The Only Child: #Doesn’tPlayWellWithOthers & Other Myths

My post yesterday at christianparenting.org: 

Jairus’s daughter. John Updike. Condoleezza Rice. Cary Grant. Chelsea Clinton. My grandmother. And my mother. Do you think “most selfish people in the world” when you hear these names and labels? Neither do I. But they were or are all only children. And the stereotype of only children is that they refuse to share, act spoiled, and hog the biggest bowl of ice cream.Fortunately, this caricature of only kids as brats with tiaras or ponies on the back forty has changed somewhat in the past four decades, in part because more people have “onlies.” Whereas 10 percent of American families had an only child in 1976, by 2014 that number had doubled. Some place the percentage as high as twenty-three. And in New York City, like other urban centers, the number is closer to 30 percent.Mothers with master’s degrees have more only children than mothers with less education. But that does not necessarily mean these moms opted for education over more kids. Lots of women, myself included, pursued higher education precisely because nothing was happening in the family-expansion department. Among my colleagues and students at the school where I teach, a disproportionate number of them are childless or have only one child. Of those whose stories I know, the vast majority were not by choice.Certainly, some couples do choose education and careers over larger families. After all, it costs $245,340 to raise a child, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. And that’s just from birth to eighteen years. Smaller family size also stems from starting later, as many delay marriage as compared with couples in the past.Nevertheless, neither of these factors had a thing to do with my own parent-of-an-only-child status. Our small family size was due to factors other than cost or education—factors like infertility, multiple pregnancy losses, and failed adoptions, not a lack of desire.But as we’ve parented an only child, we’ve discovered that the caricature was wrong. As it turns out, only children score quite low on narcissism and high on sociability indexes, meaning that in terms of relationships with their peers, they do better than just fine. They score even higher than firstborns on leadership ability and maturity, perhaps because they have no choice but to interact with adult models who tend to cheer on their achievements and affirm their self-images. And in fact, only children have higher IQs, on average, than those with siblings.“How will she learn to share…?” people would ask me about my daughter, as if they’d never heard of a church nursery or an educational classroom. Even only children have to take turns on the swing and jungle gym.In the self-centered category, only children are basically the same as oldest children. But different. That’s the conclusion Frank J. Sulloway, author of Born to Rebel, reached. He says that, like oldest children, only children tend to be more conservative, but, like the babies of the family, they innovate more. Only kids are the wild cards, he says. They have more freedom to define themselves than do others.The Draco Malfoy stereotype of the only child stemmed from the teachings of nineteenth-century psychologist G. Stanley Hall, who labeled being an only child as a disease. At the time Hall had a voice, psychoanalysis was all the rage. Yet while his theories have been debunked in the academic world, it sometimes takes magazines and news outlets about three millennia to catch up on data.So if singletons are more slandered than exceptionally selfish, what about the image of the “lonely only?” “Aren’t you afraid she’ll be lonely?” people would ask, eying my child and then my flat belly with pity. Those who knew of our situation wisely refrained from voicing such concerns, but strangers often made assumptions.Many parents of only children do fear that their child will be lonely both in childhood and adulthood. And these same parents are also often absolutely concerned that their child will be spoiled. But parents with many kids share some of these same concerns.Parents of “onlies” also fear that they themselves will die young, leaving their child orphaned in adulthood. Or they worry that they will linger for decades in poor health, strapping their child with the double burden of caring alone for two elderly parents. In short, they may fret about the future. And some of their concerns are similar to how singles feel.Some of these concerns, also, it turns out, parents of only children share with parents who have more than one child. Who will take care of me? Will I be a burden? I expressed just such a lament to a young Christian friend recently: “Who will take care of me when I’m old?”She turned to me and with a look of hurt in her eyes, as if to suggest “why would you even wonder?” and answered, “I will, Sandi. And the body of Christ.”The Lord told the children of Israel, “Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you” (Isa. 46:4). He’s the kind of God who still cares for his children today. And he does so through his people. Caring for the old and infirm among us is part of what it means to be pro-life.

The Christian and Contraception: My Thoughts

My Tapestry post today: 

Because I coauthored The Contraception Guidebook (Zondervan/Christian Med. Assn), and contraception has been in the news lately, I have received some requests to add my two cents to the contraception conversation. It’s not my favorite topic, but I do have some opinions. And they are moderate, which tends to hack off those at both ends of the spectrum. But here goes.

·      Do I think contraception is of the devil? No. I think it is a gift from God. It can be abused, but that does not make it evil.  

·      Do I think all Christians who choose to use contraception lack trust in God? No.

·      Much oral contraceptive use is about something other than preventing babies. Ask any woman who is doubled over with cramps or has had a laparoscopy for endometriosis or has a serious acne problem or irregular periods. I went on the pill for a while after I lost my seventh pregnancy and then had an ectopic. I did so precisely because I held a high view of life—I didn’t want any more embryos to die in the tomb that was my uterus.

·      Does it bother me that Christians through the ages have generally opposed contraception? No. Some of the methods they opposed were downright unhygienic, and I would have opposed them, too. Does the Bible say anything on the subject? Not specifically. Yes, it says children are a gift from the Lord. But they are not the main gift or the only gift, and using contraception does not necessarily mean one is “refusing the gift.”

·      I see the purpose of marriage as oneness (“two shall become one”—see Genesis 1and Ephesians 5), not reproduction. Reproduction is a gift and a blessing, but not the end goal of marriage. If reproduction were the goal, I would expect to see Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 mentioning a focus on baby making in addition to what he says about sex meeting needs; and I would expect Song of Songs to have at least one reference to the potential for little Shulamites. But instead it's all about pleasure.

·      I think couples can choose to be childless without devaluing marriage or being out of God’s will. Just as some choose not to marry for the sake of the kingdom, people can determine that having children is not the best option for them, all things considered.

·      I think a lot of middle- and upper-class people lack compassion toward lower-class people on the issue of insurance coverage for contraception. Hormones usually require monitoring, and monitoring involves doctors. And doctors cost money. Not everyone has money.  

·      I think it’s offensive when men are the primary commentators on issues that primarily affect women for the same reason that women should not be the primary spokespersons for erectile dysfunction. The ones who have the periods, deal with the endometriosis and cramps, use the tampons and/or pads, take the pills, use the sponges or the Nuva rings…we should be the ones leading this conversation. I’m not at all suggesting men should not weigh in on the topic. But when men are the primary speakers here, they tend to have an instant credibility problem. This topic is one where we should see men and women partnering to speak.

·      When people do speak on the topic, they need to watch their rhetoric. Saying that women wanting insurance coverage for contraception are “helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government”—is offensive. I have taken the pill. I have wanted insurance to cover it. And I did not do either because my libido was out of control or I needed Uncle Sugar. I wanted insurance to cover it so I could afford to keep doing ministry. My insurance covered abortion. It seemed only fair, then, that it also cover meeting my pro-life reproductive needs as well.

·      I despise abortion.  Abortion rates go down when contraceptive use goes up. If we oppose baby-killing, it stands to reason that we should support preventing the creation of unwanted children. We are not enabling people. They are going to have sex, regardless, as the stats have shown. The question is whether they will also conceive. 

·      We should never assume that someone who uses contraception takes a low view of human life. In most cases of which I am aware, people use contraception because they have a high view. They want to avoid abortion, provide for their families, and give the children they do have their love and care. And such choices are not about devaluing life (or materialism, as some accuse).

·      Part of showing mercy to the poor or those less fortunate is helping impoverished people who wish to limit family size have the ability easily to do so.

·      I believe life begins at fertilization and that a zygote, being made in the image of God, is endowed with full rights of personhood. Doing unto others and speaking for those who can’t speak for themselves means defending the human who is too tiny and undeveloped to speak for him- or herself. It is far better to prevent the creation of an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy than to destroy one. The debate is not over when life begins. Even the secular medical books concede that human life begins when the DNA from male and female gametes align. The debate is over whether the fully human zygote is a person and thus has rights of personhood.

·      We cannot assert with confidence that the pill causes abortion. There are a lot of “more sure than right” dogmatic statements being thrown around about this. The same hormone required to make a woman ovulate is what prepares the uterine lining. So if breakthrough ovulation happens, the uterus is probably prepared—which explains why many of us have friends who conceived while on the pill and carried to term. My doctor friends tell me that if the uterine lining were improperly prepared in such cases, we would see a much higher incidence of “uterine attachment” issues with women who have conceived while on the pill. And we just don’t see that.

For my take on whether the pill causes abortion, see this post:   Aspire2 Blog: Does the Pill Cause Abortion?  And then this Tapestry post about pills and abortion. (The journal article a commenter referenced in the latter does not appear to exist.)

·      If Jesus is the TRUTH, we need to have higher standards of storytelling on this issue. But only if we want to be like him. (Sarcasm alert.)

·      Rhythm is actually an effective method when used diligently. (In countries where that’s the only viable option, it’s surprisingly more effective than in the USA.) But I still don’t really recommend it unless the couple is committed to “outercourse.” With the rhythm method, during the one time of the month when a woman typically experiences the most pleasure, intercourse is out. So if the couple is inactive at this time, she may live in a perpetual state of sexual frustration. Thus, it seems that the one method most Christians approve is the only one that expressly contradicts 1 Corinthians 7. Ironic.

·      What do I think about Plan B? It’s complicated. See this post:  Aspire2 Blog: Does Plan B Cause Abortion?

Humans made in the image of God have a responsibility to their Creator and their community to prayerfully seek wisdom about their family building options. Are you wrestling with questions about contraception in your own life? Pray with your spouse, committing your most intimate details to Christ. Do you need to show someone grace on this issue? We do find such a variety of people and opinions in God’s varied pattern book of people, don't we? "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted..." 

The Tebow SuperBowl Ad

Tim Tebow, the first sophomore in history to win a Heisman trophy, was also the first college football player both to rush and pass for 20 touchdowns in one season. And as if that weren't enough, last year Tebow led the Florida Gators to a second national championship in three years. Some predict he'll go down in history as the greatest college football player ever to live. Note emphasis on live.

When Tebow was in utero, doctors counseled his mom to abort him after she contracted a severe case of amoebic dysentery during a ministry trip to Philippines. And on SuperBowl Sunday, CBS will air a commercial that briefly tells Tebow's story along with encouragement to celebrate life.

In response some of the more radical women's groups are protesting.

Yet an editorial that ran in today's New York Times called such protests "puzzling and dismaying." Why? Because they say "The would-be censors are on the wrong track. Instead of trying to silence an opponent, advocates for allowing women to make their own decisions about whether to have a child should be using the Super Bowl spotlight to convey what their movement is all about: protecting the right of women like Pam Tebow to make their private reproductive choices."

That would be more consistent with their beliefs, wouldn't it? Pro-lifers who kill doctors who perform late-term abortions are inconsistent with life; and pro-choicers who try to censor info about all choices are inconsistent with choice.

The Times advises,"Viewers can watch and judge for themselves. Or they can get up from the couch and get a sandwich."

Michaelene Jenkins, who some years back organized the "Silent No More" event, did so because many women who abort do not know all the options available to them. "I don't think we're at a place to close all the doors. I want to see options that empower women."

On the Killing of an Abortion Provider

Dr. George Tiller, a late-term abortion provider, was shot to death this morning at his church, where he was serving as an usher.

I certainly hope the murderer who killed him doesn’t think he represented those of us who value the sanctity of life. This killing was a senseless tragedy, and it’s a sick, twisted way to emphasize commitment to pro-life ideals—again, assuming that’s what it was. If it’s wrong to destroy unborn babies, then it’s unbiblical to murder a full-grown human. And in a house of worship, no less.

If the killer declares that there’s an association between his actions and pro-life beliefs, I hope the pro-life community will resolutely condemn this action and see that he’s prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Two wrongs don't make a right.