As young as five years old, I understood without real understanding that when I grew into a woman I would someday, inevitably, become a mother.
As a little girl, I semi-regularly played the game of House with a friend who lived in the next apartment building, and we’d choose our roles before each game: Husband or Wife. We took for granted that choosing Wife also meant playing the role of a mother.
Read the rest in Human Parts.
I’m one of those people who watches one reality murder show or another every night. I fall asleep to them – Dateline, 20/20, Evil Lives Here… Anything but woman-centric murder shows with titles like Murdering Moms or Twisted Sisters, or something. Probably because the “who” of the “whodunit” is right there in the title. Also probably because they’re produced in such a way that they’re stupid.
Whether people should need a license to have children isn’t a new conversation. In 1980, Hugh LaFollette, Marie E. and Leslie Cole Emeritus Professor in Ethics at the University of South Florida St. Petersburg and Editor-in-Chief of the International Encyclopedia of Ethics, argued in favor of licensing parents because, in short,
I’ve had a relative say — not about me, of course, she assured me — that every person she knows who chose not to have children is selfish.
A woman in Atlanta who knew she had a 50/50 chance of passing her own childhood eye cancer onto her offspring gave birth to three children, anyway.
All three have eye cancer. One of them started chemotherapy at a week old.
Somehow, acts like this – and they’re not rare – haven’t managed to garner the rallying “you’re selfish” chant the way choosing not to have children, which by definition hurts not a single soul, has.
“Oh, that mom wasn’t selfish,” someone who’s wrong might argue. “There was no guarantee her kids would get cancer, after all.”
Joy Pullman writes in The Federalist that she wants young people to know how fulfilling having children was for her and, therefore, will also be for them.