CORRESPONDENCE

De Roubaix responds: Cherry-picking, selective reading and the creation of straw arguments?

I thank Mr Msimang for his comments^[1] on my article^[2] and the editor for inviting my response. I urge readers to read both article and comments and be the adjudicators; the article has already had 1 430 full text views. I limit my response to a few poignant points.

Firstly, we apparently agree that 'we should consider the probable quality of life of the child we intend to produce and evaluate our personal social and economic environment before contemplating pregnancy' (my words), 'in a manner that brings these considerations to bear on our decisions about whether to procreate' (Msimang's words, paraphrasing mine). He talks of 'a kind of personal accountability about reproductive choices that we should encourage. Prospective parents should consider such factors as 'their sociopsychological situation, their ability to make provisions for their children, the appropriateness of the available support systems that they would have for the child, and so on, with the myriad of other considerations relevant to the well-being of the child and the community (s)he would be joining'. I consequently deduce that we actually agree on the principle of responsible parenthood. Yet Msimang is not prepared to follow his own argument to its obvious logical conclusion - that not following these dictums amounts to some form of irresponsibility. He seems to absolve the poor from such responsibility. Msimang's argument, if I understood it, is that it is irresponsible to even talk about responsible parenthood if a multitude of factors - economic, social, historical - limit the ability for responsible parenthood. These factors stack up in the lives of the poor. Let's take the counter-argument for a moment: what would be the consequences should we not expect of agents to be personally responsible for their actions because they are poor? Does it imply that being poor equates to not having agency? It goes without saying that there may be levels of taking responsibility, which in itself can depend on a myriad of other circumstances. And there is a grade difference between irresponsibility (not being accountable, avoiding duty) and culpability (guilt). Both Msimang and I have focused on poverty because it is so devastatingly prevalent in this country. Poverty and large families go hand in hand, and my argument is that one sure route to socioeconomic upliftment and the lot of children we do have is through limiting family size.

We also agree that this is a complex issue. For example, I speak of the 'complex social dynamics within which sexual relations operate and consequent pregnancy occurs, the fact that many SA women are vulnerable and have little choice and the fact that access to family planning and abortion services are inadequate (which) combine to limit choice'. No woman, no child of 10 or 12, falling pregnant in such circumstances can be said to have acted irresponsibly. Msimang refers to 'a myriad of systemic problems children face in South Africa, especially when they are born into poverty', and enumerates some.

We agree that there is much rotten in this state of ours. I frame my views on responsible parenthood toward the end of the article:

' Because of the complexity of underlying socioeconomic factors that fall beyond the scope of this article, it would be simplistic to argue that responsible parenthood can remedy the ills described above. It can at best be seen as an ideal to strive towards, as a marker of socioeconomic development and the achievement of a certain level of development. It cannot be cherry-picked and preferentially developed outside of general socioeconomic upliftment, which should be the aim of every decent society.'

And:

' Each child should matter, and the possibilities inherent to each should be optimally developed. Family planning services should be a cornerstone to attain the latter. But so, too, should the development of the notion of responsible parenthood be an expression of responsible citizenship.

Reproductive choice is a natural and liberal right, but it must be tempered with responsibility to produce only those children that we can care for, and our legal and moral obligations towards the children we have.'

We do seem to disagree on the actionable significance of the Constitutional rights embedded in section 28 of the Bill of Rights. Msimang argues that they are (purely) aspirational. I disagree. These rights limit parents' rights to reproduce. Surely every child has a right to family or alternative care, nutrition, shelter, protection, to have his or her well-being considered, as specifically listed. And are the parents (and not the state) not the prime providers charged to fulfil those rights? Be mindful that this is more than just a moral admonishment: the Children's Act No. 38 of 2005 makes it a criminal offence if a person who is responsible for caring for a child - in the first instance, each parent - does not provide the child with (presumably, among other things) clothes, housing and medical care. With this in mind, can it be wrong to argue that we should limit our families to the extent that we can supply the above, or at least as much as possible? That '(c)itizens' freedom of choice in reproduction is therefore limited by Constitutional and legislative measures aimed at child protection'? The immorality of the causes of socioeconomic deprivation operates on a different level and does not absolve us from personal responsibility, even if we are poor.

Msimang's essential criticism - elevated to his title - is that I argue that 'only the elite should have children^[1] (my emphasis). I am tempted to opine that he is being slightly mischievous in creating a 'straw person (argument)' that he proceeds to shoot down. Where do I say that 'poor people should not have children', that 'only the elite' should? Where do I 'suggest' 'that we should create programmes to steer poor people away from child rearing'? This is a far cry from what in fact I wrote: that the state 'has a responsibility to intervene by designing and initiating programmes to promote responsible parenthood within social development'. It should be obvious that these can only be educational programmes. If I'd argued what Msimang suggests I had, I would have joined his ranks. I think my argument is much more nuanced. However, it would be disingenuous to hold that financial considerations have no role to play in the real world. We have to cut the cloth to suit the purse. Note that while stating this fact of life, I do not argue that it is the ideal, good, or right, or that the poor should not reproduce. There is no doubt that smaller families go hand in hand with socioeconomic advancement, improving the lot of those we should care most about - our children.

M de Roubaix

Centre for Applied Ethics, Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa malcolmderoubaix@gmail.com

References

1. Msimang PM. That only the elite should have children is a worrying argument. S Afr J Bioethics Law 2022;15(1):X. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.2022.v15i1.793        [ Links ]

2. De Roubaix M. Human reproduction: Right, duty or privilege? South African perspective. S Afr J Bioethics Law 2021;14(2):55-61. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.2021.v14i2.697        [ Links ]