Jennie

I agree with most of the posters that it is not immoral to have a child if you can support and love it. I would also say that I think AK is thinking clearly about the problem of aging and fertility. My husband and I starting trying to have children when I was 30; but had difficulties and didn't succeed until I was 35. If I'd waited even a few more years until I was 35 to start with, then I might not have had children at all as I am not yet forty and starting menopause.

Personally, I also think that a diversity of families will provide a diversity of personalities among the children who grow up, and that this makes society stronger. I've heard that sons of single women for instance, have a much easier time later with women bosses and so forth. It makes intuitive sense to me as well.

I would also not want to be a single mother, my husband has been invaluable with the children; but then one reason I picked him was his love for children. This may seem a bit contradictory, but I am a different person with my own weaknesses and I don't attribute them to anyone else.

My recommendations if you end up as a single mother are:

Have a doula, someone to be there for you during the birth who is experienced in coaching women through it. I wish I'd had one and my husband and mother were both there too.

Have someone who can come and stay with you at a moments notice from week 36 through week 42. You will appreciate the help with a newborn, particularly if you end up with a c-section. It doesn't have to be the same person for the whole time period.

Try to find several people who can back you up during medical emergencies. I use my family, but I am lucky enough to have all three siblings and my parents within a few hours drive. Very useful when my month old daughter needed heart surgery and I needed care for my then two year old.

Remember, children are tough, they are not fragile beings and will survive well even if you occasionally lose patience or can't do one more load of dishes.

brighid

I would disagree, a lifetime commitment (by definition or otherwise) does not make something good OR strong. All it makes it is a lifetime commitment, but there is no guarantee of this commitment as there is no guarantee about anything in this life (except that we will all die). Good marriages can and do end, for any number of reasons. I think they are far less likely to end, but to say that they cannot, or will not end just because they started off as lifetime commitments is IMO, naive.

Yes, but long engagements do not guarantee fidelity or even lifelong trust. Long engagements allow one to determine if a person is trustworthy or not, but it does not guarantee future breaches of trust that cannot be foreseen. Also, short engagements do not preclude an end result of determining the trustworthiness of a partner.

Well, let's not go constructing strawmen now! Plenty of people are afraid of change and I have enough experience in life to understand this to be true. People may fail to conclude the reason for some fears is change, but that does not mean it is not the root cause. Some men (as are some women) threatened by the uncertainty of the unknown and change certainly brings about some unknown factors for many people. I know of too many instances of people remaining in either unhappy, abusive, or even destructive situations because the fear of the unknown is so great. If they remain in the present situation (however destructive) they know what their place is, they know what to expect, etc.

It certainly is within the realm of possibility that some men are afraid of change and hence desire to keep strict gender roles. There are many other possibilities and I merely presented one possible explanation.

I agree! However who decides what a "decent" environment for raising a family is? That is what is at the heart of this discussion. Is it illegitimate to raise a child (by choice or by consequence) without both parents? The answer to that question has been a resounding yes, with the dissent of a few (such as yourself.)



I would agree that a man who has sex with a woman, impregnantes her and leaves her is not an appropriate way to handle interpersonal realtionships. However, that is a very traditional "role" that many men have and continue to play with little or no social repercussions. I do not believe we need to strictly focus on constituting acceptable relationships between men and women, but rather acceptable relationships between people.

I do not find it unacceptable to use a sperm donor (whether it be through artificial means, or old fashioned ones) to impregnate a single woman who is fully capable of caring for and raising a child without a male partner. Women have been raising children on their own for centuries, and only the lucky ones have been fortunate enough to have a husband who was also an actual father to her children. The husband who works 80 hrs. a week, who travels often for business, who isn't present to attend school or sports functions, etc. is not a father in my opinion. He is a bread winner and this is the "traditional" model of male/female marital relationships.

Furthermore, I personally feel situations should be judged individually and upon the merit of that situation. A "traditional" family is not ipso facto functional or ideal and vis a vis.

A single parent can raise a child properly and well. Positive male role models can provide the necessary examples to this child with regard to the male behavior this mother wishes to have in her child's life. Biology doesn't make one a parent and I think enough of us have enough crappy biological parents to demonstrate this reality.

Should a child have two loving parents? Ideally, yes. Can a child grow up healthy and well adjusted in a single parent home? Yes. Is it immoral to choose to raise a child without a partner if a parent is capable of providing a loving, secure environment for said child? IMHO ... No. Can this act be immoral (given specific circumstances of an unique situation) ... yes. Is it in Anna's case? My conclusion thus far is no.

Brighid

brighid

There are any number of reasons why people may feel threatened by change. Fear of the unknown is what I find to be the common thread with regard to the fear of change. Some people fear losing control, losing their position, not knowing what their place will be, what will happen next and many people would rather maintain the status quo then venture into the unknown.

Yes, it is possible that one does desire things to remain the same because he/she feels the "traditional" model is best. I certainly did not preclude that possibility, but rather addressed one such possibility.

Children live what they learn. Children learn responsibility by seeing it modeled and parents are the prime teachers in this relationship. However, a child can learn responsibility from one parent just as well as he/she can learn it from two. Children can even learn it when they have one or two irresponsible parents by experiencing it outside of their primary family unit.

I agree that parents shouldn't give up when the going gets tough. I don't think people should enter into marriage and/or parenthood without a great deal of thought, reflection and research. I personally feel so many marriages end in divorce (and thereby creating broken families) because too few people contemplate, discuss and come to agree upon how marriage, discipline, life and change will be handled throughout the course of marriage. Parenting should be about sharing responsibilities, but I don't find that the "traditional" model really fits that. The traditional model is father as bread winner and mother a child bearer, rearer and house keeper. The husband in this model does not traditionally share the household or child rearing responsibilities and is mainly focused on providing financially for his family. The traditional father was too busy working to change diapers, attend parent/teacher conferences, do the dishes, etc. Women were restricted in their abilities to pursue outside interests and were expected to keep house and raise children.

I also agree that marriage and parenting can be tough, as well as rewarding. However that "toughness" (and the representative divorce rate) can also be supportive of an argument for single parenting. A single parent doesn't have a spouse to fight with. A single parent doesn't have to "tough" out the rocky points of a marriage and a single parent can devote more of their attention (in the right financial situation) to the care and upbringing of a child. A single parent by choice won't have to endure the devastation of divorce, or the loss of a spouse through tragedy.

Parenting, whether in a two parent or single parent family is tough. It can be easier with the help of a spouse, but having a spouse does not guarantee an easier time, support, or a functional family unit.

Traditional families are well and good, but non-traditional or modern family units are well and good also. People (and families) deserve to be judged upon the merits of their specific situation, and morally this is what we should strive for.

Brighid

abe smith

uh... my purpose is not to denigrate; merely to put-notice of my impression, that *yguy*'s what-I-read-as hard-nosed attitude(s) towards other people & their (our) choices & patterns, may be based upon his (a.) youth and (b.) um lack of experience in the sorts of experience here-under discussion...... Probably a/my more careful reading of his posts here & at other threads wd clarify this, and correct my erroneous opinions....

yguy

I did not say that that a lifetime commitment is sufficient for a good marriage, but that it is necessary.

One spouse cannot guarnatee the other's commitment, but can guarantee his/her own. That way, if the other bugs out, the child will have the opportunity to choose between inclining towards a selfish parent or an unselfish one, rather than choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea.

If they end for reasons other than death, obviously they weren't lifetime commitments. If they were, they wouldn't have ended.

That you can start out wrong and end up right I don't dispute, but only a fool deliberately starts out wrong thinking he can make it right in the end.

When did I dispute that? All I said was that there are sometimes legitimate reasons to fear some changes.

It doesn't mean that it IS the root cause either.

I don't advocate that people stick it out in bad relationships for fear of change. I advocate that they do so as long as possible where children are involved, for the children's sake.

Again, the question is whether there is a legitimate reason to fear the change. Pat Kelly would have us believe there is no reason to fear a change in AOC laws. While the advent of single parenting may not be the elephant-sized hole in the dike that condonation of pedophilia would be, it may well be a thumb-sized hole, which, left unplugged, could eventually destroy the dike.

The parents, of course. If those parents are foolish, as many are, their decision will reflect that.

I think you meant "a resounding no", but in any case, nothing posted by anyone here has shown any errors in my thinking that I'm aware of.

Again, you attempt to imbue the word "traditional" with negative connotations in an apparent attempt to cast aspersions on the idea of traditional values by association. I have already said that there is nothing inherently good about tradition, but you continue to shadow-box. Why?

You can't do the second without the first. You might as well try to comprehend calculus without a basic understanding of algebra. Children come from the union of man and woman, so obviously how the two relate to one another is at the heart of what will influence the child for good or ill.

Again, you indulge in the same strawman building you accuse me of.

Can one fly a plane across the ocean with an engine that one knows doesn't function perfectly? Yes. Is it intelligent to do so? No.

The decisions made by parents affect not only them and their children, but likely generations to come. They should not be made haphazardly, based on the unspoken assurance that most unpleasant consequences will occur outside the window of the parent's lifetime.

Anna Karenina

Jennie,

It is always desirable to raise a child with both parents together (assuming that they have a healthy relationship) than just one of them. I do not consider myself to be a bad person, maybe I have certain characteristics that some people find undesirable from their points of view, but that does not make me a bad person.

I know that the only human being capable of loving me the way I AM is my own child. There is not risk involved, a love without conditions. I will not be scared or worried that he/she might hurt my feelings or go away.

Your recommendations are excellent. I will consider each one of them. I know that it will be a very difficult time for me if the father of the child is not by my side. I guess that I should be used to live in difficult situations, in pain, alone, but sometimes I forget and for a few moments I think that maybe this time Fate will give me the chance to be happy. But then, someone slaps my face and I have to come back to reality.

abe smith

... Just got here , to catch your most recent post. Your remark here,( if none-other of yours at this thread, "my dear Person"), certainly establishes that you've not ever (yet) been a parent.
You've said that (can't quote it verbatim) you expect your child to "love (you) as (you are)"!!!????
IF THAT's your motive in pursuing this heavily-documented wish or intention to get impregnated & to carry, bear, raise a child, Tootsie, YOU'd BETTER FORGET THE WHOLE THING!
Un-UNGH! THAT motive/expectation is NOT goina pay-off!
Forget it! The folly of ANY (potential) parent's inflicting their expectation of being-loved-or-rewarded in-return, on their kid is the World's best argument AGAINST having a child on-purpose!. Any parent entertaining such a FOOLISH hope wd/ have ONE kid & NEVER have another! Hence, having children occur almost always BY ACCIDENT is probably the only way to insure the survival of Ouah Soht.

The chances are very great, my dear Anna K., that there're going to be many many times when your infant, kid, child will infuriate you to the point of your *all-but* chucking it out the window. Don't you read the papers/watch the telly, and know about what parents DO to their kids? You'd better get au courant with FACTS of that kind! Youd better get some straight dope from people who ARE/ have been parents; and find out about reality.
If you expect to line-up a bunch of wonderful lifelong REWARDS for your marvellous self-sacrifice, in bringing a child into the world, Baby, fuggettabouddit!
Now that you've come-clean about WHY you want to be a mummy, I'd like to revise my earlier response and say, For the KID"s sake, DON'T DO IT! Cordially, Abe.

openeyes

Abe-Just a reminder tha AK is 31. Though age doesn't always confer wisdom, I think her reasons for wanting a child are much more complex than wanting someone who loves her for what she is. If Anna were in her teens I'd be frightened for her motivations, or even in her young 20's for that matter. I think she's trying to consider as many angles as one can beforehand, which is more than many parents do.

Anna Karenina

Abe,

Having a child just for the sole reason of having someone who loves me is stupid. You are taking my words out of context. This is NOT my motivation and I cannot fool myself into believing such romantic fairy tale. I was pointing it out that if there is a human being who will love me and accept me the way I am then I am almost sure that it will be a child of mine. That does not mean that I am expecting that he HAS to do it, but the chances are high.

I understand your concern and I would say the same to someone who is trying to substitute their lack of love with a child. At least, if that person is not capable of recognising that a child should not be responsible of making you happy.

Anna

yguy

You have an excellent plan B, I trust. You'd better.