BLOGHaving a Child Is a Bad Decision Because SCIENCE

By James Arnold Posted on: | September 28, 2017

Perhaps earlier this week you saw the following headline: “The worst decision you can ever make is to have a child, according to science.”

Before we even dig into the reasons that allegedly support that headline, let’s talk about some category confusion. “Science” tells us what is, not what ought to be. Unless “worst” is qualified (e.g., the worst slope of a hill for achieving greater velocity when dropping a ball from the top), the phrase really has no meaning. Besides, the plain meaning of the reading is that it is “bad” for you.

Alright, let’s look at the reasons that SCIENCE says having children is bad for you. Here are the main points, distilled down.

  • You will have $13,000 less money per year, a total of over $220,000 by the time the child is 17.
  • You will sleep an average of 2.5 hours a night during the first two years of a baby’s life.
  • Your marriage will struggle during the first few years.
  • You will probably have less sex.
  • If you’re the mother, you’ll probably make less money.
  • Also, “Scientists predict that the world’s population will exceed 10.5 billion by 2050.” Which is obviously bad for you.

Look, I’m not a parent. But I’m pretty sure those reasons are just “Parenting 101”—but just the scary parts of the book. They managed to leave out the chapters on fulfillment, joy, love, and virtue.

This is all evidence of the poor way people currently think about science anyway. Somehow the phrase Science SaysTM has entered the cultural lexicon. There’s a weight to it, particularly among younger audiences, because they tend to think of science as objective. The real problem is that they don’t see science as a field of study rather than a field of answers.

The rub is that science doesn’t really say much by way of true conclusions; science is a field that offers our current best understanding of the natural world. But evidence changes, and if we assume everything Science SaysTM  is correct, we commit the sin of historical arrogance. A hundred years ago, scientists may have all agreed to something that we now know is false. How confidently can we assert that our current evidence is enough to satisfy the demands of knowledge?

I guess the short version is this: Maybe we should have babies no matter what Science SaysTM.


To stay up to date on the latest news and issues surrounding religious liberty, sanctity of life, and marriage and family, sign up for our newsletter. 
Receive Updates

James Arnold

News and Research Manager

James Arnold manages and edits the Alliance Alert, a daily repository of news in all forms—written, spoken, or in video format.

More from ADF View All

Amazon Now Gets to Decide Which Information You’re Allowed to Consume

Amazon Now Gets to Decide Which Information You’re Allowed to Consume

You don’t know what’s good for you. But Amazon does.

Mr. Funny | Words | Author | I'm the icon | www | 07/15/2019 16:16:13 Read More

Here Are Some of the Championship Titles Male Athletes Have Taken from Girls

Here Are Some of the Championship Titles Male Athletes Have Taken from Girls

When Selina steps up to the starting blocks at the beginning of a race, she k...

Mr. Funny | Words | Author | I'm the icon | www | 07/16/2019 16:10:07 Read More

Washington State Wants to Force This Church to Pay for Abortions

Washington State Wants to Force This Church to Pay for Abortions

The state of Washington has passed a law that forces churches like Cedar Park...

Mr. Funny | Words | Author | I'm the icon | www | 07/05/2019 19:35:25 Read More

Should We Follow Europe’s Example and Outlaw Hate Speech? A European Weighs In

Should We Follow Europe’s Example and Outlaw Hate Speech? A European Weighs In

Is Europe’s approach to speech really the answer? ADF International Executive...

Mr. Funny | Words | Author | I'm the icon | www | 07/12/2019 17:00:07 Read More