[et_pb_section admin_label=”section”]
[et_pb_row admin_label=”row”]
[et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text”]Are you sick of hearing about climate change without being able to do anything truly meaningful about it? But we can take action! Today Having Kids is launching our Protect Your World campaign. It’s simple:
We all know that if you want to better the world, you can think globally but need to act locally. And when it comes to mitigating climate change (and almost every other way we are destroying our children’s environment), the best way is by working with others to plan smaller and more sustainable families.
Having Kids is working with local governments to adopt policies, often as part of their Climate Action Plans, to:
Explicitly recognize (in their climate action plan or in other ways) the role family planning plays in climate change;
Endorse and/or implement any family planning model that promotes smaller, more sustainable, and more equitable families that provide every child a fair start.
You can make this case in your community, too!
Please start with this sample letter, and use it to open a dialogue with your local town, city, or county government about the need to take a position on family planning.
Having Kids is working to replace parent-centered family planning with the child-centered Fair Start model.
Why?
Some of the worst consequences of parent-centered family planning are the many abused and neglected children it creates and subsequently ignores. Because the parent-centered approach prioritizes the parents’ desire to have any number of children, in any conditions – irrespective of what children need – this approach leads to some horrific results for kids.
For example, parents who have abused and/or neglected their kids – and as such are prohibited by law from having custody of any children – will often continue to have more kids. These kids are then taken in by the state – oftentimes right from the maternity ward. They are left in limbo – raised by failing state systems rather than loving and caring parents.
These kids do not get anywhere near a fair start in life. They lead lives none of us would choose for our own kids. The abusive and neglectful parents often suffer as well, separated from their children. The rest of us suffer, too, in failing communities funding a failing system of public childcare.
In the face of this horrible situation, some judges have stepped forward and said, “Enough is enough.” In certain cases, they have issued orders prohibiting abusive and neglectful parents from having more kids. These judges take the position that:
Society cannot care about children – the most vulnerable citizens – and not also care about the conditions into which they are born.
There is no ethical or legal conception of parenthood that would allow abusive and neglectful parents to create children for the state to raise (and raise poorly).
These judges’ orders clearly protect future children. Their orders also protect individuals who can’t parent, and society as a whole.
Having Kids is working to improve and expand the use of such orders – what we’re calling “Fair Start orders.” We are working to make sure they are constitutional, and are used under specific guidelines and in egregious cases.
To improve our efforts and accurately reflect our memberships’ views, we sought your opinion, using a survey that was based on a real-world case.
As you can see, Having Kids’ membership strongly supports our efforts to protect children from being born to abusive parents.
This is the survey and results:
A Florida couple with four children stands accused of abusing at least one of the children by shocking him/her with a stun gun and forcing him/her to eat dog feces. The other children were present during this abuse. Some courts are conditionally limiting the right of abusive parents to have more children in order to protect the children those parents already have, as well as future children. .
If the charges prove true: .
1. Should the couple be allowed to retain custody of their four current children? .
Yes: 18 (6.98%)
No: 240 (93.02%) .
2. Regardless of whether they are allowed to retain custody of their current children, should the couple be conditionally limited by court order from having more children, under penalty of fines/jail time? .
Yes: 193 (75.39%)
No: 40 (15.63%)
Other: 23 (8.98%) .
3. Regardless of whether they are allowed to retain custody, should the couple be conditionally limited by court order from having more children, but there would be no penalty assessed for violating the court’s order? .
Yes: 43 (16.86%)
No: 170 (66.67%)
Other: 42 (16.47%)
Your opinion really matters to us – thank you for taking the time to respond to our survey. We will take the results into consideration as we develop and promote model Fair Start orders.
If you would like more details on the responses, please contact us. And please follow us on Facebook and Twitter to help us with future surveys!
What do you want the future to look like, for you and for your kids? The family planning decisions we make today will define the future.
When parents choose to have larger families the world gets pushed towards higher projections in the graph above. This leads to a larger gap between rich and poor, and a more polluted, hotter, and dangerous environment.
But when parents follow the Having Kids Fair Start family planning model, choosing instead to have smaller families and work with others to plan a fair start for every child, we move in the opposite direction – towards a greener, more equitable, and safer world.
Which way do you want to go?
Shouldn’t we all have a right to avoid the type of world larger and inequitable families, like, for instance, the Trump’s, are leading us to?
Recently, agenerous couple chose a better way. Los Angelinos Mickey and Tricia Bhotiwihok chose to exemplify the Fair Start model by forgoing having a third child. Also, by working with Having Kids, they donated $3000.00 to Project Health Children, a charity working hard to improve childhood nutrition in Africa. Mickey and Tricia’s thoughtfulness and generosity is giving other kids more of a fair start in life, and helping to reduce high fertility rates.
Look at the fork in the graph above and think about which way you want to go. Which world do you want your children to inherit? The best way to change the world is by changing the people in it, and the good news is that we are doing just that every day, every time we have and raise kids. We just have to get it right.
Get parents talking about their kids and you’ll see a change come over their faces. The love parents have for their children draws out emotions that can’t be hidden, a unique connection that comes bursting through in giddy smiles.
But to truly love someone else means more than just having feelings. It means showing it through our actions. And when it comes to children, loving them means giving them all the time, energy, resources and attention they need and deserve. It also requires taking action in the community to build a better future, the future in which our children will live.
Today many parents are starting to build that culture – families like the Marsh family, featured in the video above. They are leading by example and showing their love for their children, their communities, and for nature. We owe them for what they are doing.
If more families do this, we can change our policies to support those families. If we do this together, all our kids can live in a future world that is less crowded, safer, and filled with people that got a fair start in life.
The future does not have to be crowded and polluted, with a degraded climate and massive gap between rich and poor. But changing it depends on how we approach family planning. Together we can do this. Please join us!
As expected, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge announcing their third childhas inspired other parents – and not in good ways. The exploding media around the growing Royal family is causing a “three is the new two” frenzy, despite some parents’ warnings and others openly admitting they can’t raise that many kids well:
“There is also a tendency to loosen the reins and lower standards with each subsequent child. I remember when my youngest was two, I discovered he didn’t know any nursery rhymes — because we just hadn’t had time to teach him.”
What if instead of having a third child by surrogate, Kanye West and Kim Kardashian had adopted one of themany infants or children waiting for a home in Los Angeles, which has a struggling foster care system filled with needy kids? What if other celebrities step forward and say: “Parenting is not about making more people who look like us – it’s about leading by example to make sure that every baby is raised with the things they need and deserve. I want all children – not just my own – to live in a better world.”
Instead of modeling bigger families, perhaps one or two celebrities will have the courage to lead by example. For the past month, Having Kids has been asking celebrities to do just that. We want them to adopt the Fair Start model and publicly state: “We are planning a smaller family so we can maximize the child’s love, time, attention, and resources.”
Does this sound good to you? You don’t have to be a celebrity to make the case for smaller families and a fair start for every child! You could be our next Featured Family. Please contact us today.
On the heels of announcements that Prince William and Kate Middleton are having a third child, another couple – Los Angelinos Mickey and Tricia Bhotiwihok – are setting a different example. Instead of putting money into their children, they are giving thousands to help other children.
Like Having Kids’ other Featured Families, Mickey and Tricia chose a smaller family. That decision also allows Mickey and Tricia to act on their altruistic natures and help other families.
To show just how powerful this approach to family planning is, Having Kids gave Mickey and Tricia a big choice: we sent them three thousand dollars that had been allocated for this purpose. The Bhotiwihoks could choose to apply this money to their family. Or they could donate the money. It was up to them.
Mickey and Tricia chose to donate all three thousand dollars to Project Healthy Children,a Givewell.org standout charity working on fortifying food for kids in the developed world.
They knew that the best way to ensure everyone’s kids live in a cleaner and safer world is to choose a smaller family and help other families do better too.
Mickey and Tricia’s Statement “Before discovering Having Kids’ Fair Start Model, we did not know there were other ways to approach family planning. Instead, we relied on generational, social, and cultural norms passed down to us. After considerable thought, we adopted the Fair Start Model, because it just made sense. We are a family of four in which both parents work. Like all parents, we want the best for our children. We are also thinking of the big picture. The Fair Start Model provides an indispensable tool for families and children. Participation in the Fair Start Model demonstrates our commitment to a brighter world for all children.”
[et_pb_section admin_label=”section”]
[et_pb_row admin_label=”row”]
[et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text”]We reiterate our well wishes to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the announcement of theirthird child.
This shouldn’t be that hard to understand: all of us at Having Kids simply want the best for all children. Not everyone will choose to switch from traditional models of family planning to the Fair Start model.
But we also need to recognize what it means when we reinforce the old model – either by our example, by our argument, or by our silence.
The Having Kids Fair Start model prioritizes children getting a fair start in life. That’s right – the children of poor families in the United Kingdom deserve the same level of nutrition, health care, and education as Prince William and Kate’s third child. This should be their birthright – and ignoring in the past ithas helped create the fatal chasm between rich and poor today.
The Independent notes: “While you celebrate the third royal baby, remember all of the women in Britain who aren’t allowed a third child: It’s an unhappy coincidence that the announcement of a third royal baby comes in the same year the Government deems third babies a luxury not every family has earned.” It is a great insight into the disparities built into our current society – the Royals set an example that the rest of us can’t afford to follow.
And for all those who try to follow the Royal example, who will pay for the third children?
If family planning stays a free-for-all, with the broader society expected to pay for every child, we will continue to have an unsolvable problem. This illustrates the problem with our current privatized family planning model: it creates a domino effect of larger families imitating one another, leading to more needy kids without the resources for their own children. This continues the cycle, and brings with it rising social and environmental costs.
It is a Sophie’s choice: Parents choose to have more kids, and society either pays the costs, or kids end up paying by not getting what they need and deserve.
Our short-sighted approach to family planning has broader implications as well.
Many of you were startled to see our discussion of William and Kate appear next to oursurvey regarding parents who abused their child with a stun gun and forced him/her to eat dog feces. The Royal discussion was also alongside our blog about limiting the right of members of Boko Haram to have kids after these parents offered up children to be usedas child bombs.
What is the connection? All this follows from the old, subjective family planning model of personal and private choice.
Focusing only on the “rights” of parents is the argument lawyers use to make sure anyone can have more kids – no matter how the children suffer. Many of us implicitly endorse this view. After all, if the Royal family’s family planning is none of anyone’s business, then other parents’ decision making is also none of anyone’s business.
If we put parents’ rights ahead of the rights of future kids, we get horrible abuse and child bombs, and no logical way to say anything against these outcomes.
By Bdm25 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51036438
There is no doubt that if the average parent plans smaller families, where we work together to ensure every child gets a fair start in life, you and your kids’ future will be less crowded, cleaner, and safer. If we continue on our current path, we get the opposite.
Who would knowingly choose to subject their kids to a hotter, more crowded, more polluted, and more dangerous world?
How can the future of the world not be our business? Don’t we have a right and the duty to make the future better for our kids? The only way we can improve our future – and everyone else’s – is if family planning becomes a topic we can all discuss honestly.
The solution is a child-first family planning model – an approach that balances all the values at stake in family planning. Let’s switch to that, and step out of the horrible cycle we’ve created for so many children.
Please be a part of this work today atHavingKids.org[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column]
[/et_pb_row]
[/et_pb_section]
Recently USA Today reported on the Nigerian militant organization Boko Haram’s increasing use of children as human bombs. Already this year, 83 children – including a baby strapped to a girl – have been used as terrorist tools since the beginning of 2017. Bloomberg reports that many of the victims come from families who donated the children, knowing how they would be used.
The stories raise a compelling question: Are there any limits on who should be allowed to have kids?
Do parents who would donate their young children to be blown up by Boko Haram still have a moral or legal right to have more? Should we as a society say nothing about members of ISIS having more kids, given what will happen to them?
These are questions no one is asking. And not because there are no ways to answer them – bioethicists deal with similar questions all the time – but because there appears to be no way to actually implement such limits. Why ask the question if there is nothing we can do about it? How would the United Nations and the international community begin to limit the right, legally and in practice? How should we actually intervene in these situations to stop parents? The notion is almost silly. But that’s thinking inside the box. It’s almost equally silly to think laws and policies that are not enforced have no impact on our behavior. Such laws and policies do, and are studied under an area of legal theory and research usually referred to as expressive law. Prominent organizations and governments merely taking a position on a controversial subject – that some people are not fit to have children – can have a tremendous impact. And what does not taking a position mean? That we think it’s ok for parents who would use their children as human bombs to have kids? Is that what we think? Is that the universal norm we all want to be living with?
Recently, Mike Huckabee took to Facebook to attack Having Kids and insult the parents who run the organization. However, when challenged to either defend his attacks or apologize on multiple occasions (1, 2), Mr. Huckabee was suddenly silent.
It is almost as though he was more interested in getting cheap laughs from his fans than wanting to honestly face the future and help to solve the world’s problems.
In the meantime, we’ve experienced what is likely to be the most expensive disaster in US history. It is estimated that Hurricane Harvey could cost more than Katrina and Sandy combined.
We will ask again: What will it take for us to have an honest, constructive conversation about leaving our children, and their children, a sustainable world where they can have a fair start?
Having Kids is working with local governments to adopt policies, often as part of their Climate Action Plans, to:
