How many children to have? Be generous!

More children or a home off the street? Photo by VnExpress/Quynh Tran

Freddie deBoer, an American writer and academic, queries what it means to be pro-natalist. Does it mean that couples should have as many children as possible? He declares his support for the pro-natalist stance of "more humans, more human flourishing" - however, he poses a problem:

Isn’t that an argument for having all the babies, not just some babies? Wouldn’t this compel us to do everything we can to produce as many progeny as possible during our prime child-rearing years?

His challenge comes down to this:

If you think there’s a moral duty to have babies, by what rationale could you defend only having one or two or three?  

It's a good point to raise and it's worth looking at what a pro-natalist philosophy is. First, it's a philosophy of life where children are a blessing (from God) and where the family is set as the fundamental structure in society. Society and the state exist to support the family, given the essential contribution the family makes to society by way of caring for the needs of children and inculcating ethical, cultural, spiritual and social values so that they reach adulthood willing and able to serve the community.

Therefore, to answer deBoer, because of those duties, parents have to be responsible in weighing all the elements of their circumstances in order to make a responsible decision about parenthood. Here's an example of Church guidance for couples considering the number of children:

[Parents] will thoroughly take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those foreseen. For this accounting they will reckon on both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as their state in life. Finally they will consult the interests of the family group, of society and of the Church. (50)

So there is nothing rash about such a decision. That is why pro-family policies can have an impact on family size decision-making. France has been particularly active on this, and its birthrate is significantly higher than comparable countries. [*]

In fact, many have commented on the statistics that show that women in particular want more children than they believe conditions allow. The New York Times reports on the finding that parents often feel overwhelmed:

As a result, the gap between the number of children that [U.S.] women say they want to have (2.7) and the number of children they will probably actually have (1.8) has risen to the highest level in 40 years. (From 1972 to 2016, men have expressed almost exactly the same ideal fertility rates as women: In a given year, they average just 0.04 children below what women say is ideal.)

Another factor to consider in the pro-natalist sphere is that there are areas where the Church condemns the decision to have a child. 

For example, the Church pleads with society not to condone, let alone encourage, the unfortunately common practice these days of "technological reproduction", or of single people or single sex couples contriving the birth of children that they wish to "have as their own". 

Here's how one Church document addresses the situation:

The desire to be a mother or father does not justify any "right to children," whereas the rights of the unborn child are evident. The unborn child must be guaranteed the best possible conditions of existence through the stability of a family founded on marriage, through the complementaries of the two persons, father and mother.[**]

And another document puts it this way:

A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of their parents,"  and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of their conception." [***]

Still, the most common reason why pronatalists in developed countries do not have more children must have to be that society is a captive of consumerism and greed, pleasure and fame, and individualism. Parents are often distracted by the busyness and distorted expectations generated by social customs arising from these false values.

A change in values is also affecting Asia, including Vietnam where I live. A clear expression of this appeared in a Vietnamese newspaper article getting people's views on officials' appeal for families to have more children because Vietnam fears it will succumb to the social dis-ease linked to depopulation as in Japan and Korea. The newspaper report states:

Vu Gia Hien, a culture expert, said the low birth rate is also a matter of attitude. There has been a rise in materialism and individualism, he said. More people in [Ho Chi Minh City], the most modern in Vietnam, are focusing on finding a good job and and enjoying life, rather than dedicating themselves to a big family.

He said the city is adopting an increasingly materialistic view from more developed Asian countries [especially Korea and Singapore]. Beliefs about a child’s filial duty have also changed, he said. Fewer people now expect to depend on their children when they get old, and more are relying on insurance and savings.

However, the article does make clear that HCM City's birthrate of 1.46, the lowest in Vietnam, is severely affected by the high costs for a family trying to improve its living conditions. 

 The Church understands the difficulties of family life but urges generosity:

Trusting in Providence and refining the spirit of sacrifice, married Christians glorify the Creator and strive toward fulfillment in Christ when, with a generous human and Christian sense of responsibility, they acquit themselves of their God-given duty to procreate. Among the couples who fulfill their God-given task in this way, those merit special mention who with wise and common deliberation, and with a gallant heart, undertake to bring up suitably even a relatively large family. (50)

A very real example of why the Church encourages families to  life is given on deBoer's Substack post on this subject, where a comment by a mother naming herself Deco spells out the benefits a child can bring to parents and through them to society:

The biggest transformation was making me thoroughly invested in this world. Before I had my daughter, I could not care less about schools, neighborhoods, ideologies, politics, the future of our country, our culture, our world. I sat on the sidelines, watching in giggling amusement, feeling blessed that I was able to largely insulate myself against much of the annoyances in the ass-clown act that was life. 

I was going to do my time here on earth, have fun, be and do good in my tiny spot in the world, in my tiny social and professional circles, and check out when my time came. Having a child, the love of my life, has made me vulnerable and heavily invested in the world far beyond the tiny corner of it I'd previously carved out for myself.

...Before her, I was the quintessential selfish person, living only for myself. Now the stakes are sky high. There are many like me, people who don't focus on the long game because nothing tethers them to the future. 

For sure, children are a sign for society of fruitfulness, hope and solidarity. 

[*] See the New York Times report linked to on this post.

[**] Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 2005, Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, U.S. edition (Washington).  

[***] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994,  Libreria Editrice Vaticana, CEPAC edition (Fiji).

Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.