Feature letter: Biological parenthood
I have keenly followed the debate on "biological parenthood" (GLW #405, 408, 409, 413). The argument that there is a "biological" imperative to bear and raise one's "own" children, while superficially acceptable, is missing vital components.
At least 1 million female infants are killed internationally every year. Is this also a "biological" imperative with social underpinnings? It could also be argued that thousands of women who do not use contraceptives for religious reasons do so because of a "religious imperative".
In societies where having many children is necessary for work purposes, one could argue an "economic imperative". We can think of a multitude of reasons as to why people have children, but to reduce it all to a "biological imperative" is ignoring the various factors that determine the birth of a child.
The fundamental question raised by the debate is: What are the best conditions for a child's development? According to several studies, the psychological health of a child is dependent on her/him having a sense of security and of being wanted and loved, receiving consistent caring and having a continuous relationship with her/his carer/s. This is why, in recent times, fewer children have been taken away from so-called unsuitable families.
The security a child feels is based on the relationship s/he has with the carer, as opposed to any biological connection. One has only to look at the Aboriginal community in Australia, where in some cases children are brought up by extended family members rather than biological parents.
It is commendable that Riley mentions the clan system in other cultures, but she misses the crucial point that those cultures do not operate on individual DNA ownership of a child. There are specific and particular relationship systems established in these communities and without these details this example is also in vain.
The notion that a child is the private possession of any one human is modern. While this notion is useful for the capitalist system in relation to private property, the social implications have not been discussed.
In current property and economic relations, there is little place for collective ownership of anything, never mind a child. The word "orphan" is a reflection of the plight of children in current society.
The notion of collective caring for children has vital social, emotional and economic implications. Current society places enormous responsibility and demands on women in the role of mother. This is socially reflected in a recent Canberra study which showed that up to 80% of men still consider their duty towards their newborn to be in the role of breadwinner. In other words, the caring for a child is the private concern of women.
In modern society, nuclear families have been proven to suffer the full impact of the privatisation of child rearing. The increased problems faced by many new mothers include isolation, alienation, a loss of self-esteem and postnatal depression, and these are only the tip of the iceberg.
It is amazing that Riley implies the "purity" of the family. History shows that there is no such thing as a "pure" family form. Each family is different, made up of individuals who have different psychological make-up and needs.
It is foolish to suggest that a standard application of the rights of each individual can be argued without taking into account the impact on the family as a whole. While laws exist for the protection of the child, they are never considered other than in the context of the family as a whole.
A recent study has shown that by the year 2010 there will be more childless, single adults and couples in Australia. One wonders what happened to the biological imperatives of these people.
Having recently returned from conducting a study in child prostitution in south India, it is difficult to swallow the rigidity and narrowness served up by Riley.
Melbourne
[Abridged.]