"Allowed" to have kids?

Okay, so maybe I wasn't thinking so clearly in my past post - wherein I mentioned I put my meter in a zippered bag in the bathroom to keep H from grabbing it. Well, duh, don't they all (or mostly all) come in zippered bags, these days? I do use a different bag from the one it came in - not sure where that one is now. I guess the point is, (a) I get tired by the end of the day, when I usually write my posts; (b) I use whatever is at hand to solve a problem, be it diabetes-related or kid-related; both require MacGyvering all the time. So, when she started grabbing the meter, I found the nearest thing at hand to solve the problem. Okay, that's two points - it's my blog, I'm allowed!

Speaking of what I'm "allowed," I was pretty peeved by a New York Times opinion piece a couple of days ago, by some sort of philosopher, about whether people should really have kids. Here's the beginning of it:

Have you ever thought about whether to have a child? If so, what factors entered into your decision? Was it whether having children would be good for you, your partner and others close to the possible child, such as children you may already have, or perhaps your parents? For most people contemplating reproduction, those are the dominant questions. Some may also think about the desirability of adding to the strain that the nearly seven billion people already here are putting on our planet’s environment. But very few ask whether coming into existence is a good thing for the child itself. Most of those who consider that question probably do so because they have some reason to fear that the child’s life would be especially difficult — for example, if they have a family history of a devastating illness, physical or mental, that cannot yet be detected prenatally. All this suggests that we think it is wrong to bring into the world a child whose prospects for a happy, healthy life are poor, but we don’t usually think the fact that a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life is a reason for bringing the child into existence.


Yes, before I got pregnant and during pregnancy, I did think a lot about H's prospects for a healthy life, given the potential for my own diabetes to affect her development, and also the risk that she might someday get it herself. I still think about that second possibility, and hope fervently that it doesn't come to her - or at least not at too young an age. (What's "too" young? I don't know. But you know what I mean - it's particularly hard when the kid has no idea why he or she has to take shots, etc.)

But, contrary to the author's statement, I did in fact think that my child's own potential for happiness was a reason to bring her into existence (I guess I'm one of those "few people"). And that gets at the crux of what bothered me in what he wrote: The implication that being "unhealthy" might be a reason a child should not have been born. It was stated so off-handedly, as if to say, "of course, we're assuming the kid will be healthy; if not, the prospects for happiness are just too grim to contemplate." I've had this conversation with "healthy" people before: Once, someone I know said she wouldn't want to live if she had to be in a wheel chair. Several others agreed. I just thought, well, don't judge it until you're in the situation - you might think differently. Even with all that I've been through - not only the diabetes, by 14 years of migraine hell - I am still very, very happy I'm alive. I think too many people on the other side of that fence discount the very value of just living - the notion that life is worth it, even when it's far from perfect. (Never mind that, from a biological perspective, "just" living is the point of it all!) I thought, if I can even approximate all the good experiences I've had, and give them to my child, then chances are good that she will be glad she's alive.

My endo during my pregnancy said she'd encountered numerous people who think someone with diabetes shouldn't have kids. She works hard to counter that notion (thank you!). I would say to such people, first, it's not that simple: The genes that make us prone to diabetes can also be helpful in certain situations, like famine, so they're not "bad" genes, per se, just not helpful when food is as plentiful as it is these days - and you never know when that might change. Okay, that argument works better for type 2 than for type 1, but the genes for type 1 are probably even more numerous than for type 2, so some of them are, by themselves, probably "good" genes - they just got combined in a harmful way (and they also needed a bit of environmental bad luck). Throw them together in a slightly different way - which is what happens every time a new person comes into being - and those same genes might create something wonderful (like my daughter!).

And two, I would say, hey, there are a lot worse things that people can pass along to their kids - like attitudes of hate and intolerance.

When I was pregnant, I did all I could to make sure my unborn daughter's prospects for a healthy life were the same as anyone else's. I felt I owed it to her - after all, she didn't ask to get born, let alone born to someone with diabetes. But I also knew that it wasn't entirely up to me whether she'd end up healthy (it still isn't). I can only do my best. And I know that less-than-perfectly-healthy isn't a reason to wish I hadn't gotten pregnant in the first place. I can only hope she always thinks so, too, but I suspect she will: Every night, when I put her to bed, I tell her, "I love you forever, sweetie." Some nights, she says, "I love you too, Mommy." And other nights - like this very night - she says, "Thank you, Mommy."