Why the Indiana bill bothers me
| October 5th, 2005The “unauthorised reproduction” bill from Indiana bothers me for one very specific and personal reason, as well as a whole host of more general political reasons that have been well covered elsewhere. Preventing unmarried women from conceiving by any means other than sexual intercourse can only encourage those unmarried women who, like me, badly want a child to conceive via sexual intercourse - in other words, to do what I did.
I’ve alluded only vaguely to the circumstances that led to my becoming pregnant, but the short version goes something like this. A long-term relationship came to an end, and the manner of its ending made it very clear to me that making plans that depended on my having a partner would only set me up for more disappointment. If I wanted to achieve any of the dreams or ambitions I had - including the dream of becoming a parent - I would have to do it alone.
I considered various means of fulfilling that dream, such as adoption or conception via a sperm donor, and realised most of them would be made unavailable to me - fertility treatment was beyond my budget, and I had a sneaking suspicion that my gender dysphoria would disqualify me as a potential adoptive parent. I finally settled on the old-fashioned method of having unprotected sex with willing men, in the belief that this was the simplest method.
Perhaps it was the simplest of the available options, but it was far from simple. To begin with, my desire for a more or less anonymous sperm donor led me to have sex with the kind of men who have unprotected sex with women they’ve just met and ask no questions. I put myself - and my baby - at risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, and although I’ve since tested negative, the guilty awareness that I was one of the lucky ones will not leave me. Not every woman who takes this route will be as fortunate.
Finally, I abandoned my pursuit of anonymity and turned instead to a trusted male friend. I got pregnant at the first attempt, but that was only the beginning of the difficulties. When I said, “I want to get pregnant,” he understood, “I want to move in with you and submit to your authority on all child-rearing matters,” and became frustrated and angry when my behaviour didn’t bear this out. The wrangling over this destroyed any chance of a continuing friendship between us, but worse, he is legally entangled in my life despite neither of us desiring this. Had I used an official sperm donor, he would have remained forever anonymous and legally unconnected with me and the child; since I did not, my baby’s father has a legal obligation to pay child support and a legal right to turn my life upside-down by applying for custody of a child he’s repeatedly told me he doesn’t want.
It’s hard to say whether I regret the choices I made. I certainly don’t regret the pregnancy, and I’m still looking forward to the birth of my baby. Is it regret to say that I would have preferred a clean, safe encounter with a turkey baster to the current tangle of uncertainties? Is it regret to counsel any woman in the position I was in last spring to think long and hard about the disadvantages of this supposedly simple route to parenthood?
I don’t know whether anyone, married or single, has a right to a child. I don’t know whether some barriers to parenthood are justified in the interests of the child, or who should have the authority to decide what’s in a child’s interest. But I do know that some people are desperate for a child. If one possible route to parenthood is blocked, they will switch, as I did, to an unblocked route, even though it might be more dangerous for them and for any children produced.
You might believe that a straight married couple make the best possible parents for a child. But that isn’t the question you should be asking. Single women and lesbian couples will be parents whatever you try to do. The question is whether they would make better parents if they were free from HIV and untroubled by legal entanglements with the biological father. Which do you think is in a child’s best interests?
October 5th, 2005 at 8:59 am
Well written. I think you’ve hit the fundamental difference; the use of law as a signalling device. Some people are willing to write unenforceable law to “advise” people, to make themselves feel better– for many reasons. That’s rarely good for anyone.
This comment was written by ScottM.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2005 at 9:48 am
Who defines a good parent? The legislature, the governor, the president, the pastor? And what exactly defines a “good parent?” One who stays home with the child, one who nurtures the child, one who pays for the child, one who’ll care for the child?
The slippery slope gets even slippier trying to answer these questions. And I’m not sure the “perfect” parent even exists!
As so many commentators before me have said, laws of this nature on a wide variety of subjects are about control of the individual. It’s not to provide better something or standardize this or that, it’s about limiting choices to a person to fit into some kind of mold that a few people subscribe to. That’s it, nothing more or less.
Moralistic laws like this are doomed to fail, whether they are enforced or not.
Just the fact you went to such links indicates your willingness to totally sacrifice everything for a child. And I believe your dedication will ensure your continued dedication to your future child. Nick, we need more people like you in Indiana. You’ll be a damn fine parent. Good luck!
This comment was written by Jim H from Indiana.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2005 at 9:49 am
Nick makes extremely good points — in order to avoid one kind of alleged dysfunction the law puts in motion all kinds of other repugnant consequences that will wreak havoc on families.
This law is so clearly directed at controlling gay and lesbians that I doubt its authors have any concept at how obnoxious it is to, yes, married heterosexual couples along the way (as well as everyone else). The law is, of course, brutal and dehumanizing for those it would make ineligible but it is also utterly humiliating for “normal folks” who want children but are “incapable” via standard means.
Try to imagine having to go to court with your spouse in order to obtain a “certificate of gestation” so all the world can know that you are “incapable” of producing offspring the normal way. It’s obnoxious. I can’t imagine what kind of bubble these loathsome fools live in.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2005 at 10:18 am
The solution is to get this bill out to the Indiana adoption and infertility community, starting with the infertility doctors. The docs or their staff, who treat mostly married heterosexual couples, could inform each of their patients, and believe me, within a short period of time this bill would be known to a large percentage of infertile couples by word of mouth. Anyone getting in the way of an infertile woman seeking a child is bound to turn up as ground round, or whatever came out of the wood-chipper in the movie Fargo. For that matter, info on the bill ought to be disseminated nationally to infertile folks, which would pretty much put paid to any attempts to introduce such laws in other states.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2005 at 11:59 am
“You might believe that a straight married couple make the best possible parents for a child”
You might believe that the earth is flat and carried on the back of a turtle too, but you’d be wrong in both cases. Multiple studies have shown that the children of lesbians do just as well as children raised by straight couples. The research on gay parents is not as mature (that is, fewer studies have been done) but there is no evidence that being raised by a gay couple is detrimental to a child either. I’d be happy to get references to back my claims up if anyone is interested.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2005 at 12:03 pm
I don’t want to comment on any particular case. I also don’t want to offer a general defence of the Bill (much of which seems pretty flawed and bigotted). However, there is a general point I’d like to make.
It seems to me that the State has an obvious interest in dealing with who gets parental rights and responsibilities. What’s unique about much of assisted reproductive therapy (such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, egg donation, and so on) isn’t so much the methods, but that normal laws on “parenthood” can be suspended and altered. The person who provides the sperm or egg isn’t the legal parent, and doesn’t get the usual complement of rights and responsibilities, which do to someone else. I think it’s perfectly valid to seek to place limits upon the circumstances in which these legal get-out clauses can be and are applied.
From this perspective it seems to make total sense that people having certain types of fertility treatment undergo the same screening process required for adoptive parents - since it requires the activation of the same get out clauses requiring the nullification and reassignment of “parenthood”.
Again: I’m not defending all the law, it seems to be bigotted and forwarded by people who are nasty pieces of work. But there are perfectly good reasons why the revocation and reallocation of parental rights should be tightly restricted and monitored.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Dianne: if you have the time, I’d like that reference list. I have a few of my own, but it’s always useful to have more to hand when the “gays shouldn’t raise children” argument comes up.
Here are a few such references I’ve collected:
from the American Academy of Pediatrics:
PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 (link)
PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 341-344 (link)
Anderssen, N et al. Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents. A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology Volume 43 Issue 4 Page 335 September 2002 (link)
Allen M, Burrell N. Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents on children: meta-analysis of existing research. J Homosex. 1996; vol 32 number 2 pp. 19-35 (link)
Patterson CJ. Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Dev. 1992 vol 63 number 5 pp. 1025-42.
Hunfeld JA, et al. Child development and quality of parenting in lesbian families: no psychosocial indications for a-priori withholding of infertility treatment. A systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2002 vol 8 number 6 pp. 579-90.
and from the AAA:
This comment was written by sennoma.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Oops, sorry, go here to pick up the links I forgot in my cut-and-paste haste (scroll to the bottom of the post).
This comment was written by sennoma.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
sennoma: There are actually quite a few to be found on medline. Here are a few I found, but it’s by no means a complete list:
J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2005 Jun;26(3):224-40. Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children: a review. Tasker F.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15956875&query_hl=6
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jun;17(3):309-12. Reproduction in same sex couples: quality of parenting and child development. Greenfeld DA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15870566&query_hl=6
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2004 Nov;45(8):1407-19. Children raised in fatherless families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers at early adolescence. Maccallum F, Golombok S.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15482501&query_hl=6
The above is interesting in that it suggests that growing up without a father from infancy, whether the parents are a lesbian couple, a single lesbian, or a single straight, is really no big deal. The children do fine, although being a single parent can lead to a more intense relationship with the child, for good and for ill.
Dev Psychol. 2003 Jan;39(1):20-33. Children with lesbian parents: a community study. Golombok S, Perry B, Burston A, Murray C, Mooney-Somers J, Stevens M, Golding J. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12518806&query_hl=6
Should I go on? The only articles I could find claiming the opposite, ie that children of gay and lesbian parents do suffer in some way, were by Paul Cameron, so can pretty much be discounted as hopelessly compromised by his personal bias. At this point, I question the need to do any more studies: the answer is clear and that answer is that children of homosexual couples do as well as children of heterosexual couples. Any attempts to keep gay or lesbian couples from raising children is based on ignorance, prejudice, or both.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
nik, one word: Why?
Sperm donation and egg donation have been with us now for more than 25 years and I’d like for you to point out the problems that are attributable to families who have used it, oops, you can’t even tell the difference can you? Just because the state can easily regulate this particular act of reproduction doesn’t mean that it is more in need of regulation than the standard reproductive processes that have been used and misused for millennia. Or, for that matter, that the state should have more of a say in how ART is “distributed.”
It’s also important to realize that there is a line, however nebulous it might seem, between assisting fertility (reproduction) and assisting in the hand off of babies from one parent to another. I have often thought about the hoops one has to go through to adopt, and certainly, in some cases it seems almost crazy, the extra efforts that adoptive parents have to go through compared to those who can, as an adoptive friend of mine so delicately put it, just fuck and get a baby, no permission required. There have been, historically, documented abuses related to what amounted to baby selling and illicit adoption (lack of the mother’s informed consent, coercion of young women to give up infants by adoption agencies and the mother’s own parents, etc.). Historical as it may be now, these abuses gave rise to legitimate means of state intervention. However, I do not believe that the state could prevent a woman from giving up her baby to a single mother in a privately arranged adoption, although it has the power to deny single people the right to adopt foster children that are in the state’s custody. And with all the regulation of adoption, there are still abuses, but fortunately, these don’t usually harm the infants so much as they subvert the law against the sale of infants (as in, paying the mothe’s expenses at grossly inflated prices).
Asserting that the state has a “right” to do this or that almost presumes that there is something suspicious about the underlying activity. There isn’t anything more suspicious about ART than there is about human reproduction in general. I would venture that those who use ART are more intentional and better informed parents than average.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
P.S. Your comment that anonymous sperm and egg donation are “just like adoption” is really off the mark. Donors never intended to become the parentsof the child — as they never intended to create a person, they never assumed and aren’t giving up the same set of rights that a biological parent does. They are truly just providing genetic material for others who are very intentionally undertaking parenthood. Again, it is the recipients who undergo the complex biological process of reproducing the species — and it is no more suspicious when they do it than when, say, a teenager who has a one night stand on a Saturday night after having too much to drink.
Surrogacy is perhaps more akin to traditional notions of adoption, but even so, the surrogate invests her time, but rarely, her biology to the process.
You may think it weird but you at least owe it to the people who have undergone both receipt and donation of egg and sperm and embryos as well, to understand how they view it.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Barbara;
I’m not defending prosecuting people for using ART. This is about how we should assign parenthood and to whom. There are some things you’ve said which make me thnk I haven’t perhaps explained my points as well as I could have.
“Sperm donation and egg donation have been with us now for more than 25 years and I’d like for you to point out the problems that are attributable to families who have used it, oops, you can’t even tell the difference can you?”
I’m not suggesting families who have used ART are unworthy. I’m just pointing out that certain legal issues which have to be worked around for it to be viable. In the case of sperm donation so that the mother’s partner is the (legal) father, and is accorded parental rights. And so that the donor isn’t a (legal) parent, can’t be sued for child support, and can’t claim contact rights with the child. Like it or not, this is a unique issue attributable to families who have used ART, that doesn’t occur when the usual methods of conception are used. Is this the difference you are looking for?
“I have often thought about the hoops one has to go through to adopt… I do not believe that the state could prevent a woman from giving up her baby to a single mother in a privately arranged adoption…”
Without the (legal) reassignment of parenthood there would be nothing preventing the woman from claiming her child back, and shutting the mother out of the life of the child she had brought up. There would be nothing preventing the father from taking the child. This isn’t an “adoption” in the sense that most people would understand the word.
Asserting that the state has a “right” to do this or that almost presumes that there is something suspicious about the underlying activity. There isn’t anything more suspicious about ART than there is about human reproduction in general.
Again, I’m not slagging off people who use ART. The point is they actively need the state to do certain things in order for some potentially very nasty situations not to arise. I stand by my point that we should be very careful about how we nullify and reassign parental rights and responsibilities and to who gets them.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
“Your comment that anonymous sperm and egg donation are “just like adoption” is really off the mark. Donors never intended to become the parents of the child … as they never intended to create a person… You may think it weird but you at least owe it to the people who have undergone both receipt and donation of egg and sperm and embryos as well, to understand how they view it.”
By “just like adoption” I meant simply that this is one of the few other comparable situations in which (legal) parental rights are taken from one person and reassigned to others. I never meant to make any broader comparison between the two situations. Sorry for any offence I may have caused.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
nik, no offense, if you are talking in terms of legal rights, there is no question that all parties are better off when the law clarifies their rights. Certainly, the paternity of children conceived through sperm donation has not been in doubt for more than 25 years because of a law that specifically nixes the parental responsibility of the donor. Egg donation is a little more complex because fewer states have comparable laws, but in general, when a woman gives birth she is presumed to be the child’s mother (duh!). Surrogacy is the most difficult — only a few states have clarified the status of the surrogate versus the intended parents. These include California, New Jersey and Virginia. Many states have difficulty with surrogacy arrangements, although they have less difficulty when the surrogate uses the genetic materials of both parents. A surrogate who uses her own eggs is a mother, no question about it, and the fallout of a case in which a biological surrogate changed her mind led the state of New Jersey to clarify its own law.
Also, it’s one thing to protect donors (something I’m very much in favor of) by making sure that they are truly informed, psychologically healthy, and so on, and if there’s a real problem in that regard, then perhaps the state should set standards — but that’s really different from telling some couples that they aren’t fit to undertake parenthood. I really do have difficulty with that concept. It is adoption that is the outlier for historical reasons of documented abuses.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
Nick, for what it’s worth, if you want to have another child, my lesbian friend got pregnant with sperm mailed from an out of state sperm bank, a turkey baster, and a flashlight. Worked the first time.
This comment was written by CG.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
I’m with Jim H: the state’s interest in upholding children’s welfare ends at pre-determining parental competence. The only people that will ever be allowed to procreate under that scheme will be overachieving, upwardly mobile types, regardless of sex, erotic orientation et al. Just what the world needs. As for you, Nik, well maybe you could have thought through the ramifications of conceiveing a child with a male friend, but like Jim H. says, if you’re willing to go to those lengths, you’ll probably make a good, loving mother. Best of luck to you.
This comment was written by DP_in_Sf.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2005 at 7:47 pm
Guys, hate to interrupt such a fascinating argument, but they dropped it.
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2005 at 7:48 pm
By the way, I agree with Barbara.
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2005 at 7:58 pm
Republican state Senator Patricia Miller’s law also smacks of Nazi Aryan looksism–she’s maliciously gunning for leftover ethnic minority women, hermaphrodites, disabled, or Munchausen by Proxy disfigured victims like me. My church-going white Catholic married heterosexual parents chemically burned me head to toe to impose spinsterhood on me when I only six. By the time I could afford all the needed plastic surgery, no willing single men were left. My one boyfriend ditched me for child hookers in the same Bangkok brothel Neil Bush frequents! Bitch Miller should target unfit married couples like my parents and pedophile Bushes! Given that the Bushes are determined to kill off America’s best young men in oil wars, single mother, gay couple and polygamous families are our only future.
This comment was written by Heil Mary.Report this comment to the moderators
October 5th, 2005 at 8:42 pm
This ridiculous statute is just one more reason I’m happy to no longer reside in the great state of Indiana. My children are a product of IVF, and I definitely take issue with this statute’s attempt to meddle in the reproductive decisions of unmarried individuals in such an arbitrary manner. While it is apparently intended to prevent non-heterosexuals from gaining access to ART, it also assumes that the state has an interest in protecting the interests of the imaginary child that may or may not result from whatever procedure(s) are used to create it.
In the meanwhile, hundreds of kids conceived under far more dubious circumstances are already in the Indiana child welfare system, and they have been left by the legislature without the adequate services and support they need and deserve. And don’t even get me started about the dismal state of the public education system in Indiana.
This comment was written by Lola.Report this comment to the moderators
October 6th, 2005 at 7:14 am
What’s unique about much of assisted reproductive therapy (such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, egg donation, and so on) isn’t so much the methods, but that normal laws on “parenthood” can be suspended and altered. The person who provides the sperm or egg isn’t the legal parent, and doesn’t get the usual complement of rights and responsibilities, which do to someone else.
There isn’t anything special about gamete donation in terms of parental rights and responsibilities versus, say, adoption. I have twice donated eggs, and each time, I had to sign away any right to assert parental rights (and in return, I received a promise that my identity would not be revealed). I would imagine that this would be the same termination of parental rights that I would have to sign had I been giving up a baby for adoption.
I can’t speak for what happens on the donee end, but from the donor end, there is a deliberate revocation of any rights to an eventual child.
This comment was written by zuzu.Report this comment to the moderators
October 6th, 2005 at 7:53 am
The question is whether they would make better parents if they were free from HIV and untroubled by legal entanglements with the biological father. Which do you think is in a child’s best interests?
Unfortunately, I don’t think that the Indiana legislators share your concern. I think that (a) they wouldn’t want lesbians to conceive at all, and (b) they would think that “legal entanglements” with the father might act as a prod to his becoming the model male parent that they always hope for (even if from outside the home).
sigh.
The law is, of course, brutal and dehumanizing for those it would make ineligible but it is also utterly humiliating for “normal folks” who want children but are “incapable” via standard means.
An excellent point, and one that tends to get overshadowed by the more obvious political ends. Truly, kicking people when they’re already “down” about fertility issues is a cruelty.
This comment was written by acm.Report this comment to the moderators
October 6th, 2005 at 8:19 am
zuzu;
I make the same point about the parallel between gamete donation and adoption - in terms of parental rights - that you do (post #6, third paragraph). My point is that it is exceptional that the biological parent doesn’t have parental rights, that specific laws need to be activated to make this the case (the same as in adoption). So why shouldn’t the same screening needed for adoption have to take place for forms of ART that need donation (which is part of the intent of the law)?
It’s also worth noting that there needs to be a specific law to allow you to sign away parental rights. Without it you could sign something, but it would have no legal force.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
October 6th, 2005 at 8:49 am
“It also assumes that the state has an interest in protecting the interests of the imaginary child that may or may not result from whatever procedure(s) are used to create it.”
And they want to “protect” the interests of such a child by ensuring that it doesn’t exist. Ha!
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
October 6th, 2005 at 9:38 am
Unfortunately, I don’t think that the Indiana legislators share your concern. I think that (a) they wouldn’t want lesbians to conceive at all, and (b) they would think that “legal entanglements” with the father might act as a prod to his becoming the model male parent that they always hope for (even if from outside the home).
I cannot fathom the mindset that thinks it’s better to let kids be born into horrendous legal uncertainty than to be slightly more flexible on various moral concepts. I can understand how people think a lot of things I disagree with, but that’s one I just can’t get my head around.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
October 6th, 2005 at 10:41 am
Well, the good news is that the author of the bill withdrew it this morning. Whee! (I know, silver lining…)
This comment was written by alierakieron.Report this comment to the moderators
October 6th, 2005 at 10:58 am
My point is that it is exceptional that the biological parent doesn’t have parental rights, that specific laws need to be activated to make this the case (the same as in adoption).
Where are you getting that from? The usual rule is that a child born to a married woman is presumed to be the child of the marriage, and certainly presumed to be her own child. Similarly, if the father is the biological parent, that paternity can be asserted without having to go through adoption.
Can you point to any laws specifically cutting off biological parents from their parental rights because a donated gamete was used?
This comment was written by zuzu.Report this comment to the moderators
October 6th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
Nik, donors are not parents, that’s probably the most important point that needs to be hammered home here. They have no intention of being parents, and laws are intended as much to insulate them from the obligations of parenthood as to protect the parental rights of the donees. And, at least for egg and sperm donation, one of the parents is genetically linked to their baby to the same degree as any other parent — please explain why a person should have to undergo adoption like approval for purposes of engendering their own genetic offspring? This is indeed a rather “complicating factor” for legislation like that proposed in Indiana.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
October 6th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
First, this is a goofy damn bill and should never become law.
To answer your question about whether anyone has a right to have a child, I’d have to know what you mean by “right”.
Do you have a legal right to try to get pregnant and have a child? So it would appear.
Does the public have an obligation to assist you in such an endeavor if you can’t afford to do it on your own? No, not in my opinion. You’re on your own. If you can’t afford it, that’s your problem but not mine. I make this point because many people seem to think that the designation of something as a “right” means that if someone cannot afford to exercise that right, the taxpayers are obligated to provide them with the means to do so. I’m not proposing that you yourself are saying this, but the word “right” has to be dealt with carefully these days.
Do you have a moral right to deliberately seek to have a child on your own and raise it without a partner? This is the question that will garner the most debate. Personally, I don’t think so. As I read your statements about your desire to have a child, it seems to me that they are more about what you want than what’s best for the child you might raise. My view is that a child is something that should come only after two people form a bond with each other, one strong enough that they commit to a marriage. If that bond doesn’t exist, then there shouldn’t be children, since it’s that bonded couple that supports the child both physically and emotionally.
I’m sure that seems harsh to you, and I apologize for that. It’s not my habit to insult or antagonize people on blogs, or anywhere else. But that’s what I think, and I wanted to be clear.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
October 6th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
Nick Kiddle, you are a braver person than I to put your personal life out there for all to examine, but I am a little taken aback at your frustration that your baby’s father has and wants responsibility. I am a mother, and I know that the bond between a child and her other parent is sacred and must be respected. Even if your baby’s father had changed his mind after ten years, the connection would still be sacred and separate from you.
It’s one of the million things you have no control over as a parent. It would be very unethical to try and meddle in a father’s bond with his child.
Even egg and sperm donations have ethical problems because there will be a child on whose behalf no one can sign a waiver, and that child has bio parents out there attached in a very important way. This is in no way anti-ART or adoption, but I don’t think there is any way to totally erase the importance of biological parenthood. Egregious cases of abuse are sort of the exception that proves the rule, if ever there was one.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
October 6th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
Hi Zuzu;
I don’t think I’ve been explaining my point very well. It’s very frustrating, thanks for staying with me. I think I’m perhaps also missing some of what you’re trying to say.
“Can you point to any laws specifically cutting off biological parents from their parental rights because a donated gamete was used?”
People can make legal claims on a child, and have claims made on them, on the basis that they are the child’s biological parents. In order that a sperm donor can’t claim custody, and be sued for child support, and so on we have legal means to annul their parenthood (though the laws that regulate ART). That’s an example of a biological parent being cut off from their parental rights because of a donated gamete.
I suspect I’ve completely missed the intent of your question, though. Do you want to come back on it?
“one of the parents is genetically linked to their baby to the same degree as any other parent … please explain why a person should have to undergo adoption like approval for purposes of engendering their own genetic offspring?”
I see no need for approval for the purpose of reproduction - people can go and have children with whoever they want. But this isn’t just what is happening - I’m suggesting approval is needed for parental rights to be annuled and transfered.
With the use of donor ART the person also wants the parenthood of the biological parent - the donor - to be annulled, and often reassigned to someone else. This is done so the donor can’t be sued for child support or claim visitation rights and so on. They also need the consent of the donor for their biological material to be used - which often just wouldn’t happen unless the donor’s rights were annulled.
We don’t normally let people sign parenthood away in this fashion (if you did it outside a licensed clinic the contract would be unlawful and not binding). I’m suggesting that in donor ART people should have to be screened, just like adoption; because, just like adoption, parental rights are being transfered and annuled. And if they don’t pass the test they don’t get to use donor material.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
October 6th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
“I’m suggesting that in donor ART people should have to be screened, just like adoption; because, just like adoption, parental rights are being transfered and annuled. And if they don’t pass the test they don’t get to use donor material.”
1. The test that they’re proposing in this case is discriminatory and obscene. Must be married, straight, and various other shit.
This comment was written by Kyra.2. The children available for adoption are wards of the state, so the state has a right to set standards and guidelines. In this case, it is the donor who has control over the egg/sperm they’re donating, and they are the only ones who have any business setting guidelines.
3. Adoption involves already-born children, who have rights and value already, and should go to people who have proven themselves capable of respecting that. Genetic material does not have the same value; it will eventually GAIN that value (humanity; personhood) with the help of the person or people who want to take genetic material and make it into a baby. By enabling the genetic material to become a human being, the person proves themselves deserving of a chance at parenthood; if you are responsible for creating it (your wishes for a child led to its creation), you have made a good case that you are a good candidate to care for it; it exists because of you, because you wanted it. This is actually more true with ART, because such babies are only created when they are wanted; they aren’t the products of accident or failed birth control or unwanted pregnancies. “Normal” conceptions generally get the benefit of the doubt; unless someone puts their baby up for adoption, it is assumed that the child was created because it is wanted. With adoption, the new parent(s) didn’t take the initiative to create the child; there is less of a “right” for the parents to have that child, because they are not responsible for causing its existance.
Report this comment to the moderators
October 6th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
RonF, let’s pretend for a moment that you have the power to enforce your belief that people should always be married before having kids. Will you exercise that power, and if so, how?
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
October 6th, 2005 at 9:07 pm
I think children’s best interests are parent/parents that give love that respects them, enough money for necessities and space to grow. The minimum number of people a child needs to cherish them is one, the maximum is open.
I’ve raised 2 children over 30 years. (They are 10 years apart.) During those years I could have been labeled (not accurately) hippie mom, respectable married mom, single mom, queer mom.
What matters is how you treat your children. The rest is noise.
Good luck Nik.
This comment was written by Laurie Toby Edison.Report this comment to the moderators
October 7th, 2005 at 1:41 am
I am a little taken aback at your frustration that your baby’s father has and wants responsibility.
If he’d shown any sign of wanting responsibility, I might feel differently about it - I get a strong feeling that what he really wants is control. Mainly control over how his child support money gets spent, which I’m worried is a lousy foundation for a relationship between father and child
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
October 7th, 2005 at 5:37 am
What Kyra said. I think that if we examine why we give bio parents the absolute benefit of the doubt that they are fit parents, in the absence of gross negligence bordering on abuse, it’s hard to argue that people seeking infertility treatment via egg or sperm donation don’t deserve the same benefit of the doubt. They go through the same experience of pregnancy and childbirth.
Nik, your position would be easier to interpret if you separated out (a) the legal issues surrounding genetic linkage, which are fairly straightforward, and (b) the ethical issues surrounding whether a person is “fit” to procreate via third party reproductive procedures.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
October 7th, 2005 at 6:57 am
As I read your statements about your desire to have a child, it seems to me that they are more about what you want than what’s best for the child you might raise.
Of course, without her “desire to have a child,” there wouldn’t be any child for her to “want the best for.” Probably the child will be perfectly happy to have been given the chance to exist!
This comment was written by acm.Report this comment to the moderators
October 7th, 2005 at 7:05 am
RonF, let’s pretend for a moment that you have the power to enforce your belief that people should always be married before having kids. Will you exercise that power, and if so, how?
No, I wouldn’t exercise that power. I can’t think of any way to do it that would be moral.
The closest real-world example of an attempt to do something like that is the mainland Chinese government’s enforcement of their one-child policy. Apparently they forcibly abort women who exceed their quota. There was an article in the latest Sunday Chicago Tribune reporting that the authorities sometimes confine a pregnant woman’s relatives until she either gives up or the relatives give her up.
Another means might be to take any child a single woman has away from her at birth and give it away for adoption. That’d be pretty horrific. But that’s happened in some countries, too.
I don’t know if there would be any way to forcibly administer contraceptives in such a fashion that they couldn’t be undone and that would be reversible when the people involved got married. You’d have to do it to both genders.
Then there’s cultures like many of those we see in the Middle East, where social dissaproval of non-marital pregnancy (hell, non-marital sex) is so strong that single pregnant women, or even single non-virgin females are either forced to marry the man they had sex with, or get killed. That pretty much puts a halt to single parenting. I’ve noted that sometimes it’s just the rumor of such activity that justifies killing the woman involved; there’s not always any proof that the woman actually had sex.
Just because something is wrong doesn’t mean that the state has a right to make a law against it. Of course, in my last example law has nothing to do with it.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
October 7th, 2005 at 7:15 am
Of course, without her “desire to have a child,” there wouldn’t be any child for her to “want the best for.” Probably the child will be perfectly happy to have been given the chance to exist!
Hopefully, anyway. The figures on child and teen suicide would seem to indicate that it’s certainly not a unanimous acceptance. But consider the fact that Nick took a huge risk of getting AIDS (or a number of other diseases) to get pregnant, with the concomitant risk of having the child born with those diseases and living a short and miserable life. Plus God knows what other conditions the father might have that might be passed along to the child. Nick will have no way of knowing these because she’s got no way of finding the father and getting a health history, or observing any health problems he may have in the future. This doesn’t indicate to me that a concern for what’s best for her potential children is topmost in her mind.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
October 7th, 2005 at 8:19 am
With the use of donor ART the person also wants the parenthood of the biological parent - the donor - to be annulled, and often reassigned to someone else. This is done so the donor can’t be sued for child support or claim visitation rights and so on. They also need the consent of the donor for their biological material to be used - which often just wouldn’t happen unless the donor’s rights were annulled.
I’m still not clear on why you’re still arguing this point. Donors to licensed clinics and sperm banks DO sign away their rights to parenthood, as a precondition of donation. There’s no need for a petition to the court, because the signing away of parental rights, even in existing children, is a well-established procedure.
But just because one biological parent signs away parental rights doesn’t mean the parental rights of the other biological parent are annulled. And if that biological parent is married when the child is born, the child resulting from the ART is presumed to be the child of the marriage. In the case of unmarried partners, the child would be presumed to be the child of the mother, and either paternity would be established in the case of a heterosexual couple, or the other mother would have to adopt the child in the case of a lesbian couple.
Gay male couples would have to go through additional levels of bureaucracy in order to establish a legal relationship with the child.
What the Indiana bill would have done would have been to bar gays and lesbians and unmarried heteros from receiving gestational certificates, and it would have placed additional hurdles in the way of heterosexual married couples that they do not currently have to clear.
Remember, the adoption laws are for the benefit and welfare of children who already exist and who are not in the custody of a biological parent. The child who is a ward of the state or even who is being transferred from biological parent to adoptive parent via private adoption is in a different boat than, say, the child of a widow whose new husband wants to adopt the child. In the first instance, the ties to the bio parents are severed, and the state has an interest in making sure that the child is put into the care of a fit person or couple who will not abuse the child or return the child to state care. In the second instance, the state’s interest is more limited, because the child already has a legal relationship to one parent, that parent has a legal relationship to the second parent, and the state is just making official the third leg of the triangle.
A child conceived via ART is closer to the second instance than the first if the parents are unmarried, and unlike either if the parents are married. So again, I don’t see your issue.
This comment was written by zuzu.Report this comment to the moderators
October 7th, 2005 at 8:49 am
Here’s a link to a report on a recent study done on the marital choices of single mothers. It holds that single mothers are much less likely to get married than women without children, and that if they do marry their husbands tend to be older and have lower educational and economic status than the husbands of women without children. I haven’t read though it all, or seen the original study, to judge what the study authors may have controlled or normalized for.
They make some conclusions about how public policy should be shaped that you may find interesting:
As a result, federal and state governments need to consider carefully how they craft marriage promotion programs, Lichter said. President Bush launched the Healthy Marriage Initiative in 2002 to help promote marriage among low-income Americans. In June, President Bush announced a budget request for 2006 which proposed $100 million in matching funds for states and tribes to develop innovative healthy marriage programs, and another $100 million to fund technical assistance and research as well as demonstrations targeted to family formation and healthy marriage.
Such programs may be helpful, but only if they tackle the issue of out-of-wedlock childbearing and address the economic disadvantages of these women and their potential partners, according to Qian.
“Most unwed mothers want to have a satisfying marriage and family, but have significant obstacles to finding a good mate,” he said.
“Government efforts to reduce out-of-wedlock childbearing and provide employment and education opportunities for low-income men and women may have the indirect and long-term benefit of encouraging better matched and therefore more healthy and stable marriages.”
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
October 7th, 2005 at 10:49 am
RonF: This doesn’t indicate to me that a concern for what’s best for her potential children is topmost in her mind.
As Nick pointed out in the post at the top of this blog: “I put myself - and my baby - at risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, and although I’ve since tested negative, the guilty awareness that I was one of the lucky ones will not leave me. Not every woman who takes this route will be as fortunate.”
Wouldn’t it have been better if AID had been made available to Nick? Rather than carping at Nick, shouldn’t you be resolving that you will for the future be for fertility treatment that isn’t priced so high a woman can’t afford it, and that doesn’t exclude people like Nick from treatment?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
October 7th, 2005 at 10:53 am
Nick Kiddle:
Not that you asked, but here’s another two cents from me:
Just another way of looking at it: it’s not unatural or bad to want control over your children. Surely you can understand his point of view- presumably you want control over your child’s upbringing too. And even if he has mixed motives or is ambivalent right now, he’s the father of a person who will be walking around talking soon. It may be hard to believe now when the baby is still inside of you, but this is a new, separate person who is coming into the world, and in one way or another, her father will be very important to her no matter where he is or how he acts. Please try to look at it from her point of view, if not his. And try to be ethical when it comes to how you treat the very important father-child relationship for her sake, if not his.
My good friend and neighbor sends her young child to stay a week with her father every month. He didn’t want the baby at first- he barely had any contact at all during the first year. It is very hard for her to have her four year old under another person’s jurisdiction, but this is her problem to deal with, because he’s her daddy and there’s no coming between a parent and a child. It has worked out very well and he has become a good father.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
October 7th, 2005 at 11:08 am
Elena, the background here you may not be aware of : the man in question is moving to another state. He’s rather bluntly thus rejected any attempt to stay in touch with his prospective daughter. I don’t think that’s the action of a man who’s ambivalent about having a child: that’s the action of a man who’s rejected having a child.
I’m sure Nick will do fine raising her child. I wish you would stop carping at her and trying to make her feel inadequate, however good your motivations in doing so.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
October 7th, 2005 at 11:30 am
>>Elena, the background here you may not be aware of : the man in question is moving to another state. He’s rather bluntly thus rejected any attempt to stay in touch with his prospective daughter. I don’t think that’s the action of a man who’s ambivalent about having a child: that’s the action of a man who’s rejected having a child. >>
And–although I, too, am not Nick–it seems like there are a lot of other reasons to not go out of the way to involve him in the child’s life. He doesn’t seem committed or even interested in caring for his kid. That may change, but I see no reason for Nick to subject a child to even more flakiness and passive-aggression.
That having been said, I think that the best person to make these decision is the person tasked with caring for the child, and the person who knows the biological father better than anyone: Nick.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
October 7th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
Nick,
Why are you ASKING him for child support, is the part i don’t understand? If he doesn’t want the child, and isn’t asserting a desire for custody, why are you creating that particular entanglement?
I’m not trying to be antagonistic, it seems to me a legitimate question. If you HAD gotten pregnant by a stranger, would you have tracked him down for child support? And if not, why are you with this (former) friend?
This comment was written by Adrienne Travis.Report this comment to the moderators
October 7th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Why are you ASKING him for child support, is the part i don’t understand?
Why would you think Nick is asking him for child support? I don’t see anything about that on this thread.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
October 7th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
Whatever you may think about unmarried people having kids (and I figure it’s none of my business), granting the state the power to control who conceives and how is frightening. There has been a lot of talk about clarifying legal rights of parents, but the law in question does nothing of the sort. It just makes it unlawful for unmarried folks to try to conceive by certain means.
This comment was written by Vache Folle.Report this comment to the moderators
October 7th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
Wouldn’t it have been better if AID had been made available to Nick?
No.
Rather than carping at Nick, shouldn’t you be resolving that you will for the future be for fertility treatment that isn’t priced so high a woman can’t afford it, and that doesn’t exclude people like Nick from treatment?
There’s another alternative, which is that in the face of failing to make a appropriate bond with a partner (and I’ll pass for now defining “appropriate”), people forgo having children. The premise that “people are going to do it anyway, so we should support it” is not one I accept.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
October 8th, 2005 at 1:19 am
RonF: No.
So, you think that a single woman who wants to conceive and can’t afford AID ought to go round the bars on Saturday night and have unprotected sex with random strangers? You feel you don’t need to have any concern for the welfare of children conceived in this way - it’s only their mothers who ought to?
The premise that “people are going to do it anyway, so we should support it” is not one I accept.
You feel that the Twenty-first Amendment ought never to have been passed?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
October 8th, 2005 at 8:53 am
Just another way of looking at it: it’s not unatural or bad to want control over your children. Surely you can understand his point of view- presumably you want control over your child’s upbringing too.
Intellectually, I can understand it, but it’s difficult to think of it intellectually. My emotions cut in with a whole host of mother-bear feelings, “I carried this child inside me; I’m not having some moron who encouraged me to abort come anywhere near hir.”
There have been logistical obstacles to joint parenting from day one. I was the one trying to find a way for him to be involved while he asserted that the problems were insurmountable and he wasn’t interested in looking for a solution. If I trusted his motives, I’d be happy to let him develop a relationship with his child, but given his past behaviour I just don’t trust them.
Why are you ASKING him for child support, is the part i don’t understand? If he doesn’t want the child, and isn’t asserting a desire for custody, why are you creating that particular entanglement?
I’m not: the state is. Where I live, a single mother on welfare must provide details of the father or risk losing benefits.
RonF: we are so far apart on this issue that all I can do is thank you for expressing your dissent so politely.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
October 8th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
Congratulations! Hug that baby for me.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
October 8th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
The birth of a baby is not a calamity. It is a cause to rejoice.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
October 8th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
RonF:
“No” (No, it wouldn’t be better if Nick had access to safer ways to conceive)
First you make it clear that you find the option she DID take to be utterly reprehensible. Then you say it is better for her to sleep around than to use a sperm bank. Why is the idea of Nick using a sperm bank to get pregnant so offensive to you that you would sooner see her having the unsafe sex you find so reprehensible? Is it because with sperm banks she’s less likely to be punished properly with herpes and AIDS?
“There’s another alternative, which is that in the face of failing to make a appropriate bond with a partner (and I’ll pass for now defining “appropriate”), people forgo having children. The premise that “people are going to do it anyway, so we should support it” is not one I accept.”
Which, obviously, is to Nick the most objectionable of the three choices. You have no business expecting HER to make decisions based on YOUR judgement of how well the options apply to her situation. It’s NOT your situation, it’s NOT your wants and desires, it’s NOT your life; butt out! It’s HER situation, her wants and desires, her life, her choice; you do not get a vote.
In all my experience with politics, heck, with life in general, I have found nothing so offensive as the argument that someone else should be stuck with the option they dislike most, because you think that option is best for their situation.
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
October 8th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
“The premise that “people are going to do it anyway, so we should support it” is not one I accept.”
The premise is “They have a right to do it, so we should support it.”
The question of whether or not to have children is such an important one that it can only be made by the person the choice is for. To tell Nick she can’t have a child when she wants one so much, or to tell Twisty Faster that she has to have children when she wants no part of it, is truly cruel, and how dare anyone think their sensibilities would be hurt more by Nick having a child than Nick would be hurt by not having a child!
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
October 8th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
Hi Zuzu;
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
I think I’m arguing it because I feel a child conceived from a donor, who has signed away their rights to parenthood, has lost something. If the rights hadn’t been signed away they’d have a valuable financial claim on one parent, the parent would have a right to contact with them, and a right to a say in their upbringing, and so on. So I see this as a loss - they’ve been deprived of something compared to a child conceived by a donor who hasn’t signed away their rights to parenthood (and been allowed to do so by the state).
In the same sense an adopted child also loses something (though - in practice - often makes substantial gains). Because of this courts have on occassion refused to allow one biological parent to become the only legal parent, while the other has their rights and obligations to the child cut off.
Now there may be circumstances where this is justified (the child benefits in other ways), but there may also be circumstances where it isn’t (there aren’t compensatory benefits). If it isn’t justified, then it shouldn’t happen. And given that the state has to do something to allow the creation of legally “fatherless” sperm, I feel it should also mandate screening to seperate the justified cases from the unjustified cases.
I hope that at least gives some idea of the reasons behind my views on the issue.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
October 8th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
In the same sense an adopted child also loses something (though - in practice - often makes substantial gains).
Why assume that a child of a donor could not also have a ’substantial gain’? If the child’s non-biological parent is treated as his legal parent, that child has the right to support, love, and money from two people, just like an adopted child. Perhaps even better than the adopted child, as at least one biological parent is still around.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
October 8th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
“I think I’m arguing it because I feel a child conceived from a donor, who has signed away their rights to parenthood, has lost something. If the rights hadn’t been signed away they’d have a valuable financial claim on one parent, the parent would have a right to contact with them, and a right to a say in their upbringing, and so on.”
If the rights hadn’t been signed away, there would have been no valuable financial claim or any of the rest of it because most likely there would be no child at all. In any event, the argument is off the mark because a parent has the right to terminate their relationship with a child even if, ultimately, adoption is not a better situation for a child. Adoption does not consist of determining whether a child will stay with the original birth parents versus living in a given adoptive family — it is a determination of whether a given adoptive family is adequate.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
October 8th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
The John Birch Society was born in Indianapolis in 1958. In 1924 a member of the KKK was elected governor. Why are you surprised?
This comment was written by Ike.Report this comment to the moderators
October 8th, 2005 at 11:53 pm
Nick, thanks for clarifying. I didn’t realize you were going to be getting AFDC. “I don’t know who the father is” isn’t an acceptable lie to the government? Or is there some reason that wasn’t going to work?
This comment was written by Adrienne Travis.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2005 at 6:17 am
RonF said: The premise that “people are going to do it anyway, so we should support it” is not one I accept.
The word “support” is ambiguous. If he meant “approve of”, everyone who said it’s no one’s business but Nick’s to approve of if, when or how she has a child is of course correct.
If on the other hand he meant “fund” (through his and everyone else’s taxes), there’s a legitimate policy issue here. Does government’s valid concern with the best interest of children allow it to decide who gets taxpayer money for assisted reproduction? I truly don’t know the answer to this one, and Nick implicitly acknowledged in her post that she doesn’t either.
It seems unfair for government to provide funding for anyone who wants to have a baby, no matter what it takes. Thousands of people in this country would like a baby but have decided they can’t afford one right now; do we fund them too? How would we possibly afford it?
I am, however, worried about the slippery slope from regulating who can get funding to regulating who can have a child at all, which we can surely all agree with RonF would be a bad thing.
I do tend to agree with RonF that it’s best if two or more people make a commitment to support one another (in all senses) in raising a child before having one. Raising a child is (I speak from experience) bloody hard work. I don’t much care, however, if those people are a married couple, or a gay couple, or two grandfathers and an aunt, or five ex-girlfriends of the same guy, three of whom he has knocked up. But what if a woman really wants a child, the infamous biological clock is ticking, and prospects for that commitment in whatever form seem dim? Or cut it to “a woman really wants a child.” That’s her business and her choice, not mine.
Nick, I wish you all the best.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2005 at 8:51 am
Kyra already mentioned that the bill has been dropped. It was dropped due to all the criticism about it.
I know that the bill was probably geared towards preventing gays and lesbians from using artificial insemination, but it also applies to straight women. The government defines parenthood according to who is the father. That way, the state can get child support from biological fathers when a single mom applies for TANF. The states want reimbursement, which is why child support is enforced the way it is. Women who choose to have children without the benefit of marriage threaten that set-up. There are women who have successfully raised children without the input of a father, and that scares the fatherhood/marriage crowd to death. So, introduce a bill like the one that was just shelved to prevent women from doing that. Sperm rights trump the wishes of a woman of economic means who wishes to raise a child on her own. That’s another reason why such a bill came to be.
This comment was written by The Countess.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2005 at 10:51 am
There are women who have successfully raised children without the input of a father, and that scares the fatherhood/marriage crowd to death. So, introduce a bill like the one that was just shelved to prevent women from doing that. Sperm rights trump the wishes of a woman of economic means who wishes to raise a child on her own. That’s another reason why such a bill came to be
Boom. That’s the first thing that occured to me.
RonF: You have stated that people shouldn’t have children unless they are married, no? Soooo…..does this mean that married women who are being abused should stay with their husbands “for the good of the children”? What about widows—do they automatically become less able parents because their spouse is six feet under? I take it you are also strongly opposed to grandmothers or other (single) relatives raising children when the parents (for whatever reason) are unable to do so?
See, that’s one of the rubs for me as a single mother. The whole damn world feels that they have the right to pass judgement upon me and my child unless we have offered up the entireity of our private lives for a scrupulous examination; only then do we have any hope of passing the “moral” muster of total strangers and getting a “pass” for my husbandless situation. Yes, it does piss me off when my child is assumed to be a current or future piece of shit because *gasp!* I don’t have a man in my life to “legitimize” her existance.
The single fathers I know (I’m talking about single custodial fathers here) deal with most of the same issues I do re: single parenting; one issue they don’t have to deal with is this judgement call. Single fathers are assumed to be doing the right thing by their children. Single mothers are not. Oh, and there is distinctly different advice given to single mothers vs. single fathers—newly single (custodial) fathers are advised to postpone dating for a while, to take relationships verrrry slowly, to consider the impact of a relationship on their children, to have long engagements, and to consider obtaining a prenuptial agreement before marriage. Men who follow this advice are called “smart” and “sensible” (and just to be clear, I also consider them smart and sensible for taking this tack). We single mothers are expected to rush right out and find any man with a pulse (even bars and singles columns are considered appropriate places to meet men), immediately introduce our kids after the first date to “test drive” the guy for marriage!
(No, RonF, I’m not exaggerating. If you could have only been a fly on the wall during one of my many arguments where I’ve mistakenly suffered fools who’ve had the nerve to ask me why I’m not trolling bars looking for a “replacement daddy”. Sigh.)
Thing is, if you were to put fifty single mothers and their children under a group observation, you would not be able to tell the difference between who had been married, who had not been married, who has been widowed, who had children from intercourse vs. who used the turkey baster, etc. It would just be a bunch of moms and children playing. You could then introduce fifty more women with their children, all married this time. And you still wouldn’t be able to pick a random child out of the bunch and determine with any accuracy whether mom was married or not.
Why is it so controversial to recognize that marriage has zip to do with good parenting?
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2005 at 11:58 am
because those groups who use heterosexual marriage as a means by which to control others would lose strength in their arguements.
This comment was written by nexyjo.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
As a daughter of a man and the mother of a daughter with a father, in-home, I’m not crazy about the dismissive attitude toward fatherhood. One huge, valid reason to be pro-choice is so that women can decide when and with whom to have children. And it’s not all about the women: it’s about the kids. Kudos to single parents, but there’s another point of view present: if we ask the children of absent fathers or mothers if there is a big fat hole in their lives, how many of them would say yes? If they were really, really honest? Here’s what I think about my husband: he stood up before God and our familes and promised to be my life companion. He’s the only other parent of my daughter. In order to be tolerant I have to devalue this? If you don’t value marriage and kids, let me tell you a secret: when it works, it’s the best thing in the whole world.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
RonF: You have stated that people shouldn’t have children unless they are married, no? Soooo…..does this mean that married women who are being abused should stay with their husbands “for the good of the children”? What about widows…do they automatically become less able parents because their spouse is six feet under? I take it you are also strongly opposed to grandmothers or other (single) relatives raising children when the parents (for whatever reason) are unable to do so?
No, I would not advise a married woman whose husband is abusive (or vice versa) should stay with their spouse. Abuse puts the children into danger as well as the abused spouse. In fact, I’ve had this discussion with a woman I got to know quite well in a previous job who ended up divorcing over a very similar situation (the issue was drug abuse, not physical abuse). She was familar with my views, but I told her that I thought she was entirely justified because of the dangerous environment her husband was creating.
As far as widows (or widowers) go, they don’t become less able parents; they just now are in a situation where they no longer have the help and the different perspective that their partner once provided. Overall, the examples you give are basically of people who became single after they became parents, not people who became parents while they were single. There’s a difference.
… you still wouldn’t be able to pick a random child out of the bunch and determine with any accuracy whether mom was married or not.
That’s not my experience, nor the experience of the people I know. I’ve been working with other people’s kids in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts for about 13 years now. While any general statement has individual exceptions, my observation with children in the Boy Scouts has been that we as leaders tend to be able to pick out those kids who have two parents at home and those that do not by their behavior. The ones with two parents tend to be better behaved and much less attention-demanding than those with one. I include in this statement kids who are technically members of two-parent families but who have virtually one parent because the other parent is away from the family for long periods of time due to their employment circumstances.
I absolutely would not recommend that a single parent engage in a desparate search for a second parent for their child; there’s lots of different ways that harm can come from that. I can’t answer for the expectations you have encountered from other people.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
RonF: my observation with children in the Boy Scouts has been that we as leaders tend to be able to pick out those kids who have two parents at home and those that do not by their behavior. The ones with two parents tend to be better behaved and much less attention-demanding than those with one.
Sounds like a self-creating prophecy to me. You start out with a prejudice against kids from single-parent homes, and expect certain kinds of behavior from them… and you get the behavior you expect.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
unfortunately, you would find the same response if you asked the children of present fathers and mothers the exact same question. the mere presence of a father and mother is no guarentee of a full childhood.
the operative words here are “when it works”, and again, it often “works” with single parents as well. quality is a required facet of parenting, perhaps even more so as compared with quantity.
This comment was written by nexy jo.Report this comment to the moderators
October 9th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
Overall, the examples you give are basically of people who became single after they became parents, not people who became parents while they were single. There’s a difference.
To whom? The children?
If you don’t value marriage and kids, let me tell you a secret: when it works, it’s the best thing in the whole world.
And you would deny this to same-sex couples, why? So that you can brag about what a great guy you married? That’s pretty low.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators