QuestionsShould we have children?Motherhood is not a destiny: it must be a free choice
Should we have children?Neither duty nor fault

Motherhood is not a destiny: it must be a free choice

Chosen motherhood; woman is not defined by her function as mother

Simone de Beauvoir 1908 · 1986One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.
See profile
What it claims

Motherhood must not be a destiny imposed on women but a free choice, with contraception and abortion; and a woman is not defined by her function as a mother.

Why

No instinct destines a woman to be a mother; what commits a whole life without being a natural destiny must be a free choice.

The same idea through history
Simone de Beauvoir1949The same thesis applied to motherhood: if femininity is made by society and not given by nature, motherhood as a destiny is made too.
In short

"Motherhood is not a destiny: it must be a free choice" is an argument by Simone de Beauvoir (The Second Sex, Volume II, ch. "The Mother" (1949), 1949) on the question "Should we have children?" (answer: neither duty nor fault). Its claim: Motherhood must not be a destiny imposed on women but a free choice, with contraception and abortion; and a woman is not defined by her function as a mother. According to AskPhilosophy's logic check (Z3 solver), the argument is valid only if one grants a premise the author leaves unstated (P5). AskPhilosophy presents 3 objections, 0 of them with a documented reply, and the original text behind each premise, checked word for word.

The Second Sex, Volume II, ch. "The Mother" (1949)
Valid with an implicit premise

In "The Mother", Beauvoir does not say one should not have children. She says that society has made motherhood an obligation that falls on women alone, and that one can speak of free motherhood only if women decide to live it: which requires contraception and abortion, banned in France in 1949. The first two premises are in our corpus (chapter "Childhood"). The next two come from the chapter "The Mother", which is not freely online: we summarize it without quoting.

P1No mysterious instinct destines the girl for motherhood: if she appears turned towards it very early, it is because others intervene almost from birth and breathe her "vocation" into her.
P2In a woman's life, marriage and motherhood put her whole destiny at stake, whereas for a man the role of husband and father is not what concerns him most: society makes reproduction a function that falls on women alone.
P3Motherhood is free only if a woman can decide whether to have it: this requires birth control and legal abortion. Without them, motherhood is endured.
P4Woman is not defined by her function as a mother: motherhood does not exhaust her existence, nor does it fulfil her by itself. It is lived very differently according to whether it is chosen or endured, and maternal love is not guaranteed in advance.
P5 · implicit premiseWhat is not a natural destiny but commits a person's whole life must not be imposed on her: it must be her free choice.
Therefore motherhood must not be a destiny imposed on women but a free choice, with contraception and abortion; and a woman is not defined by her function as a mother.

click a premise to reject it

If you accept every premise, logic forces you to accept the conclusion. So the debate is about the premises.
Checked by a logic solver: the premises cannot all be true while the conclusion is false.
Without the implicit premise: Without P5, the computer finds a situation where everything is true (no instinct, a destiny committed, freedom requires contraception) and yet society may legitimately impose motherhood, for instance for its survival.
Valid with P5, the principle linking the finding (no natural destiny, a whole life committed) to the conclusion (hence a free choice). Beauvoir does not write it as a rule, but the whole chapter applies it. To reject the argument, one must deny P1 or P2 (motherhood comes in part from nature), or P5 (a role may be imposed if it serves society, for instance so that it keeps existing).
Analogy. A lifelong job assigned at birth, without anyone asking you. Even a very fine job would weigh like a chain. Beauvoir does not say the job is bad: she says it must be possible to choose it, and to refuse it.

Objections

3

Each objection is a conversation: click to see who replies and where the debate stands.

Mencius 300 BC · attacks the conclusion

Among the failures of filial piety, having no descendants is the gravest: having a child is a duty to one's parents and ancestors. It is therefore not a mere personal choice.

no reply
see the argument
We have not yet found a direct reply by Beauvoir in the texts.
The debate goes on (our summary) Beauvoir does not discuss this passage of Mencius in our excerpts. Her thesis targets a duty that would fall on women alone; the Confucian duty concerns families. The core disagreement: can a duty to the lineage override a person's choice?
Where the debate stands (our summary)Core disagreement: whether the value of lineage and family can ground a duty to procreate. Neither text answers the other.
S
Sara Ruddick 1989 · attacks premise 4

Raising children is a practice that shapes a distinctive kind of thinking (protective attention, care for the child's growth), and deserves recognition and value, in politics too. Beauvoir misses this value if she sees in motherhood only alienation. For Ruddick this practice is not reserved to women: a man can practise it as well.

no reply
No reply possible: objection raised in 1989, after the author's death (1986).
The debate goes on (our summary) Beauvoir died in 1986 and could not answer Maternal Thinking (1989). Our summary does not make Beauvoir say that motherhood is only alienating: she asks that it be chosen. Ruddick and Beauvoir agree on that point (the practice does not come from an instinct); they differ on its value.
Where the debate stands (our summary)Core disagreement: should women first be freed from imposed motherhood, or should the caring practice that grows from it be valued? The two need not exclude each other.
Hans Jonas 1979 · attacks the conclusion

There is a responsibility to the future of humanity: that human beings continue to exist is the first requirement. Jonas gives the relation of parent to child as the model of responsibility. If nobody has children, humanity dies out: procreation cannot be only a matter of individual choice.

no reply
see the argument
We have not yet found a direct reply by Beauvoir in the texts.
The debate goes on (our summary) Beauvoir did not answer Jonas in our excerpts. One may note that humanity continuing through wanted children does not contradict her thesis, and that the step from a collective requirement to an obligation on each person remains to be shown.
Where the debate stands (our summary)Core disagreement: does a duty of humanity towards its future translate into a duty for each person? An open point in the literature.