Sunday, October 11, 2009


I was reading an article in the NYT about the well over a million dollar cost of a pair of IVF twins with complications, and how this is not terribly uncommon with IVF babies. This often ends up as cost to our health care system that we all end up subsidizing directly or indirectly. Now I happen to like children, and when I was young I always assumed that I would have some. Such is not the case. If I had been married and unable to have kids I MIGHT have adopted, but then again maybe not. As a single woman, nurturing kittens and my garden sometimes seems like too much work. I cannot imagine the extra stresses of a child under these conditions, no matter what the joys. Several studies have indicated that people without children are happier than those with. On top of that, there are waaay too many humans on this planet.

So, in a curmudgeonly fit I wrote this comment in to the NYT:

"I am a childless woman, and not childless by choice, who truly does not understand why my fellow women think that having a child is so critically important. So I am going to be a curmudgeon here. We are not short of people, or even babies, in this world. I don't think that extraordinary ways to produce a child should ever be subsidized. The ability to reproduce links us with cockroaches not the things that make humans unique. If you cannot have a child with any biological ease and you MUST nurture something because you are hardwired or socially ingrained that way, adopt, get a puppy, or learn how to transcend your animal desire to have a child. Being childless is not the end of the world. There are plenty of people who CAN have a child who will do so and raise their kids well. They will do the job nicely for those of us that can't or simply don't due to life's vagaries.

If you can't feel self worth if you can't be a mother you need help."

I wonder how many incensed replies I will get.