While I have no objection to single people adopting children (after all, they've already been born; someone's gotta look after them), I have more reservations about deliberately getting knocked up without a man to raise the kid with. It seems pretty selfish and "I wants, so I gets" to me, because the kid's going to grow up knowing that he/she has a father out there and want to know who he was. Same goes for gay couples having kids -- the kid knows that he/she's got a biological parent out there somewhere.
hm, not necessarily getting oneself knocked up and then raising a kid alone. could be a donor sperm - entirely anonymous. as for the missing biological father - sometimes it's never an issue, is it? it isn't always. but yes, of course I have my reservations on deliberate single mothers. I have asked many about this and most would say that it is very selfish and I don't deny it. but it isn't so simple either, wanting a child and then simply getting one. the world is more conservative than we think, and family objections could be enough to deter a woman from trying. but what if it ties in with her entire life philosophy? what if she has tried looking for men - or not looking but had fallen deeply in love before, but lost it? what if, she has a well-paying career to financially support the child, and that she is mature enough to know that she is ready to raise a child, but there is just no darn mr husband
( ... )
I think that we're approaching this from different philosophical POVs. You say:
what if it ties in with her entire life philosophy? what if she has tried looking for men - or not looking but had fallen deeply in love before, but lost it? what if, she has a well-paying career to financially support the child, and that she is mature enough to know that she is ready to raise a child, but there is just no darn mr husband?Your view is that if someone's position in life ticks all the right boxes (salary, maturity, etc.) that person (or couple) deserves to have a baby if they want it hard enough
( ... )
you're very right! in response to this comment and the one below, I can only say that the world shall have to wait with bated breath on the outcome of this. there is no denying that there will be more women who choose to have children without fathers.
also, I agree with you that every child should have the right to know his/her biological parents and I can see the need for it... but the 'forcing nature' bit, hm, I have some issues with that (does IVF count as non-biological? strictly speaking, it is). can I also infer that you don't think gay couples should have their own biological children either? just curious.
your friends who are adopted: are they angsty that their biological parents are somewhere out there? again, another question asked out of curiosity.
well, I'll be sure to speak to you again if ever the time comes when I want to have a child - but with no partner.
does IVF count as non-biological? strictly speaking, it is)
IVF, if it uses both parents' egg and sperm, is biological. But sometimes you have donor egg/sperm so of course then it's not, lah. I am opposed to IVF on other grounds, but not because it introduces a "third parent" into the relationship.
can I also infer that you don't think gay couples should have their own biological children either?
What do you mean by "their own"? Any child that one of them sires/births is not going to be the biological child of BOTH of them. So the child is going to wonder who the mother is (if it's a guy couple) or the dad (if it's a lesbian couple). So, what do you think my answer would be? :-)
your friends who are adopted: are they angsty that their biological parents are somewhere out there?Of the three cases I know best
( ... )
the question of the unknown biological parent would arise just as much an adopted child would question his/her biological parents.
That's totally true. But the difference is that an adopted child knows that some horrid circumstance (death, rape, poverty, etc.) must have happened to one or both of his birth parents for him to be given up for adoption. And because he was already born, someone had to take care of him -- and the adopters stepped in.
Whereas a child born of donor egg/sperm knows that his parent deliberately set out to conceive him "free" of ties to the other DNA-donor.
I think that -- as much as we try to pretend that blood doesn't matter -- it still affects our sense of belonging in this world at a very primal level.
I have friends who have been adopted, or who are adopted. The adopted kids do have a lot of love for their adopter parents, but they are still conscious that they have 'other parents' out there. Sometimes they accept them, sometimes they reject them, but it is still a tie they cannot escape.
Oh, we're comparing apples with oranges here. Actually, apples with apple-seeds.
What I said was that if you want to raise a child, why not take in an unwanted child (who's already been born)? Why go to the trouble of creating a new life who is going to wonder where the other half of its roots and human history come from? To deny a child that knowledge is a form of great selfishness, a trade-off of (your) biological satisfaction for (your child's) eternal biological uncertainty.
There was a great line in the article above that I sent Reisende -- "It's hypocritical of parents and medical professionals to assume that biological roots won't matter to the "products" of the cryobanks' service, when the longing for a biological relationship is what brings customers to the banks in the first place."
I'm not quite sure how to go about answering your objections.
Families don't have to have (i) a father; (ii) a mother; (iii) a kid, to be correct. All this damned propaganda.
I know people who were brought up by grandparents, spinster aunts, half a set of divorced parents, were "accidents", were traded for other children because their "eight characters" weren't ideal, etc, etc, etc.
I don't see any of them being more maladjusted than the rest of us.A family, in its universal meaning, is a group of people related by blood. Grandparents, aunts and cousins are all part of the extended family. And yes, they can sometimes be prevailed upon to take care of members of the extended family (hey! there's that 'f' word again!) as opposed to random strangers off the street
( ... )
Reply
Reply
what if it ties in with her entire life philosophy? what if she has tried looking for men - or not looking but had fallen deeply in love before, but lost it? what if, she has a well-paying career to financially support the child, and that she is mature enough to know that she is ready to raise a child, but there is just no darn mr husband?Your view is that if someone's position in life ticks all the right boxes (salary, maturity, etc.) that person (or couple) deserves to have a baby if they want it hard enough ( ... )
Reply
also, I agree with you that every child should have the right to know his/her biological parents and I can see the need for it... but the 'forcing nature' bit, hm, I have some issues with that (does IVF count as non-biological? strictly speaking, it is). can I also infer that you don't think gay couples should have their own biological children either? just curious.
your friends who are adopted: are they angsty that their biological parents are somewhere out there? again, another question asked out of curiosity.
well, I'll be sure to speak to you again if ever the time comes when I want to have a child - but with no partner.
Reply
IVF, if it uses both parents' egg and sperm, is biological. But sometimes you have donor egg/sperm so of course then it's not, lah. I am opposed to IVF on other grounds, but not because it introduces a "third parent" into the relationship.
can I also infer that you don't think gay couples should have their own biological children either?
What do you mean by "their own"? Any child that one of them sires/births is not going to be the biological child of BOTH of them. So the child is going to wonder who the mother is (if it's a guy couple) or the dad (if it's a lesbian couple). So, what do you think my answer would be? :-)
your friends who are adopted: are they angsty that their biological parents are somewhere out there?Of the three cases I know best ( ... )
Reply
Er, sure. Don't forget, if you're a single mom the govt will only give you 8 weeks maternity leave!
Reply
Reply
That's totally true. But the difference is that an adopted child knows that some horrid circumstance (death, rape, poverty, etc.) must have happened to one or both of his birth parents for him to be given up for adoption. And because he was already born, someone had to take care of him -- and the adopters stepped in.
Whereas a child born of donor egg/sperm knows that his parent deliberately set out to conceive him "free" of ties to the other DNA-donor.
I think that -- as much as we try to pretend that blood doesn't matter -- it still affects our sense of belonging in this world at a very primal level.
I have friends who have been adopted, or who are adopted. The adopted kids do have a lot of love for their adopter parents, but they are still conscious that they have 'other parents' out there. Sometimes they accept them, sometimes they reject them, but it is still a tie they cannot escape.
Reply
Reply
And isn't that a horrid circumstance in iself?
Reply
(a) Unwanted child put up for adoption vs. (b)Wanted testtube kid - I don't understand why you appear to see (a) as better off than (b).
Reply
What I said was that if you want to raise a child, why not take in an unwanted child (who's already been born)? Why go to the trouble of creating a new life who is going to wonder where the other half of its roots and human history come from? To deny a child that knowledge is a form of great selfishness, a trade-off of (your) biological satisfaction for (your child's) eternal biological uncertainty.
There was a great line in the article above that I sent Reisende -- "It's hypocritical of parents and medical professionals to assume that biological roots won't matter to the "products" of the cryobanks' service, when the longing for a biological relationship is what brings customers to the banks in the first place."
Reply
Reply
Reply
Families don't have to have (i) a father; (ii) a mother; (iii) a kid, to be correct. All this damned propaganda.
I know people who were brought up by grandparents, spinster aunts, half a set of divorced parents, were "accidents", were traded for other children because their "eight characters" weren't ideal, etc, etc, etc.
I don't see any of them being more maladjusted than the rest of us.A family, in its universal meaning, is a group of people related by blood. Grandparents, aunts and cousins are all part of the extended family. And yes, they can sometimes be prevailed upon to take care of members of the extended family (hey! there's that 'f' word again!) as opposed to random strangers off the street ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment