Childfree? Don’t You Want To Leave Your Genes Behind?
20 08 2006“Don’t you want to leave your genes behind?”
“Who will carry on your name?”
“Don’t you want to leave your mark on the world (after you’re gone)?’’
Neither my husband nor myself care that much about leaving our genes behind or serial immortality (the concept of living on through your offspring), which is the other term for this inherently egotistical reason to have children. And if we did, it still wouldn’t be a good enough reason to have kids. This particular question from parents always makes me think of countries where female babies are killed because they are not male babies, meaning that the family name won’t be preserved or “carried on”. Male babies are needed for that in countries where this is still practised. And it is practised so that parents, can feel they are still here when in fact they’re gone.
It makes me think of where female children are denied an education, and relegated to 2nd class citizens because they are not the ones who will “carry on the family name.” Because they (it is assumed) will change their names when they get married, while males will not. In other parts of the world (and I mean the Western world) while doing way with female babies has been banished to the annals of history, and is a crime, the egotistical thinking behind the question of serial immortality persists albeit with more subtlety.
It isn’t the job of a child to provide feel-good future assurances ( or insurance?) for their parents. You get one chance at life, and when you’re gone, you’re gone.
When I get this question I also think of people who, even though there’s a chance they may pass on defective genes to a child, want a child so much that they go ahead and have the child anyway. Do they think of how the child may suffer for the rest of its life if born with a disability because of something genetic inherent in the parents? I wonder if it matters less than the fact that they want a child and feel they have to fulfill that need? Seems to me they are not thinking of the child, but of themselves.
Once when someone was saying to me that women are having children later and that there was still time, I queried her, asking what about the risk of Downs Syndrome. I considered the risks even if she had hadn’t, in her quest to convince me to reproduce. Neither was the fact that there would be serious challenges involved in caring for a disabled child enough reason for this person to consider that deciding against having children just might be a good idea.
It’s ironical that parents call childfree people selfish. Because when they (parents) ask the question of a childfree person “don’t you want to leave your genes behind”, or in other words “Don’t you want a child to reassure you that you’re still around even when you’re gone”, they are really revealing just how egotistical they are themselves. It’s all about them, not about the child.
It’s as good an example of selfishness as you’re likely to come across.
I never thought about it like that, how people will have children to “have their genes” continue long after they are in a grave. That is not only selfish, but unintelligent. One of my aunts is fond of saying that “the dead know what the living are doing”. As much as I would like to believe my deceased siblings look out for me on the other side, they don’t really know what’s going on with me because they’re gone, in an endless sleep. My younger sister, in particular, has no knowledge about the lives of the daughters she gave up for adoption and left behind. Genes mutate and change over time don’t they? So why would any parent attempt to console themselves with the idea that a “part” of them will exist 100 years from now?
It’s interesting that many of those who insist upon producing little images of themselves fail to understand why everyone else wouldn’t want to do the same. Perhaps it’s something in their genes that makes them think this selfish way.
I have known 3 late life moms who produced Downs Syndrome children. All were university educated professionals who were running the odds and they knew it. What good pray tell did their desire to unite their old eggs with aged sperm of the husbands who were seniors prior to the birth of the babies produce, other than an additional burden to be born by other members of society after they pass on. And what contribution to the gene pool will their offspring make?
I’ve also often wondered if there isn’t a permissive parenting “”deficiency gene” as evidenced many couples we observe who seem to be lacking in what it takes to establish and maintain a lead role in their relationship with their children. Little people who are ruling their families at an early age miss the opportunity to gain knowledge and wisdom before the become breeders themselves.
I just read a blog entry about experiencing the impact of the lack of parenting skills exhibited by people shopping with their kids that I would like to share with you. Interestingly enough it was written by the mother of three children http://interstellaradventure.wordpress.com/2006/08/21/tuesday-stew-4/
@Hillari - Oh, yes, people go to great lengths to ensure that they “remain” after they’ve gone, continuing the line, the name, leaving their mark on the world. What’s so interesting is that they don’t consider it selfish at all.
@TT -That’s a great link! And I too wonder at women who take the risk of having a Downs Syndrome baby. Maybe they feel that they’d be able to dodge the risk?