Personalized choice is one of the reigning gods of our age in the United States today. It used to be something of a novelty for Burger King to advertise that at their restaurants you could, “have it your way”, but convenience and personally catered options are considered a requirement rather than a luxury for most Americans. An article run in the March 19, 2006 edition of the New York Times Magazine provides a warning sign that our propensity for having life tailored to our consumer tastes may be reaching into our decisions regarding the circumstances under which we bring a child into the world. In her article entitled “Wanted: A Few Good Sperm”, writer Jennifer Egan explores the expanding world of intentional single motherhood in which the absence of a father may not only be acceptable but preferable. Egan follows the lives of several single women who have either already had children through the assistance of reproductive technologies or who are currently attempting to do so. Although the women’s stories vary in numerous details, they share one thing in common: none have had physical relations with the father of their child(ren).
Many of the women that Egan interviews participate in a group called Single Mothers by Choice (SMC). The group has seen a marked increase in both its membership and its acceptance throughout the world. SMC’s growth is reflective of a wave of increasingly younger and more financially secure women who desire to have children but are leery of the attachments and risks inherent in marriage. Egan writes:
Between 1999 and 2003 there was an almost 17 percent jump in the number of babies born to unmarried women between ages 30 and 44 in America, according to the National Center for Human Statistics, while the number born to unmarried women between 15 and 24 actually decreased by nearly 6 percent. Single Mothers by Choice, a 25-year-old support group, took in nearly double the number of new members in 2005 as it did 10 years ago, and its roughly 4,000 current members include women in Israel, Australia and Switzerland. The California Cryobank, the largest sperm bank in the country, owed a third of its business to single women in 2005, shipping them 9,600 vials of sperm, each good for one insemination.
Behind these statistics is the reality that the social consensus concerning what is necessary to produce and rear children is under tremendous strain. Those who have advocated for homosexual adoption have long argued that there is no unique contribution that a man makes toward the development of a child in the home. Some SMC members are extending this reasoning even further to argue that a man’s presence may not even be necessary in the production of the child. A little genetic material is all that is required. Sadly this reasoning seems to be resonating with a growing segment of our society. Egan notes this shift in her interview with Jane Mattes, the 62 year old founder of Single Mothers by Choice:
In the 25 years since she founded Single Mothers by Choice … [she] has seen her group's membership conceiving at younger ages … and more often having second children. But the biggest change, Mattes says, is that the stigma attached to this form of single motherhood has largely faded. "People used to come into our meetings literally afraid to walk in," she told me. "We don't see that as much anymore. Everyone seems to know somebody who did it, which wasn't the case even 10 years ago."
Part of the explanation for this growth is our culture’s fascination with having life on our own terms. Marital commitment requires sacrifice, compromise, and limits on personal autonomy which require men and women to be discerning and thoughtful about their choice of a husband or wife. People’s aversion the sacrifices necessary to make marriage work and their anxiety concerning their ability to find someone suitable for those sacrifices have made picking out a “donor-dad” seem simple and pain free in comparison. Egan points out that the internet has simplified the process of finding a donor to the point where it “is not much different from buying shoes.” This has given donor searches a decidedly consumer feel where people talk about their potential children and their fathers as though they were picking out a pet. Daniela is a good example of this as Egan relates:
She was also attracted by the idea of a donor of another race. “I believe in multiculturalism,” she said. “I would probably choose somebody with a darker skin color so I don’t have to slather sunblock on my kid all the time. I want it to be a healthy mix. You know how mixed dogs are always the nicest and the friendliest and the healthiest? If you get a clear race, they have all the problems. Mutts are always the friendly ones, the intelligent ones, the ones who don’t bark and have a good character. I want a mutt.”
The casual tone of statements like these seems disturbingly out of touch with the sacred realities surrounding the creation and birth of a child. In fact, they reveal a mindset that is profoundly self-focused. Some SMC mothers are seeking a radical emancipation from males that they believe empowers them to seek what they really want in life without having to concern themselves with the demands of a committed relationship with a man. One of the women interviewed by Egan expressed her feelings this way:
One of the things that was so powerful about deciding to have a baby on my own was saying, I’m taking charge of this piece of it; I’m not going to wait around for a guy to give it to me. And my feelings about what I want from men right now are really changed. I don’t actually want a big relationship. Now I just want occasional companionship and [fun].
This is indeed a regrettable exchange. Parenthood as an awesome participation with God in the origin of another life is exchanged for seeing it as another avenue to take control of one’s own life. Children, who are intended to inspire thankfulness in the hearts of their parents, are instead approached as a consumer choice. As believers we must have a compelling alternative to this increasingly popular worldview. Psalm 127 tells us that, “Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor in vain.” [v.1 (NIV)] It is plain that God is not talking about buildings in this passage but about families and communities, because He goes on to say, “Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward.” [v.3 (NAS)] In our families, outsiders must see mothers and fathers who are submitted to the will of God for their lives rather than constantly trying to bend the world to conform to their wishes. They must see in us people who sincerely believe that our lives are not our own and that, in a fundamental way, our present and future children are not our own. We are stewards of our children rather than shoppers for them. The world must understand that we believe that our children belonged to God long before they ever belonged to us, and so He has the right to tell us how they are to be brought into the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment