I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having just one kid or a large family. Many families, after having their first child, decide not to have anymore because of countless reasons. Sometimes it’s because of finances, the mother’s health or other family issues; and sometimes it’s simply because they feel content and that their family is complete.
Others decide to have a large family because they love children, consider children a blessing, or it comports to their faith — and there’s nothing wrong with that either.
However, deciding to have just one child and telling people that’s the better way to go are two very different things, which is why I found PBS’s recent online article upsetting.
In the article titled, The Case for Having Just One Kid, Wendy Thomas Russell explains that for her and her husband having just one child was one of the best decisions they’ve ever made. She writes, “For me, the decision to raise an only child was almost instinctive, the way I knew I wanted to spend the rest of my life with my husband. I was never on the fence about having more kids; one just seemed like enough. Then, when we brought our daughter home from the hospital, I was more convinced than ever. Our family was complete.
With every year that passes — it’s been nine so far — I become more and more relieved that I didn’t marry a man who desired a bigger family. We always said, early on, that we’d be open to adopting a child down the line, but today is “down the line,” and the only-kid thing is better than ever. Do we arrange more playdates than the average family? Undoubtedly. But when we nestle down at night for books in our pajamas, it’s just the three of us. Ad three truly is a magic number.”
It’s wonderful that the Russell’s are so happy with their family of three; but then Wendy takes her belief a step further by sharing the top ten reasons why having one child is best for everyone. Her first reason is, undoubtedly, the most unbelievable. Wendy says, “It’s eco-friendly. You’re replacing two trash-accumulating, water-wasting, gas-burning individuals with one, which means your impact on the environment is drastically reduced. You get to be a mother without destroying Mother Earth.”
Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
Basically this argument is an argument for population control because it infers that there are too many of us and if they’re weren’t, the environment and the world would be better off. Additionally, sometimes pro-abortion supporters argue for abortion by explaining that it keeps people from reproducing and is therefore good for the environment.
Ultimately, it isn’t all that surprising that PBS supports population control considering that the tax-payer funded network aired the film, “After Tiller,” last September. As LifeNews previously reported, the disturbing film was intended to “humanize” late-term abortionists who kill unborn children in the third-trimester of pregnancy.
