Are You Duty-Bound to Have Children?
Apparently, one in five women in the UK have made the conscious decision to never have children, and many of them feel unjustly criticized for it.
Undeniably, the attitude that women were "given" wombs for a reason and a mandatory assignment from nature along with it, is still very alive.
And given the fact that we cannot create our offspring through any other means, many people, if not most, find some women's choice to remain childless shockingly selfish at best, and utterly wrong and life-defying at worst.
But is there really a duty to procreate? Do we owe the world, life, or god, or maybe the future, that we try to bring another life into existence, which will replace us when we are gone? This question applies to humans in general, not just women, as it seems to scratch at the surface of the overall purpose of human life, maybe all life.
Such a duty would imply that there is an imperative, a holy command, divine or not, which sets out a goal for our existence, a purpose of life.
Now, as stated in a previous post, I believe the purpose of human life (and more generally life itself) is development.
In the case of mankind development towards self-fulfillment, happiness etc.
And while doing that, perpetuating the circle of life, ensuring the continued existence of life, so that development can continue and thrive, surely seems like a good thing to do along the way, a requirement even.
However, I also believe in the basic human rights libertarianism describes, including the right to self-determination.
A person has the right to control their own body, their own life, by virtue of having been born human.
Their only true responsibility is to keep their mitts to themselves while they pursue their chosen path in life, so that they do not hinder anyone else doing the same.
This right is a fundamental, inalienable one.
No social convention or legal law can take it away.
Nor does denying it.
If this were not the case, and a woman indeed had a duty to procreate, this would logically imply that she does not have full control over her own body, over her own destiny, but is instead bound by someone else's will.
In fact, she wouldn't own her own body in that case.
It would instead belong - at least partially - to whoever demands this task from her, if we recognize that she is morally bound to have children.
As with all morals, the source of this demand, this ethical obligation, comes from society itself, the people who have carried over and perpetuated this conventional thinking from its earliest stage of dogmatic, unquestioned fundamentalism.
So basically, accepting that there is such a thing as a moral duty for any one of us, means subscribing to the collectivist idea that society as a whole owns the individual to the extent that it can dictate what the individual ought to do or not.
The fact that this point of view has been decreasing in western society over the centuries, leaving us more perceived freedom to do as we wish, only means society just doesn't want quite as much from us anymore.
We are not, by punishment of exile or death, supposed to go to church every Sunday anymore or bring sacrifices to altars, or afford taxes to our lords...
oh wait, well that's a whole different post.
But the point is clear: We may no longer feel quite as bad the pressure of society's claim on our lives, our bodies, our personal wishes...
but it is still there, in people's heads.
And that's fine, because everyone is entitled to their own opinions and views, as long as they don't try to impose them on anyone else.
But when people call for these desires of control over the individual to be institutionalized, for personal opinion to be made law for everyone, only then do they seek to infringe on the individual's rights.
Only then are these people exposing their deep desire for power over their neighbors.
Unfortunately, "these people" are the vast majority out there.
They live left and right from you, going to vote for political candidates proposing new laws against personal liberty.
They are the ones shaking their heads at you wearing jeans and t-shirt in your office on a Monday.
They are the ones prohibiting you to paint your house in bright green, even though you are supposed to own it (which means full control after all).
And they are the ones calling for more and more control and censorship of the internet, btw, which may put a halt to uncensored content publishing such as this.
Undeniably, the attitude that women were "given" wombs for a reason and a mandatory assignment from nature along with it, is still very alive.
And given the fact that we cannot create our offspring through any other means, many people, if not most, find some women's choice to remain childless shockingly selfish at best, and utterly wrong and life-defying at worst.
But is there really a duty to procreate? Do we owe the world, life, or god, or maybe the future, that we try to bring another life into existence, which will replace us when we are gone? This question applies to humans in general, not just women, as it seems to scratch at the surface of the overall purpose of human life, maybe all life.
Such a duty would imply that there is an imperative, a holy command, divine or not, which sets out a goal for our existence, a purpose of life.
Now, as stated in a previous post, I believe the purpose of human life (and more generally life itself) is development.
In the case of mankind development towards self-fulfillment, happiness etc.
And while doing that, perpetuating the circle of life, ensuring the continued existence of life, so that development can continue and thrive, surely seems like a good thing to do along the way, a requirement even.
However, I also believe in the basic human rights libertarianism describes, including the right to self-determination.
A person has the right to control their own body, their own life, by virtue of having been born human.
Their only true responsibility is to keep their mitts to themselves while they pursue their chosen path in life, so that they do not hinder anyone else doing the same.
This right is a fundamental, inalienable one.
No social convention or legal law can take it away.
Nor does denying it.
If this were not the case, and a woman indeed had a duty to procreate, this would logically imply that she does not have full control over her own body, over her own destiny, but is instead bound by someone else's will.
In fact, she wouldn't own her own body in that case.
It would instead belong - at least partially - to whoever demands this task from her, if we recognize that she is morally bound to have children.
As with all morals, the source of this demand, this ethical obligation, comes from society itself, the people who have carried over and perpetuated this conventional thinking from its earliest stage of dogmatic, unquestioned fundamentalism.
So basically, accepting that there is such a thing as a moral duty for any one of us, means subscribing to the collectivist idea that society as a whole owns the individual to the extent that it can dictate what the individual ought to do or not.
The fact that this point of view has been decreasing in western society over the centuries, leaving us more perceived freedom to do as we wish, only means society just doesn't want quite as much from us anymore.
We are not, by punishment of exile or death, supposed to go to church every Sunday anymore or bring sacrifices to altars, or afford taxes to our lords...
oh wait, well that's a whole different post.
But the point is clear: We may no longer feel quite as bad the pressure of society's claim on our lives, our bodies, our personal wishes...
but it is still there, in people's heads.
And that's fine, because everyone is entitled to their own opinions and views, as long as they don't try to impose them on anyone else.
But when people call for these desires of control over the individual to be institutionalized, for personal opinion to be made law for everyone, only then do they seek to infringe on the individual's rights.
Only then are these people exposing their deep desire for power over their neighbors.
Unfortunately, "these people" are the vast majority out there.
They live left and right from you, going to vote for political candidates proposing new laws against personal liberty.
They are the ones shaking their heads at you wearing jeans and t-shirt in your office on a Monday.
They are the ones prohibiting you to paint your house in bright green, even though you are supposed to own it (which means full control after all).
And they are the ones calling for more and more control and censorship of the internet, btw, which may put a halt to uncensored content publishing such as this.