Oleh: Abdul Rosyidi
The discourse on whether or not to have children for a couple has surfaced again. At first glance, this discourse is just a debate trend that has recently emerged on social media. Like any discourse, it has its pros and cons. The difference now is that the internet culture directs the usual differences of opinion to the level of polarization.
Some people who agree with this discourse think that having children is an individual right. So that no single institution (morality, law, religion, and so on) can force someone to have children. Meanwhile, the main reason for contra revolves around the problem of the main purpose of marriage, which this group believes is to have children or have children.
Then there is a third group that appears and considers, any choice, whether to have children or not to have children (childfree), is equally a choice that should be respected and should not be reproached.
When referring to the purpose of marriage (sexual relations), then there are two main purposes, namely for procreation (procreation) and recreation (enjoyment). Each sexual relationship can actually choose for these purposes, as long as it is done responsibly. Is it the first, the second, the first plus the second, or just respecting all of those choices. Everything is fine as long as you understand the consequences.
The intense debate over this issue is due to the fact that many people still think that the purpose of marriage is only to have children. Therefore then regard it as nature that should not be negotiable. As a result, all principles, attitudes, behaviors, actions, realities that are contrary to it are considered as “deviating” from human nature.
In fact, Imam al-Ghazali once said that the purpose of marriage is not single. It can be for procreation, channeling sexual desires, and protecting from corruption. KH Husein Muhammad said more emphatically that the aim of marriage was for sexual relations to be carried out responsibly, not at all for the purpose of procreation.
Meanwhile, Ki Ageng Suryamentaram said that the essence of life is pangupa soul (continuing life) and then having offspring (continuing species). Debates are common because the core has different paths in its implementation. Why is that? Because every human being has different feelings, experiences, policies, appreciation, knowledge, and culture.
However, in a grand narrative of procreation, the diversity of individuals and their life contexts are never given their proper place. Especially if the grand narrative is related to a particular culture, morality, or theology.
Having children or having childrenk?
People who choose to have children should be aware and well prepared to cuddle, nurture, and guide their children so that they become adults who are ready to take on life. Unpreparedness and unawareness of this responsibility can result in inappropriate patterns of relationships and parenting.
How many of us have this awareness before marriage? In fact, there are still many who have children because it seems as if they are the result of an unbearable sexual desire. The decision to marry was more because of fear that sexual relations would contaminate society with adultery. Here, immoral morality is seen as more of a guide than full awareness and readiness to have children. If this is true, then don’t be surprised if children born from such situations reflect more of their parents’ ego and passion.
Let’s look at it again, there are still many parents who see their children as an outlet for ambitions and ideals that have not been realized. So many of them force their children to go to schools and universities with favorite labels, even at the expense of the child’s conscience and desires. Career choices, calling, and the mission of the child’s soul are not accommodated. Don’t we often hear that there are children who go to school and achieve only to “please” their parents.
The reality of language also shows us that children are the result of the work and ownership of their parents. In the phrase “having children” or “having children” in the debate about childfree, shows that the status of children is property. As ownership, then it is legal if the parents then regard it as an asset.
As our saying goes: “many children, many fortune”. Then people interpret that children are an economic asset for the family. Children will bring sustenance to those who give birth to them. Every child’s economic activity must also contribute profits to the family. That’s why in our villages there are so many children working abroad to support their families. Even when he was married, his old family (parents) still demanded economic rights from him.
Likewise with the phenomenon of sandwich generation. The generation that has to bear the economic burden of three generations at once, themselves, their parents and their children. The state does not really care about this issue even though there have been many victims. The other day I heard a story from a friend who is suffering from this burden. Every month he has to go to a psychiatrist and buy drugs that are not cheap.
No child
On the other hand, I have also heard a story about a family that chose not to have children for a unique reason. They say they prefer not to have children because they don’t want their children to be born in a chaotic world. For them, the world and our current living conditions are not very child friendly. To give birth to a child into the world, for them, is tantamount to plunging them into a life of disgrace.
There are also those who choose not to have children because they are not ready to raise and guide children. Including some who are not ready economically. The decision not to have children was taken because it was to ensure that small families could get maximum happiness. He realizes that the presence of children will affect the pattern of attention of the partner and the pattern of division of roles, between the domestic and the public.
Of course, the decision to have children or not is not a final decision for life. Every couple has a shared commitment that can be discussed as long as the relationship is still ongoing. Including if you agree to perpetuate the initial decision. Again, depending on the situation and conditions that continue to intertwine
No matter how exaggerated and unreasonable these reasons sometimes sound, isn’t the reality all around us. These choices are of course related to the diversity of realities, contexts, and individual lives, which in debates are often simplified by formulations that are theological and teleological.
Instead of listening carefully to every narrative and story about that choice, we are often trapped in reasons based on the big narrative. This grand narrative always contains binary logic between good or bad, normal or deviant, according to nature or against it, Islamic or not, and so on.
Wouldn’t it be better if we listened to each of these narratives from a more humane perspective. Namely with all the attention, empathy, and feeling of attachment.
Why do we often connect each choice based on individual experience and knowledge with grand, generalizing narratives? As a consideration, that’s fine, but if you’re judging it, what’s the point? And isn’t every decision that in time will also find its changing points? ***