The idea of procreative freedom is a double-edged sword, which unfortunately cuts only in one direction. Famous legal cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey teach us that the privacy of the body is inviolable. Women, who are mostly although not exclusively targeted by these decisions, have the right to delay or interrupt pregnancy according to their life plans and views. Understood in this negative connotation, procreative freedom can only be praised and encouraged. However, the liberty of bearing children can also be read in a positive key, namely, that anybody can become a parent under the circumstances of their own choice. Opponents of this dogma are automatically labeled as eugenicists at worse or elitists at best. However, if we move beyond the atrocities related to child bearing restrictions from the turn of the 20th century in the US or from the Nazi regime and do not endorse any eugenic aims, we can safely put under scrutiny the claim that we can all become parents anytime and anyhow. Which is exactly what is happening nowadays!
I am absolutely enraged. The other day, while having lunch, I see an elegant 30 year-old lady eating a perfectly healthy salad, while her less than 3 year-old child is nibbling on a huge dessert cup loaded with chocolate and cream. The whole time that I was there, the lady did not taste the dessert, while her child did not even have a look at her salad. Some other day, I pass the terrace of an ice-cream shop. What do I see there? Two ladies, two baby carts, two babies and four ice-creams. You do the math and tell me: aren't you also enraged?
Food is one of the things that can both kill and keep us alive. We need it, we love it, we want it and, most importantly, we fear it! And for good reason. Medical research shows how most forms of cancer are linked to poor diets and abuses. Obesity and diabetes are taking millions to the grave, while the bitter truth of sugar remains unheard. Sugar is my main enemy. It is the false friend that celebrates with us our most important events. It is the poison that we reward our loved ones with. It is the hero of the food industry, which uses it abundantly in most foods that we consume. But above all, it is the drug that we are most addicted to and that we feed to people who do not ask for it.
Our taste is being constantly altered by all the processed food that we are being exposed to. An apple does not seem sweet anymore, unless we find it hidden in a pie. A cherry looks good only on top of a chocolate cake, while vanilla without sugar is truly inconceivable. Fortunately or not, this goes only for us, the "grown-ups". Babies, on the other hand, do not share our appalling tastes concerning food. Unless you feed him chocolate, your baby will be satisfied with a pear or an orange. Unless you introduce him to Coke, be sure that he won't ask for it! Then, where does all this sugar and bad food madness that seems to have caught so many parents come from? One thing is certain: it's not lack of love. In a world full of contraceptive measures, most children cease to be accidents. They are wanted, expected and loved! Furthermore, we cannot blame parents' bad choices on lack of education. Information regarding nutrition is spread out all around us and available on a multitude of channels: TV, internet and social media, print media, awareness campaigns. Even if you are not interested in it, it is impossible not to have heard that a diet rich in sodium is bad for coronary health or that big alcohol intakes damage the liver. Then, what is it?
Honestly, I do not have an answer. But I do have a guess. The relation between a parent and her child is that between two Others, but, unfortunately, it is failed to be recognized as such. Why Others? Because parents and children are separate people, different with respect to the date and conditions of birth, members of distinct cultural epistemes, entrusted with specific tastes and make-ups. While failed Others? Because genetics and the experience of pregnancy makes the parent forget about the differences between her and her child. Mothers and fathers bestow upon their offspring all those things that they consider worth having. But one condition of having a respectful relation with an Other is to put yourself in her place. Parents mistakenly disregard the distinctiveness of their child, while they do so in the best of faiths. The separateness of the child manifests itself in its strongest form during adolescence, when the teenager affirms and protects her individuality. If we do not encourage the expression of the Other early on, then we shouldn't be surprised by adolescent rebellions.
For whichever reason, moral philosophers love lakes and trolleys. One famous question in moral theory is the following: Suppose someone kidnapped and transported you blind-folded to a lake. All you see is a person drowning. You know nothing about her, but should you save her? Morality would dictate us to say yes. There are so many babies drowning around us little by little every day. We don't know who they are, how many they are, nor who they can be. But should we save them? Yes! It is a collective moral duty that we share simply because we acknowledge its existence and because there is no one else left to do it. Babies cannot speak for themselves.
There is no such thing as a universal moral freedom to procreate. The liberty to bear children is conditional on the ability to discharge parental duties, which are plentifully diverse. After all, we impose so many burdens on adoptions, ask for piles of proofs of good conduct and try to ensure that the adopted will be well treated. But do we ask for anything when a 16 year-old with gloomy life prospects gets pregnant? No. Nature seems to do a pretty good job in justifying the impermissible, although we have long left the time when the natural was automatically good. We are the homo economicus, the ones who transform the environment and who, implicitly, have to assume the responsibility of creation.
