Quote:
Originally Posted by RedHeadGal
No, not for the sake of arguing, but I am interested in the topic, so I continue to ask questions. I genuinely don't see how your life is better used by having more children. Perhaps it could be for some.
If most Mormons believe this (do you? I still don't even know as no one has responded to that portion of the inquiry)--why have sizes of families among Mormons shrunk?
|
If a person has the opportunity, and has the choice whether to have children or not, in 99.999999999999999% of cases that person's life will be better used by rearing children than doing something else. There are very few people who will serve people better absent children. Mother Teresa? Perhaps. But it was her nunnery, and not her service, that precluded her from having children.
As Waters said, the great mass of professional humanity is fungible. A farmer, lawyer, doctor, is a farmer, lawyer, doctor. I'd make an exception for artists defined broadly, although having children arguably makes artists better by expanding the range of experience to express in their chosen art form. But a lawyer sitting at her desk wondering if she can serve humanity more by not having kids? Ridiculous. A legacy of a compassionate, honest citizens is rich indeed. And the whole premise of your argument is wrong: except for the very, very few (Mother Teresa), child-rearing and service outside the family are not mutually exclusive. There's a season for all things. But if you have to choose, don't miss the Spring.