About a month ago, Gerry, a reader of Rod Dreher’s blog, sent him a 2,600-word complaint against professedly pro-family conservatives who promote economic policies that create disincentive to have children. His points are too densely packed to pick a representative section, but in summary, he sees everything from our health care system to our immigration system to housing costs as of conservative origin and as creating too much risk to allow his wife and him to have children.
Of course, he’s mistaken about much of it. The idea that conservatives support our current health care system or that it has a free market design is absurd. But also of course, he has a fair point when he complains that people in his conservative community didn’t help a family member who had fallen on hard times. They should have, which is what conservatives would encourage.
More interesting, though, is the underlying assumption of Gerry’s rant: He feels that he shouldn’t have children in the face of risk and that it is the government’s job to smooth those risks. In that respect, I can’t help but see a connection to the contraceptive mentality. At core, in my view, the problem with contraception is that it moves the responsibility and fault for unwanted pregnancy onto an object or chemical, rather than on the parents. Gerry just abstracts that principle further, such that the responsibility for children rests not with the parents, but the government, and the fault for (potentially) not being able to remain comfortable while having children rests on the government’s shoulders, rather than on the parents’ personal ambitions.
Having children is always a risk. Life is always a risk. Gerry, as a Christian, should appreciate the point that if life was supposed to be otherwise, then God would have made it so.
Instead, he seems to elevate comfort — his comfort — above life. That may or may not be rational, but it certainly isn’t pro-family.