Bringing children into non-ideal situations

etky

Wed, Nov 13 2019, 11:28 pm

amother [ Ecru ] wrote:

I wasn't trying to attack anyone for being on BC, I am not privy to their reasoning or that of their Rabbis. However, just because BC is PERMISSIBLE in a certain circumstance does not mean it is MANDATED.

If Torah does not mandate BC for times when newborns are being drowned or murdered for their blood, it means that Torah is okay (or supports) having babies in what I think is certainly not ideal circumstances. (I doubt that every woman did make efforts to do so, although those who did were praised.)

Jews have been having babies in extreme poverty throughout the ages. Not necessarily community-wide poverty, but living in a drafty hovel and struggling to put bread on the table poor. That is certainly a less-than-ideal situation, but I have never seen a blanket endorsement by Rabbis at any time for all of those in a certain income bracket to refrain from bringing more hungry mouths into the world.

During the Holocaust, probably many chose not to procreate. But many did have children, and those children are the survivors today. I read a beautiful story (though I can't remember where) of a family who had children during the Holocaust years, despite being criticized for it... and miraculously, the entire family survived.

Having children is not always a logical choice. But it might be the right choice regardless.

In fact we have two very famous midrashim praising women's efforts to procreate during the gezerot shmad of Pharoah : the midrash about Miriam chastising Amram who divorced Yocheved after reaching the conclusion that it was futile to bring children into the world in the wake of Pharoah's decree against the male babies, and the midrash about the Israelite women who would use their mirrors (later the mirrors that they bought to the mishkan and from which the כיור was fashioned) to 'seduce' their exhausted husbands into having relations so as to ensure the continuity of the Jewish people.
So, we may not pasken from sefer Shemot but we can extrapolate that procreation - even under the harshest conditions - is a very high value in the Jewish tradition.

ora_43

Wed, Nov 13 2019, 11:48 pm

amother [ Sienna ] wrote:

Very few rabbis would say that BC is completely assur for someone that does not want children and is coming for a heter. However, for someone who does want children, even fewer Rabbis would discourage them from having. We're the only ones who don't know how to mind our business and decide who should have children and who shouldn't. The rabbis certainly aren't doing that.

This thread is a spinoff of another thread. Without getting back into that whole debate - that's a situation where many rabbis do discourage people from having babies.

Most rabbis will also discourage, if not flat-out prohibit, pregnancy that would threaten the mother's physical or mental health.

Many rabbis would discourage pregnancy if it would put the marriage at risk, or the parents' ability to care for their other children.

It is really not as simple as you're suggesting.

ora_43

Wed, Nov 13 2019, 11:50 pm

etky wrote:

So, we may not pasken from sefer Shemot but we can extrapolate that procreation - even under the harshest conditions - is a very high value in the Jewish tradition.

No, we really can't. We can conclude that keeping the Jewish people alive is a very high value, but that doesn't imply a similar value on an individual level. There's no special value on Plonit Almonit having a child at a time when the Jewish people is thriving, if she's struggling to be a good parent to her existing children.

(eta - similar to how we can have a national mitzva to wage war, or to set laws, but no similar mitzva on an individual level. the only mitzvot that apply to individuals regardless of the national situation, when it comes to having children, are pru u'rvu and b'erev al tanach. AFAIK, AYLOR, etc.)

etky

Thu, Nov 14 2019, 12:26 am

ora_43 wrote:

I didn't mean that this value trumps personal circumstances that would negate procreation.
Just that in Judaism it's axiomatic that there's tremendous value to having children and that the survival of our nation and our religion does color hashkafa on the matter, even if Jewish continuity is not technically a mitzva incumbent on the individual.
Obviously, any rabbi consulted on the matter will weigh all the personal considerations and should prioritize them, but his point of departure - aside from the technical mitzva of pru irvu - inevitably includes this perspective, because the value of procreation, of creating a new generation to whom the Torah can be conveyed, is so deeply embedded in our tradition.

amother

Salmon

Thu, Nov 14 2019, 12:51 am

etky wrote:

Surely it's a value, but in that case, the Jews knew that their condition was going to end.

While it's a value to have children, it may not be right for every couple to have children in every situation.

We have no business in anyone else's bedroom. If they have more children than they seem able to handle, we have to step up to help without comment.

Mommyg8

Thu, Nov 14 2019, 4:29 am

amother [ Mistyrose ] wrote:

You need to categorize what "non ideal sitations" are.
1. Famine
2. War
3. Parents who hate each other
4. Poverty
5. Parents who mildly dislike each other
6. Parents who have health issues

I mean, the list could go on and on.
Some situations are worse than others.

If the child will make the situation worse, then yes, you should probably try to avoid having another child.

Here is a real life story I am personally involved in.
Woman over 40 with several children. She freely admits that her husband doesn't contribute - all parnasa and child rearing issues are on her shoulders. Both of them are uneducated. he "learns" and she works menial jobs. They are living on the poverty line.
Each child has different issues - some major health issues which necessitate multiple hospitalizations. Some school/learning issues.
They are all undernourished. She basically subsists on coffee and bread. Her kids are all very skinny and don't look well fed.
They have no car. So when her child is in the hospital it basically takes a full day for her to go visit the child via public transportation.
She wanted another baby and actively made that happen. She admitted that. She got sick during the pregnancy and had to stop working, the baby was very small and was born early. After the birth she could not work at all. The baby is in public daycare full time because she's not well enough to take care of it. Her older children are obviously suffering more than they were before. The family is surviving on welfare and handouts. I promise I am not exaggerating this.
All details are true.
All outsiders who saw this unfold agree that this child should probably not have been brought into this world.

Someone told me that 70 years ago, the Satmar Rebbe encouraged his people to have as many children as possible (they still do). Someone had to put her baby in an orphanage (in a temporary situation, until the baby became older), because she had too many, too close together. Still, he encouraged her to have more.

"All outsiders agreeing" is not the same thing as right or wrong.

There is a concept, however, of not bringing children into times of famine. Just curious how it's possible, though, to have no food in today's times of food stamps, WIC, and who knows what else? We are certainly not living in times of famine, on any level...

Mommyg8

Thu, Nov 14 2019, 4:43 am

amother [ Ecru ] wrote:

This.

There is no question that BC was permitted during the Holocaust, but there were many brave souls who got pregnant anyway. Most died, and perhaps some hastened their deaths in this way. But, as you say, some did survive, and are sometimes the only zecher of their family. Having children when times are hard and the future looks bleak seems like a foolhardy choice, but a choice that Jews have consistently made over the ages.

Specifically in mitzrayim, the medrash says the women would give birth in the field, and leave their babies there. Hashem sent a malach to give them two rocks, one of honey and one of milk, for these babies to suck from. These babies grew up, and it was these babies who left mitzrayim.

southernbubby

Thu, Nov 14 2019, 4:50 am

If a woman is on drugs or has had children removed from her custody due to abuse, it would be an ethical question as to the appropriateness of her having a baby.

I knew of a situation where a woman who had epilepsy was warned not to get pregnant due to her medicine being teratogenic to a fetus. Her rabbi told her not to get pregnant but she didn't listen and gave birth to a baby who had Spina bifida.

So clearly, there are times when a person is duty bound to avoid having babies but it doesn't look like poverty is necessarily one of them.

In the other thread, they are talking about a situation where the woman has no halachic obligation to have a child, possibly should not have a child, but has been given a heter to have a child.

amother

Brown

Thu, Nov 14 2019, 5:05 am

southernbubby wrote:

Exactly. I don't understand why this isn't clear.

keym

Thu, Nov 14 2019, 5:05 am

etky wrote:

My husband recently showed me a famous fascinating medrash that is NOT taught in Bais Yaakov.
Parshas Noach. Shlosha sheshamshu.
Basically that during the mabul, 3 creatures had relations. Cham, the kelev, and the oreiv.
The medrash doesn't talk much about the dog. But the meforshim say that based on the pesukim, Noach didn't want to let the oreiv back in, he felt it didn't deserve to survive. Hashem had to force him.
And Cham was the worst in that he conceived Canaan. When Cham and Canaan were cursed, it was also about Cham having really poor kiddos, having relations while the world is being destroyed. And Canaan being conceived in a bad time and bad mazel and so to speak making him bad.
There are halachic about relations during war, drought, floods from this.
Not extrapolating halacha or anything. Just bringing a not so we'll known medrash.

amother

Silver

Thu, Nov 14 2019, 5:16 am

amother [ Ecru ] wrote:

So how "non-ideal" do things need to be in order to make it a bad idea?

Children getting murdered at birth = not enough of a reason (see: Egypt)
Entire communities getting exterminated = not enough of a reason (see: Holocaust)
Extreme poverty = not enough of a reason (see: almost every time period)

Perhaps only if the children themselves will be making the situation worse, as opposed to being simply born into it, would it seem like it should be avoided?

This. If you want the Torah perspective, you should continue to have children even when the situation is not ideal. In Egypt , the baby boys were being killed, Arons parents were going to separate as not to have children only to be killed and that turned out to be the wrong approach and demonstrated a lack of bitachon. If they had done that, Moshe would never have been born.

amother

Silver

Thu, Nov 14 2019, 5:22 am

keym wrote:

Maybe because he was conceived immorally. For example a brother and sister having relations with each other. A father and daughter and so forth.

Mommyg8

Thu, Nov 14 2019, 5:38 am

southernbubby wrote:

This is why we have rabbonim. If a woman's physical or mental health would be harmed by getting pregnant, then the Rav would decide what course of action to take.

And we have many, many threads from women who asked for a heter and were not given one. Also, as another poster pointed out, it's a heter, not a mandate. No Rav is going to pasken that someone may not get pregnant, unless it's a clear, clear sakanah. And I'm not even sure then.

Going back to my previous post, I'm more awake now and I just realized that the woman in that story was obviously not facing her reality. She was living in a fantasy world of she thought it was ok to have another child in her situation. People who live in fantasy and don't face reality are .... crazy. Or whatever the clinical term is. Not really related to right or wrong, IMO.

Laiya

Thu, Nov 14 2019, 5:55 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

This is related to the thread about single motherhood. Some insist that children shouldn't be brought into less than ideal situations. The extreme version of this belief is antinatalism, the belief that it is wrong to have children altogether because you know that they will suffer in life. Others say that one should have children even if the situation is not ideal. The extreme version of this would include having children even in situations such as a bad marriage or a known genetic issue.

I disagree with the premise of the question, and maybe that's why the other thread was so polarized. The more extreme form of believing that it's ok or even appropriate or admirable to have children born into less than ideal circumstances is NOT intentionally conceiving a child with a genetic disease.

Issues of circumstance, bad situations--by definition things can change. That's why the Jewish women in mitzrayim were praised for procreating; their emunah was that things would change, it was all temporary and they would leave slavery.

That entire cheshbon is absolutely irrelevant to the other example, choosing to conceive a child that will likely have a genetic disease.

Does Torah support intentionally conceiving a child that is likely to suffer with a genetic disease? I'm no halachic expert but I'm pretty sure the mainstream frum world all currently supports dor yesharim

southernbubby

Thu, Nov 14 2019, 6:28 am

Laiya wrote:

It's one thing if it's certain that the child will be crippled, such as a woman on teratogenic medication to say that pregnancy should be avoided, but prior to dor yeshorim, couples often buried several children in order to have some that lived.

Ravenclaw

Thu, Nov 14 2019, 6:33 am

The reasoning behind couples’ choice not to have kids in shemos was that “the kids will eventually suffer as slaves in the future”, I.e. “they won’t have a good life” and therefore they should rather not be given life.
That’s a wrong perspective.
But when couples use BC for whatever reason it’s usually more personal than philosophical. We can’t cope right now. The mother can’t handle it physically, emotionally. Etc.