The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Bearing Children

11.29.07 @ 12:01AM

SAVE THE POPULATION
Re: Robert Stacy McCain's "Child Free" Follies:

And people who do want them (and can pay for them) should have them. What's so difficult to understand about that? There is no need for everyone to have children, any more than there is need for everyone to drive a Maserati, live in a tent, or play the bassoon.

Having lived in single blessedness all my life (soon coming up on 60 years), I have been relentlessly hammered for at least the last 45 about how sorry I will be some day that I did not marry, and even more so should I not have children. Every day I turn on the TV and see another woman murdered by her husband, ex-husband, boyfriend, ex-boyfriend or lover; and wonder of wonders, more than a statistically expected number of these women were pregnant when they were murdered. My sainted Southern Granny always advised that if you cannot be thankful for what you have, be thankful for what you have escaped. It seems to me that my decision, for me, is the correct one. Perhaps other women feel the same way about their choices too?

Incidentally, having heard the relentless pounding away of mothers and mothers-in-law at women who (with their husband's consent) have decided not to have children, I think those women who claim to be childless in order to save the planet may just be trying to find some way to shut up the drums that continue to tell her how "selfish" she is for wanting to pursue other avenues than kinder, kirche, kuch. After all, can Mom say it is selfish if you are doing it for Mother Earth?
-- Kate Shaw
Toronto, Ontario

Six children? My hat off to you sir. I love kids, to a certain extent. I don't think I would ever want six. Two, maybe three for me is about all I think I can eventually handle.

But that's my preference, and each of us are allowed that, and I respect yours. To all of those who choose not to have children, I say 'Thank you.' It's good to know your particular brand of insanity will not be imbedded into the next generation. However, let me make this as clear as I possibly can.

Life is about that next generation. From the single-cell organisms of 3.8 billion years ago until this day, the amazing achievements of Mankind, the goal of life has always been the same: make the next generation better than the last. Make sure your genes are there. Are we over-burdening this planet? Hardly. I won't reiterate any of Mr. McCain's excellent points on this.

You don't want to have children, that's fine. Again, thank you. But don't peddle your insanity onto the rest of us, please.

Think of the children. Please, won't anyone think of the children?
-- Charles Campbell
Austin, Texas

What would we do without the "selflessness" of those who refuse to have children in order to "save" the planet? One might ask if they think their mothers agree with them.
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

We should rejoice in the fact that the eco-freaks are electing self-sterilization to save the planet. Now if we can get the global-warming crowd, the 911 conspiracy brigade and most of Hollywood to go along, our next generation will have a considerably brighter gene pool!
-- Ralph Alter
Carmel, Indiana

VANISHING BEFORE OUR EYES
Re: George H. Wittman's Back to the Future With Putin:

Not only will Russia not grow a major economy, its demographics make it likely that it will lose Siberia to China by mid-century.

Were Russia's leaders proactive and truly solicitous of Russia's future welfare, they would propose merger with the United States in a globe-spanning superstate.

At a stroke, it would solve many of Russia's and America's problems with cantankerous China.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Harry Reid, Abortion, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Iraq, Russia, Israel, NATO, Conservatism