A philosophical digression about the bearing of children

Why do we have children?  In "Why Have Children?:  The Ethical Debate,"  Christine Overall finds several reasons, and suggests that these reasons, when examined, are debatable.  Here are three of them:

1.  Having a child benefits the child.  Without being "had", the child has nothing.  But the supposed benefit is unknowable at the time of conception.  The random nature of growing up could well, in fact, be a detriment to the child.  Plus, if "becoming" is an intrinsic benefit to the child, then by implication "not becoming" must be a relative detriment.  But nonexistent people have no standing in the argument, no skin in the game.  Someone who does not exist has no argument for existing.  Or not.  Among the infinite number of non-existential individuals who have ever not existed, no one has ever complained about their lot in non-life (thanks, EK).  Therefore, the argument for "having" is spurious.
2.  Having a child perpetuates the family name and gene pool.  Overall's counter-arguments here are a little weaker, but follow the line of "So what?"  The greater mass of humanity does not care if your tiny pool of unique identifiers carries forward, and your providing for the continuation of the species, if carried to its extreme conclusion, would turn all women into "procreative serfs." Think of the breeding of horses and cattle.
3.  There will be someone to care for us in our old age.  A direct quote is the best refutation:  "Anyone who has children for the sake of the supposed financial support they can provide is probably deluded."  It just does not happen.  A matter of opinion, as I have seen no research on this subject, but one I suspect is valid.  (Same does not hold for godchildren with boats in the Bahamas, who are sure to be supportive.)
4.  Parenthood will make us happy.  Nope.  In a 2004 study, one of the few activities that women found less enjoyable than caring for their children was doing housework.

 The first two arguments propose a benefit to those who either do not exist or do not care.  The last two indicate a certain level of selfishness.  So, does having children come down to selfishness?  Are we-who-have-none actually paragons of virtue for having not?  Or are we the more selfish ones, denying the benefits of existence, however debatable, in order to pursue our own agenda of leading lives without the [hinderance, burdens, obligations, joys, anguish, ecstasy, insert preferred descriptor here] of having sons and daughters?

As a couple, we made a decision early in our married lives to forgo children.  Permanently.  Neither of us had a strong procreation urge, and peer/family pressure was light.  Maybe the reason our families went easy on us was that they were quite surprised when, eight months after marrying at a very young age, we did not deliver.  Who knew we married for love?

Our decision was not made lightly, but may have been made selfishly.  There were places we wanted to go.  Things we wanted to do.  Worlds we wanted to conquer.  We wanted to see what was beyond the horizon, free and unburdened.  Children would have complicated things.  Taken us down different paths.  Maybe better, more rewarding paths.  But they would have been paths not entirely our choice.  So we made our choice, knowing that we would be missing some things while experiencing others.  The choice was right for us, and we understand that it would not be right for others.  We are OK with that.

Frankly, I reject the whole philosophical discussion above.  Having children should not be an "ethical debate".  The real reason we did not have children is that we did not desire them.  No one should have children unless they desire them, want to love them, are prepared to care, nurture, coach and support them.  Boiling it down to a rational decision removes the magic from life.  It really is magical.

My apologies for the digression.  This blog is intended to address the practical considerations of non-familied elders.  But when I do see children lovingly caring for failing parents, I really admire them for their love, and their parents for inspiring such love.

Michael

[reference: The New Yorker, April 9, 2012, "The Case Against Kids", Elizabeth Kolbert]