According to one familiar outlook, one does not have a right but a duty to have children, whether or not one can provide for them. The Old Testament injunction to "go forth and multiply" is held by Catholic moral theology to be trumped by St Paul's teaching on the preferability of celibacy, but still incumbent on those who had better marry than burn. For these lesser members of the flock, the accident of conception no matter what the consequence for the resulting numbers of children has to be born with patience—by all concerned.
The question itself, though, has a steely edge to it. Should the poor be allowed to have children if they cannot feed and wash them properly? This has become "any children," not just "more children," but the implication is already there. Perhaps the real question is: should we allow any children to be born and raised in poverty and want?—intending by this not to deny the maternal instinct when it rises, but the indifference of society to the needs of children (and their mothers) when they appear.
There are two reasons for wishing to switch the matter around this way. One has to do with the imperative felt by many and probably most women towards maternity. Any dispensation which denied motherhood to women on the grounds that they do not meet certain economic or other socially imposed criteria would be an unjustifiable one. If the idea of a "natural" right has any grip, it applies in the sphere of biological fundamentals such as this.
The other reason has to do with the obligations any decent society owes those who are not in a position to fend for themselves, and who need help to become able to do so. Children are a paradigmatic example, and so if they are not sufficiently circumstanced, we indeed have a duty to provide for them. This applies as much to children conceived by accident by the feckless poor who have no real prospect of being good parents as it does to poor people who strongly desire children. Wanted children are at something of a premium in the world, but the needs of the unwanted are as great.
With "more," though, the question introduces the idea of responsibility to already existing children, to say nothing of society at large. If you have children and cannot afford more, have you not exercised your right to have children already, and are you not trespassing on their interests by having more? Answer: yes. But does this remove society's duty to both the children irresponsibly born, and the children they thus deprive? Answer: no.
Sent in by Roger Martin, Upper Coxley, Somerset.
Send your philosophical queries and dilemmas to AC Grayling at question@prospect-magazine.co.uk
