We Probably Shouldn’t Have Children, II

Following up on reasons for and against having children , reasons that arose from the comparably new distinction between sex and procreation, Business Insider has published a variation on this theme entitled “The Perks of Being in a Relationship Without Kids.” Most of the benefits can be extracted from the acronym that describes these relationships, Double Income No Kids, or DINKS. Four reasons provide the explanation for why it’s better to have no kids when you’re cohabitating or newly married.

First, shared expenses. Regular expenses are cut in half, and if one spouse loses their job, one can simply rely on their partner while they search for a new means of income. Second, both spouses can contribute toward savings and major purchases like a car, vacations, new appliances, etc. The third reason is the simplest and needs no support: It just means more money, a self-evident good. Finally, it also means that one can “have someone to rely on,” their boyfriend or girlfriend: “I would definitely take care of my boyfriend if he needed me to, but I don’t know that I can say that I would have the same commitment for helpless children who constantly need to be watched over and taken care of.”

It seems to me that these four reasons collapse into one: Convenience.

Since sex and procreation no longer have a necessary causal connection, children are reduced to a choice. But this reduction wouldn’t be such a terrible thing if the choice was not described in the way that it usually is: Where children are immediately associated with financial, emotional, and physical burden, and one isn’t committed to any particular moral system in which life is an invaluable good, choosing contraception and abortion seems to be the most sensible option for cohabitors and newlyweds.

Read more here