Sheri Coudron Ayaquica

In late July, motivated by some bold comments by a politician disparaging childless people, I wrote a response on the topic of childlessness and posted it on social media. At the encouragement of a friend who read that article, I submitted it to my hometown newspaper for publication. Shortly thereafter it was accepted and published in the editorial column of the newspaper with the title, “All citizens—even those without kids—have stake in future of country.”

In this article, I say some things I wish I could have said in defense of my younger self, a girl and young woman who had no clue that childlessness would be a heartbreaking part of her future. I wish I could have firmly told her: A woman can still have value even if she isn't able to be a mother. You are not worth less, and your voice is still worthy of being heard. Unfortunately, on multiple levels, I can't tell a "younger version of myself" such things, so I wanted to do the next best thing and respectfully and firmly send this message back to the community in which I grew up.

Thank you to all of those who have encouraged me to have the confidence to share this to a wider circle.

Just in case it needs to be said directly:
Just because someone is childless does not mean that they do not like kids.
Just because someone is childless does not mean that they are anti-family.
Just because someone does not have kids does not mean that they lack values.
Just because someone does not have kids does not mean that they do/did not want kids.

There are many reasons why a person may not have kids, and many of those are varied and personal and painful. This may not be evident or even a regular point of consideration for people who have wanted and then had the great fortune of having children.

I know many people who are dedicated parents to their children, my siblings and many others included. I am also aware (as are you, I’m sure) that not all parents, unfortunately, have their child’s best interests in mind. Simply because someone is a parent doesn’t make them a morally superior person, just as childlessness doesn’t make a person morally inferior.

Upon hearing that I do not have children, people who do not know the reason for my childlessness have called me selfish and irresponsible and have said that I have been deemed unworthy of God’s blessing. I kindly disagree. And with all due respect, I don’t think God loves me any less than he loves parents.

JD Vance has said, "having children, becoming a father, becoming a mother, I really do think it changes your perspective in a pretty profound way.” While I fully believe that this must be true, and I accept that parents have experiences and insights which are beyond my purview, I would also like to assert that childlessness, infertility, pregnancy loss and child loss also change one’s perspective in a deeply profound way, and I would dare to assert that they likely change one’s perspective in a way beyond most parents’ purview.

Not having a child does not preclude a person from having “family values,” from having value in society, or from having a vested interest in the future of this country.

Aside from making reference to “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too,” Vance made reference to a few Democrats who do not have biological children and pointedly said, “how does it make any sense that we’ve turned our country over to people who don’t really have a direct stake in it?”

Do only parents have a direct stake in the future of the country?
(And Vance seems to refer to “parents” in the strictly traditional, biological sense of the word, given that Kamala Harris is a stepmom and given that Vance has recently doubled down on his comments even though Pete Buttigieg has since adopted twins.)

Is parenthood the only valid path of having purpose, values, and making a contribution to society? Isn’t it said that “it takes a village to raise a child”? Are childless folk not welcome as part of this village? 

I may not have children, but I work with children every day. I believe that I am a steady, positive and capable advocate for them. For those of you who are parents, I am confident that there are childless women in the lives of your kids. I have worked with wonderfully dedicated pediatricians, nurses, teachers and volunteers who happen to be childless women. They definitely love children and have a vested interest in their success. I know therapists, lawyers, librarians, and a doula who happen to be childless women. I was taught by several Benedictine sisters at The College of Saint Benedict who were also childless women. Your neighbor, sister, aunt, coworker, or fellow parishioner may happen to be a childless woman. Don’t count us out; childless women also want a brighter future for this country.

If you are a parent and you believe that being a parent has led you to have a stake in the future of the country, do you believe that you would have any less of a stake in the future of the country if you were to lose your child? If you would have liked to have had more children than you ultimately had, does that mean that you are a lesser person or that you would have been more worthy of having a voice/say in the future of this country if you had more children than in your current circumstances? Does childlessness, infertility, miscarriage, infant loss or the loss of a child diminish your intrinsic value? (From the experience of self-doubt, I kindly encourage you to please know that the answer is “no,” even if at times your grief and other’s insensitive comments lead you to question your purpose and your value in this world.)

I ask in all sincerity, do you really believe that someone who does not have children does not have a direct stake in the future of this country? If we extrapolate from that, do you believe that those who have fewer children/grandchildren have less of a stake in the future of this country than those with more children/grandchildren? Are parents with more children “better” people? Do they “count” more than those with fewer children? Does quantity matter more than quality or any other factor when it comes to children? When it comes to having the right to speak your voice in this country?

I am a bit alarmed by a portion of a speech given by Vance in which he said, “Let’s give votes to all children in this country, but let’s give control over those votes to the parents of those children. When you go to the polls in this country as a parent, you should have more power — you should have more of an ability to speak your voice in our democratic republic — than people who don’t have kids. Let’s face the consequences and the reality: If you don’t have as much of an investment in the future of this country, maybe you shouldn’t get nearly the same voice.”

Should a person with more children have more votes or a more powerful vote than someone who has fewer? If your brother has two kids and you have four, is he half the parent that you are? Should you have twice as much additional voting power as he does at the polls? If your neighbor has twelve kids to your four, are they three times the parent that you are? Should they have three times the additional voting power as you at the polls? Are offspring like “investments” in the future and a person with more “shares” gets to have more power at the ballot? 

I agree that parents play an important role in society. And I believe that a person doesn’t have to be a parent in order to have a stake in the future of this country. Can we agree that no one’s vote ought to be more powerful than another’s, regardless of their parenthood status or lack thereof, and regardless of how many children one has?