act of selfishness?
Recently, I was baffled at this very thought of one of my friends that it is selfish to give birth to a child & parents who do so have vested interest in it. It is a very sense of self-satisfaction that parents achieve when their DNA is passed on to the next generation. Adding to this, option suggested was to adopt a child.
I am not sure how many are going to agree to this, but for me it is more of a selfishness of those "want-to-be-mothers" who have other vested interests in not giving birth. It can be very well argued that we have no right to bring a life to earth if we cannot provide the child a good parenthood. Also, parents will benefit this planet Earth, by adopting a child rather than putting more pressure to the existing available resources.
But I want to ask one question- How much "good parenthood" will be good for a child to grow ? What we parents may think is good for a child, but can we expect that the child will also accept those things as "good" for him? Possibly not ! "Good" is a relative term. "Good parenthood" is not always about making the life of your child cozy & making them feel that their parents will buy them the best of the material world. "Good Parenthood" is not about sending your child to the best of the schools & paying hefty fees.
As good parents we have responsibilty to provide the child, a healthy environment to grow. Both, physical health as well as spiritual. As good parents we should strive that our children develop a sense of responsibility towards the society they would grow up & live in. As good parents we should teach the children to respect others & act in a way so that they get respected. That is how we can reduce the burden of anti-social activities on this earth.
Now I want to stimulate the minds of all readers: When we can think of not giving birth of child in the name of "good parenthood" & rather adopting a child, then are we confident of providing the same to the adopted child? If no, then those parents should start thinking of having their own child. If yes, then I salute those parents and at the same time allow me to laugh a bit on their double-entendre, because when they can provide "good parenthood" to an adopted child, they can also provide the same to their own child. So the very basis of not giving birth to a child is false.
Some of us may say, animals reproduce, birds reproduce.....so how we humans are different if we also re-produce ? As humans we can do things differently. Point well taken. But then what is the very use of the eggs & sperms we humans produce. I think the reproductive organs should then be deemed as the vestigial organs and removed from the body like appendix. Men will no longer be men...& women will cease to have any more periods. The world be full of eunuchs then and one day earth will be the "best" place to live in...and unfortunately there will be no human being to "enjoy"...because nobody would reproduce. Earth would then be too "happy" to feed the animals only.
Also, if we do not utilize our re-productive capacity & keep enjoying Sex , then we are more selfish for not using the sexual stimuations for the right purpose ( of course, I do not mean that sex is only for re-production...but then the fact is also that we can enjoy sex only if we have re-productive organs...so if we do not want to re-produce what is the use of these organs).
We human beings have an astonishing qualilty to think & act intellectually. This makes us class apart from the animals. As generations evolved, our thoughts have evolved. So as responsible human beings now, we can give birth to 1-2 children ( or give birth to one child & adopt another for good) instead of a full fledged football team which our great grand parents did. If it is a question of pressure on the available resources, then have we ever thought of toiling a barren land into a usable farm land....or growing 100 ever green trees in lifetime....or of not using any polluting material like plastics. I think if even 1 % of world's population swear to plant 100 fruit bearing evergreen trees in their life time (that makes to 5 billion trees) , the situation would have been different. Bearing a child is like a tree bearing a fruit. What would a mango tree look like without mangoes dangling on it? What would a rose plant look like without roses? Re-production is a natural phenomena and we should exploit it in a way best suited in the current society.
I am not at all against adopting a child. It is a very generous act to grow up someone who may have lost hope of the better future. I truly support those parents who readily adopt a child after they have lost hopes of bearing their own. Also, the parents who carry the risk to transmit genetic disorders & disesase like AIDS, should consider the option of adopting a child. These parents will understand the true value of the adopted child unlike those who adopt for the sake of not being selfish & doing "social good".
I was also talking about the vested interest of want-to-be-mothers for not bearing a child. What I can percieve is that majority of career-oriented women who do not want a break in their career are of the above opinion. These women, I believe, actually want to shy away from the responsibilities and multiple relationships they would enter into after giving birth because they know they cannot do justice with the same. What they may be interested in, is their career growth. May be they are more concious of their figures too ;-)
At the end of this blog, I would say that the revolutionary thought "Parents who bear children are selfish" needs some moderation.
I am not sure how many are going to agree to this, but for me it is more of a selfishness of those "want-to-be-mothers" who have other vested interests in not giving birth. It can be very well argued that we have no right to bring a life to earth if we cannot provide the child a good parenthood. Also, parents will benefit this planet Earth, by adopting a child rather than putting more pressure to the existing available resources.
But I want to ask one question- How much "good parenthood" will be good for a child to grow ? What we parents may think is good for a child, but can we expect that the child will also accept those things as "good" for him? Possibly not ! "Good" is a relative term. "Good parenthood" is not always about making the life of your child cozy & making them feel that their parents will buy them the best of the material world. "Good Parenthood" is not about sending your child to the best of the schools & paying hefty fees.
As good parents we have responsibilty to provide the child, a healthy environment to grow. Both, physical health as well as spiritual. As good parents we should strive that our children develop a sense of responsibility towards the society they would grow up & live in. As good parents we should teach the children to respect others & act in a way so that they get respected. That is how we can reduce the burden of anti-social activities on this earth.
Now I want to stimulate the minds of all readers: When we can think of not giving birth of child in the name of "good parenthood" & rather adopting a child, then are we confident of providing the same to the adopted child? If no, then those parents should start thinking of having their own child. If yes, then I salute those parents and at the same time allow me to laugh a bit on their double-entendre, because when they can provide "good parenthood" to an adopted child, they can also provide the same to their own child. So the very basis of not giving birth to a child is false.
Some of us may say, animals reproduce, birds reproduce.....so how we humans are different if we also re-produce ? As humans we can do things differently. Point well taken. But then what is the very use of the eggs & sperms we humans produce. I think the reproductive organs should then be deemed as the vestigial organs and removed from the body like appendix. Men will no longer be men...& women will cease to have any more periods. The world be full of eunuchs then and one day earth will be the "best" place to live in...and unfortunately there will be no human being to "enjoy"...because nobody would reproduce. Earth would then be too "happy" to feed the animals only.
Also, if we do not utilize our re-productive capacity & keep enjoying Sex , then we are more selfish for not using the sexual stimuations for the right purpose ( of course, I do not mean that sex is only for re-production...but then the fact is also that we can enjoy sex only if we have re-productive organs...so if we do not want to re-produce what is the use of these organs).
We human beings have an astonishing qualilty to think & act intellectually. This makes us class apart from the animals. As generations evolved, our thoughts have evolved. So as responsible human beings now, we can give birth to 1-2 children ( or give birth to one child & adopt another for good) instead of a full fledged football team which our great grand parents did. If it is a question of pressure on the available resources, then have we ever thought of toiling a barren land into a usable farm land....or growing 100 ever green trees in lifetime....or of not using any polluting material like plastics. I think if even 1 % of world's population swear to plant 100 fruit bearing evergreen trees in their life time (that makes to 5 billion trees) , the situation would have been different. Bearing a child is like a tree bearing a fruit. What would a mango tree look like without mangoes dangling on it? What would a rose plant look like without roses? Re-production is a natural phenomena and we should exploit it in a way best suited in the current society.
I am not at all against adopting a child. It is a very generous act to grow up someone who may have lost hope of the better future. I truly support those parents who readily adopt a child after they have lost hopes of bearing their own. Also, the parents who carry the risk to transmit genetic disorders & disesase like AIDS, should consider the option of adopting a child. These parents will understand the true value of the adopted child unlike those who adopt for the sake of not being selfish & doing "social good".
I was also talking about the vested interest of want-to-be-mothers for not bearing a child. What I can percieve is that majority of career-oriented women who do not want a break in their career are of the above opinion. These women, I believe, actually want to shy away from the responsibilities and multiple relationships they would enter into after giving birth because they know they cannot do justice with the same. What they may be interested in, is their career growth. May be they are more concious of their figures too ;-)
At the end of this blog, I would say that the revolutionary thought "Parents who bear children are selfish" needs some moderation.
posted by Kartikey Khanna @ 6:20 AM
15 comments
