I’m referring to a recent Time magazine cover story, The Childfree Life. Inside, the magazine features a photo of a couple sharing a cocktail together under a shady umbrella — while a frumpy family with small children struggles to tote beach toys across the barren sand.
“When having it all means not having children” As a mother of four, I took offense to this tagline, and to most of the text, quite frankly. Time magazine was trying to equate the childfree life with somehow “having it all”.
Are children things to be had?
On the contrary, they are human beings, remember? Not SUVs.
And then there were other details. The so-called content couple on the beach in the magazine’s photo did not have wedding rings.
We don’t get to find out if the “bogged down” couple in the background are married. We just know that the glass clinking, comfortable ones with well-coiffed hair (chest and head) aren’t.
They seem connected, just not by marriage or children. After all, that would surely lead to a lack of freedom in their lifestyle — and time to brush their hair.
I also found it fascinating such a liberal, feminist magazine as Time chose to only highlight famous women who chose to not have children. Not men. Whoops! Caught ‘ya!
Sadly, it’s true that it’s only a woman’s “choice” to bear children — but certainly not to create them. Not all the women they featured chose not to get pregnant, by the way. That makes too much sense.
For example, let’s take Time‘s pick for a “Notable Non-Mom,” Oprah Winfrey.
She is a mother—to a deceased child. She viewed the death of her newborn child at the age of 14 as her “second chance”. The implication being that if her child had lived, she would not have been able to have the life she does today.
Ask any mother who has lost a child and they will tell you that their lives have not been “child-free”, rather “child…taken”. How about the brave ones who mercifully carried, delivered and gave their children away to loving families for adoption? I’m certain they never forget that they’re mothers.
This is evidence of how our culture views children as commodities and burdens.
It’s not very often that we hear, “what a blessing” in regard to a woman becoming pregnant and giving birth. It’s usually prefaced with such asinine questions as, “Wow. You’re life is going to change.” (in a sympathetic tone.) or “Oh, how did this happen? Were you expecting this?”
Well, the short answer is……..yes.
Sex = Babies, at least a small portion of the time. Otherwise, none of us would be here. It seems like a logical equation. But our current culture, wants – no, demands — that the two be either be completely removed from one another or at least manipulated whenever and however we choose.
Our society somehow removes the responsibility associated with sexual behavior by removing the procreative aspect of it ASAP.
That’s not God’s design. That’s all ours, folks. Congratulations. Look where it’s gotten us.
We would never say, “I should be able to go swimming whenever and however I want to. I have the right to never get wet or learn how to swim. It should not define me as a swimmer! “
That’s ridiculous. Yet, we want to suspend every natural law of biology, embryology, and anthropology to say the same about our very,very sexual selves.
Again, not God’s design. That’s all on us, too. We sure do think a lot of ourselves, don’t we?
A childfree life? Why would it be glamorous? Because we would have no commitments and complete freedom.
Sure, if that’s all you want from life.
For those of us who have chosen to be mothers, we know that we certainly did commit. Some over and over again.
We committed to setting free the most beautiful creation God made. Us.