It’s a known fact that when a woman is carrying an embryo within her womb, and that embryo grows into a fetus which then becomes a baby, that a strong spiritual bond is created between mother and child that is stronger than any other bond found within human society. And when that baby is born, that spiritual bond is strengthened and accompanied by an emotional bond that knows no bounds.
It should also be a known fact that whenever the idea of being pregnant enters my mind, I want to find a Jack The Ripper copycat and have him surgically remove my uterus for his own sick and/or medical needs.
What may not be a highly known fact, however, is that after some well-executed research, it has come to the attention of Carolyn Colwell that within the past few decades men are the ones that become nervous wrecks and antsy in their pants when it comes to not having children. Meaning, they’re the ones putting on the pressure of their significant others to have babies, moreso than women are. Counter-intuitive, no?
For those of you who don’t like opinions and voted for Bush, please look away.
Without reading the article, I could already guess that it’s because most men are so proud of themselves they think their bloodline is worth carrying on, creating mini-clones of themselves who they can train to be just as thickheaded and stubborn as they are. I’ve seen it plenty of times and have had a few debates about it as well. And it’s not only that, but they think it is just so darn cool (because these types of men dare not use the word ‘cute’) to have a pink fleshy thing that looks and thinks like them.
Come to think of it, there are a lot of women like this too, but most are obsessed with how beautiful pregnancy and childbirth is, and insist that I will someday want to have children of my own despite how many times I deny it now, and that my world will change forever because, “it’s different when they’re your own”. Or some bullcrap like that.
But according to the article, this is not because women are turned off more about having children than men, but because they are more aware of the costs and the sacrifices that come with bearing and having a child than men are. Because let’s face it, women have a lot more to lose when they’re preggers than men do. The only thing I could think of that is even remotely similar (but still far from it) is if a man loses one of his testicles to cancer. What had once been so familiar and comforting was literally ripped from their lives never to be seen again, replaced with this emptiness and longing for what once was. As much of a stretch that metaphor was, you kind of get the point.
Because it’s their body in jeopardy when an embryo is first conceived, women have learned to become more aware of their bodies and what can become of them through different procedures or natural occurrences (or as some parents like to call their kids, “Happy Accidents”.) Especially where body type is concerned. For instance, if a 90lb girl becomes pregnant, she may not want to give a natural birth because a baby could literally rip her apart, rendering her nether regions useless and unattractive to any man (or woman) who may want to venture down there. That limits her choices to cesarean-section or abortion.
More is to be said about the 200lb woman who wants to give birth to a child who’s been feeding off of the clogged arteries of its host and going through physical strains whenever the mother gets up just to get a glass of water. That baby won’t be born healthy, that’s for sure, and adolescent obesity is bad enough without the children coming out of the womb having heart palpitations.
So, you want to tell me I’m a monster and unAmerican for not wanting to have children? Fire at will. I can glean enough happiness and joy from my life without feeling like it’s incomplete until I’ve spouted out crotchlings of my own that I can nurture and secretly harbor a grudge against, because I was too worried about what society would think to have an abortion. Janice Min of US Weekly can eat an ovary for all I care. Who gives a shit about what celebrity is doing what with their child, how old the child is, what they’re eating/drinking or wearing and how many times the parent was caught with a DUI. How exactly are these people contributing to society and the world in any positive way when there are magazines going on about their failure to be – in addition to a parent – a person?
I think Jezebel (to which I linked to in the previous paragraph) definitely has it’s reproductive organs on the right path when they mention “unreasonable cultural expectations”, because it’s just ridiculous to expect every woman to instantly have that biological clock geared up and ready to go as soon as they hit their early twenties. I know I especially dislike anyone who, when they hear that I am opposed to having children and don’t really find them endearing at all, insist I’ll change my mind in a few years and that they said the same thing when they were my age. Yeah, I bet you did, but you probably weren’t as adamant about your decision as I am, and you probably haven’t gone through the same traumatizing events that I have in my childhood. Everyone has their own reasons for having or not having children, and mine are most certainly going to stick, thankyouverymuch.
People who are over-zealous about spreading their DNA and continuing their gene pool should get off the backs of those who want to live their lives to the fullest, and not have it crapped on (both literally and figuratively speaking) by a parasite. Furthermore, women who make it their life’s goal and purpose to have babies and depend on a significant other to take care of the family so they won’t have to work, while being completely condescending and hateful to those without children, need to remember what century and millennium we’re living in.
I’m Samantha Paganelli, and that was my soapbox.
