Immediately I thought it was interesting that this author couldn't find a balance of reasons, if only for appearances sake, and proceeded to read the entire article. I wont get into them, they were your typical arguments, the ones even the best moms and dads gripe about in their facebook profiles, like not having any free time, or the ability to be spontaneous. However, it was number 20 that really struck me as being the most naive.
Reason number 20 not to have children was DEATH. The author argued that the ever present danger that someone may have a child and that that child may die before it's time is reason enough to never have one in the first place. That never to have loved at all is better to have loved and lost.
It is naivety like this that makes me question the human heart. Is it possible that someone could actually think this way? And so much so that they would market it as good advice?
Every moment spent with my loved ones, especially my children, makes my life richer, and more fulfilled. Sure, I have bad days. Heck, today was one of them. But the love I feel for Hunter and Parker transcends any love I've ever felt. I would gladly lay down my life for them, and if God sees fit to take one of them from me before their time, I'll curse and I'll falter and I'll die. But every tiny moment I've spent with them would have been worth it.
Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever heard a parent say in a time of tragedy, "I wish I'd never had them, for right now my pain would be less."
Beautiful entry. And what a weird article. :)
ReplyDelete