 |
| Society6 Veronika Weroni Vajdova |
It's chaos in order.
1. Desires
a. The husband and I have been talking about having kids. We vary in our opinions of when, and even how. I've always wanted to adopt at least one child and, before he met me, that idea never crossed his mind.
b. I understand the desire of having your own children. Little mini-me's. Something that is of your own flesh and blood. Something that, in some ways, you have more control over as far as knowing what you're getting into from a family genetics perspective.
None of that has ever mattered to me.
c. My husband says I am a passionate person; that I become impassioned easily. That once I feel a certain way about something, it's full steam ahead. It's true.
The idea of adoption has been with me for as long as I can remember. Initially, I couldn't explain why. It was just a feeling. Now, while it still remains an urging and a desire, there is more. There is the understanding of how many children already exist in this world with nothing. No family, no safety or security. No idea of what belonging means.
Children that do not know what it feels like to be loved.
d. I can't foretell how my life will play out. Adoption is not for everyone, which I understand. All I know is that in my bones I feel that someday, in some way, I will have a child that is not of my own creating.2. Concepts
a. As I grow to better understand the world, I also grow with more questions. I feel both certain and uncertain about aspects of how things are or how things should be, could be, might need to be.
For instance, some say the world is overpopulated by the human race. If you look at the amount of humans that inhabit this precious planet, if you look at cities where people are crammed in together, if you consider the amount of resources needed (food, shelter, clean water) for the current population and predicted increases in population, it's hard to disagree. There are already masses of people who do not have their basic needs being met.
b. Thinking about that brings me back to procreation.
Is it selfish to bring a child into a world knowing the capacity of our planet and knowing there are hundred of thousands (if not more) of familyless children already?
c. Years ago, if someone could not conceive a child, they would either not have children at all or adopt. Now, with the advancements we've made, it's possible to have children even when your body isn't able to naturally.
I know this is a sensitive subject, and I can greatly understand the desire to try at all costs. I have no negative feelings towards this, none whatsoever. But allow me a moment to play the devil's advocate.
Nature has a way of controlling things. It's obvious when you look at animals, at insects, at flora and fauna. At how these things evolve, change, increase or decrease based on what needs to happen. When you really examine this, when you really consider the magnitude of what nature knows without the help of graphs or data, science or solutions, it's remarkable.
The same applies to us.
What if, for those who cannot have children, it's nature's way of helping us control the population? And not just control it, but help it. If you can't conceive on your own, you adopt. One less child without a family, one less family without a child. A simple mathematical equation.
Nature is, according to research, stepping in in other ways as well.
A friend of mine (who is gay) posted an article about an idea of why homosexuality might exist. The concept evolved entirely around population control. The idea was that when a species is overpopulated, our bodies make adjustments to help control the population in other ways. Homosexuality being one of them. Since a homosexual couple cannot conceive on their own, they don't add to the population and, in most cases, they help keep it in control by adopting.
(Side Note: I don't need a reason for why homosexuality exists. I support LGBTQ people regardless. I just find this to be interesting.)
d. For over three decades, couples in China were only allowed one child. Now, they can have two. For obvious reasons, many people believe this is a violation of basic human rights. How dare a government tell people what to do with their own bodies!
But what if it comes down to that one day, in the future, because there are simply too many of us and not enough of everything else? Because we have bypassed nature with scientific advancements?
And how does all of this tie into the never ending fight between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice? I won't even try to go into that here because it's just too big a topic.
I will broach the subject of genetic testing, though. Prior to this, parents had no way of knowing if their child would be born in perfect health or with some kind of illness or genetic disorder. Now, it's almost unheard of not to find out in advance. Often, when parents do, they are given the option of terminating the pregnancy. They are given the option of life or death with some degree of knowledge about what their life, and their child's, could look like given the test results.
What does this say about our humaneness?
Are we more kind by not wanting a small soul to suffer? Or are we less by not giving them a chance to prove us all wrong?
This brings me to the next thought process.3. Casualties
a. I dare you to name someone you know that doesn't have some sort of a disease or genetic disorder. Even the healthiest people have something wrong with them, no matter how small, which is why we're always looking for cures. We love our people and we want them with us for as long as possible. We want them healthy, well, able to enjoy the life they've been given.
b. We also want them safe. We don't want to worry about car accidents or murderers. Natural disasters, like the terrible things that are happening in Texas. We want security in knowing the people we love are protected. This is why we have laws, governing agencies, seat belts, warnings.
I understand all of this. I want all of this.
c. I also understand, too much, that there is a balance and why it has to exist. Why we can never be free of disease, of accidents, of tragedy. What it would mean if we were; how many more of us would exist, how fewer resources we would have. How weird it is to realize why we have limits, but how accurate it is that we do. There is only so much of everything to go around.
Imagine if everyone lived to a ripe old age- everyone. It's a beautiful idea, a lovely thought. It's what we strive for with research and science and testing, testing, testing.
But would it ultimately ruin us in other ways?
A lion must have prey to survive, the prey must have plants to survive, and each and every living thing must die in its own way. Is it fair to say that all these deaths are both tragic and necessary?
I don't know. These are questions that may never be answered in my lifetime, or ever.Food for thought, all of this. Things to ponder.
No comments:
Post a Comment