I know this post is probably going to step on a few toes, but this is a touchy subject I have been giving a lot of thought to lately.
I find myself needing to have a discussion with my daughter about her current state of affairs. She is 19 years old, works a graveyard shift at a local manufacturer here in town and has a boyfriend whom she spends most of her day with (when she is awake). She has maintained, however, that though she would like to get married some day she does not want to have children, instead opting to possibly adopt.
To this I say: No.
Now most women, and even a lot of men, would say I was in the wrong. It’s her life, she should be able to do what she wants and, if the man she wants to marry is fine with it and they want to adopt then I should be willing to accept that. To that I also say: No.
Now, my daughter is a smart cookie, having enjoyed her time in high school going through the engineering program, working with lasers and 3d printers, but outside of high school she has shown no interest in continuing her education, which is fine by me. Personally I think she is a musical and artistic genius. Within days after picking up a guitar I caught her playing and singing beautifully, something I have yet to master after having played for at least five years or more. She does incredible work with a paint brush and has a natural skill in painting that I can only be envious of. I would much rather she work on these skills and get married instead of go to college where she greatly runs the risk of becoming corrupted by the liberal and feminist mindset, even in our small conservative town.
That being said I don’t think marriage is a good fit for her if she continues along the path of “I don’t want to have kids”. First of all a woman’s duty is to have children if she can. God’s very first commandment to the husband/wife duo of Adam and Eve was to “be fruitful and multiply”. This means that He expects men and women to have children! Exactly how many is up to the couple, I suppose, though God sees fit to sneak in His own 2 cents every so often (our youngest is our DAC, Designated Accidental Child), but I think that the financial situation and health of the couple should play a big role in determining if they have one child or ten children, but what do I know, people have been having more kids than they should since the beginning of time and the human race seems to be fine.
There is, however, one VERY BIG reason why I don’t think it would be wise for her to get married unless she changes her mind. Neither young women nor young men seem to think past the next thirty minutes, but this arrangement, married with NO children, costs men much more than they could possibly imagine. To marry a woman and go through life with her and no children ERASES A MANS GENETIC LEGACY FROM THE FACE OF THE PLANET. Talk about extinction – this man, every last trace of him, is gone, forever. His legacy ends COMPLETELY. Yet men are so thirsty to get married and have sex that they will completely ignore this fact and go along with the program. Some time down the line they may come to their senses and decide they DO want a child, a son to carry on their genetic legacy, but now they will need to contend with a wife who may or may not have changed her mind – and God help him if she did not change her mind. That kind of fight is the stuff nightmares are made of, and given the ease at which divorce is available, even for Christian women, a man can expect to be on the losing end no matter what.
I don’t have anything against adoption, but if you are planning on adopting I would recommend, as a man and as a father, that you have at least one son of your own first. The cost is too great in the long run. We hear all the time about animals on the verge of extinction and how awful it is and how we can help preserve them for future generations, and yet this generation will not bat an eye at snuffing out a man’s genetic legacy. If your lucky you will have a son quickly, if not you end up like my aunt and uncle, who had seven, eight or nine girls before their first boy. I am NOT saying that having girls is bad, they are blessed beyond belief by their daughters and the grandkids that have followed, but I speak in terms of genetic legacy.
The bible and many other ancient books place much emphasis on a man’s legacy. Time and time again we see in the scripture the value placed on sons. Not that daughters were of any less value, or any less loved – but a son carries with him the ability to carry on a mans legacy, something that a daughter cannot do, thus they held a special place in that society. The devaluation of masculinity and men has led our society to lose sight of that, or, even worse, to hate it. Feminists, without a doubt, have done plenty to make sure that men fail at continuing their genetic legacies by making it more difficult for women to bear children (by greatly extending the ‘best’ age for having children from early 20’s to 30’s and 40’s, which carry a much greater risk of problems for both mother and child), by pushing the gay agenda which pretty much takes a group of men out of the running altogether, and by abortion, which has ended millions of unborn lives. Why a Christian woman would choose to do this is beyond me.
The upcoming discussion will be a difficult one, and some of you readers out there may not agree with me on this, but the truth is undeniable. The cost is too great to bear and, in todays monogamous society, men have little recourse but to opt out of marrying women who have decided not to have children. In ages past they could have opted to have a second or third wife (which we also see in the bible) that would give them the son they needed, and I suppose you could hire a surrogate, but I see too many issues with this. Firstly there is the cost. At least having a child of ones own does not require a huge up front cost, as insurance will typically foot the bill for the birth. A surrogate would require several thousand dollars of up-front investment which can be difficult for some people to come up with. Secondly there is always the possibility of a surrogate backing out or having some genetic issue themselves that they fail to disclose or maybe don’t even know about. I guess the same goes for a married couple, but in that situation there is a dedication to caring for THEIR child, but I can see a BUYERS REMORSE situation arising if this happens with a surrogate. Call it messed up if you will, but it could happen. Lastly, a mother will have little trouble caring for her own child (in most situations), but I could see it being a much bigger issue for a wife to have to care for another woman’s baby, even if half of its genetics come from her husband. She has NO STAKE in the child. None of her genetic material is there and it could be difficult for her to attach to it. Wives should be having their own babies with their own husbands. Again, this is assuming there are no medical issues or something that PREVENTS a woman from having children – that’s another story altogether, but any man who intentionally marries a woman who refuses to have children is committing self-genocide. Shame on him, and shame on her, both.