AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2005 > December > 01 > Entry
Is the sperm bank trend among single women a good idea?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
In growing numbers, women are thumbing their noses at marital convention and opting for a sperm bank start on single motherhood.
This should come as no surprise. Biology is not a woman’s destiny, and marriage is not her inevitable end. Getting married or having children is an option. The popular media drumbeat insists women should be afraid: of getting older, of not finding a man to marry, of being too concerned with career or of failing to bear children.
It was inevitable that some women would finally ignore the mindless metronome and chart their own course.
Women who ignore these crippling messages should be applauded. These women don’t care if the odds are greater they will encounter a terrorist attack than marriage after age 40. These women have stopped fretting about getting married, period. But they may still want children. And I’m sure this upsets some people, but it’s hard to fathom why.
Women who want children shouldn’t be barred from motherhood just because they never fell in love or don’t want to marry. Parenting is hard. But that doesn’t mean two parents are always better than one. Two parents are optimal in most studies because of the financial stability that comes with that statistic. If you’re looking at the population as a whole, this is generally true, but it doesn’t make it true always. Children in poor families are likely less-advantaged than children of well-off single female mothers.
We never hear conservatives argue that poor, heterosexual couples should be barred from bearing children they can ill afford. Strict Catholics would argue instead that those couples should be barred from using most forms of birth control. A double standard that supports heterosexual parents over well-to-do single females is irrational.
Children should be born into the best possible circumstances. But “best possible” is a matter of interpretation. Are families formed by the thousands of heterosexuals who rush into marriage, have kids and then quickly divorce optimal? If heterosexual coupling in any ill-conceived form is always considered a more acceptable form of parenthood than a single woman inseminated by a sperm donor, then we should reexamine our standards.
Rebuttal
Diane’s primary rationale appears to be shared by many single women seeking test-tube motherhood. And unfortunately, there’s no comfortable way to point out the flaw in their reasoning: these would-be-moms are — perhaps understandably — focusing on what is best for them, not necessarily for the child. Because contrary to Diane’s claims, the best possible circumstance into which to bear a child is not “up for interpretation.” Many studies have shown that a mother-father, two-parent family is by far the best for raising healthy children, and that a father-absent structure is least beneficial — regardless of income level. I’ve made that point several times in this space, but there’s a vital reason for being a bit of a broken record: there is no way to overstate the importance of fatherhood.
Don’t get me wrong — as a mother myself, I absolutely understand the urge to have a biological child. I personally went through a difficult period when my husband and I thought I couldn’t have a baby, and were considering adoption, and other options.
I empathize with these women. But when I think about them bringing a new life into the world, knowing that that baby will grow up without a father, my heart hurts. You can’t have my job as a columnist and author on issues affecting our culture — reading stacks and stacks of research reports on this — and not ache at the idea.
And there’s another dynamic to consider.
Up to half a million U.S. children — many of them newborns — are languishing in foster care, waiting for a loving parent. And there are millions of orphans overseas. Yes, the mother-father family is ideal, but since these children already exist and already have no parents, I encourage single women who want to become single moms to pour out their love on them.
As Jamie Self, the Public Policy Director for the Georgia Family Council told me, “Children in foster care, and in need of adoption would be better off raised by a loving mother than no mother at all. No need to create fatherless kids — these kids are already here and in need.”
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Vermin8
December 5, 2005 07:16 AM | Link to this
Diane brings up a point about the financial issue - we hear many decry single parent homes but disregard the fact that the primary problem with single family homes is money. Good point, Diane. Ironically, the one point on which I agree with Shaunti - single women adoptions - may not be very feasible. Married couples get preference for adoption and singles are often barred from adopting (unless the rules have changed recently), so it seems pretty unrealistic to urge single women to adopt.
By Brian Curtis
December 5, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this
Wow… Shaunti actually made a decent point in amongst the usual religious ramblings about the Sanctity of the Traditional Family Unit.
The comment on adoptions is well taken: there should be no excuse for a sperm clinic to exist as long as even one orphanage somewhere in the country is open for business. In simpler language: we’re not using the kids we’ve already got, so why make more?
By monteal
December 5, 2005 08:27 AM | Link to this
I agree with both really , Ideally adoption of a foster child is the Ideal solution to a childless woman in want of someone to nurture , but often the ideal is not what is going to happen we live in a selfish world, so a sperm bank is tha choice many would take , I do think that there will be times, if not years that these sperm bank mothers will wish that there was a father there. Our socitey down plays the importance of a father in the life of a boy or a girl. I know many people will disagree, but men offer things that dont come natrally to wemen to there children. a mother is better than nothing but a involved father is irreplaceable no matter how hard the woman tries to fill both rolls.
By Akeya
December 5, 2005 08:32 AM | Link to this
IMHO, I think it’s tired that people somehow believe that marriage is inevitable for everyone. Why should a woman miss out on the opportunity to be a parent simply because she doesn’t want to get married, fell in love but the man doesn’t step up to the plate, or whatever other reason she has for not being in wedded bliss before conceiving? I agree with Diane on certains points, especially when she mentions why 2 parent families are seen as the optimal solution. What many studies may not take into account is the growing number of stay-at-home parents, which forces one parent to take on all financial responsibilities alone. Daddy goes out and works, brings home the bacon, only to have a heart attack at 50 from working so much so that his partner can have the “luxury” of staying home. But, I digress… Shaunti can empathize all she wants, but she will never understand. Even though she went through a period of being uncertain about her fertility, she cannot compare her life and circumstances to the lives and circumstances of countless single women who desire being a mother.
Furthermore, if there are so many children languishing in foster care and adoption homes, as Shaunti posits, why didn’t she and her husband attempt to adopt their first child? Why was giving birth an option, if she cares so much for those poor children? Surely even her mother-father home would have been even better to those children than a single-mother home. And why are men never factored in? Don’t men have biological urges to have children? I have a fiance who has been begging for a child for over a year now…
By Akeya
December 5, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this
Maybe if girls and boys were raised more equally to parent we wouldn’t have to worry about one parent offering something the other parent couldn’t offer. Maybe we should start raising nurturing fathers instead of lambasting single mothers because they can’t “provide what a father can provide.” Maybe it’s the father’s lack of nurturing that’s the real problem… Maybe we should stop trating fathers like bumbling buffoons who can’t boil water or match socks, and who put the children’s clothes on backwards…
By John
December 5, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this
Single women should adopt. Married women should do as they please? Maybe all folks who want to totally outlaw women’s access to abortion should be required to adopt? Perhaps we should require anyone having children to adopt any children they have after two? Perhaps we should allow people to make their own decisions about having and raising children.
By Renee
December 5, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this
Good Morning All!
This is a situation that I think would be more relevant to the person. If a woman is financially sound (and mentally sound) why not visit a sperm bank. I can understand a woman not wanting to adopt and preferring a sperm bank. Obviously, the woman wants to bear the child and go through that process. They may feel as if they won’t bond with an adopted child, the list could go on and on.
I definitely agree with Diane that a woman should not be barred from motherhood just because she hasn’t fallen in love. How many married women (in love) have married some abusive, alcholic or drug using man that makes a terrible situation to raise a child in. Two parents doesn’t equate a happy household (I came from a very disfunctional two-parent household).
As many of you know, I’m all for sperm banks. It will be the only way I have another crumb-snatcher, although this subject doesn’t necessarily pertain to my situation, lol.
By bob
December 5, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this
LOWNDES 49 BROOKWOOD 7 Huh what a joke BROOKWOOD was.
By Brookwood Dad
December 5, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this
wait until next year. we will show you.
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this
Wow, this is a really good topic.
As a woman who, at this point, has no choice but to adopt, foster, or give birth, I’d say it all boils down to preference.
I’m certified to be a foster parent - took the classes here in Georgia because I had a strong desire to parent, and wanted to contribute to the community by taking care of some children in need.
However, as my clock begins to tick a litle louder, I’ve begun to lean more towards giving birth. I agree with what Brian Curtis said about not making more since we already have an abundance of children in need. However, that doesn’t change my instinct to bear children, my strong desire to reproduce. I want to raise a child made in my image - with my eyes, my smile, my complexion, my shape, my hair, my lips, etc. I want to see that little girl that I used to be. I’ll take a boy too… lol.
And, for the record, while the average single person obviously has less income than the average married couple - I find it unfair to assume that a single person cannot provide for a child adequately.
Bottom line, I think Diane and Shaunti both make really good points, but I’d lean on the side of letting a financially and emotionally stable woman choose for herself which route she wants to take.
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this
litle = little
By jim
December 5, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this
Brookwood should have just forfeited and saved all that money.what a big joke they were. i know they are just a bunch of kids playing but ajc should have given Lowndes some credit and not have built the north schools up the way they did. and having Brookwood built up so high that just made Lowndes play that much better and Brookwood play that bad so thank you ajc.
By Lyrazel
December 5, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this
I am lost. Is this breeding for vanity or wanting a child without restraints and conditions imposed by traditional moral society as seen on TV?
Most people who use fertility clinics are married/coupled, most users have very high income levels to achieve this medical fertility—these inseminations are not cheap and may require multiple visits. More often than not these are older couples/women who were involved with careers/business and now have time & nest eggs to heed their biological clocks late in their 40s, and sadly, also in their 50s. There is the donor factor: is it truly anonymous? Will the medical factors carried through genetics be a burden or blessing: suppose a bone marrow transplant is needed? Suppose the sperm donor has permission to contact the child in later years—as father is it his right? What if the child WANTS to know, does the clinic have the law to keep anonymity from someone if they know who the donor was and there is a medical emergency? Using the Melissa Etheridge (sp?) & Partner insemination: the couple say it was David Crosby who fathered the child. I believe two prior children of Mr Crosby committed suicide despite successful affluent parents. Would this have been made known to the Ethridge family prior to the sperm insemination if it was an anonymous donation? Alcohol and substance abuse are obvious in the father—plus—10 months after the baby was born to the committed parents, mommies broke up. Now the kid will be raised by other mommies, so possibly this was a vanity baby because both parents were not considering the welfare of the childs future—but were high on the ability of reproducing and flaunting money and influence more than understanding the consequences of what that baby will face in life.
It raises the question if eggs and sperm are a commodity to be sold, if wombs can be rented for the business of birth and what rights a surrogate has to keep the child birthed even if her body was only an incubator. It raises the question of child-support. If two women have a baby, one dies can the woman sue the sperm donor for child support?
While the argument that no baby should be born until all babies are adopted is sweet and compassionate the truth is we are beings with ancient procreation desires for OUR OWN KIND and because they are seen by society as someones mistake affluent couples will choose insemination before adoption.
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this
Oh, just thought of something else. I’m already raising someone else’s child. And, honestly, I think this is part of the reason I feel so strongly about bearing my own child(ren). It’s not easy to raise a child, but I’m convinced that it’s ten times harder to raise someone else’s child when you haven’t had him/her from birth (or at least, from a very young age). I want to be able to train a child, develop, and impart sound judgment and good habits in them from infancy.
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to UNDO years of bad habits?
By Jack
December 5, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this
I happen to be old-fashioned about this subject. I don’t think ANY single person no matter how much money they have should be allowed to create a child. Period. If a couple gets a divorce, that is a different story. I would much rather see a loving gay couple adopt a child than any single person out there. A child needs 2 parents.
By Chilao
December 5, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this
Isn’t science great? Women who want to reproduce no longer have to deal with that nasty male appendage. Gotta love it.
Okay, more seriously. Nothing wrong with the sperm bank concept, if that is what the woman wants. Coming from a large family, I am a zero-population-growth advocate, with an adopted sibling. The adoption concept is a great idea, there are certainly enough available children. And with an adopted sibling, adopted very young, I have family proof that IQ is mostly Genetic.
Also on the adoption thought, do you really want to adopt someone who may(stressed may) have developmental problems related to say, the natural mother’s substance abuse? As an example. Or a child resulting from too much in-breeding? Not trying to sound anti-adoption, as I am not, but those are things that need to be considered.
On the genetic thought, though, can a spem-bank web-site with chacteristics form dropdowns, for height, hair color, eye color, IQ, physical build, etc etc etc be far behind?
By Chilao
December 5, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this
characteristics? LOL
By Whiley
December 5, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this
Why would anyone pay for a sperm bank when it is so readily available for free??
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this
Whiley, NOTHING in life is free. NOTHING.
By Whiley
December 5, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this
Just being me, that’s not true. You can get all the sperm you want for free in any nightclub in Atlanta. And if you are female, you get free drinks too.
By Vermin8
December 5, 2005 10:02 AM | Link to this
2-parent is not always better. I’ve seen single parent homes happier than 2-parent, even with a lower household income. If fact, single parent can be better since they parent can worry about the child and not be distracted by worrying about a spouse.
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this
Jack - I don’t think I can agree with that. A child does need (at least) one reliable male role model and (at least) one reliable female role model, but not necessarily two parents. Although a 2-parent home is ideal, it is not absolutely necessary in order to raise and produce a productive member of society.
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this
It’s not free, Whiley. There’s a price you pay - it may not be monetary, but it’s a price nonetheless.
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this
Vermin - Interesting point. I often say that I’d be a much better parent if I didn’t have my partner to worry about… But, it’s all about balance. I wouldn’t agree that a single parent would make a better parent just because s/he would be more attentive.
By Renee
December 5, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this
Although a 2-parent home is ideal, it is not absolutely necessary in order to raise and produce a productive member of society.
Well said JBM.
And the free sperm at the nightclub is probably not what one would want inserted in their body for creating a child. You get what you pay for. Not saying only upstanding citizens visit sperm banks, but I’d rather pay and take my chances.
By Vermin8
December 5, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this
That’s certainly true, JBM. It all comes down to the individuals within the family unit (whatever it may be).
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel also raised a good point, most people that visit sperm banks aren’t hurting for money, and are financially prepared to raise a child.
And, if Shaunti’s heart aches from imagining these children growing up without fathers, she should visit the Child Support Enforcement Bureau and take a look at the “Dead Beat Dads/Moms” wall… now, THAT’S a heartbreaker. Or, visit her local prison and observe all the married or divorced parents whose imprisonment left their children to be raised by 1 or no parent.
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this
Whiley,
Why would anyone pay for a sperm bank when it is so readily available for free??
In a word: Screening.
As for my opinion; I only wish that people could be trusted to make sensible decisions with serious issues like this; then it WOULD be a “depends on the person” scenario.
BUT, with so many people who want a child to complete them and etc; I wonder what to do to minimize the fallout - or do we suck it up as a society? (help with the troubles that fallout from over-abundance of unwanted kids coupled with people having kids without reals means of caring/raising them) Or do we practice tough love, and say: You had the child, you find a ways to raise it or drown? And watch TV about the trageties without creating activist groups to create yet another net?
Seems that it often times comes around to bite society (so many school kids being so unruley, dropping out to have a child for someone to love…) - and this is now another possible tax on societty.
I am at a loss - unless we remove the right to scew up a child, and force parenting education that is complex and complete before having children.
But, then who desides that? Hmmmmfff
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this
I have to admit, I often wonder whether women who rely on sperm banks for reproductive assistance (lol) ever consider asking a male friend or acquaintance to assist instead…
By Debbie
December 5, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this
Sorry, but I disagree with Shaunti. Yes, there may be babies in foster care and children overseas, but have you tried to adopt an infant? I have friends - 2-parent household - who attempted to adopt a child in the states. They were told it could be up to a 10 year wait for an infant. They tried private adoption and were told it could cost up to $40,000 and could still be several years to wait. They did decide to adopt internationally. They adopted two children from Russia - both babies, neither infants. It cost them $30,000! So you see, adoptable babies are not always readily available. And, I agree a 2-parent household may be the optimum situation for a child, but there are lots of single moms out there who have raised terrific kids. What if someone just gets pregnant accidently? What if Dad dies? What if Dad just up and leaves? (For that matter, what if Mom up and leaves?) Are you saying those children won’t grow up to be good functioning adults? As long as a child has a good, healthy, loving homelife, regardless of how many parents, they will grow up just fine! Sorry, but you’re wrong in this case.
By Jack
December 5, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this
“Although a 2-parent home is ideal, it is not absolutely necessary in order to raise and produce a productive member of society”
No not ABSOLUTELY necessary but should be the rule. A voluntary one-parent household is not fair to the child.
By Chilao
December 5, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this
Speaking of foreign adoptions, remember that little girl the Toronto police were posting pics of on the web, in an attempt to identify? Seems she was adopted from Russia, to a SINGLE male pedophile. Talk about a screwed-up system. Think one of the TV networks was going to have something about it, but I read the web-site.
This sperm bank concept reminds me of things used in the livestock industry for many years. ABS - Artificial Breeders Service, out of Wisconsin, best pedigree bovine bulls in the biz. LOL
By Renee
December 5, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this
Hi Jack!!
Okay, I have to disagree with you. I think a single parent taking the time to think out and plan having this child, making all preparations would do nothing but be beneficial to the child. Think of how many married people, neither plan, nor or prepared, much less being of sound mind, have children. One person can give a child as much love and direction as two could have done.
By Now but not then, a spoiled lesbian
December 5, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this
Adoption - as a single woman and a lesbian - get this straight folks - I don’t want your screwed up foster kids. Go hock them off on somebody else. You screwed them up, don’t dump them on me to fix. I want a beautiful, healthy, un-screwed up, BABY, not your Wednesdays children formed from crack mothers and criminal fathers with sex abused histories.
Yep, it sucks what the staight crowd does to thier own children but these kids are not mine to fix. I don’t see heteros and married people running to DFACS to grab up these kids.
Once again, single women (well, not lesbians we should all be on an island or camp somewhere away from children and society) are a second class group - what Shaunti is saying - single women you don’t deserve a healthy baby but here you can take one of our throw backs, full of mental problems and health problems. Here raise this for us.
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this
If that voluntary one-parent household has a strong, and very active role model of the opposite gender, why is that unfair?
Consider all the people who get divorced not because of infidelity or abuse - the ones who just don’t love each other anymore. I’d hardly call that an “involuntary” divorce. If they bore children, how could it be considered unfair to the children as long as both parents remain active in the children’s lives?
Should the parents just be miserable together until the children become adults? Chances are, they’d pass that misery down to their children…
By Renee
December 5, 2005 10:32 AM | Link to this
(well, not lesbians we should all be on an island or camp somewhere away from children and society)
I can only speak for myself, but I would looove being on an island filled with other lesbians, away from society!! lol
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this
Chilao, Law & Order did an episode based on that story.
Spoiled Lesbian: WOW. You sound really bitter… or issue-laden. I can’t even begin to respond to what you said, it was so screwed up…
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this
ROFL Renee!!
By Renee
December 5, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this
I don’t see issues made with married disfunctional parents having children left and right. Nobody tells them, don’t have any more children until you get your act together. Women have had children with child molesters and received less flack than a single woman who wants to give all her love to a child.
By Jack
December 5, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this
I Renee’. I knew you folks wouldn’t agree with me but I don’t care how wealthy, thought out, prepared a single person is, it is still not fair to the child. A child needs 2 parents. Yes, there are plenty of able single people out there who can raise a child. What are they going to tell this child when they ask “Where’s Mom” or “Where’s Dad”?
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this
Soooooo true, Renee.
I don’t have to go far to provide examples of this either… my aunt, and her first daughter are both HORRIBLE examples of dysfunctional mothers married to dysfunctional men…
But, of course, they’re married so they’re exempt from scorn.
By RF
December 5, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this
Jack- you need to walk a mile in a single parent’s shoes before you make such a judgement. Is a two parent family better? Ideally, yes. If the parents are involved, committed, and loving, yes. And yet, there are stories like the teen in PA- homeschooled in a perfect family- meets boyfriend who kills parents and runs away with him. Two parents doesn’t mean you always turn out right.
Now, I feel very strongly about this for two reasons—my boys. They would most likely still be bouncing around in the foster care system if I hadn’t taken custody. Is ours an ideal situation? Maybe not, but it’s far better than where they were, and better than what most of their friends with two parents have. I can’t count the numbers with blended families, awful stepparents, multiple stepparents, etc. Is that any better than having one devoted stable parent? We have a loving, stable, child-focused home. They are smart, successful in school, and very, very loved. What else matters?
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this
Jack, hopefully they’ll tell the child the truth. Explain that not all children have both a mommy and a daddy. Sometimes mommies have so much love in their hearts and they want someone to give it to. So, instead of wasting all that love, they have a baby and shower it with love. Explain that it’s okay to have only one parent, and perhaps provide examples of all the successful people who were raised with only one parent. Then, let the child know that you will always be there for them, and they can talk to you about anything, but if they ever need advice from a man/dad, they can go to Uncle John (who, of course, will be a very familiar, close, trustworthy relative/friend).
By Van
December 5, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this
I guess if single women want to raise bastards, why not. Let add more to the destruction of the normal family.
I guess Father’s Day will be a mystery to this “lucky” kids.
Now, married folks that can not have their own, between adoption and this solution, I have no problem.
By Renee
December 5, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this
I feel like when the child comes of age, honesty is the best policy. Telling a child, I chose to have you, I’m not sure who your daddy is (genetically) but here’s the reason I don’t know who your daddy is, is a better answer than a wife telling her children, daddy will be back from his crack binge one day, or your daddy just left to be Ms. Walters down the street, or I don’t know who your daddy is because in addition to being married to my husband, I was screwing around with 5 other men, so here’s a list of possibilities.
Don’t get me wrong, Jack, I understand why you feel as you do. I think unfortunately life is screwed up. You have babies born, that nobody loves, why not bear a child that one can love. I don’t think being married should the the ultimate license in having children. Of course I have a partner so we have a two parent house, so that’s not the issue, but I think if one can do it when put in the position to do, why can’t one make the choice to do it.
By Jack
December 5, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this
I didn’t say 2 parent households were perfect. Far from it. RF. Your children started out in a 2 parent household. I said VOLUNTARY single parent household. Hell, if my wife and I had divorced, I’m sure either one of us would have stepped up as you did. You should be commended for it. I am against a single person voluntarily creating a child without a signifigant other there. Straight/Gay no matter, there should be 2.
By Netbanker
December 5, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this
Good Morning All. Some very good points made so far and I do have to agree with parts of both columnists. One’s financial position and stability most certainly affects the potential outcome since we know that children from higher income households do better academically and are more likely to succeed in life due to a better education.
A point that I believe Lyrazel was making is also reflected by both Diane and Shaunti although it may not be readily apparent at first read. It seems to me that creating a child through artificial means, regardless of whether one is single or married, is pure vanity and selfishness when there are so many in foster care and waiting to be adopted. Yes, I know that healthy, white babies are in short supply and JBM’s point about undoing bad habits is equally true (Going through that with a dog was hard enough so I can’t imagine what it’s like with a child.) None of those points negates that there are children that need homes. What seems to be stopping their being adopted is that they are the wrong color, age, have a physical disability, etc.
I’ve had many long discussion about this topic with my best friend, who at 37 had a complete hysterectomy due to medical problems and a family history of ovarian cancer just 3 months ago, who came to the conclusion with her husband that being a parent isn’t about birthing a baby, but about the next 18 years. Fortunately her husband is a British citizen and a wonderful man who told my friend that he’d married her for HER not because she had a womb and could give him children. Also, adoption is basically free in the U.K. It seems that we’ve created a screwed up system based on (what else?) MONEY. If you’re wealthy enough you can adopt the healthy white baby or use a scientist to create your own.
What makes me pause and go hmmmmmm is the lack of protest by abortion opponents about artificial insemination, sperm banks, egg banks, surrogates, etc. Their reasoning seems to be that if one becomes pregnant they should have the baby because life is sacred. By mixing sperm and eggs in test tubes and using syringes to implant the embryos aren’t those involved playing God? Wasn’t it God’s will that the woman NOT become pregnant naturally? Who are the humans involved to override that Devine Decision? Isn’t that the sin of Vanity? Why isn’t using artificial means to create children an issue for those opposing abortion?
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this
Exception or Rule, we cannot be sure since not enough time has past, but:
There is a current case of a lesbian couple that had a male friend impregnate the “mother” and now that the child is six years or so, the stay at home parent {primary caregiver} found that the birth mother has been seeing the bio-father.
The Bio-mother and Bio-father want to marry and raise the child in a traditional way. The Bio-mother states she is no longer is a lesbian, and wants her child to look to bio-dad as father - plus not to pay any alimony to previous partner.
At the least it shows that ALL people, male or female, are capable of the same wrongs/issues. At the most it raises the issue that biological changes may occur in a lesbian bc of birth - which could not be foreseen.
The point? I do not think there IS a way to mitgate these things without removing rights of someone; or maybe better put - giving more rights that are currently not there.
By kimberly
December 5, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this
I guess if single women want to raise bastards, why not. Let add more to the destruction of the normal family.
Wow. If there were only just more nice men like Van around…. what a wonderful world this would be.
By Renee
December 5, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this
At the least it shows that ALL people, male or female, are capable of the same wrongs/issues.
Definitely
At the most it raises the issue that biological changes may occur in a lesbian bc of birth - which could not be foreseen.
What????
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this
RF - You hit the nail on the head. And, to answer your question: nothing else matters.
Van, I don’t really like the use of that word, but I feel the need to point out that married women raise “bastards” too.
We are really overlooking the reality of absentee parents. Not just the ones who are physically absent, but also the workaholics, alcoholics, cheater-holics… and the list goes on and on. So many parents (primarily fathers) are absent for one reason or another. This, in and of itself, does not mean that the child will automatically be screwed up.
My mother was raised by both parents, and she was totally screwed up by my malicious and miserable mostly-absent grandmother.
I mean, what are men proposing is the solution for a single woman desperate to bear children? How do you satisfy this instinctive, natural desire?
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this
Chill Renee,
Just hypothetical: There was a definite change that took place from having a child. This could mean something, or not - yet should be looked at {there are KNOWN changes that take place in males and females bc of birth and raising a child}.
If you cannot look at all sides, you have an adjenda; and need to step back.
Nowhere did I state this is truth because of one situation.
By Netbanker
December 5, 2005 11:05 AM | Link to this
You ladies already have one…Lesbos in the Greek Isles. Call your travel agents! Although now isn’t exactly a nice time of year there…I’d suggest waiting until early May or later to guarantee beach/bikini weather.
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this
Renee,
Like it or not, our brains are constantly changing pathways based on our choices/life. It would be good science to see if birth and raising a child effects/affects neural pathways in a manner that is inconsistant with a lesbian/lesbian household.
If so, we could recommend adopting as a safer way for same-sex couples to have a family.
By Netbanker
December 5, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this
Van…which is worse…being a kid with a Dad who doesn’t show up for Father’s Day or Father/Son activities leaving the kid feeling unloved or knowing that Dad won’t be there because Mom had you on her own?
By Jack
December 5, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this
JBM you keep giving examples of 2 parent households doing a bad job of parenting. That is not part of the arguement. A single person, man or woman, who willingly decides to create a child to raise on their own with no sig. other deprives the child’s right of having 2 parents. If a single wants to adopt, go for it.
By Renee
December 5, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this
If you cannot look at all sides, you have an adjenda; and need to step back.
You said chill, I didn’t think I presented myself as being upset or worked up, I was just asking what you meant by the statement because it wasn’t clear to me in the context of which it was written.
Thanks for the info - guess I should leave the wife at home, lol…just kidding!!
By Renee
December 5, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this
If a single wants to adopt, go for it.
Jack, what would the difference be? Either way the person is single and the child would only have one parent.
By RF
December 5, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this
Thanks Jack. As you can see, I’m a bit defensive about single parents. I have people all the time telling me “you need to get those boys a mama”. Gets a little irritating to hear the two parent ideal family montra all the time. I don’t see why a woman would need a sperm bank unless she’s totally opposed to the idea of trying on her own. I think that parenting is an instinctive thing, and many don’t have the instinct and still have children. I’d much rather see a single woman choose to have a child of her own, on her own, rather than the plethora of abused, neglected, suffering kids we have now who are the product of all kinds of bad situations we could name.
By Renee
December 5, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this
Thanks for the info - guess I should leave the wife at home, lol…just kidding!!
Sorry that comment was directed to Netbanker
By Jack
December 5, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this
Renee’, the difference is adoption is for a baby that is already here on Earth.
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this
There was a definite change that took place from having a child.
Who can verify that that change was a result of having a child? Could it not be that the woman just fell in love with the donor???
Jack, that last example was in response to something Van said… it wasn’t a response to your general argument.
By Netbanker
December 5, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this
“with so many people who want a child to complete them” (By DeltaX) Well that seems to be getting closer to the root cause of the issue. From my perspective one can be neither a good partner nor a good parent if they are not already a complete person. If one is relying on another to make them complete then they are just an emotional wreck waiting for the accident to happen. I love my partner dearly, but he does NOT complete me. We compliment each other with our personal strengths and weaknesses being balanced, for the most part, by the other. We are definitely better as a team while each is a fully capable individual.
By blablabla
December 5, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this
*Adoption - as a single woman and a lesbian - get this straight folks - I don’t want your screwed up foster kids. Go hock them off on somebody else. You screwed them up, don’t dump them on me to fix. I want a beautiful, healthy, un-screwed up, BABY, not your Wednesdays children formed from crack mothers and criminal fathers with sex abused histories.
Yep, it sucks what the staight crowd does to thier own children but these kids are not mine to fix. I don’t see heteros and married people running to DFACS to grab up these kids.
Once again, single women (well, not lesbians we should all be on an island or camp somewhere away from children and society) are a second class group - what Shaunti is saying - single women you don’t deserve a healthy baby but here you can take one of our throw backs, full of mental problems and health problems. Here raise this for us.*
does NOBODY have any problem with comments like this?
spoiled lesbian, you must be a really wonderful person to say things like “hocking” your kids. “you screwed them up…don’t dump them on me”.
“it sucks what the straight crowd does to their own kids…” um hello, unless you’re a test tube baby, you’re the product of a straight couple. and the reason why you don’t see straight people or married couples running to the adoption clinic is bc generally speaking they can have their own kids the old fashioned way.
and shaunti isn’t calling single women second class citizens. she’s simply saying there are other alternatives that a single woman can consider if she’s made the choice that she wants to be a mother.
it’s good to see that straight people don’t have an exclusive license on intolerance and stupidity.
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this
JBM,
Who can verify that that change was a result of having a child? Could it not be that the woman just fell in love with the donor???
Well, She was an adamant lesbian before, and now is not. I would think that dating a guy is not all it takes to switch someone (which would be taken offencivly by a lesbian) - and believe most homosexuals have tried. All we have to look at is the birth and six years of being a mother.
What I am saying is that good science should look into wheather pathways have changed; or hypothalimus (sp) seeing as there are sooo many bio-changes from birth; and they are not all instantanious.
No female would argue that bio-logical clock creates new pathways {not stating for ALL, but MANY} - so there is pleanty of data to create curiosity.
Renee, Sorry - I took your “what???” as being more of “What? That is absurd.” My misunderstanding.
By Netbanker
December 5, 2005 11:36 AM | Link to this
Jack…I’m completely with you on this one about singles adopting over creating another child. If , as RF points out, the instinct to parent is strong then it really shouldn’t matter if you share genes with the child or not. If one is only willing to make that commitment to a child that is biologically theirs then I suggest that there is an element of vanity/selfishness involved. It seems logical that there would be more expectations and pressure on a biological child to fulfill the needs of the single ‘creating’ parent than one who is adopted and merely fulfilling the parenting instinct.
By Eduardo
December 5, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
Thanks to the Reagan revolution, we are going conservative, like it or not. America is shrinking, and of course, women have had it the stereotypical male and the now incompetent government (shrunken to the point of ineffectiveness). The foster care program is a joke, there are no routes to orphanges in the USA, and it is still very risky to adopt children overseas. Economically deprived women have no other viable alternative than to collect specimens/candidates at a sperm bank.
If the government (congress, president, court) has some decent leadership, child rearing (AKA family values) would have taken care of thirty ago. Society that wishes to grow/flourish should insure that each child have “the package” - (a) loving parents (2 are better than one), (b) financial stability (parental income + government subsidy = standard of living, and (3) environmental stabilty (education, healthcare, freedom from Political correctness).
By Van
December 5, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this
Just Being Me, technically, a married woman can not raise a bastard. In this country the default father is the husband.
And yes the word is harsh. That is the point. In this day where labels mean nothing, we have forgotten the reason for the words.
Single women having babies, not that long ago was considered a good thing. It meant that the woman was loose in her morals.
There was shame back then, something people need today. Today there is no shame, women have achieved the same ranking as men, regarding morals.
In todays world, morals are a throw back to a long ago time. Get pregnant in high school, and have a baby shower during home room. Have a baby out of wedlock and the world cheers you. Worse, you don’t even need a man these days, just a turkey baster.
The new jungle in high school appears to be “Nothin’ says lovin’ like a bun in the oven”.
Personally, I would like to return to the days when women were women and men were men, each with there problems and faults.
In my mind, an unwed woman having a baby is still not socially acceptable, and infants with no father are bastards, or as they said in 18th century england, a “natural child”.
But then again, we are all allowed our opinions, and this is mine, whose else would it be.
By Jack
December 5, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this
Good post Van. Now-a-days it is perfectly acceptable for a female to have a child out of wedlock. In some segments of our society the percentage of babies born out of wedlock is near 80%. What a shame.
By Lyrazel
December 5, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this
Spoiled Lesbian—I agree completely (except about the island but its only because I like having gays involved in society)! That is EXACTLY what Shaunti and groups who advocate 2 parent families of mixed sex are saying. Take care of the mistakes of birth but without legal rights as parent because your lesbian relationship is invalid by law…and your children can be removed from the home if your lifestyle is not moral enough for TV…other crocks to swallow… One of the problems of foster children is that sometimes they are taken back by the parents—so the love and nurturing spent is stolen back. Should there be laws that prevent a birth-mother/father from re-gaining custody if foster parents choose to adopt? Who has rights?
I am ZPG…I was able, but not responsible enough at the time and too old now to even consider it. Yes, I do fervently pray in thanks :-) for wisdom.
Hey, how about the 69+ year olds who adopt? Are they adopting to insure they have someone take care of them in their senior years (faulty logic but hey…so is: if I pray enough I wont get pregnant tonight)? Or what about fertility drugs that leave the couple with 6 fertilized eggs and they cannot afford 1 thus relying heavily on social services to provide incubators/pre-natal care/post natal care for their children. Should 5 be removed? Can they be sold on E-bay as fertilized eggs?
By Chilao
December 5, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this
For those rushing out to breed those heifers, ABS is AMERICAN (not Artificial) Breeders Service.
By RS
December 5, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this
I have mixed feelings on this….first off, I’m a huge, zero-population growth advocate & am militantly anti-breeding. However, on the other hand, I’m outraged at the discrimination shown to single women & feel they should have all the rights a married woman does. Gee, what if a woman WANTS to marry but has some sort of physical defect & CAN’T? Does she need to be punished even further for something that’s not her fault??? And I agree 100% with Netbanker (hey, sweetie! How’ve you been??) that the desire to breed in a world full of orphans is nothing more than selfishness & vanity. “I want a child that looks like me”. Pathetic! Is THAT in the best interest of any child? If any single person, male OR female, is looking to bring a child into their lives, be it by adoption, artificial insemination or conventional pregnancy, thet’d better be darned sure they are capable & willing to raise the child both fnancially and emotionally
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this
Van, a husband doesn’t make you a father. A bastard is a child without a father, so a married woman can raise a bastard.
DeltaX, your assessment is based on assumptions, not necessarily facts. You assumed she is an “adamant lesbian” (whatever that is) and that giving birth is what made her “switch.” Why couldn’t it be that she just fell in love with this person? Or perhaps, she was never a lesbian in the first place, but had fallen in love with a woman and decided to build a life with her? Or perhaps, she had no preference, and could love a man the same as she could love a woman.
All I’m saying is that there are many possibilities here, and you seem to be stuck on an assumption without acknowledging the other possible scenarios.
By Akeya
December 5, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this
Spoiled Lesbian- I admire your candor. While perusing the state website of children to adopt, I was take aback by the fact that ALL of the children have serious problems with which adoptive parents would have to contend. As far as adoptions go, I cannot understand why the waiting periods are so long.
Does anyone know why the waiting periods are so extensive? JBM- I enjoyed your 10:50 post.
Another things about sperm banks, the process is extensive. It includes checking out familial problems with the sperm donor and making sure that the sperm is disease free. How possible is it to say this about even a married couple? Couldn’t the sperm donor, as well as the husband, lie about sexual relations, infidelities, etc?
Van- If you continue to reach so far you will strain something…You sound more jilted than concerned.
By Chilao
December 5, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this
ZPG advocates - yes, we are out here but I seriously doubt humans run the risk of extinction anytime soon. Breeding(love that term in this context) seems to be taking care of that.
Now extinction due to over-breeding this planets carrying capacity, whole other ballgame. Anybody ever study population dynamics and species management?
No wolves in Yellowstone means the elk strip all the young vegetation, affecting plant life. Bring in wolves, means less elk, means healthy forest. That kind of thing.
Humans have done it via wars, famines, and viruses.
By kimberly
December 5, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this
Personally, I would like to return to the days when women were women and men were men, each with there problems and faults.
Gee Van, if there were more men like YOU, there wouldn’t be so many loose women running around. Golly if someone would just each me how to make biscuits, I could get me a nice man, and stop having jobs and opinions and stuff. No worries, right? Men never leave. Wow.. just think if we all lived in Van’s little world instead of the reality that awaited us when we were born here, life would be SWELL! Gosh.
By Akeya
December 5, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this
things= thing.
By Jack
December 5, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this
Please define ZPG. That one escapes me.
By Akeya
December 5, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this
tee-hee Kim…
By Jack
December 5, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this
Nevermind. DUH!
By kimberly
December 5, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this
Blabla, I agree that Spoiled Les’s comments were harsh, but I have to give props for honesty. There’s not enough love in the world for the unwanted… Sad, but pretending otherwise doesn’t change it. Keep those pre-emptive strikes legal!
By Lyrazel
December 5, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
Questions:
Do men have the right to access their children made with their sperm whether made after a dance-club rendezvous or a test tube? Do men have the right to tell a sperm bank how many times they can use his swimmers? Do clinics have the moral obligation to men donors to tell them when their sperm has been used successfully, or is privacy more important than donor-medical history? Are eggs more important than sperm, thus have a higher dollar value?
How much would the charge be to impregnate if done…ha ha um..manually?
Can you sell eggs on e-bay? Can you sell womb service?
Is it morally better to abandon children to social services programs for the sake of conforming to moral values and 2 parent families than to raise a child by a single gay male parent?
By Van
December 5, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this
Akeya - hardly, I have been married for over 35 years -and we are still happy - suprise!
I am just an older person that does not agree with the current liberating from shame and morals - call me old fashion.
Kimberly, remember, I am your parents age, we come from a different time and place.
By Jack
December 5, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this
“Is it morally better to abandon children to social services programs for the sake of conforming to moral values and 2 parent families than to raise a child by a single gay male parent?” No it is not. If one abandons a child, they didn’t have it on purpose. Apples & oranges.
By Netbanker
December 5, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this
Hey RF! Good weekend with LOTS of chores and puppy playtime in it, but the most important task was completed…the Chocolate Bourbon Truffles are made! They are happily aging in a tin in the pantry for 10 days so the full flavor develops. How are you? Any holiday cookie making with the boys?
Spoiled Lesbian does make a good point about society’s cast offs. Look at the gay couple in Florida who are foster parents yet denied the right to adopt the children they had been raising for 8+ years. It’s ok to raise children with HIV that no one else wants, but they can’t adopt because they’re gay? These men ARE the children’s parents and they’ve all formed a family, but the law will deny the children a legal parent and legal stability with the family who WANTS them and is already raising them.
By Netbanker
December 5, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this
Sorry…RS…I’m not fully with it today! F, S they’re so close on the keyboard. How are you?
By kimberly
December 5, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this
Yes, Van, that was my point. I never HAD the chance for the life that your wife has had. All the choices available to women in my generation changed more than just our choices; they changed the men too. Who is to blame? Who knows? What good does it do to blame, anyway? We have to live in the world we live in, so stop blasting us for being different. At the end of the day, I’d like to think we all did the best we could, or at least, I’d like to think that I did. So please don’t refer to our children as bastards. You weren’t there.
By RS
December 5, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this
Just fine, Netbanker! Been busy,as you can see. Jack: Zero Population Growth
By Lyrazel
December 5, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this
ZPG=zero population growth (starts with self-affirmation there are enough babies in the world and we must guard a planets resources and think globally instead of self-centered breeding without considering of the consequences of population explosions. Is there enough food, water, shelter—available adoptions, etc to my having a child?)
By Netbanker
December 5, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this
Kimberly…thanks for the education…I never knew biscuits could do all that! But wait! If that’s really true how come Martha Stewart ain’t running the world having used her own WMD (Weapons Made from Dough)?
By Netbanker
December 5, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this
RS…it’s more like busy as I can’t see because you haven’t been here. I haven’t been around too much either with the exception of the past two weeks and that’s more because I just don’t feel like working than having time to spend here. I keep asking, but no answers…what’s happened to Tim? Did he ever make it back from Southern California?
By dee cee
December 5, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this
from By Whiley — Just being me, that’s not true. You can get all the sperm you want for free in any nightclub in Atlanta. And if you are female, you get free drinks too.
You made my day. that was TOO funny!!!
By Akeya
December 5, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this
Van- It’s wonderful to hear that a marriage can still last so long. I have to comment though, that being old-fashioned isn’t always necessarily a positive thing. There have been many advancements and improvements to countless areas of our lives simply because people stopped being old-fashioned and started looking at things from a different point of view.
By kimberly
December 5, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this
Biscuits are tricky!
By Renee
December 5, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this
Akeya - great comment.
I would love to hear more about this ZPG. Are there supporters of this who also have children? This is a subject I don’t have a lot of knowledge on (or any knowledge) except the obvious.
By Van
December 5, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this
Akeya, yes, things and ideas have progressed. Technology is great. In my day, if a couple could not conceive, there was adoption. Now, technology has allowed many married couples the chance to have their own children.
When the subject reverts back to old fashion morals, there is no new technology. The only way to look at this different is to devoid yourself of any moral anchor and set new ones for yourself.
By Now but not then, a spoiled lesbian
December 5, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this
Harsh, yes. True, yes.
Why is Shaunti so special that she gets a mentally and physically healthy child of her own womb but I have to take some poor soul that’s mind has been damaged while in womb from crack, genetically predispositioned to violence and who may have expensive and time consuming medical treatments such as HIV/AIDS?
Why does this woman think she is so grand?
By dee cee
December 5, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this
By Jack - A child needs 2 parents. Yes, there are plenty of able single people out there who can raise a child. What are they going to tell this child when they ask “Where’s Mom� or “Where’s Dad�?
My situation is unique because I was raised by a single father. My father, who was in the Military, raised me from 5 years old to young woman hood. He was single, but not alone. He had the help of my grandmother, (his mother), my aunties, (his sisters), and various miscellaneous girlfriends who would travel with us around the world wherever he was stationed. I always had a female influence in my life - and NO ONE let’s you get away with as much stuff as your grandmother does.
I’m glad my father & aunties/grandmother raised me — my mother is not that loving or nurturing, and it gave me a different perspective on a lot of things. Being a divorced single parent myself I can honestly say it was EASIER for my father to be a single parent, then it is for ME to be a single parent.
My father always had a helping female around to lend a hand, even when my grandmother and aunties couldn’t travel with us, and people would always give him all these kudos for being a single parent, (“Oh you’re raising your dauaghter all alone? You brave, good hearted man”). I remember the times when my father, a staunch catholic, would go into the little Baptist churches on Sundays and stand up and ask the congretation to pray for him because he was a single father trying to raise his daughter on his own. I also remember how the church would reap praises on him and congratulate him for being such a fine example of fatherhood.
Now what do you think would’ve happened if a woman had stood up and said the same thing? She probably would’ve been met with ridicule and snide remarks, (like “No one told her to open her legs…..”). Single fathers have it much easier.
By Jack
December 5, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this
Dee cee. Your father didn’t go to a sperm bank and create a child with a 1 parent home. Your Dad did not choose to be a single father did he? Apples and oranges.
By Renee
December 5, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
Jack, I really don’t see much difference from a single woman creating a child, or adopting a newborn infant, both of which can be planned and the appropriate arrangements put into place in anticipation of the child.
By singlemom
December 5, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
Hmmmm..Van well no comments besides “old fashion” many times translates to “close minded bigot”.
Also…spoiledlesbian…though others may think her comments harsh, I DO see her point. Plus the “readily available” kids for adoption is a myth Shaunti! Also why should you and other “married couples” have their own offspring but claim single parents that want a child are vain or selfish to want to have their own child? If that’s the case we should tell ALL couples (married) to adopt these children in foster care b4 having their own, or like another person said…more than say two children you should adopt. Why is it OK for married couples want to have a child of their own, of themselves and procreate and experience being pg, giving birth and raising an infant and it’s considered selfish, vain and idiotic for a single woman? And even then those same proponents of adoption for single women scoff and oppose gay adoption because they’re so many willing two parent couples out there to adopt, why raise them w/gay values? LOL is there such a thing anyway? But yet I don’t see the opposers of all these things standing in line to HELP the unwanted, diseased, troubled children of the world. Hypocrisy at its best! ARGHHHH
The old mantra “two parent household” crap! Listen…a “father” that impregnanted his wife and they had two children the old fashioned way doesn’t make a FATHER. Oh yeah, guess I should have stayed with an abusive exhusband so my boys could have a “father” around. Forget the fact I’m raising wonderful, caring loving sons with plenty or role models (male and female) and family. Guess its still worth crap, my kids according to the “conservatives” will probably turn out delinquents, drop-outs, bastards all because of not having a father. But hey, that’s ok…then i can put them up for adoption and you guys can take over and show how it’s properly done…oh that’s right, you point fingers and hide and ignore the “messes” while you stout what others should/should not do. Shaunti, I mostly don’t agree with you anyway but this time you took the cake!
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this
You assumed she is an “adamant lesbian� (whatever that is) and that giving birth is what made her “switch.�
This is not assumed, she stated it herself. She does say that after raising a child for the last 6 years, she yearned for a father figure. That is the basis she started a relationship with the bio-father - and over time she began to have sexual feelings for him.
The point being, we can only trust what a person states is true. She stated she was a lesbian, had a child on the basis that she and her partner would raise it throughout their life in that fashion. Then had different feelings after the birth, and throughout the raising that “called” for a man in her life, for the childs sake, and then her own.
I say it should be looked at - not as proof, but a beginning of understanding roots of this subject and how to proceed. Its weight is determinate on the findings, not this one case.
There is some that I assume, but that is not one of them - as well as her statement that she was a lesbian (you are right, I should not have to preface it with a modifier, it should be assumed that the word means what it does: Likes girls and not boys.)
By lozen
December 5, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this
That is one of the funniest thing I’ve ever heard. “Adament????” lesbian has child and is,through chemistry, changed into a straight woman! Ha, ha, ha, ha.
By Angry White Boy
December 5, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this
Problem #1 is that there are too many people. Problem #2 is that stupid people have more children than smart ones. But Shaunti makes a better argument for abortion, than against sperm bank mothering. The crack whores and other worthless dregs of society should be sterilized ASAP. Loving people capable of providing for their children are the ones that should reproduce. And given the choice, who wouldn’t prefer to raise their biological child?
By Van
December 5, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this
singlemom - Van well no comments besides “old fashion� many times translates to “close minded bigot�.
Only to the intolerant, closed minded folks. Different people have different ideas, not right or wrong, just differnt.
Morals on the other hand should reflect societies best, not the easiest.
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this
Lozen,
Do you doubt that women feel an urge to have children based on biological functions?
By Archie
December 5, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this
My answer to the question is yes and no. Yes if you are a single woman and you really want to do right by a child of your own but no if the child is just another thing to your list of possessions. I don’t think you should go to the sperm bank to prove how feminist you are but if you’re getting up in age and you’re not in love but you really want to do right by the child then yes going to a sperm bank is a good idea. There is a trend of selfishness amongst women and men,but since this forum is about women I concentrate on women. Many women are making choices that are all about them and reading Diane’s column it makes me think about the selfishness of someee women,not all.
By Jack
December 5, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this
Renee’. There is a BIG difference between adopting an existing child and creating one. Think about it.
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this
Or that biological functions are what kicks in the want of sexual relationships? {Think back that boys and girls play as if they are the same sex, then those “hormones” kick in causing thoughts of desire and want}
But you still want to think it absurd that it can happen in other arenas?
By KATHLEEN
December 5, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this
I’m wondering if both sides of this issue have asked themselves what their reason is to have a child to begin with. If you are having a child to complete you as a person, so that you can fulfill your interpretation of a societal expectation to have a child, or so that you will have a genetic copy of yourself, then it is unfair to the child regardless of your marital status, sexual orientation, or how the child was created. You need to be a complete person before you can devote the time and energy needed to raise a decent human being. Seems to me, if you want to be a parent that bad, it should not matter how old the child is or what kind of medical or emotional problems the child has. Do remember that genetic defects can occur regardless of how the child was conceived and complications can happen during childbirth regardless of how perfectly a pregnancy goes. Speaking as a child of divorced parents who grew up in a single parent household, I can tell you right now that it is VERY difficult to raise a child in a single parent household and that it is difficult for the child. Personally, I know that I do not want to raise a child whether I marry or not because my career is very demanding and that it is very expensive to raise a child here in Washington, DC, not to mention the fact that I do not have the overall desire to have a child. For those wishing to have children, please consider the reasons why you want to have a child, as this is the greatest responsibility a human being could ever have.
By Jack
December 5, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this
singlemom. You are sooo missing the point. We are not talking about couples that were unable to stay together or one of the spouses dieing. The subject is about a SINGLE female who wants to create a baby with no spouse in the picture at all, ever. Not your situation.
By Atlanta Psychologist
December 5, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this
As a former assistant social worker, I totally agree with Diane. Unfortunately, the DFCS system frowns upon gay, lesbian and single people (male or female) becoming adoptive parents. DFCS also makes it hard to adopt across color lines also which proves to be a big issue too. Until society and the government changes it views on who should be able to raise a child we are always going to have a huge number of children in the foster care system. I also agree with Diane that the biggest issue with being a single parent is money but if you can afford a child or even two you should do what is best for you. Every person born wasn’t born because it was best for the child the parents wanted them here and sometimes it was an accident. A single parent household is not the worst thing for a child there are many children that are raised in two parent household (mother and father) that have a whole different set of problems. Either way we do the best we can and sometimes it good and sometimes despite our best efforts it’s not but we take that chance with everything we do. A child isn’t a toy or job to play with but I think the woman flocking to the sperm banks are smart enough to have put a tremendous amount of thought into their decision.
By Jack
December 5, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this
RS. Nice to hear from you. :)
By mit
December 5, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this
shaunti has a good point about foster childern but she will, at the same time, restrict who can adopt them. At first she will say its best they are adopted by a traditional family but then if a single mom wants to be inseminated then its ok for them to adopt. Then what happens to her own argument if it was a lesbian couple inseminating themselves? she wouldn’t want them to be able to adopt.
adamant lesbian? gay men and women do have, can have, will have heterosexual sex. More than likely, most gay individuals tend to enjoy the company of the same sex and to a smaller extent enjoy the sex. but it seems to me that most are just more comfortable, happy with the same sex. gay doesn’t mean they have to be all the time, its what they feel more right with. so a gay man or woman who has feelings or sex with the opposite sex shouldn’t surprise anyone. i doubt that “adamant lesbian” will be heterosexual for long. everyone is bi, its just that the shauntis of the world would rather you not know about it and i know for fact they all enjoy their same sex fantasies in the privacy of their own homes.
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
Delta, I’m not going to go back and forth about this, but there is nothing in the information you provided that proves this woman’s sexual identity was changed as a result of childbirth, nor is there anything that proves she was a lesbian to begin with. She may have been bisexual all along, and just didn’t know it, or didn’t admit it. Or, perhaps she really was lesbian, and unwittingly fell in love with a man. Or perhaps, (as you suggested), having a baby made her change her mind.
I’m not saying it’s not possible, I’m just saying there are other possibilities as well. And, no one can definitively say that having a baby made her go from gay to straight.
This woman could have just preferred women and suddenly found herself falling in love with someone who happens to be a man.
Whatever the situation, thanks for raising an interesting case.
Side note: Don’t want to start a discussion about this, but it needs to be noted that all these labels we toss around really need to be defined clearly before use… otherwise you’ve got a bunch of people on all different pages who don’t understand each other. A woman in a relationship with another woman is not necessarily a lesbian.
By singlemom
December 5, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
Disagree-you are showing to be intolerant and close minded.
Caling single parents in essence “not normal”…oh correction single mothers are loose, have no morals, are the detriment of society, the king of evils and life should go back to shaming/shunning them as in the past.
Oh btw…where are the men that GOT THESE GIRLS PREGNANT?
Oh that’s right lets go back to boys being boys, doing their thing, but by all means lets shun, hide and disgrace the loose single mom trying to do the best by keeping and loving a child.
Oh, getting back to topic though, the women going to banks aren’t unintentionally “knocked up” they go in planning, have the resources, the love and potential to have wonderful children. Why should they be robbed of this? Do you really think “fathers day” will be a big deal to them when raised by a loving parent with plenty of support and role models. So I wonder if “fathers day” is a mystery to single women adopting children, to the single moms whose boyfriend or husbands bailed…Oh I know, it’s a mystery and a disgrace and it just shows the decline of morality in this country-we’re all going to hell in a handbasket! Run to the islands folks! (GOOD GRIEF!)
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this
mit,
I say it should be looked at - not as proof, but a beginning of understanding roots of this subject and how to proceed. Its weight is determinate on the findings, not this one case.
There are a lot of situations our there in which we have NO DATA - so to look at it and begin to understand what is happening; if anything, is all I am saying.
The reactionary “no, we cannot consider all possibilities” will not inform anyone.
By Brian Curtis
December 5, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this
Sometimes I wish there were a qualifying exam (or licensing process) to go through for anyone to have kids—single, married, gay, straight, whatever.
There are way too many lousy parents out there, and the kids are the ones who suffer as a result. Someone needs to tell people not to breed unless you’re sure you can provide a good, stable home environment, whatever your orientation or marital status.
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this
JBM,
And that is all I am saying.
We now have technology that lets us look at how the brain is functioning during thought processes; so lets look!
If we find a truth that we do not like - so be it! I personally think that same sex marriages with children should be accepted unless proven otherwise unhealthy - but that does not mean we should not consider all avenues, including this one.
Instead, people want to argue absolutes - which do not exist.
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this
Disregard my 2:06p. If I could delete it, I would.
By Renee
December 5, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this
Jack, I do think there is a big difference between adopting and having a child. I guess my argument is that if you are against a single woman creating a child and subsequently raising it, then you should also be against that same woman planning to and then adopting a 2 day old infant. Although where the children came from differs, the ultimate goal of being a single mother (or father) and actually raising the child is the same.
By Jack
December 5, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this
Singlemom. Quite a chip you have on your shoulder. Apparently you were done wrong by a man. Sorry about that. It wasn’t anyone on this blog. Chill.
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this
Who the heck says there has to be a Father’s Day anyway? That’s a Hallmark Holiday. In my family, everyday is Parent’s Day.
By dee cee
December 5, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this
From Jack — Dee cee. Your father didn’t go to a sperm bank and create a child with a 1 parent home. Your Dad did not choose to be a single father did he? Apples and oranges.
Actually he did. By choosing not to marry my mother, he chose to be a single parent. And don’t you think it would’ve been kinda strange if he had went to sperm bank? hhee heee hee
By mit
December 5, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
X, we are all bi. it doesn’t matter if you want to admit it or not. our nature and nuture after birth will lead us one way or the other. nature tends to lead oneself to be bisexual where as the nuture part usually causes us all to need a little therapy. if you are brought up to hate a race of people the chances of you teaching this to your chiildern is high. which in today’s world your childern will have a tough time between what you think as their parent and what they learn from the world around them. this is the same with homosexuals. shaunti will teach her kids to dislike them where as diane teaches hers to respect their choice. I don’t know if there is any such thing as a gay gene, my father would argument me on that one. so, from my point of view being strictly homosexual or being strictly heterosexual is a choice. you choice you like to be with more. what is not a choice is your initial sexuality which is bisexual. the animal kingdom (which we are a part up) can show you this. it can also show you that men are mean and women are not independent.
By Renee
December 5, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this
X, we are all bi. it doesn’t matter if you want to admit it or not. our nature and nuture after birth will lead us one way or the other. nature tends to lead oneself to be bisexual where as the nuture part usually causes us all to need a little therapy.
We are all bi????? What????? Since when????? Just when I thought I was comfortable with my sexuality I found this out! lol
By Jack
December 5, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
Mit is stirring it up with that one!
By Gina
December 5, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this
Just Being Me You stated in an earlier post…… I have to admit, I often wonder whether women who rely on sperm banks for reproductive assistance (lol) ever consider asking a male friend or acquaintance to assist instead…
The reason a male friend or acquaintance would be a fool to agree. She would probably come back and force him to pay child support, medical and dental, plus add-ons of private school, etc. This is the reason many men don’t want to marry or have children. The woman gets the children and their money.
By singlemom
December 5, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
Jack..such an expected remark….when you dont’ have a leg to stand you pull the “you have a chip, you were wronged” sorry you were hurt, it wasn’t us. Please spare me the patronizing remarks, they are so typical of the “ones” that share your view I could have BET you were going to remarks something like that and made a fortune in just a few minutes. SO predictable…when you have no truth, lets resort to making it personal. I kid you know I was counting the min b4 somebody stated that lol.
It isn’t personal, it isn’t about me, or the fact that i’m raising wonderful children that “scare” the conservatives that a single mom can actually have it together and have great kids.
That’s why they resort to insults, patronizing and demeaning these single women that want a child of their own. It scares them that they can actually raise productive members of society as it threatens the need of “them” to be around lol. Don’t feel threatened….this has nothing to do with YOU, it has to do with THEIR CHOICES (women choices)! And good for them!
By mit
December 5, 2005 02:30 PM | Link to this
since always, when you are in grade school boys like boys and girls like girls. ask a 6 year old what he thinks of the girls in his class and he will say ‘yuck’.
many initial sexual experiences take place at this stage and the chances of them being with the same sex is high. but this doesn’t mean one thing or the other because the child doesn’t know. only until they reach puberty that changes take place to find their sexuality. No grade schooler knows this yet but they do know what sex is to an extent (kissing could be sex to them) and they will imitate these acts and since girls are still ‘yucky’, the chances of it being same sex is there.
its like swimming, you come out of the womb and you can swim (kind of), in 2 years you will have to learn how to swim because you ‘forgot’ how. you don’t really forget, you start using your own mind for you, instead of instinct. once your mind because yours, you don’t know how to swim becasue you didn’t know you knew how before, because it was instinct.
By Jack
December 5, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this
What do you mean no truth. You aren’t even argueing the subject. AND judging by the attitude displayed in your posts, you do have a giant chip on your shoulder. Maybe that is why you are a single Mom.
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this
Singlemom, you do sound a bit bitter.
By Gina
December 5, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
Check out www.nomarriage.com
By singlemom
December 5, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this
And by observing your personal insults to me shows me the size of your brain. Yes I am talking about the issue, am I the only one that has discussed other matters here? I just talked about it being their choice (these moms that go to sperm banks) or did you skip that part? And who are you to JUDGE me or them anyway? I don’t have a chip, i wasn’t bailed on, knocked up, or anything. WHy I’m a single mom is NOT your business, but if you MUST know I chose (god these damn women making choices again that should be left to us capable superior men to make in the first place) to give them a better life instead of the “ideal two parent household” with an abusive jerk. So I wasn’t abandoned, left, or anything that would make me gather a chip. I made the choice, I CHOSE to be a single parent and to divorce as to provide a BETTER life to my children. Your low life comments are indicative of the type of person you are.
By Jack
December 5, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this
singlemom. You really are a b***.
By Renee
December 5, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
Just a wee bit bitter!
By Gina
December 5, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
www.ejfi.org/Civilization/Civilization-8.htm#boycott
Singlemom, I guess you didn’t get the bulk of everything when you divorced.
By Renee
December 5, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
down Jack! You’re better than that!
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
LOL Renee
Singlemom - in the same breath, you call your ex-husband an abusive jerk, and say that nothing happened to you to make you “gather” a chip.
Honey, I mean no harm when I say this, but you do have a chip on your shoulder. That’s nothing to be embarassed about. Heck, you could even blame it on the no-good abusive jerk that put the chip on your shoulder in the first place.
You sound really hurt and bitter and angry. Take charge of it, own it, and tell yourself that it’s okay to be angry and hurt and bitter. But, don’t let it eat you up. Don’t stay that way for too long. A wise person once said, don’t let yesterday take up too much of today.
Let it go, hon.
By Jack
December 5, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this
singlemom you don’t know me at all. Say what you want though, it is your right. Poor bitter woman.
By kimberly
December 5, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
From what I’ve seen, single moms spend more time with, and attention on their children than married ones. While most of us SMs have to work during the day, so do most married moms now anyway. But most of us devote our attention to our chidren when we get home at night, NOT listening to how our husband’s day went, or worrying about HIS laundry, food, or mid-life issues, or focusing on “the marriage.” We don’t have to shop for his clothes, go to his parent’s house, or to HIS company Christmas party. When I get home at night, my children are my focus. NEVER do they have to wait for Mom to finish talking to Daddy before they can tell me about their day, or talk about what’s bothering them or what they need for school tomorrow. They come FIRST.
Not saying two-parent families are wrong, but there are plusses and minuses on BOTH sides.
By PeeplesBros*Posse*
December 5, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this
Can’t we all just get along?
By Jack
December 5, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this
Sorry Renee’. I get too fired up at times. I will just ignore her.
By Lyrazel
December 5, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this
Being Daddy is now suprifilous; a syndrome most capitalist nations are now facing. Seems the big argument is: HAVING THE 2 INCOMES PAY FOR children to have a good home life…whereas I would say its ALL THE OTHER STUFF far more important to raising kids.
Men do not value childcare—(O if they did childcare would be available in every business office across America/Europe etc. because fathers would demand it from employers)! So why should women value having a mans involvement in raising children except for sperm and a paycheck? I read the of comments from the men who take their role seriously as parents, but these men are not the norm anymore. As society changes so do traditional roles and because men have continually abandoned child-rearing as career options or valid work—they get the bills and a thank you very much for topping off the tank before they go.
By Renee
December 5, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this
Yes, Jack, please do! Misery enjoys company!
Not saying two-parent families are wrong, but there are plusses and minuses on BOTH sides.
Excellent comment Kimberly, but I think the above statement sums it up perfectly.
By Jack
December 5, 2005 02:59 PM | Link to this
Yes. let’s just do it like in “Brave New World”. Every baby can be a test tube baby. Who needs a Mom? Who needs a Dad? The gov’t can do our child raising while we run around and have sex with whoever we want and take soma holidays. Everyone could look the same and act the same. Yada,yada,yada.
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this
mit,
I agree with you about everyone being bi; but that possibility is stunted by lack of personal growth and acceptance. One may identify with one gender more than another, but the Nth degree exists in their head.
This would be shown and proved IF we looked at the neural processes and changes that occur over time; including life changing events like having a child. {which lozen laughed at, and a few others}
I am descibing looking for proof of what you said you {and I for that matter} believe.
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
Would it be absurd to think that if you cannot have a longterm deep relationship with another adult human being; your chances of having one with a child are slim?
This omits the group, large or small, that can have a relationship with an adult, but chooses not to; yet that assumtion implores the question “If you can have a successful adult relationship, why would’nt you then?”
Possible valid answers: {past partner died, and you are still in love with them - but that is still a developmental hang up} {or that all males or females are disfuntional - which is absurd}
Input?
By Monica
December 5, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
I can’t imagine choosing to raise a child on my own. My husband and I are a team; it takes both of us to be good parents to our boys.
By Chilao
December 5, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
Sounds like Desperate Housewives last night, day-care at work.
Okay, a riddle for ya:
Oldest sister was married early twenties, had two sons, the second born after her husband and she split up. Oldest son, 3 at the time, spent most of his life with his remarried Dad and his 1/2 brothers and sisters(they had additional kids). Youngest son spent his life mostly with his unmarried Mom, who never remarried(and has since become gay, has a partner).
Both sons are in their 30/s, one does contruction work, is unemployed as much as he is employed, marginal relationships. The other is almost a Theology Professor, long married. Care to guess which is which?
The youngest almost has a PhD in Theology. The oldest lives in Memphis and might be working right not, might be lving off a girlfriend. And his Dad, my former brother-in-law, is a stand up guy, but I would have considered his remarried family as typically American, meaning rather dysfunctional. And I like his wife, a Technology Executive.
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this
Chilao,
The older son also witnessed and lived/coped through the breakup, and the younger one did not [to the same degree] from what you provided - seems to be deeper than one may want to look.
By blablabla
December 5, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this
Lyrazel, in agreement w spoiled lesbian - Take care of the mistakes of birth but without legal rights as parent because your lesbian relationship is invalid by law
that’s not what shaunti is saying. look at the topic - it says SINGLE women. not LESBIAN women.
Netbanker made the same point about the family from FL he referred to. whether or not gay couples should adopt is a different issue.
people seem to be reading things that weren’t written. if a single woman has decided she’s going to have a child, there’s nothing wrong with considering adoption an alternative. note the use of the word alternative - nobody (including shaunti) said that should be the requirement. simply, adoption is an alternative, just as it is for married couples.
spoiled lesbian, you talk about these children that are up for adoption as if they’re completely the dregs of society, that bc one parent was a crack whore and another was a violent criminal that the child is ruined and worthless. while it’s true that these kids may (and i emphasize the word MAY) have more difficulty in the future than other children…what happened to nature versus nurture? what happened to people overcoming a bad start? and it’s an awful thought that you could be a parent someday and raise your children to approach people with such a narrow-minded and negative outlook. you clearly don’t have any friends or co-workers who were adopted.
i got news for you - kids of any normal, well-to-do family can have problems. it’s not just the unwanted kids from crack-whore moms who have problems. just bc you have a normal, healthy baby from birth doesn’t mean it won’t have expensive problems or issues. based on what you’ve written on this blog, it seems pretty clear that i could deliver you a normal, happy baby and you could mess it up.
By Chilao
December 5, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this
I probably should have pointed out that the new wife had a 3 y/o girl, so immediately it was a 4-person family, before they had additional kids.
I was very much around when the split/remarriage happened, as in close contact with all.
By Akeya
December 5, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this
JBM- hear, hear on the Fathre’s day mess. Let’s do away with all of these silly, inane holidays. It’s all about the money, baby!
Brian Curtis- I’ve always felt that there should be some type of screening method for parenting.
To answer the question about why single mothers don’t rely on male friends, etc: Sperm banks screen their tenants closely for STDs, genetics, and possible psychological problems. Also, the ability to keep the biological father at bay is another reaseon. How successful do you all think a sperm bank would be if the donors were not compensated? I personally don’t have any male friends that I trust that much (in terms of where they are sticking their palitos.
Singlemom- I completely agree with your post to Jack. I believe that it is a fear to conservatives that someone who is not “doing things the proper way are just as successful, if not more, than those who are doing things the proper way.
By RF
December 5, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this
blablabla- recent research is showing that crack babies, when removed from the environment, often do just as well as ‘normal’ kids. It’s more about nurture than nature. My 7 yr. old fits the definition of ‘crack baby’, but has improved over four years now to the point that noone would know he was ever in a neglecting environment. My 9 yr. old, who showed subtle signs of fetal alcohol syndrome is now in 4th grade and being tested for gifted classes. What most people don’t realize is that these so-called damaged kids simply need a stable environment and they’ll be fine.
By Van
December 5, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this
singlemom,
Let me get this right, I am to accept you values and disregard mine or else I am bigoted? Sorry, but you are deluding yourself.
The forum is about single women going to fertility clincs and having children.
There are many ways a woman could end up as a single mom, my father did not return from war - only as an example.
In todays world, many folks accept the the current lack of morals, but in my time, the pregnant unmarried girls were shunned by society and thought of as loose.
While today’s morals are nearly non-existant, there are some of us that still hold to a higher moral standard.
Morals are the rules we live by in our day to day lives.
Regarding “Oh btw…where are the men that GOT THESE GIRLS PREGNANT?”
If they were married, the courts will take care of this.
Do not impose your values on me and I will not force you to accept mine.
By Renee
December 5, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this
On the friend part, I discussed it seriously with one of my best male friend but there were more minuses than pluses and that would not be the best way to go for a child.
Chilao - Desperate Housewives was sooooo good last night!!!
By blablabla
December 5, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this
from Akeya: Singlemom- I completely agree with your post to Jack. I believe that it is a fear to conservatives that someone who is not “doing things the proper way are just as successful, if not more, than those who are doing things the proper way.
to both of you - you’re way wrong. i’m a conservative and i’m thrilled that singlemom is having success raising her kids. most conservatives don’t want to tell people how to raise their kids, they just want them to do a good job of it. so kudos to you if you are.
By singlemom
December 5, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
Thanks akeya-yes I realize fear creates hate and bigotry, sexism, racism…we fear and criticize anything that is “different” or threatens our “way of life”….just take a glimpse at the comments made to me which are very telling of peoples intelligence, sensitivity and acceptance of human beings different then themselves. They’ll choose to make this personal then accept that women have different choices so they bash and judge, point fingers and condescend. But hey…if it helps you sleep at nite…if there is something i’ve learned from a “chip” lol is that people normally put others down or gang up, to feel better about themselves. I always wonder who should feel sorry for who? But neither here nor there-i’ve always been the better person to take higher ground when it comes to nasty people.
Single women have this choice-it should be respected, even if not “traditional”, they are loving women, wanting to raise a child and because they haven’t found love or the one to marry they should be confined to not have children of their own?
By blablabla
December 5, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
RF - thanks. i know. now tell that to spoiled lesbian.
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this
See all,
As Lozen exhibited, it is to commonplace on this board for someone to Jab and Run; especially when confronted by a decent/logical question. They will argue all day - and I will probably get a retort to this post, but not my two addressing her, and not in decent logical fashion.
That, dare I say, is what I find depressing {description}; but do not get depressed {action} about regarding this board and many of the people on it.
Guess I expect too much;) But that wont change - which is a good thing; seeing as there are a few that always can converse, and some that can depending on the conversation.
By Akeya
December 5, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this
BLABLABLA- glad to have someone such as yourself on our side (at least in terms of this particular issue.)
I am VERY LIBERAL and I am tired of seeing welfare queens waddle in with their 3-4-5th child that they don’t have the resources to raise. I am also tired of the welfare kings who slip into the beds of the welfare queens, only so that they can live in the Section 8 house free and live high off the hog on said welfare queen’s food stamps.
Just because someone is liberal doesn’t mean that he/she is into all-out bachannalia with little regard to morals and values…
By Akeya
December 5, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
Saying that some of the “affected” children only need a stable home is akin to Tom Cruise’s position that post partum depression is not real…
By singlemom
December 5, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this
van, as i won’t impose mine on yours it’s not fair for you to say society today has no morals or lack of morals just because your morals were “DIFFERENT”. I can understand you saying things were different then…and thank GOD i live on todays world and not ‘back in the day’ where “morals” included subjugation, racism, intolerance.
I can see one saying things were different, the morals we had then are not what society values today…i don’t understand or accept it but that is my opinion…
In contrast saying or implying that people today have no values or morals and everyone celebrates inmorality is a stretch and your opinion being imposed on mine..which happens to be that society in general is more loving, tolerant and accepting of EVERYONE (at least the younger generations) and dont’ call kids from single homes bastards, women pg out of wedlock “loose”, treated minorities atrociously, so hey if society is less “moral” today I’m still glad my generation doesn’t think like our fathers did. This way these single women can have their own children if they well please.
By blablabla
December 5, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this
Just because someone is liberal doesn’t mean that he/she is into all-out bachannalia with little regard to morals and values…
i would never have said you were, akeya. it’s been my experience that liberals and conservatives generally (but not always) agree on the problem. it’s getting to the solution where we’ll differ.
By Ginger
December 5, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this
I’m starting to think there is something really wrong with the institution of marriage if the religious right is trying so hard to give marriage exclusive “benefits”. Get married and you can enjoy a two-person income, tax breaks, child birth and much, much more! The bottom line is, happiness is not the exclusive province of the married. I’m a healthy, wealthy, capable single woman who shouldn’t be denied the experience of pregnancy and childbirth because I won’t settle for just any man to marry.
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this
Akeya,
Well your mind is the best chemisty factory in existance; so to discredit a stable environment is short sighted and ignorant.
If one is depressed long enough, your mind will habitually create the drugs needed to stay depressed - that is not to say we should not help kick-start it; but it is not an endpoint.
Your post is heavily flawed. I thought you were more intelligent than this.
By Chilao
December 5, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this
DeltaX - another interesting aspect of that is that the 3 y/o girl(when her Mom divorced), was extremely FOCUSED at 3 (and a little terror b…LOL). Anyway, she, a while back, graduated from John Hopkins Medical School.
Renee - I get static with my one ABC view a week, last night with the weather, missed some stuff I had to read up on this morning. Did not see Susan catching her blood dad with a ‘lady of the evening’. But saw the red paint on the garage door.
By kimberly
December 5, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this
While today’s morals are nearly non-existant, there are some of us that still hold to a higher moral standard.
Van, I supposed you’re right. There will ALWAYS be people who walking around thinking themselves superior to the rest of us, based on a COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE definition of “moral standard.” How many people pick and choose the “morals” to which they adhere, selecting some, and forsaking others, while rationalizing all the way? I already know your answer: Everyone on the planet except you. Hahaha! Sleep well on your delusions, Dear Man.
By blablabla
December 5, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this
ginger - your comments make no sense.
get married and you can enjoy a two person income. uh, only if both people choose to work, and there are plenty of “couples” who live together out of wedlock and split life’s expenses and do just fine.
tax breaks. ever hear of the marriage penalty?
child birth. last i checked a married couple doesn’t give birth, only the woman. and the baby doesn’t check to see that she’s married before heading out of the womb. so what are you talking about?
much, much more. such as?
By The72John
December 5, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this
I’m just curious. Van keeps talking about “the good ole days” when everyone assumed that single women who were pregnant were “loose”. Yet, when asked about the men that knocked them up, he said something along the lines of “if they were married they would have been taken care of”.
Now, this dodges the question - what about the morality of the men who were sleeping with the unmarried women? Or, is that OK?
By Jack
December 5, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this
Akeya. Is it your opinion that a 1 parent household is just as good as a 2 parent household?
By Jack
December 5, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this
72John. Those men were pigs. Nite all!
By kimberly
December 5, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
To actually answer the question of the day: Personally, I wouldn’t take bottled, ‘cause you don’t really know what you’re getting. I want to see the keg it’s coming from. HAHAHA! HAHA… Ha… Sorry.
By Akeya
December 5, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this
DeltaX- I thought you were more intelligent than to really think that all a drug-addicted child needs is a stable environment. It takes patience, time, and money to raise an affected child. A stable environment is important. I am not negating that. However, some of these children’s problems are BEYOND the help of a stable environment.
JACK- My opinion is that a 1 parent family can be as good as a 2 parent family. My son is the product of a single mom, and he is more well-behaved and smarter than many children that I know and work with from affluent, 2 parent/2 income (and sometimes 2 parent/1 income, 1 stay-at-home parent)homes.
By singlemom
December 5, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this
Jack…not answering or Akeya and leaving past comments behind….if I may answer that one.
It depends! I’ve known many (myself included) one parent household that aren’t just as good as…but better then a 2 parent household. (And that’s w/no alimony or even child support) I’ve known the reverse. As one other poster said also…single moms (or dads) actually even working of course…put their children first, dedicate more time to their children almost then married women. As another said…i don’t have his laundry, problems, crisis, work issues, etc to deal with, I dont’ have to explain to my kids I can’t talk to them cause it’s “mommy and daddy” time …or explain to them we are putting our marriage first and that daddy needs peace and quiet when he gets home.
I can come home and head on pour into my kids, homework, food, talking at the table, show them to help with chores, to value doing more with less, to be compassionate to the needy (like we aren’t broke lol?) bedtime stories and laying in each sons bed while we discuss the day in full and they tell me of dreams, the latest girl they like (my 6yr old), tell jokes, say prayers, ask me every night of the year when its Christmas or their b-day… If I had a husband I wouldn’t likely be doing all this full time/hands one/quality time, full dedication to them as there would be my spouse to “divide” that time up. See they have no behavior issues, do good in school, have many friends, my boys are known for being “liked by everyone” and being sweet, nice, caring. They smile and laugh a lot, they are healthy, happy, rambunctious socially adept wonderful boys. So is my one parent home bettern than 2? In my case it was as my boys were very different while I was married. It greatly depends, you can’t peg…but you’d be surprised in how many cases a one parent home can be better than two..you’d be scared surprised lol
Also I’ve known many marrieds that are so unhappy about their marriage that the mom or dad gets depressed, neglects, or doesn’t actively participate/care for the kids .
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this
Akeya,
Note the key word - and you compared it tp PPD.
“However, some of these children’s problems are BEYOND the help of a stable environment.”
But you respond with insult, and no admission to your words.
PPD is a rush of chemicals that can be and should be countered.
The term Some leaves that the rest is MOST; which are not addicted to anything, but are develementally challenged in their formative years ONLY. So to spread mis-information of that kind is grossly ignorant - especcaily to a good/informative/accuarate point.
By The72John
December 5, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this
This relates to last week’s topic, but it bears mentioning.
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this
~shaking my head~
By Just Being Me
December 5, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this
Yeah, I read that earlier, John. Quite a bright kid.
This is just a general comment, if the shoe doesn’t fit, disregard: some of you put so much effort into trying to sound intelligent that your comments make no sense whatsoever. The wording is so difficult to comprehend… and some of the comments require so much decoding, it makes it difficult to even read.
By Akeya
December 5, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this
DELTA- Even some of these children will benefit there are still many more that won’t.
Admission to what? I said exactly what I meant to say. I’m not a woman who minces her words. I honestly think that feeling like some of these children just need a stable environment is an understatement.
By Akeya
December 5, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
I’m out of hear to pick up my little sunshine who is so depreived as to not have a father. Oh, poor him to have a mom that loves him unconditionally and takes care of his needs without the “assistance” of someone with a p***. I may or may not come back to continue, depending on the level of boredom I encounter tomorrow.
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
I honestly think that feeling like some of these children just need a stable environment is an understatement.
Get learned before you state your opinion, I know what most of these kids need.
If not mincing words means not looking to see if you are accurate first - you are correct.
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this
You posted:
I honestly think that feeling like some of these children just need a stable environment is an understatement.
Get learned before you state your opinion, I know what most of these kids need.
You also posted: It takes patience, time, and money to raise an affected child - no different than a birthed child!
If not mincing words means not looking to see if you are accurate first - you are correct.
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this
Meeeeooooww! PhhhtPhhht.
Too good.
By Akeya
December 5, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this
DELTAX- I have been educated on the subject as well as studying it in college. I worked at DFCS as a caseworker before taking the deep, dark plunge into Section 8. It’s much deeper than a stable home. A stable home is but one aspect of a long list of necessities for the children.
Since you obviously know personally “most of these kids”, I guess I should discount all of the cases that I’ve worked on, families that I’ve worked with and other training and experiences I’ve had.
By blablabla
December 5, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this
This is just a general comment, if the shoe doesn’t fit, disregard: some of you put so much effort into trying to sound intelligent that your comments make no sense whatsoever. The wording is so difficult to comprehend… and some of the comments require so much decoding, it makes it difficult to even read.
amen, jbm.
By DeltaX
December 5, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this
Akeya,
I do not buy your “experience” for a second. Your anger and disregarde of the fact that many of these crack babies only need a loving stable home is proof enough.
Enjoy all and have a safe night! Or not - I am not going to tell you what to do;)
By Red
December 5, 2005 05:17 PM | Link to this
I don’t usually read this column and so this is the first time I’ve been to the blog. Wow! what a lot of comments. Very interesting. Up front I’ll identify myself as being a 51-year old male, married to the same woman for 33 years and the father of four children (all girls).
My first comment would be that It’s a shame the adoption issue was brought into this. I view the question simply: Should a single woman make the deliberate decision to bring a child into the world without the benefit of a husband/father?
All this business about bad 2-parent families and heroic single moms is off the point. Sure, some dads turn out to be bums. So do some moms. Sure, some women with children find themselves divorced or widowed. But the thing is, they didn’t DELIBERATELY make those choices. They were dealt a lousy hand and now they have to make the best of a bad situation.
I think it is a bad idea for several reasons: 1) It greatly enhances the chances that the child will grow up financially disadvanged, 2) It is another instance, a symptom, of a society that puts self-gratification before everything else, and finally the most important reason I am against this, 3) The woman’s choice and life make a statement the boys/men aren’t necessary. That they’re expendible. I don’t think the marginalization of men is a good message to send a generation of children—especially the little boys.
By Lyrazel
December 6, 2005 07:45 AM | Link to this
I love dads. I couldnt have asked for a better one and feel they do help children significantly. Moms who raise kids alone are now more common, just as stalwart and true—and I wish I had not of started in that vein about dads but I was trying to prove how easy roles can be displaced and removed-sorry.
Where does it end? Medical advancements are now banging at the revolving door of morality. Who is to say that when I am 78 I can pay someone give birth to a child so I can have organ replacements. Its wacky and sci-fi but it is now possible and while everyone is so worried about babies being wanted vs unwanted does this run a risk of misuse beyond just having children? To have a clone of yourself put in yourself—is possible now…but the big risk is those who are willing to buy such services and those willing to sell. In grief, parents loose their son to a road accident. The doctor says: just provide genetic material, an egg some cells and you have your precious son back (and now you do all the things you didnt do, etc). Is that ethical? What about if the child created medically is deformed or retarded—would it be more or less ethical to ‘kill it now’ in the womb—or even is it ethical to weed out—for invetro…or what about—-you all carried through with Terry Shievo. What if her parents thought she could have a baby and invetro-fertilized her in the hospice…and kept her alive for her womb…
Enjoy.
By Lyrazel
December 6, 2005 07:58 AM | Link to this
Blahblahbla….according to state law all lesbians ARE single women since the state does not recognize their partner-relationships as VALID. All gay men ARE single men…so I was on topic…
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 07:59 AM | Link to this
Delta- You don’t have to “buy into” my experience. It’s not for sale. If you’d like to hear some stories for free about scumball parents and the way that they’ve ruined their children’s mental and physical health, let me know.
One of my favorite sayings is, “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.” Seeing innocent children being bounced around and paying for their parent’s mistake’s is enough to make anyone justifiably angry….p** off on more like it.
By Vince
December 6, 2005 08:05 AM | Link to this
These hard and fast rules are the problem. To make a case for or against single women and artifical insemination based upon a few statistics has very little substance. as with any family, each individual circumstance will dictate the outcome. My sister is an outstanding mother. Do I know if her parenting could be as good if she chose to be a single mother? No, I don’t. But to suggest everything is hunky dorey because she’s happily married with a working husband is just as speculative.
This again is another attempt at the mainstream white American heterosexual male to subtley dominate the choices offered to women. Frankly, if you are against the sperm bank concept, don’t donate. And, I really think its crappy when men (myself included) make commentary on reproductive choices of women, i.e. abortion, single parenting, the pill, etc. Until a man gets pregnant and carries the child to term, delivers it and raises it, he ought to butt out and let women maintain control over their bodies and lives.
What if the situation was reversed? What if there was heated discussion about controlling a man’s right to keep his testicles? Or limit the number of ejaculations to three per year? Sounds laughable? Not to women. They deal with that type of insanity all the time.
By Murphy
December 6, 2005 08:34 AM | Link to this
The question may have been asked, but I simply didn’t see it in the posts from previous days.
Why would a woman make the decision to go to a sperm bank rather than adopt?
Could it be…. self-indulgence…?
On one hand, we have thousands of children begging for homes. Begging for someone to care for them. Begging for someone to love them.
On the other hand we have a group of people who want to have children and rather than commit to a relationship that would produce said child, the way nature intended, they decide to circumvent nature and go to the local sperm bank.
Before I get too many hate posts, let me state the same can be said for any other folks who use science to get themselves pregnant when it is clear that nature didn’t intend for them to have children.
By Frustrated!!
December 6, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this
I am SO tired of hearing what selfish people want/need. How about what is in the best interest of the child?? Bringing a child into the world and bringing it up to be a healthy, contributing member of society takes much time, patience, and dedication. At times it is very frustrating, with much second-guessing. Today’s moral climate states that any thing goes… A baby/child deserves a loving home with a mom & a dad who support one another and are united in bringing up a well adjusted child. This should be the primary goal. Anything else is a distant second.
By Kathleen
December 6, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this
Shaunti is right. Fathers are important.
My son is not from a sperm bank or an uncommitted relationship, yet I found myself a single parent when at the age of 30 my husband died, our son was only 6 months old.
I can tell you that being a single parent is the hardest thing I have ever done. The absence of a father was not lost on my son, he truly missed not having a dad. It over 10 years but I have remarried recently. When my new husband and I decided to get married and shared this news with my son one of the first things he asked was “can I call you Dad?”
Yes, I know women can successfully raise children on their own, but please don’t underestimate the value of a two parent family. It isn’t just about you.
By OneParentFamily
December 6, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this
Murphy- marriage is not a guarantee for everyone. That’s a very one-sided view, to think that people just aren’t committed enough to relationships… Maybe many women are terrified of trusting in men because they’ve been hurt by too many men. Maybe they’re terrified because they don’t want to trust that much in someone, only to go to the doctor to find out she has an STD (life-threatening or no.) Maybe some women feel like they can’t live up to the videos ‘hos and Jennifer Aniston, Halle Barry, Angelina Jolie, etc prototypes that men are so into these days. I decided to have a child by myself when I was 25 years old. Why? Because I wasn’t going to wait around for Prince Charming to whisk me away to marriage to have a child. Marriage is not a given for everyone. It’s a fairytale for little girls. How many boys daydream about getting married and plan their weddings from childhood? My child has plenty of role models. I make sure that I surround him with men that are, in my opinion, upstanding. One is married and the other is engaged. Both men are very good role models. I make sure that I raise my son to treat women well. I honestly believe that the best way a boy can learn how to treat women is through a WOMAN. I could care less about being single-mom bashed. Everyone’s situation is different and there is not template that works specifically for everyone.
By OneParentFamily
December 6, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this
You all still aren’t getting it. Marriage is not a given for everyone. Why should people be deprived of one of the greatest jobs because he/she is not married? What’s not fair is all of those who keep ramming the marriage argument. It’s just not that simple.
By Nobody that matters
December 6, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this
From another perspective, I’m never going to have kids and it’s not because it’s my choice.
My mother and a sibling suffer from various medical ailments which puts me in the position of sole caregiver, bread winner, etc etc etc. I’m also not very handsome nor rich.
Of course I’m single. Would you ladies want to date or marry someone like me? Of course not! So I’ve been single for my entire life in fact. Not one girlfriend. Given the current situtation, there isn’t a sane woman on the planet who would say “You know, this is the man I want to marry!” and I don’t blame them. I wouldn’t want me either. But I have to say it’s painful to be worthless, to never have anyone to come home to or even talk to.
By singlemom
December 6, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this
Oneparentfamily…great post.. Oh and VINCE! wow….see I LIKE you. That’s the thing that hurts most…heterosexual men always trying to tell us what we can and cannot do with reproduction.
You are SO right on about that. It’s disturbing!
By Just Being Me
December 6, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this
Nobody That Matters - You really sound like you’re hurting a lot. And, I’m so sorry you’re going through this situation, but please know that it will make you stronger. And, don’t give up on love. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, just because you don’t think you’re handsome doesn’t mean I won’t. :-) Jesus loves you and so do I.
Red & Murphy - What about a single woman who is financially and emotionally stable, and otherwise prepared to raise children - and wants to experience childbirth? What about the natural instinct many women have to bear children? Should a woman just struggle all the days of her life to ignore those instinctual feelings just because she’s unmarried?
Do you have any idea how devastating it is (and emotionally destructive) to want something so badly - to think about it morning, noon, and night, to dream about it, to imagine it… and not have it because someone thinks it’s taboo?
By UUmom
December 6, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this
In reading over this thread, I see recurring comments such as Murphy’s “On one hand, we have thousands of children begging for homes. Begging for someone to care for them. Begging for someone to love them.”
Murphy, have you actually tried to adopt one of these kids?
I did.
There may be thousands of kids begging for homes, but bringing them into your’s means navigating through the gamut of DFACS. And that’s a topic for another day…
By Just Being Me
December 6, 2005 09:22 AM | Link to this
UUMom, having gone through DFCS’s training classes (the original one, and the newest revised one), I agree with you. I always find it humorous when people say that we should just adopt - as though it’s that easy. Those people go on and on about how many children are in the system looking for good homes, but they have no idea - ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE - what it takes to rescue one of those children.
Vince, great post.
By OneParentFamily
December 6, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this
JBM and UUMOM- Even on the website they make it sound easy as pie!
By RF
December 6, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this
So Frustrated— what about kids who don’t have the blessing of two parents who care? Is one a consolation prize? It may not be the American ideal fed to us by television, but it ain’t all bad. If two parents aren’t available, then what? Orphanages or foster homes overflowing? I took my two from a two-parent home where drugs were the focus. They are much, much better off with me and have blossomed in a one parent, devoted home. It is possible for a well-adjusted child to grow and flourish with only one parent.
Nobody— yes in fact you do matter! You are doing what many of us are doing- DEALING WITH REALITY, and often times it sucks, doesn’t it? Hang in there. You have to have a little more self-confidence. Many might find you attractive and all the more so for being a giving, caring person to those who need you. All things are possible.
By Lyrazel
December 6, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this
OneParentFamily: I suffer the reverse problem, For 40 years and I was asked When are you going to have kids? Didnt want kids and still dont consider having children the greatest job of a person’s life. I feel reproduction has overinflated importance in our society which is why we can easily forsake already born children to adoption agencies, foster homes, while still maintaining a need for invetro-clinics..its a not mine syndrome. But hey, those priceless little tykes are valuable if they are yours—but depending on their income level their relevance to our great society declines. I see it as must have baby-syndrome. People saying: I want a baby because I want a baby now—that instant gratification without consequence. After the rugrats are born, we complain about how they take space in our esteemed institutions…how they suck up tax dollars…how they are born wrong because they dont have daddies…mommies…pants that show their undies. I hear loads of single women say….just give me my baby…my baby will be perfect…then raise these blessed darlings in daycare…since they must work 80 hours providing things…and dont have time…
By Renee
December 6, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this
It’s not simple to just go adopt a child.
If someone is financially and mentally sound, why not have a baby. (oh, I said that yesterday)
Hi JBM and all my other buddies!
By OneParentFamily
December 6, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this
My son is in daycare and I raise him. I don’t make time for my son. My time is his. i don’t work 80 hours a week. I work 44 hours, 4 of which he is with me. I hear loads of women who are married say that they want children only to be able to become a part of the stay at home mommy club-you know, the one where they find ridiculous things to do during the day, touting that they are “parenting.” My son sucks up my money, but that’s to be expected. I planned for that. If you have beef about your tax dollars going to schools or other programs guided toward children, your anger is displaced on the parents. People are not going to stop having children. Our bodies (for the most part) are made for it. Breasts are for feeding a child, not for ogling. Women’s bodies release eggs and men’s sperm, do the advocates of ZPG really think that people are going to stop having children? Take a look at our Latino counterparts. They are popping out babies like Pez dispensers. I doubt they give a damn about population control.
By Renee
December 6, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this
Oops I knew I forgot to type something.
Nobody - everybody is somebody and doing what you are doing for your mother and sibling says a lot for you there. I know several dashing young men (and hot women) that don’t have the character to do anything for anyone.
By Netbanker
December 6, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this
Murphy - “we have a group of people who want to have children and rather than commit to a relationship that would produce said child, the way nature intended…”
I don’t agree. If one looks at Nature as a whole geese and swans are the only animals that come to mind that form monogamous, life long relationships. For the most part, Nature does not support the idea of a committed relationship. In fact, in the majority of species the male is pretty much only a sperm donor and is not an active participant in the rearing of children. Don’t let that penguin movie fool you. Once the hatchling is grown the ‘couple’ does not stay together to breed year after year. While we may have higher reasoning and language skills that enable us to express our emotions verbally when it comes down to it we’re still animals with strong biological drives to reproduce.
By Renee
December 6, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this
One more thing.
I have seen several comments about having a baby for selfish reasons. Whether it is a married couple who says now they are ready and want a baby or a single woman who is planning on making a sperm bank trip, of course it begins selfish to a degree. You want a baby, you want to love a child who is yours and nobody elses. I think you have more problems when someone has a child unplanned etc… Deciding that you want a baby in your life could be argumentatively selfish, but does not mean that the baby (child) would not come first in your life. Of course a child costs money, on top of money, on top of money. Of couse a child drains all your energy among other things. That comes with the territory. And at least with my daughter, the good outweighs the bad 10 to 1!
By Just Being Me
December 6, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this
Renee, you know several hot women???? Wow, you’re pretty lucky! :-)
By Renee
December 6, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this
Lol JBM!! Too funny!!
By Just Being Me
December 6, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this
VERY good point in your 9:51a, Renee. There has been this theme of the single woman’s selfishness when desiring to have a child. When you really look at it, 99% (unscientific number) of planned pregnancies are for selfish reasons.
On another note, when you all get done with this topic, I have some more venting to do about Atlanta Public Schools… I am so ticked off. I’ll hold off until Thursday or Friday.
By Renee
December 6, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this
99% (unscientific number)
I’m glad you put your disclaimer in there, because someone will either dispute your numbers or ask you to prove your statistical figures.
JBM I forgot to tell you, but your 4:40 post yesterday - YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD (TWO TIMES) lol. I caught up on the forum after I got home and THAT was the post for the day, the week, the month!!
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this
What exactly is an unselfish reason to have a child. Would they all not start with I?
By singlemom
December 6, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this
See, the proponents of ZPG I can see them saying anyone having kids is selfish or single women for that matter. As insane as I believe their philospy to be I can take them making those comments.
On the other hand…married women and men that say a single person is selfish to want a child but dont’ think they are are delusional. Wanting to have a child (for the most part) isn’t SELFISH people! Of course we want children of our own, reproduce, yes we have souls…but it is almost animalistic instinct and basics people. (Ok some don’t have the urge but you get my point).
Oh and about the ones that say there is no way a child can be raised properly by one parent-boloney! It’s been proven to be succesfull many time….even in the animal kingdom the lioness has little use for the male except for sperm. She normally goes on to hunt, provide, nurture, protect and raise her children just fine. (Ok i know thats a low blow but i couldn’t resist lol) Yes we aren’t animals, etc….but bottom line is, it has been done succesfully…just as it’s had bad outcomes, or having TWO parents has not been good for the child. No shoe size fits all but to call people selfish for wanting a child….good gracious, get a life!
By Gina
December 6, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this
This conversation is reminding me of the Spike Lee movie, “She Hate Me”.
By DeltaX
December 6, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this
Akeya,
Except for the old example that no action is truely unselfish {we are talking about destructive selfishness here - lets not complicate a notion we can all understand}; here is maybe the only reason:
Me and my partner can provide and sacrifice for a child, throughout his/her life, which will be a betterment to society.
Not:
I still do not believe it is coincedence that single adults are single; mind you, that does not mean they are perm non-functional - only they are still growing. There IS a reason, and the blame game {all women/men are screwed up} only furthers that reasoning: I am still blaming others for my life.
By Renee
December 6, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this
Me and my partner can provide and sacrifice for a child, throughout his/her life, which will be a betterment to society.
In my opinion, children should be considered and adopted/or created out of love and not for the betterment of society. If anyone is having kids for the betterment of sciety this is someone who has their parenting priorities seriously confused and should not be having children under any circumstances.
By FatMoose
December 6, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this
I have to ask myself, why would a woman want to have a child while single?
no more patience looking for a mate (male or female) But a child requires lots of patience
men are dogs You going to raise a child with that same idiotic notion intact? That is a major issue that is indicative of deeper ones
I do not need a man Granted, that is a possible one, but I doubt, like DX that it is not reactionary bc past burns that have not healed - refer to men/dogs
I have been too busy with my career to find a mate and now my clock is ticking Sounds like evasion - no-one in your office that works as much as you and found a mate? Too busy for a mate, but not a child?
Hard for me to comprimise the situation.
By DeltaX
December 6, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this
Renee,
I agree that love must be the major factor. I eliminated it bc I would think all situations, including sick ones have that notion.
By Netbanker
December 6, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this
Nobody…you need to change your name to Somebody Who Matters! You matter a great deal to your mother and sibling. Recently I’ve had a small glimpse of what you are experiencing by caring for my partner and you have a strength and depth of character that alludes the majority of the population. I’ve only been at this for 2.5 months, but it’s enough to know that putting your family first makes you a beautiful person. Please don’t forget to reward and take care of yourself, too.
Renee…you make some good points about planned vs unplanned that I need to ponder.
My gut reaction at this time is still that what makes the child yours is not the birthing, but everything that comes afterward. My personal experiences with helping out a friend going through a divorce by baby sitting her little girl feeds this perception. I started as a reluctant babysitter (my partner is an old friend of the mothers and he volunteered us for the first babysitting gig and what did I know about 3.5 year olds?), but bonded with this child by the end of the night after soothing her tears and staying with her until she fell asleep. After that first experience I spent ever increasing amounts of time with her as she grew older because she wanted and needed me to be there and more importantly I wanted to be there. I was honored when she asked me to come to her school for VIP Day and my heart was crushed the day that they moved back North to be closer to family. (I was a blubbering mess) I freely admit that this is absolutely not the same as having a child on a daily basis to raise, but it was enough to know that for me it wouldn’t matter if a child is biologically mine or not should I become parent.
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this
Delta- My mom was a single parent and produced a citizen that is a betterment to society. She has a daughter who has always held a steady job, never done drugs or drank a drop of alcoholic beverages, went to college directly after high school (on scholarships, mind you), graduated from college 4 years after entering and went on to get a job 2 months after college (who was still working at a job before acquiring a job in studied field)in the social work field, who is bilingual, has played the violin for 20 years, tutors children for free, and my boast list could go on…:) My mother worked full-time, and now as an adult I don’t regret not having my father around. I don’t regret seeing my mother work. She taught me about good work ethic, independence, life.
Even for a happily married couples, I cannot see them wanting a child for any truly altrustic reasons.
By FatMoose
December 6, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this
As for lions, there IS a filter there that provides the most probable situation that gives rise to a successful offspring; and if one is troubled, they are eaten or discarded.
Relationships, and the ability to have one is a filter to precipitate the ability to love and compromise LONG TERM.
By Joseph S.
December 6, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this
Jack, your chromosomes are XY. You lack a uterus. You have a p***.
Why do you insist on telling someone who IS capable of giving birth who deserves or doesn’t deserve to do so. Furthermore, your position on women’s rights is draconian. One parent is better than no parents, and if a person voluntarily goes through pregnancy, one can only assume that she has thought it through and will raise the child well.
But again, you’re a male (I won’t even say man), and thus have no business telling a woman what she can and can not do with her womb.
By blablabla
December 6, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this
This again is another attempt at the mainstream white American heterosexual male to subtley dominate the choices offered to women. And, I really think its crappy when men (myself included) make commentary on reproductive choices of women, i.e. abortion, single parenting, the pill, etc. Until a man gets pregnant and carries the child to term, delivers it and raises it, he ought to butt out and let women maintain control over their bodies and lives.
vince… i am the single, white mainstream male you’re talking about. i came up with this great idea for a sperm bank but i decided i wasn’t going to let any single women, or lesbians, or minority women, or anybody i didn’t approve of get any sperm. i am the sperm nazi from seinfeld…”NO SPERM FOR YOU!” and why did i do this? even though it would be bad for my business to pick and choose my customers, my overwhelming need to control women overrides everything. my entire life and existence as a straight, white male revolves around controlling women.
please, vince. think for yourself a little bit. straight white men don’t sit around in a room plotting how to subtly control women’s lives. you give us far too much credit for planning ahead.
and if you think it so crappy to comment on reproductivity, then take your own advice and don’t be crappy.
By DeltaX
December 6, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this
Akeya,
The topic is not CAN IT HAPPEN,
But, IS THE TREND A GOOD ONE? IE healthy!
The general situation, I believe, is not good or healthy.
Plus, you mother rasied you, and you have shown lots of aggression towards men…have to ask myself what you inherited to give you that disposition and what you have doen to counter it.
By Renee
December 6, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this
Fat Moose. Interesting points. I have to disagree with this one though.
no more patience looking for a mate (male or female) But a child requires lots of patience
Patience with a child (to me) is like apples and oranges when comparing it to the patience with a mate. While a woman (or man) may not want the drama that comes with relationships of the same or opposite sex, a child would be a totally separate (and different) relationship. And you can have all the patience in the world when looking for a mate, doesn’t mean you have met them yet.
By The72John
December 6, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this
What gripes me about this discussion, and any discussion about child-rearing, is this obsessive need to force everything into as close to the “perfect” mold as possible.
Yes, a two-parent, male/female family is the NORM. But if a single parent has a child, by choice or otherwise, and does a good job raising that child, then what business is it of any of us what her reasons for doing so were?
Yes, there are kids who need to be adopted. Yes, it’s tragic. But people aren’t ALWAYS going to think altruistically. Some people all always going to prefer having a biological child over adopting, for whatever reason. So what?
Why are we so bent on pigeonholing people as GOOD parents or BAD parents, or GOOD people or BAD people? There ARE good parents and bad parents, but the makeup of their family unit has nothing to do with that.
By blablabla
December 6, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this
and if a person voluntarily goes through pregnancy, one can only assume that she has thought it through and will raise the child well
joseph, are you kidding? how do you think all the welfare queens w six kids got here? do you think she’s doing a great job with her kids? she didn’t do it for the kid, she did it for the gov’t check.
By RF
December 6, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this
Net- I feel you dude! They get under your skin (and sometimes on your nerves) very quickly!! I was addicted to mine the first night I had them watching them sleep and listening to them breathe. It was better than any symphony I’ve ever heard! I knew I’d never be able to give them up the first day I had them. I still go in and sit and watch them sleeping, and it’s been almost five years! You prove the point many have made here. Loving a child and being devoted to him/her goes beyond traditional roles. For so long we’ve had this idea that parenting is about socially acceptable biological roles. Finally, people are beginning to realize it’s not.
By Netbanker
December 6, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this
Akeya…you GO girl! Now I want to know HOW you managed to do all that without a drop of alcohol. Just reading about it makes me want to kick back with a nice glass of wine to relax.
Singlemom…you are correct about lionnesses. I think that most animal species have a matriarchal structure.
By Jack
December 6, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this
Joseph S. I don’t give a flying rats a$$ what you think of me. I’m not trying to tell women what to do, I gave my opinion and if you don’t like it, tough.
Hi Renee, JBM, Kimberly, Whiley, Lozen, Delta & 72John and everyone else. Too busy to post a lot today. I’ll check in later.
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this
I have agression towards men and women. What’s your point? I would never deny that. Now ask me why I have agression towards both sexes.. I’m engaged and I think my fiance is a pretty great guy. I still think that there are a lot of male (and female) a***** out there. I’m not blind. I’m not going to pretend like having a p*** attached to a wedding band will make me a whole woman or a better parent. I’m already a good parent and I will be if things don’t work out with my fiance and I. I think it can be good or healthy for single parents just as it can be for married parents. Marriage does not automatically make the perfect recipe for the raising of good children (good being relative). I think it’s really the martyr syndrome that some people have, thinking that their “perfect union” is what makes the world go ‘round.
By Murphy
December 6, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this
Like I said… Self gratification… We have become a self-serving, narcisistic society that puts the “needs” of ourselves above all else.
Paraphrase… “I don’t want to adopt b/c getting a child from DFACS or some other adoption method is too difficult or takes too much time.” Sorry, if you’re not willing to go through that then you have no business being a parent. Being a parent isn’t about the path of least resistence.
Paraphrase… “I really want to experience childbirth so I should be able to be artificially inseminated since that is what I want.” Sorry, the main point of being a parent isn’t about what YOU want to experience. It is about shaping the life a young person in the hopes of making the world a better place. That selfish mentality will do nothing except destray the very being you are attempting to create.
By DeltaX
December 6, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this
Hey Jack,
Doing well? Hope so - getting busy here and may have to fly out to cali….poor me;)
May get a couple more posts in;)
By Renee
December 6, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this
Hey John - Excellent Post!!!!!!!!
Hey Jack!
Hey Netbanker - too funny (the alchohol comment).
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this
Netbanker- Easy… I looked at how other people acted and looked when they drank and knew that I never wanted to look like that or not know what the hell I did the night before! lol
72JOHN- I agree with you.
By Renee
December 6, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this
Paraphrase… “I don’t want to adopt b/c getting a child from DFACS or some other adoption method is too difficult or takes too much time.� Sorry, if you’re not willing to go through that then you have no business being a parent. Being a parent isn’t about the path of least resistence.
So what you are saying is that if you are not willing to wait on the DFACS system, you should not be a parent. If that is in fact what you are contending, that is ridiculous.
Paraphrase… “I really want to experience childbirth so I should be able to be artificially inseminated since that is what I want.� Sorry, the main point of being a parent isn’t about what YOU want to experience. It is about shaping the life a young person in the hopes of making the world a better place. That selfish mentality will do nothing except destray the very being you are attempting to create
Nobody said that is the sole or only reason they wanted to have a child, nor did they say that is the main point of being a parent. What the hell is wrong with a woman wanting to experience childbirth. You can’t be serious???
By Chilao
December 6, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this
to quote from Desperate Housewives, Penelope Ann Miller playing the wife of Lynette’s Boss:(paraphrased)
“See, that is the difference between you and me. You consider yourself a Good Mom when I want to be a GREAT Mom”.
hilarious, see Great is better than Good
If I was going to be like a lion, I would also have to go kill all the little kitties, so their mom would go into estrus and allow me to propogate the species with MY seed. Wait, I’m a ZPG-advocate, one of those. Guess I’ll stick with practicing the propogation. LMAO
By Murphy
December 6, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this
Sorry Netbanker… Doves also mate for life, not just swans and geese, but I digress.
I know far too many people who have been married for 20, 30, 40, 50 even 60 years to say that the only species who mate for life are swans and geese. Perhaps you made that statement due to your limited, purely scientific point of view. Perhaps you are the unfortunate product of a broken home. Perhaps you simply want to justify polygamous lifestyles. Perhaps it is none of the above, but emotionally, humans have proven it can be done.
However, the original question was not about whether single women should be parents, one parent is way better than no parent hands down, no questions asked, but whether or not we agreed with the idea of artificially inseminating oneself to have those children. Sorry, can’t agree with that one.
One other item… I don’t remember who wrote it, but I loved the idea that the child be created/adopted out of love. Not sure how much love there is in some dude unloading at the bank and then some woman picking that sample out of a list. Sorry if it sounds crude, but in all actuality it is very crude.
By Renee
December 6, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this
Chilao - yes, that was too good. Now just to expand on the good mom great mom comment.
If everybody on this forum listed what qualities make a great mom, we would be here all day, with a large spectrum of qualities. (I think we can all agree, our qualities will differ). The only person (or people) that matter when it comes to who thinks what about me or anyone else being a parent is the kiddies. In my daughter’s eyes I am the greatest mom. She might look at her friends mom and say wow, they have more privileges, but when it comes down to it, she doesn’t want any other mom but me (and yes I know this to be a fact). So all this psycho mumbo jumbo about selfish and parents and agression blah blah blah doesn’t matter. If your kids think you are the greatest then you are doing a great job.
Nobody is perfect. There are people who have anger issues, aggression towards men, liberal, conservative, smokers, spankers, lesbian, gay, who raise WONDERFUL children. If you are human, you have aggression towards something or someone, sometime in your life. As a parent, you make downright bad decisions sometimes. You live and you learn. I’m not aiming to make anyone but my child happy, nobody else matters.
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this
I just started a list of why I’m an EXCELLENT mother (minus the wedding ring(right now) and p*** attachments. All I can say is, DAMN! I want to be my own mom! lol
By Renee
December 6, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this
If my partner and I walk into a sperm bank, you better believe that should I get pregnant, it was purely created out of love.
But if anyone does not believe in sperm banks, then don’t donate or ask for the samples. If anyone goes into a sperm bank and utilizes their services how does it really affect your life?
By Jasmine
December 6, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
Ok..I just caught up on this post today but I just gotta respond to some of the ridiculous things i’ve heard. First of all, to the post that we aren’t animals. Yeah we are, we are just as much animals as dolphins, bears and lions, and your point is all the more valid because of it. We just believe we’re higher than other species.
Second of all, to all those who think only twisted children can come from single parents…Thanks a lot…I’m the product of a single mother and I’m glad to hear I’m considered to be a bastard and dysfunctional just because I didn’t grow up with a father. Did it ever occur to you that there are other role models? In fact, if I’d known my father, I’d most likely have had way more problems..jsut because my mother was single doesn’t mean I grow up to be a man-hater, a crack head, or that I have no future…I’m in college right now on multiple scholarships to be an English major, I was recently invited into the honors program, and I’m in a great, serious relationship with a good guy. On the other hand, my friend, who comes from a two parent family, has been pregnant, is putting off college until she can afford it, and tried to kill herself just before her high school graduation because her mother is verbally abusive. So saying that a single parent family is not as ideal as a two parent family is a load of c rap-what really matters is love and support.
By Netbanker
December 6, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this
RF…I wonder as a gay male whether it’s easier to bond to a child that isn’t ours since we do not necessarily have the same biological drive to reproduce. I don’t feel the need to have a child of my own nor does my partner. This is something we’ve discussed extensively…especially after being approached by a lesbian couple about each of us being a sperm donor.
I read that in some Native American cultures gay people were viewed very positively because they were fully functional adults that would not be adding mouths to feed, but would help with child rearing and ‘adopt’ children if parents were killed or died. Gay tribe members help ensure the survival of the tribe.
By Just Being Me
December 6, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this
Renee - that was the nicest way to say what I really wanted to say yesterday… I’ll have to say the rest offline.
Murphy - as Renee pointed out earlier, whatever the marital status, most people have babies out of purely selfish reasons: because they want to experience childbirth, they want to raise a child, they want to love a child.
How are those reasons any different from a single person’s reasons??? Pay close attention to the wording of my question. I’m not asking what the difference is between single parenting and marital parenting. I’m asking how a single parent’s reasons are selfish, but a married parent’s reasons are not? Better yet, see Akeya’s 10:07.
And, as many others have said, if you don’t believe in sperm banks, don’t make deposits or withdrawals.
Fatmoose, I had so many issues with your 10:47 that I don’t even know where to begin. I think I’ll just leave it alone for now.
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this
Netbanker- I believe bisexuals are referred to as “two-spirit” people in some Native American tribes. They are thought to be special because they are able to connect with both sexes (?) Something like that. Not completely sure.
By Renee
December 6, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this
Very interesting Netbanker
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this
JBM- I’m polling some moms from across the globe on reasons that are not selfish to have a child. I’ll post the results (hopefully there are lots of replies) in a couple of days…
By Just Being Me
December 6, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this
Akeya, good luck. LOL
By RF
December 6, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this
Net- I think men in general are driven to sex for pleasure more than a desire to reproduce anyway. Being a gay male, you know you basically have to adopt to have a child, so you’re perhaps more conscious of the bond you have with other people’s kids. I can honestly tell you, bonding isn’t about biology or sexuality, it’s about time spent with a child. I never thought I would ever want to have kids until I got my two dropped in my lap. It was a quick decision and I had three days to get the house, etc. ready for them.
Renee— you tell ‘em girl!
Akeya- we learn from our parents don’t we? When we’re trying to parent right, we improve on the model we were given. Sounds like you’ve got it together! I find myself doing the things I wish my dad had done more of and trying to improve the things he did well. It’s not so bad being a single parent, is it? I enjoy it most days (except laundry and toilet cleaning days!!—lol)
By lozen
December 6, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this
Vince, you are so right! I’m posting it again because it is so right we can all benefit from reading it again….
These hard and fast rules are the problem. To make a case for or against single women and artifical insemination based upon a few statistics has very little substance. as with any family, each individual circumstance will dictate the outcome. My sister is an outstanding mother. Do I know if her parenting could be as good if she chose to be a single mother? No, I don’t. But to suggest everything is hunky dorey because she’s happily married with a working husband is just as speculative. This again is another attempt at the mainstream white American heterosexual male to subtley dominate the choices offered to women. Frankly, if you are against the sperm bank concept, don’t donate. And, I really think its crappy when men (myself included) make commentary on reproductive choices of women, i.e. abortion, single parenting, the pill, etc. Until a man gets pregnant and carries the child to term, delivers it and raises it, he ought to butt out and let women maintain control over their bodies and lives. What if the situation was reversed? What if there was heated discussion about controlling a man’s right to keep his testicles? Or limit the number of ejaculations to three per year? Sounds laughable? Not to women. They deal with that type of insanity all the time.
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this
RF- It’s not bad at all. I’m more blessed than many married couples I know that cannot or are having a mountain of trouble conceiving. It makes me laugh to see women who say that they can’t imagine ever being a single parent because it seems so hard, like it’s the worst thing in the world that could happen to someon. Sheesh! In my circle of friends who are single moms, we are all pretty spiffy and don’t look as haggard as people make single moms out to be. I am always willing to offer helping hands to single moms who feel overwhelmed, just as I don’t mind helping a married mom who has a husband who thinks child-rearing and domestics is a woman’s job.
Okay, now I’m just rambling…
By Murphy
December 6, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this
JBM… There is no difference. That’s simply not the question at hand. Besides, just because married couples make mistakes, does that make it all right for single people to make even bigger ones…? Neither should make mistakes.
Now, JBM, let me ask a question… How many of these women ging into sperm banks are lesbians…? I do not know, but I would guess a very large percentage.
By Murphy
December 6, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this
Akeya… Why are you looking spiffy and less haggard? Is it because you are a single mom, or because you are dumping your kid off at day care?
By FatMoose
December 6, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this
I stand by my post.
Having the ability to have a long lasting, loving, comprimising relationship is a filter that “weeds out” people from having children, in this TOPIC. All these qualities are needed to raise a child and are learned/practiced by adults in a relationship.
Why would one promote something ONLY because it is a right, and not GOOD {the topic again} and HEALTHY?
I know many of you will read this as the right should be removed; but that is NOT my case - I am answering the question: Is it a good trend.
By RF
December 6, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
Akeya- you wouldn’t believe how many of my married friends can’t keep a house clean or laundry done and are just mystified by the fact that my house is always pretty clean. They don’t work together to get things done and often call me to help them shovel out the house when it gets overwhelming. I’m absolutely shocked sometimes as a man how many of my kind have no clue how to do laundry or scrub a toilet. I’m so, so glad my mommma made us learn how to cook and clean. Do you think maybe we try harder as single parents because we know we have to be both parents at once and do it all?
By FatMoose
December 6, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this
Lozen,
What would your advise be to the 13-18yo girls on TV each day that want to have a child for someone to love and to love them back?
Should men not have an opinion because they do not have a v****? I do not think that organ assists in critical realistic thinking…
You are a joke.
By RF
December 6, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this
Murphy- some single parents are actually good at being parents. You should see my home. My house is clean, my kids are loved and healthy, and I get enough sleep at night. All without daycare or a maid. I do it myself and I work harder than most couples because I know I have to do it all. Most couples I know can’t keep a house clean and kids cared for the way I can on my own. Mine spent less hours in daycare than many couples I know because as a single parent I built my career around my kids, not the reverse.
By RF
December 6, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this
Moose- so what about the 50+ percent of couples who can’t make marriage work? Many of them already have kids. Do we take the kids away from them because they can’t make a marriage/relationship work? Your logic about parenting and its connection to relationships is seriously flawed, but you’re allowed it. Wanting and loving your kids has nothing to do with your ability to keep a marriage. If your spouse cheats and you have kids, should you keep the relationship together just because of the kids?
By Just Being Me
December 6, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this
Murphy - you can’t tell me what MY question at hand is. That is the question at hand. You implied that single women who have children do so for selfish reasons, and the response is that MOST women (single or married) who have children do so for selfish reasons, thereby nullifying your assertion.
Now, to answer YOUR question, I don’t know how many lesbians utilize sperm banks, but I don’t see what that has to do with the topic. If forced to take a guess, I’d say that there’s probably a fairly equivalent amount of hetero and homosexual women utilizing sperm banks.
FatMoose - At the risk of sounding argumentative, I’m going to respond to your earlier post. Here’s what you said with my comments in bold text.
I have to ask myself, why would a woman want to have a child while single?
no more patience looking for a mate (male or female) But a child requires lots of patience
Two totally different kinds of patience. I no longer had the patience to house-train my dog, so I enrolled her in a program. This doesn’t make me an impatient person incapable of raising my child. In the same regard, a person who has decided she is tired of trying to find the right man, isn’t necessarily an impatient person overall.
men are dogs You going to raise a child with that same idiotic notion intact? That is a major issue that is indicative of deeper ones
Not a bad point, but I highly doubt the average woman (who isn’t gay) is going to swear off men and sex with men for the rest of her life. So, even if she thought all men were dogs, that still wouldn’t be her reason for going to a sperm bank to become a single mother.
I do not need a man Granted, that is a possible one, but I doubt, like DX that it is not reactionary bc past burns that have not healed - refer to men/dogs
The woman who says this means that she doesn’t need a male partner to raise a child. She’s right. And, it’s not absolutely reactionary. I don’t believe men are dogs, but I also don’t believe I need a male partner to raise a child. :-)
I have been too busy with my career to find a mate and now my clock is ticking Sounds like evasion - no-one in your office that works as much as you and found a mate? Too busy for a mate, but not a child?
I doubt there are very many women who are so focused on their careers that they can’t date, but have enough time to have a baby. This just seems very unlikely.
And, my biggest issue with what you said, is that it is devoid of so many valid reasons that single women have for opting to bear children alone. Your commentary sounds like you’re saying these are the reasons a woman would want to have children while single and that’s ridiculous. What about a woman who falls under none of those categories, but just wants to have a friggin baby?!!
By Murphy
December 6, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this
RF… Why must I say the same things over and over and over again… Single parent homes can absolutely work. I know several people who grew up with only one parent and they are great people, their mother or father are also great people.
The question at hand was “Is the sperm bank trend among single women a good idea?”
That’s it. Period. End of story. The question was not, “Is parenthood among single women a good idea”? Please don’t cloud the issue of single parenting with the original question. I do not beleive they should be equated because my reasoning for not agreeing with the sperm bank is not based on the idea that single should not be parents.
By Renee
December 6, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this
Akeya… Why are you looking spiffy and less haggard? Is it because you are a single mom, or because you are dumping your kid off at day care?
I’m not Akeya, but I’m jumping in anyway. Let’s say that yes, she drops her kid off at daycare, and for arguments sake, lets say she does it every day except weekends. Is she no longer a great mom? Should her kids be snatched away? So what if she drops HER kids off at daycare? Is she asking anyone here for contributions? And when is it wrong for a parent to not look haggard and spiffy. I mean damn, some people need lives. And who gives you the right to judge someone.
By Nikita
December 6, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this
Just a few comments, none meant to make any particular point:
Screwy kids come from all family configurations — in all cases what increases the chance of non-screwiness is devotion, consistency, etc.
Some of us really like the idea of people simply making the best reproductive (or non-) that works for them. Unfortunately, this ignores the fact that market forces are at work. Specifically, having your own children is a lot easier than acquiring them, and having them the old-fashioned way is easier than having yourself inseminated. “Easier” meaning “with more societal support,” “less expensive,” and more. And in all cases except insemination a single woman will find those routes even harder than they would be for a nuclear family.
My husband and I are exploring adoption of foster care system children at the moment. Like everyone else out there having kids we have ideas about the ideal child, and about a situation that would be mutually beneficial. We’re not infertile, and we’ve spent a lot of time thinking about baby mystique. We don’t have it, and we don’t get it. We don’t necessarily need to raise someone who looks like us or is of our race, either. So we’ve started the foster-adopt exploration with the very clear expectation that we don’t want children under 4, and we don’t want children who are incapable of sharing in the kind of life we lead (which is to say academically-focused). Even though we’re not yet ready (our house is too small — we’re going to have to move or renovate) we’ve been introduced to quite a few children who are fabulous individuals in need of homes. Some are white, some are black — all have been bouncing around the foster care system, handled by a wide variety of people with various motives, for a long time. And I think we’d all be happier if my husband and I were to parent a few of them. We are selfish, and we want to be parents. But we don’t see why we should have children when we don’t particularly like the baby experience and there are many children out there who need homes.
I suppose this comes to a point. Ideally, more people would adopt the children who are already here. There are some incentives to do so, but they’re outweighed for a lot of people by societal attitudes — that children are better off in foster care than with parents of another race, with gay or lesbian or single parents, with atheists, or with anyone who is not a particular agency’s ideal. That DFACS children are unwanted (some are parentless because they were wanted, but their parents are drug addicts or abusive or neglectful), defective, and should simply be warehoused by the state until we can warehouse them in prisons. That having a child is always better than caring for one. You can all imagine what I think of those opinions. But at the same time I recognize that parenthood isn’t entirely altruistic and I respect your right to make the decision that strikes you as right.
By Just Being Me
December 6, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this
RF, your 12:57 is SO on point.
By Murphy
December 6, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this
Oooooh… So now I’m judging. Asking the question is judging? Give me a break.
If people want to toot their own horn about how they are single parents and can keep their house clean, and work, and have lives and blah, blah, blah so much better than married women, I think’s it’s only fair to see if they are actually getting the help they would have gotten had they been in a relationship.
And sorry, but I do think day care sucks. It is a necessary evil b/c our society is going down the crapper.
By Renee
December 6, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this
And sorry, but I do think day care sucks. It is a necessary evil b/c our society is going down the crapper.
Yes, in your opinion it may suck. Subsequently you have the right not to send your children to them. Just know this, because you say it’s so, doesn’t make it so. You have the right to feel however you choose to feel about whatever situation you choose to feel it about, but trying to put other people down because they don’t feel the same as you, is WRONG! It’s called having an open mind. And someone should be able to toot their own horn without some whippersnapper comment from you!!!!!!!!! There are single women who believe they have lives better than a married woman, how can you logically argue that??? How can you say their perception is wrong. If you are married, and you feel that’s best, then stay married. You can even say that you feel like your life is better than a single man’s life (I can’t remember if you are male or female). In your opinion it might be. But your opinion is just that, it’s yours and it’s an opinion; far from fact.
By Just Being Me
December 6, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this
Other than my baby sister, every single person in my family (4 sisters and I, 8 first-cousins, and a 7 nieces and nephews) went to day care/pre-school.
We turned out alright.
This comes back to the same conclusion we drew a few weeks ago: you have to do what works for your family. If day care doesn’t work for your family, stay home with your children. If it does work, drop ‘em off and pick ‘em up.
Also, did anyone see Wife Swap last night? One of the families homeschooled because the parents (not religious, either) were totally against all the evils of public middle and high schools. They had very good points. When the “new mommy” changed the rules, she made the girls go to public school. The highlight of the show was when the girls, without prompt, said that they felt so behind, like they just weren’t learning enough at home (and the parents really didn’t seem very bright)…
By Just Being Me
December 6, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this
Girrrrrrrl, you are preaching today!!!! LOL! Right on, Renee!
Nothing else for me to say, you said it all!
By Just Being Me
December 6, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this
LOLOL! I’m reminded of something my mother used to tell me all the time: Don’t ever try to be the Village Idiot, there’s way too much competition, and if you don’t get that job, you’ll have ruined your chances of getting another.
There’s like a revolving door around here - one goes, another comes in. Sometimes one goes, two or three come in…
(Oh, and idiot doesn’t refer to intelligence, but mental capacity)
By RF
December 6, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this
Murphy- you made some comments about single women and being parents that went beyond the original question, so I was just offering what I felt to be a pertinent response. Not trying to cloud the issue, but you brought up a thread about relationships and single moms, so I gave my two cents. I’m a single dad by the way. Perhaps you didn’t do it intentionally, but your questions and responses seem to imply that you don’t think single parenting is a good thing.
By RF
December 6, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this
Murph—I did see your positive comments about single parents. I get a little uppity I suppose when people start picking about daycare and the idea that single people use it more than married couples. Your question to Akeya was a little bit of a dig, and I don’t think has anything to do with the issue. Sorry if it seemed I was missing something in your posts.
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this
Murphy- I’m looking less haggard because I take care of myself. I have to because I want to do what I can to be healthy to be around to see my child grow into the wonderful young man I know he will become. Nie try with the daycare thing, though. It was cute!
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
RF- In reference to your post, I think that we learned some good values from people. I have learned, as a woman, to not depend on a man to complete me and make me happy. My fiance is a welcome addition to my life, but I will not die if he’s (or anyone with a p***) is not around. In the words of Gloria, I will survive!
By FatMoose
December 6, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this
JBM,
Replies to your reply; and a open honest question at the end:
Two totally different kinds of patience.
Untrue - patience is the same no matter; the “but its different arguement has no foundation. In any case, patience = one must wait regardless of wanting to.
The woman who says this means that she doesn’t need a male partner to raise a child. She’s right. And, it’s not absolutely reactionary.
My orig post already stated it was not absolute. So we agree; you just made it an arguement. “I do not need a man Granted, that is a possible one…” is how I started. Many women DO say this in a reactionary way; bc the notion is viable - but I would not bet on it MOST of the time {and remember, we are dealing with a TREND}.
men are dogs This has been resounded by many females on here many times. So I addressed it.
You wrote: What about a woman who falls under none of those categories, but just wants to have a friggin baby?!!
Fair is fair; I racked my brain and could not come up with many. Actually, my wife and I came up with one: Woman was in a caring/loving long term relationship and lost their significant other to death.
Let me see your list of situations that make sense for a single female to use AI. {not a challange, but open ended curiousity and willingness to learn}
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this
Murphy- the fact that you don’t understand how the topic mentioned and parenting will meet up at some point does not surprise me. Are you purporting that single women going to sperm banks will not, at some point, turn into a discussion about parenting? Also, what daycares are you talking about? Surely you can’t think that ALL daycares are bad? That’s too one sided even for what I have read of your posts. Maybe it irritates you that single parents have it together, contrary to popular belief. Also, I know MANY married women who take on WAY more child rearing and domestic activities than their partner. Perhaps you should take a closer look at this blissful unions.
By Murphy
December 6, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this
Renee… I never put anyone down. I never made a personal attack. I made a backhanded comment, that is far from a personal attack.
Religious people get attacked on this BLOG constantly.
The president gets called names on this BLOG constantly.
Different political groups groups hammered on this BLOG all of the time.
If someone takes questioning a particular behavior as a personal attack then tough noogies. If single women think they have better lives than married women, then fine, let them be single. I never made any comments about being single or even being a single parent, only about being single and taking a withdrawal from the sperm bank.
And… whippersnapper comment? How old are you and how old do you think I am? You can’t remember if I’m a man or a woman b/c I’ve never posted that information. I purposely keep my gender, age, ethnicity and religious beliefs out to keep all y’all guessing.
By RF
December 6, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this
JBM— there’s no village idiot these days. It’s more likely a village OF idiotS…
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this
FATMOOSE- Actually, I tend to have more patience with children than adults. Children are still growing and have to be taught many things. Adults should know certain things and if not, they should have the capacity to figure sh*t out.
Then again, it depends on the subject. When I teach adults how to read I have a lot of patience.
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this
this:these…
By Murphy
December 6, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
Akeya… You seem like an intelligent person, so let me spell it out.
Sperm bank discussions would only lead into parenting if going to the sperm bank was the only way for a single woman to be a parent. Some single women are divorced and have children. Some single women adopt children. Some single women take on the role of parenting from family members in distress. This is admirable and tough work and has NOTHING to do with going to the sperm bank. I never said “take those kids from the single mom.” Distinction is pretty clear to me.
It does not irritate me that single parents have it together. We need them to have it together b/c, unfortunately, we have so many single parents. If they weren’t together, then our society would already have gone the way of the Romans. Why is it so difficult for you to say that children are better off with mom and dad, than simply mom or dad. Probably b/c the father of your children is no longer with you (my sincere condolences if that is the case) or a pile of crap, in that sense you also get my condolences or you sinply didn’t want to be married any more, where I have nothing to say for fear of being labeled “judgemental”.
Day care workers are not bad. Day care facilities are not bad. The IDEA of day care is bad. Who can think it is agood idea to take your three month old, drop them off for 8-10 hours and then pick them up? Noone with a rational mind. Are you even going to attempt to argue that the baby is better off at daycare rather than in their mother’s arms. If so, maybe you’re not as bright as thought you were.
Of course, you’ll say… “Well the mother needs to work, blah, blah, blah…” Well, unfortunately you’re correct and that is why I said “necessary evil.”
By Renee
December 6, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
Renee… I never put anyone down. I never made a personal attack. I made a backhanded comment, that is far from a personal attack
If you don’t think that was a put down then I would love to see a real put down. Oh, I’m sorry, you call it backhanded comment (I say tomato, you say tomahto).
Religious people get attacked on this BLOG constantly.
And?
The president gets called names on this BLOG constantly.
And? Does this personally offend you, or even better, does this pertain to what we were discussin? This is taking into account that we are not discussing name calling, just put downs (the tomato tohmato thing).
Different political groups groups hammered on this BLOG all of the time.
Again, and??????????
I never made any comments about being single or even being a single parent, only about being single and taking a withdrawal from the sperm bank.
Your comments continued into parenting, that as Akeya pointed out the conversation drifted into from the original discussion. Your comment to Akeya had to do with making withdrawals from a sperm bank?
And… whippersnapper comment? How old are you and how old do you think I am? You can’t remember if I’m a man or a woman b/c I’ve never posted that information. I purposely keep my gender, age, ethnicity and religious beliefs out to keep all y’all guessing
Ummm….I haven’t guessed not one time, at your gender, age, ethnicity etc. Probably because I don’t care (if you don’t share, I don’t care). As to your age, ummm…again doesn’t matter, nor does mine. But in the words of Cedric the Entertainer. “I’m a grown a-s-s wo(man)!”
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
nie:nice
By Just Being Me
December 6, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this
ROFL @ RF!!!! Hilarious… and true!
FatMoose:
Point: No one situation can determine whether a person is patient, or impatient.
Your initial post said that this comment was reactionary. My response is that it’s not necessarily reactionary. Some women (as you acknowledged in your 2:11) do make this comment in a reactionary way, but not all do. Actually, that’s neither here nor there. In the grand scheme of things, it really doesn’t make a difference. I was just pointing out that you shouldn’t make blanket statements like that.
I guess I haven’t been around long enough to hear that comment. Thusfar, I haven’t heard anyone calling men dogs. But, like I said, even if a woman does say that, it doesn’t mean that she’s on her way to the sperm bank.
You and your wife must not have looked very far. In fact, I would venture to say that a great deal (if not a majority) of the single women who plan pregnancies don’t fall under any of those categories you listed, and simply want to have a baby.
I can’t give you a list of situations that “make sense” for a woman to use artificial insemination because that’s too subjective. What makes sense to one may not make sense to another. Just ask Murphy.
By Just Being Me
December 6, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
Murphy, you are EXTREMELY condesending. If I had nothing better to do, I would compile a list of some of your quotes to show you just how much of an _ you’ve been.
By The72John
December 6, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this
Why is it so difficult for you to say that children are better off with mom and dad, than simply mom or dad.
Because it isn’t the case. Absolutes in regards to child rearing are silly and counterproductive. Two-parent mom/dad homes are the NORM, but that doesn’t make them any more or less effective than any other family form. The ONLY determining factor is the love and support offered by the parent or parents to the child.
The ONLY measure of any value is how the child turns out and what a parent or parents contributes to that ubringing.
Where are all these perfect families going to come from, by the way? It’s fine to say “Oh, the mom/dad household is the best, and the mom shouldn’t work, and if we aren’t fitting this ideal we’re just going to hell”, but where is the REAL world in that statement?
Some two-parent families suck. Some single parents are awesome. And vice versa. Get over it - Donna Reed is dead and so is Daddy Knows Best. The 50’s are over, and they were never really that great to begin with, whatever people make you want to think.
Focus on the child rather than the form in which that children is raised.
By The72John
December 6, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
that children? Good lord, I’m tired.
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this
Murphy- It’s not difficult because it is not my belief that children are always better off having mom and dad. I had not planned on my son’s “father” being in the picture, so no condolensces necessary. Thank you, though :) I have never been married. I am, however, engaged. Where are you getting the idea that I never want to get married, and again?
I won’t say the mother needs to work. There are many very bright women who enjoy using their talents and education outside of the home. I prefer not to sit around the house all day baking cookies, cleaning, and attending infant music classes (now that’s a load of crap). The people at my son’s daycare are loving and nurturing. Riddle me this: What’s the problem with people who truly enjoy working with children being given that opportunity? Notice I said TRULY-not some of the providers that I saw when I was working at DFCS. I would not darken the doorstep of a daycare that would hire some of my old clients.
Also, when does a Woman to Woman blog not get steered off into another direction?
By lozen
December 6, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
Big ole Fat White Moose couldn’t wait to take a jab at me. He thinks I’m a joke; I must be living right; I didn’t say anything except I agree with Vince ;-).
By FatMoose December 6, 2005 12:44 PM | Link to this Lozen, What would your advise be to the 13-18yo girls on TV each day that want to have a child for someone to love and to love them back? Should men not have an opinion because they do not have a v*? I do not think that organ assists in critical realistic thinking… You are a joke.*
Why are you so angry FatMoose? V**** envy perhaps ;-) We were not discussing 13-18 year old girls on TV. Besides I’m at work every day so I don’t get to watch those shows. I have seen one or two when I’ve been home sick. Don’t believe everything you see on TV. I work with college age students every day who won’t have any kids until they’re in their late 20’s or early 30’s because they will go to graduate school or med school. I am with real people, not tv people! Anyway, person who cannot have an opinion because you don’t have a v* ;-) they aren’t asking me what to do. They aren’t asking you what to do.
By Renee
December 6, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
I pass my torch to John! Excellent post!
Didn’t forget about you JBM, excellent also!
By RF
December 6, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this
72John- I may have disagreed with you every now and then, but today you are right on the money!! That last post needs to be framed for the critics of single-parent families!!
Murphy- I used to agree with you about daycares until I found myself needing one. I checked into small in-home daycares and larger school setting daycares. Mine may have been an exception, but I had a wonderful large daycare with caring workers who taught my kids things I wouldn’t have had the resources to know about at the time. I didn’t have all the materials and knowledge about intellectual development that they did, and they used it to help my kids. Daycare actually taught them how to socialize, make choices, and all the learning basics to get them ready for school. I used to pop in all the time unannounced and got to see the teachers in action. Not all daycares are that good, but many are and they can be good for the kids.
By singlemom
December 6, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
And in reading some more I found that Australia is banning this, (in-vitro for single women)…oh and get this in our own backyard Indiana is trying to pass this bill also!!!
Prohibiting gay/lesbian and single women from being able to have in-vitro fertilization.
For goodness sakes, in the our own “free” country we are now having the state dictate who can/can’t be parents?
Oh that’s right most states already do by not allowing gays/lesbians to adopt-so let’s move right along to prohibit them from in-vitro. And see then what’s next? To make conservatives happy will outlaw in all states single women from in-vitro (in case she lies about having a partner) and then we’ll prohibit adoption and we’ll be set. Our country will back in line to morality and ethics and good christian values where all children have two hetero parents. (please I want to vomit!) (With liberty and justice for all, yeah right!) Oh and btw I am a Christian myself (liberal I might add) but this is just sick! Sorry for the ramblings everyone
By lozen
December 6, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this
Each woman should only do one thing; what she wants and needs to do. If she wants to go to a sperm bank and have a child, more power to her. If she wants to have an abortion and never have a child, more power to her! Always remember ladies, the interests of an old, tired, patriarchal system of moral values are not in our best interest. Thankfully we don’t have to follow Van’s patriarchal moral rules anymore. During the 60’s and 70’s we looked at that system of values that told us our offspring were “bastards” if we didn’t have a piece of paper signed by a father/man, sealed by the state, and sanctified by the church. The same system that called us sluts and the males who impregnated us “studs”. The same system that vilified us for not “keeping our legs together” while it slapped the male who impregnated us on the back and winked at him. Many of us realized how ridiculous it was to label our beautiful babies “illegitimate” because we didn’t have that piece of paper/that man. So we chucked that system of moral values and replaced it with our own values that are much more functional, realistic, child-valuing and woman- valuing. We’re free to do whatever makes us happy. And that really, really upsets a lot of “people”. Tooooo bad!
By blablabla
December 6, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this
lozen,
i wouldn’t hitch my wagon to vince.
he thinks that any discussion or limits on women going to sperm banks is all controlled by straight white men who subtly want to control womens’ lives. AS IF. vince said if you can’t give birth, you don’t get to have an opinion on reproduction or single parenting (apparently ignoring the obvious situation where a father is a single parent). vince basically said this discussion is akin to only being able to ejaculate three times per year, or having your nuts cut off.
vince is off his rocker. the original post was foolish enough. you’re making him look worse by re-posting it.
By Murphy
December 6, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
Renee… If people can hammer religious folks, the President and any other groups on this BLOG, then I don’t want to hear whining about me making comments about lifestyles or choices made by folks on the BLOG.
Turnabout is fair play.
As for parenting… I never made any derogatory commments about single parents, only about a single woman going out and impregnating herself with bought sperm.
Single women at the sperm bank bad. Single parents doing their darndest good.
Akeya… There is more to being a mother than baking cookies and going to infant music classes (which I also thing are a load of crap).
We know that human touch, skin to skin, especially with the mother, is possibly the most important thing those little critters need.
Is it so awful to stay at home with the little munchkins for (GASP!) a few years before they head off to school?
Sorry your man was a pile of crap. Too bad for your kids, because they would be better off with him, if he wasn’t a pile of crap. And that’s the point. Why not wait until you find a guy who isn’t a pile crap and then have babies?
And you’re right, the woman 2 woman BLOG does always go off in tangents, but I don’t want my opinion misrepresented. I am trying to stay on topic of single women going to the sperm bank. Everyone else wants to justify their own lifestyle.
By singlemom
December 6, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this
Great post lozen! I can never understand the need of the “people” to go back to the era where not only the women who were pg and had children out of wedlock were shunned, treated like crap, lived in poverty, discriminated agains…and then her INNOCENT child was shunend, ridiculed, insulted, mistreated by other children and adults, creating an atmosphere of misery, hopelessness and hatred with SO small an opportunity to overcome and become a great person. Yet THOSE are the days these “people” yearn for???????? Those that tout the ridiculous 50’s era “benefits” need to pick up a sociology book and discover it wasn’t so golden after all. I thank god i live in a society that encourages, loves, supports, help, praises and lifts the single parents of the world…hence where they do a great job, there children turn out to be welcome members of society. They have so much better opportunity at life and ALL it’s priveleges regardless of their parents marital status. I applaud our younge generations for getting us where we are at…I applaud women for standing up to being cast in the shadows w/their “bastards”. I shun and say “shame on you” to those that would prefer to take us back to that awful, hateful, spiteful, “golden era”. (More ramblings)
By blablabla
December 6, 2005 03:27 PM | Link to this
much better post second time around, lozen.
By GoodOleDays?
December 6, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
What were they talking about back in the good ole days?
Why, even earlier good ole days.
By amber
December 6, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
Someone said, “Let me see your list of situations that make sense for a single female to use AI. {not a challange, but open ended curiousity and willingness to learn}”
By FatMoose
December 6, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
Just Being Me,
Really laughing at this contradiction:
You insult with:
You and your wife must not have looked very far. In fact, I would venture to say that a great deal (if not a majority) of the single women who plan pregnancies don’t fall under any of those categories you listed, and simply want to have a baby.
Then state yourself:
I can’t give you a list of situations that “make sense� for a woman to use artificial insemination because that’s too subjective.
I opened the door, and you cannot walk through it.
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this
Murphy- I know that there is more to motherhood than baking cookies, etc. I live it every day, and I enjoy it immensely. It’s not awful to stay at home with them. For SOME WOMEN that’s fine. I stayed home with my son the first 2 months after he was born, and guess what? He’s not detached from me. I breastfed for 21 months, the first few months exclusively-no formula for my boy!! We bonded then without him being attached to my hip 24/7 and we still bond now. It’s really wonderful. We have a date tonight to watch Charlie Brown Christmas and then the last 30 minutes of Little House on the Prairie. We’ll eat warm chicken, avocado, and tomato salad and possibly I’ll grill up some chops and some Mexican rice. Ahhh…the joys of being a mother.
My fiance is not a pile of crap. What are you talking about?
Why not wait until you find a guy who isn’t a pile crap and then have babies?
Murphy, Murphy…you still don’t get it. It’s too daunting to even keep repeating why that statement just doesn’t cut it. I don’t want to be 40 years old, marrying for the first time and struggling with infertility because I just HAD to wait for Prince Charming. For some women, that may be okay, but not for me. Our lives are not carbon copies of other people’s, and what works for one woman will not always work for me.
By The72John
December 6, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this
And that’s the point. Why not wait until you find a guy who isn’t a pile crap and then have babies?
Darn those falible humans and their inability to predict the future.
By Renee
December 6, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this
Murphy, okay let’s go back to the single women going to the sperm bank.
Let’s say right now a single woman is headed to a sperm bank as we speak. She has no man or woman in her life, just her. She wants a baby and she doesn’t want to adopt. Next week she finds out the insemination was a complete success. How does this affect you personally? Not what could possibly happen, not what circumstances could present themselves, but how does this affect you, at all?
My problem is that people (including yourself) have your views and opinions (which you may call morals) which in addition to trying to push off on someone or put someone down for not agreeing, will attempt to have this pushed into the legislature. Because you feel one way makes it so?? Because you feel that way it should be so, if it’s not so???
Here’s the equivalent. I’m a lesbian. In my opinion, lesbian is the way to go. Now what if I feel like all women should be lesbians. I make condescending comments to women that don’t feel as I do, and tell them how a man is the most terrible thing ever. I get other lesbians who feel as I do and lobby to have all women required to be a lesbian, for the betterment of society. Not only have I tried to force my views on a whole group of people who do not feel as I do, but now I have affected a group that had nothing to do with my quest, men. If all women are lesbians, now the men have to become gay. Trying to force people into your way of thinking or put them down is nothing but boosting yourself up. Again my question stands, how does it affect you personally if a woman gets inseminated (a single woman, a lesbian woman, a man who wants to be for the fun of it, anybody).
By RF
December 6, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
I am trying to stay on topic of single women going to the sperm bank. Everyone else wants to justify their own lifestyle.
Well, now that’s a good way to stay on topic and NOT elicit response from others…
Murphy- it’s OKAY to stray from the original topic and express opinions. The debate and attack from others is also part of it. Just accept the fact that you have made comments that elicited response.
If people want to toot their own horn about how they are single parents and can keep their house clean, and work, and have lives and blah, blah, blah so much better than married women, I think’s it’s only fair to see if they are actually getting the help they would have gotten had they been in a relationship.
Who can think it is agood idea to take your three month old, drop them off for 8-10 hours and then pick them up? Noone with a rational mind. Are you even going to attempt to argue that the baby is better off at daycare rather than in their mother’s arms. If so, maybe you’re not as bright as thought you were
Those sounds like off-topic opinions which are thus subject to interpretation and/or misinterpretation. All part of blogging in this forum. People will return opinions and have the right to.
By Jason
December 6, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this
As a single 20-something guy who plans on having kids and raising a family some day, I have no problem with women electing to have sperm banks as the father of their children. I also have no problem with them being single moms. If that’s what they want, more power to them. However, if they realize that being a single mom is harder than they thought, or if they get sick or lose their jobs, it should not be my burden or society’s burden to assist these women who have made the personal decision to have a child from a non-traditional venue. If you single women out there want a child without a father figure, you had better be prepared to handle all aspects of child-rearing, including the chance that you may have to do it alone and unassisted if something goes wrong. Knock yourselves out, femenazis.
By lozen
December 6, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this
Singlemom, thanks. Change is not easy and some will always fight it particularly if they see themselves losing something in that change. I hated the 50’s with its rigid rules and expectations, esp. for females. The unhappiness of all those women of the 50’s led to the 2nd wave of feminism in the 60’s! Maybe this conservative up-swelling we’re enduring now will lead to something like the 60’s again! It sounds as if you’re taking good care of yourself and your child. Do what’s right for you and ignore those who try to make you feel bad in any way. We don’t care what they think.
By Renee
December 6, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
That’s a fair statement Jason.
RF - good post!
By FatMoose
December 6, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this
We are not talking about specific instances people; but the trend. Seeing as we all seem to agree that most people are still developing, the trend is laden with THESE SAME PEOPLE.
We also, are not talking about rights, but if it is good or bad IN GENERAL; which is the question - so generalization is a must.
Many of you get so worked up and hostile when one points out the issues and are making it a personal issue. That is your issue, not mine.
Worrysome when one internalizes a debate so quickly.
**If someone is ready and sound menatlly to care for a child; go for it; but I do have issue with giving everyone the credit of being mature and sound - that you must earn; and I am not going to act ignorant of what the population actually consists of.
Lozen, try working with highschoolers in rural areas, and overcrowded urban areas; you will see what I am talking about. These girls want to have children for someone to love and to love them - but are mentally unready. MANY adults (including married couples - but they are not the topic today) also are in this catagory.
By Murphy
December 6, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this
Renee… She wants, she wants, she wants… Self absorption. I get the point. People want lots of things, things that are ven legal, but don’t get them. Why? The betterment of the bigger picture.
One isolated instance of a single woman in the sperm bank does not make a difference in my specific life, you are correct. But as that number increases, it starts to alter society. It starts to devalue the idea that a child should be with their mother and father. Before you know it, it becomes the norm to have children running around not knowing who their parents are.
When it gets to that point, it does start to affect me, because it affects the morality of the society as inch by inch, brick by brick it loses any sense of structure and order. Without that structure and order you have chaos and then eventually it’s final demise.
Perhaps that’s exactly what you want… The demise of our society.
BTW… The fifties weren’t perfect, but there is a reason why people wax petic about it. For all of the limitations, it was far from awful. We did not have nearly the issues today that we had then with crime, safety, economics that we do now. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water, why not look at the great things from those people, aptly called the “Greatest Generation” and learn from their achievements and mistakes.
Akeya… Your fiance is not the father of your children, if I remember correctly. Apparently, that dude, the father of your children, was a pile of crap, or you would still be with him, since you indicated he had not passed away.
By RF
December 6, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this
Jason— what about us single dads, who CHOSE to become single dads? What word would you choose to describe us??
Feminazis????—can’t you read? The single moms on here are all successful, committed, and hard working. They’re dealing with the problems, or is that too hard for you to believe?
Like I said, instead of the village idiot, we have a village of idiots…
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this
Murphy- You’re still not understanding…. I have one child. His father and I were not “together.” His biological father was actually very intelligent, athletic, hard-working, and handsome. He was a good guy, maybe not by your standards, but King Kong couldn’t scale your standards, I imagine.
By Renee
December 6, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
This is why we can’t have a discussion. Allowing someone to do something that you feel is immoral will lead to the demise of our society. Too funny. I would even say you had a better argument (maybe, just maybe)if all single women were hopping to sperm banks. The handful of single women who will withdraw from the sperm bank I assure you won’t bring the demise of our society. TOOOO funny!!!!!!
BTW… The fifties weren’t perfect, but there is a reason why people wax petic about it. For all of the limitations, it was far from awful. We did not have nearly the issues today that we had then with crime, safety, economics that we do now. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water, why not look at the great things from those people, aptly called the “Greatest Generation� and learn from their achievements and mistakes.
I hardly take the 50’s to heart as the “Greatest Generation”. But I think the paragraph sums up basically that your mind is not open to anything but what you believe to be fact, and that is your right. I can guarantee you that somebody from the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, hell even the 2000’s could teach us all something. When you feel you are too great to learn, and you are the ultimate, then there is no need to continue going back and forth.
Murphy, I’m forever humble to you, your greatness, the almighty.
On another note, I’m seriously thinking of going on my lesbian conversion quest. LOL LOL
By Jason
December 6, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
RF-
Jason— what about us single dads, who CHOSE to become single dads? What word would you choose to describe us??
Did you go to an egg bank to get that child and choose to rear that kid yourself? Didn’t think so. That’s not relevant to this discussion. (How the he|| do you choose) to be a single dad anyway? Get a divorce and custody of the child? That’s a rarity for single dads out there).
Feminazis????—can’t you read? The single moms on here are all successful, committed, and hard working. They’re dealing with the problems, or is that too hard for you to believe?
Ok maybe that was a little harsh. However, if their problems become my problems as in my post examples above, then it sure does become my problem. There are a lot of kids in foster homes from single moms who either got sick or died or decided they could not take care of them, and a lot of those kids grow up to be problematic. That damn sure IS my problem.
Like I said, instead of the village idiot, we have a village of idiots…
It only takes a village of idiots if said idiots think it takes a village to raise a child and not an individual family.
By Murphy
December 6, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this
Akeya… Then I hope that little guy has a great relationship with his father.
Actually, my standards are pretty basic: Stay committed to your wife/husband, take care of your kids. You do that and you’re much further ahead than most.
Perhaps that sounds like King Kong for some folks. If so, I could only shake my head.
By Red
December 6, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this
Commenting on this:
Just being me said: Red & Murphy - What about a single woman who is financially and emotionally stable, and otherwise prepared to raise children - and wants to experience childbirth? What about the natural instinct many women have to bear children? Should a woman just struggle all the days of her life to ignore those instinctual feelings just because she’s unmarried?
My answer would be that as a male, I have a natural instict to have sex with as many women as possible. Should I have to struggle all the days of my life (at least since I married) to ignore those instinctual feelings? Of course I should! Because that kind of behavior is not good for the institution of marriage or for society. An imperfect analogy, I’ll admit, but you get the point. In my opinion single women should not be deliberately having children, despite their yearnings, because, generally it has a detrimental effect on children and thus on society. Notice that your point is all about the woman’s feelings and not about what is in the best interest of children.
Someone else, I don’t remember who, said: I read the comments from the men who take their role seriously as parents, but these men are not the norm anymore.
My experience is that most fathers take their roles as fathers very seriously. Maybe you don’t associate with the right people.
RF said: That last post needs to be framed for the critics of single-parent families!!
Most of the comments that I read that were against the idea of single women going to the sperm bank were against just that—not single parenthood. Why is it that so many single parents insist on turning a comment such as, “Children are better off with both parents,” into an attack? Obviously, divorce, death and accidental pregnancy can create a situation in which a parent finds themselves alone and rearing children. That is not the same as when an unmarried woman deliberately gets herself pregnant, through artificial insemination or otherwise. Do the parents who went through a divorce really think that their children are better off than they would have been in a happy, two-parent home? Same question for widows and widowers? Are you vociferous defenders of single parenthood actually unable to distinguish between the two issues? Or, are you just eager to go on a rant to make yourselves feel better?
By Murphy
December 6, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this
AMEN JASON!
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this
As you see it, Murphy sweet smile
By FatMoose
December 6, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this
We don’t care what they think.
Someone cares, the question is on a blog.
By Murphy
December 6, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this
Akeya… So I guess you do think those standards a little to tough???
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this
RED- So in your opinion, women should just wait around for Prince Charming to come around to impregnate her? How does this pan out for those who wish to be mothers who don’t find Mr. Right until she is in her late 30’s, 40’s? Women’s fertility starts to wane around 28 years old. I suppose we are to settle for whoever comes along, as long as there is a mom and dad there, eh? Never mind abuse, infidelity, emotional stress, etc…
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
Murphy- NO, my standards are actually tougher than that. It sounds like all you think is needed is a pulse and a p***.
By Quoter
December 6, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this
“Life engenderers life. Energy creates energy. It is by spending oneself that one becomes rich.”
Sarah Bernhardt
By Renee
December 6, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this
Akeya - it doesn’t matter. You need to wait and have a two parent household (for the betterment of society). Haven’t you been paying attention!!!!! ;)
By FatMoose
December 6, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this
Most of the comments that I read that were against the idea of single women going to the sperm bank were against just that—not single parenthood.
Someone can read!
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this
Single woman going to sperm bank -> single parenthood (maybe for a while for some)
By Netbanker
December 6, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this
OIY! Meetings all afternoon and no time to catch up with the discussion to post meaningfully so I’ll have to do that tomorrow. Have a wonderful evening everyone!
By FatMoose
December 6, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this
And now we are back to why I posted a list, and asked for additions to it, regarding what would get one there.
So in your opinion, women should just wait around for Prince Charming to come around to impregnate her? How does this pan out for those who wish to be mothers who don’t find Mr. Right until she is in her late 30’s, 40’s? Women’s fertility starts to wane around 28 years old. I suppose we are to settle for whoever comes along, as long as there is a mom and dad there, eh? Never mind abuse, infidelity, emotional stress, etc…
Can this happen? Yes. Is it the norm? No - not without issues most of the time.
By Just Being Me
December 6, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this
FatMoose - That comment was definitely not meant to be insulting. I’m sorry if it came across that way.
I meant what I said, though (just not in a derogatory way). You and your wife couldn’t possibly have looked very far if you say that you couldn’t come up with any women who aren’t tired of waiting on a man, don’t think that men are dogs, and aren’t too busy with their careers; but just want to have a baby.
There are gazillions of women who want to have babies and don’t think that men are all dogs, or aren’t extremely career-driven, etc.
You often accuse me of not being able to answer your questions. Let me clarify this for once and for all. I can answer this last question, just as I could answer the others. Sometimes your writing is difficult to comprehend. I will admit I often have a hard time understanding what you are saying or asking. I usually ask questions to decode the question, or ask you to rephrase it.
This recent question is a subjective one. You are asking me to tell you all the “sensible” reasons for XYZ, when sensible depends on the person who’s interpreting the answer. What is sensible to me may not be sensible to you. If you want to rephrase the question to:
What situations do you think are appropriate for a woman to use artificial insemination
I can answer that.
Here’s my list:
Is that sufficient?
Fair is fair; I racked my brain and could not come up with many. Actually, my wife and I came up with one: Woman was in a caring/loving long term relationship and lost their significant other to death.
By Just Being Me
December 6, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this
FatMoose - That comment was definitely not meant to be insulting. I’m sorry if it came across that way.
I meant what I said, though (just not in a derogatory way). You and your wife couldn’t possibly have looked very far if you say that you couldn’t come up with any women who aren’t tired of waiting on a man, don’t think that men are dogs, and aren’t too busy with their careers; but just want to have a baby.
There are gazillions of women who want to have babies and don’t think that men are all dogs, or aren’t extremely career-driven, etc.
You often accuse me of not being able to answer your questions. Let me clarify this for once and for all. I can answer this last question, just as I could answer the others. Sometimes your writing is difficult to comprehend. I will admit I often have a hard time understanding what you are saying or asking. I usually ask questions to decode the question, or ask you to rephrase it.
This recent question is a subjective one. You are asking me to tell you all the “sensible” reasons for XYZ, when sensible depends on the person who’s interpreting the answer. What is sensible to me may not be sensible to you. If you want to rephrase the question to:
What situations do you think are appropriate for a woman to use artificial insemination
I can answer that.
Here’s my list:
Is that sufficient?
By FatMoose
December 6, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this
But basic college sybolic logic shows that:
Single woman going to sperm bank -> single parenthood does not equal single parenthood -> Single woman going to sperm bank
Get it?
By FatMoose
December 6, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this
But basic college symbolic logic shows that:
Single woman going to sperm bank -> single parenthood does not equal single parenthood -> Single woman had gone to sperm bank
Get it?
By singlemom
December 6, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
hmmm…i will go out on a limb and say that these moms that choose in-vitro probably are well-educated, self supported and financially stable women. I assume just like any or most single parents (especially those that choose deliberately that route) that they have jobs, that they have life insurance and long term disability insurance…i know as a single working mom of two…i’ve made sure that if anythig happens to me they wil have life insurance and loving family to care for them. If i get sick, my long term disability kicks in…if i’m out of a job i’d continue paying insurance fees until I quickly find another job w/these options. Again, most women that go to these are very educated and ready to deal with this child alone…so I don’t see it being a weigh down on society as you put it. And again the golden era….there is a reason that people mystify/glorify this era…i assume it will happen with every generation, again I strongly suggest picking up some sociology books and reading the TRUTHS about the 50’s so many tout about. YOU just MIGHT learn the truth. I live in a society today where women have the liberties they do, where slavery doesn’t exist, where children of single parents homes are encouraged not scorned, where “for the most part” there is growing tolerance to other peoples choices/religion/etc…non-existant back then. I see society as getting better not worse. And our children (from single parent homes included) will probably contribute to making it more loving, open, tolerant, accepting and encouraging even. I look forward to good change and tolerance and peace. Most woudl agree with me you and your “old timers” made your choices and the society you lived in….and your children choose differently and better today. It’s not an insult but they learned from past mistakes I say, just as I’m sure my sons will learn from some of mine.
By Mike K.
December 6, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this
So if I marry, and my wife gets pregnant, and I’m not ready for children because I am immature and not ready to settle down, how will that play out with my interaction with the child? I’m used to my wife and I going out and having a good time and enjoying each other’s company. We can stay out as late as we want, pick up and go to the mountains when we want, be selfish. Is that good for the child?
By FatMoose
December 6, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this
And; Because she wants a baby and does not have a male partner. {is a given…} can be broken further down into reasons “why she has no partner”; and to state there are no available/viable partners is absurd. So, start your list as to why this person would be 35-45, and in that situation.
You did NOT answer my question, yet.
By Akeya
December 6, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this
FatMoose- no. I think that discussing single women going to a sperm bank can go into a discussion about single parenthood. How does it not apply?
By lozen
December 6, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this
These girls want to have children for someone to love and to love them - but are mentally unready. MANY adults (including married couples - but they are not the topic today) also are in this catagory. Fatmoose, that makes no sense. “These girls wanting to have children for someone to love them” are not the topic today either. Is the sperm bank trend among single women a good idea?…that’s the topic. And now that I really think about it, it’s another inconsequential question. Woman to Woman is so good at picking the insignifcant it’s amazing. How many single women really have the money and/or the time off from work to avail themselves of the local sperm bank? If we had the percentage it would show how vapid this question is. Now Jason, how many children gotten from the sperm bank do you think are going to become your problem? It’s the children gotten from the thousands of males who leave the woman and child to fend for themselves that you need to be worrying about.
By Red
December 6, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this
Akeya said: RED- So in your opinion, women should just wait around for Prince Charming to come around to impregnate her? How does this pan out for those who wish to be mothers who don’t find Mr. Right until she is in her late 30’s, 40’s? Women’s fertility starts to wane around 28 years old. I suppose we are to settle for whoever comes along, as long as there is a mom and dad there, eh? Never mind abuse, infidelity, emotional stress, etc…
Akeya, I doubt that you will like my answer, but I don’t factor Prince Charming into the equation at all. If the woman doesn’t get married, she shouldn’t be deliberately trying to have children in my opinion. I don’t really care about her fertility. I do understand the pain and sense of loss that might accompany that situation. My sister, who is two years younger than I am, has never married and, thus has never had children. It was not her choice not to marry, things just never worked out for her. Although I’m sorry she never was able to experience motherhood, I think she made the correct decision not to pursue motherhood without benefit of marriage. She has a great job, making pretty good money, she lives with our mother and, God bless her, takes really good care of her and she does a lot of volunteer work. She has a great life. She would have liked to have children, but she’s not that self indugent. I have four children. I love all four of them as I love my own life. I worked like a dog when they were little to give them a good life and I was very involved in their day-to-day raising. That said, if I had never married or never had children, I still could have had a great life. Children are great, but they’re not all there is to life.
And I’ll add what I put in my earlier post: Notice that your point is all about the woman’s feelings and not about what is in the best interest of children.
By FatMoose
December 6, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this
that these moms that choose in-vitro probably are well-educated, self supported and financially stable women.
Then why can they not find a mate? We are back to my list…again. {there are lots of guys, and not all dogs dying to meet these women!}
By Renee
December 6, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this
By Just Being Me
December 6, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this
FatMoose - I did answer your question. Now, if you want to pose a different question (such as please break further down into reasons “why she has no partnerâ€?; and to state there are no available/viable partners is absurd. So, start your list as to why this person would be 35-45, and in that situation.), I’ll answer that too. But, don’t start that nonsense of accusing me of skirting questions. I’ve never once (here or anywhere else) avoided a question. I’ve already told you, I have a very hard time understanding what you’re trying to say.
To answer your newest question, she may not have a male partner because: 1. She is gay. 2. She hasn’t met a man that she finds attractive, and/or wants to sleep with and/or make a baby with. 3. She is shy, and has a hard time meeting men. 4. She doesn’t socialize very much, so hasn’t had many dates (hence, many relationships). 5. Men may not find her attractive. 6. She may have just completed a doctorate, and is just becoming ready to “settle down” to raise a family. 7. She may have just accomplished her career goal, and is just becoming ready to “settle down” to raise a family. 8. She may have some psychological problems that makes it difficult for her to have sexual intercourse, thus making her unattractive to some men (or causing her to not be interested in pursuing a sexual relationship). 9. She may have a low sex drive, making her unattractive to some men.
That should get you started…
By Renee
December 6, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this
Maybe they are well-educated, self supported and financially stable, but are extremely unattractive, maybe they drool when they talk, maybe they have buck teeth protruding out of their face, maybe they don’t like the company of men (doesn’t mean they are gay), maybe for religious reasons they can’t date, the list goes on and on. Maybe they just haven’t found what they are looking for.
By FatMoose
December 6, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this
Lozen,
Cynility? I was refering to previous post that is now moot for me anyhoo — jeeze a conversation with you in person better be more lucid!
Akeya,
How does it not apply? Double Jeeze - I just showed that there is a direct line in one and not another. Here is another: all dogs have four legs, all four legged things are not dogs.
Too join the two is evasion of topic, which in relationships frustrates (its purpose actually) and deviates the topics out of fear or no arguement.
Back to simplicity: In the case where a woman is grown and healthy of mind and maturity; go for it.
But, Lets turn it around: just as I would not trust a trend (topic here!) of guys of having a woman have his baby to raise on his own; because of the issues associated with not even being able to find a half-a*******ed mate - much less a “princess charming”; I would not trust the trend of single women getting AI.
Does that help with the notion of controling females? I do not think the issue is healthy in most cases, for good reason - period.
By Jack
December 7, 2005 08:08 AM | Link to this
Notice that your point is all about the woman’s feelings and not about what is in the best interest of children. AMEN Red. Those of you who think 1 parent is better than 2, where BOTH members of the couple are loving and caring need help. Don’t twist it. I am NOT talking about one member of the couple being a pig or disfunctional.
By Vince
December 7, 2005 08:10 AM | Link to this
Suggesting that a well educated, financially stable woman artificially inseminates because she isn’t attractive enough to snag a husband is once again a subtle attempt by the mainstream white heterosexual American male to dominate and control women. Aesthetics have nothing to do with a woman’s right to choose how she controls her body, and certainly is the farthest thing from truth. By making a comment like, “she must be unattractive to go do that� is a passive aggressive way of saying, “If you want a husband and a family, try bulimia and plastic surgery. Try to look like one of those girls who dance in front of a bonfire during beer commercials.� A woman’s right to have a child on her own is a spiritual and responsible decision, not one made out of lonely desperation. And, I have refrained from making personal comments on this board, because I am not a bigot, but that last comment only leads me to breaking my rule. That is a very piggish thing to say and I would suggest you think about your mother, sister (s), aunts, grandmother, girlfriends and women you know in general before making degrading slanders against women.
By Renee
December 7, 2005 08:36 AM | Link to this
Hi Jack. I’m not saying it would be better just not worse and it’s automatically assumed. Glad you’re joining us today!
By Jack
December 7, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this
Hi Renee’. Good subject this week. Bet it’s cold up there. Bundle up, hot chocolate!
By Murphy
December 7, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this
This topic, like so many others discussed on this particular BLOG, is really about the glorification of the self.
Our society has completely devolved into a “me-first” attitude. Rather than building family and building community, we are worried about the feelings of the individual. That leads to disconnection and isolation.
When the founders of this nation protected the liberites of the individual, I do not believe they could have conceived the selfish attitudes that have hijacked those principles. The founders were anything but selfish. they were willing to risk everything they had for the betterment of all. In fact, many of them paid very dearly with desititution and even death.
Shucks… In this day and age, we can’t even expect to say “Merry Christmas” without some maroon getting offended.
By Renee
December 7, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this
Yes, it’s defintitely cold. Makes me miss Gawja. Snow has been threatened but we havent had much accumulation. But, I have lots of hot chocolate and apple cider!
By Randy
December 7, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this
Let them get offended Murphy, there isn’t enough of them to worry about(ones who get offended by Merry Christmas). That is the problem with the world today, the selfish and self-centered 5%, who don’t want Christmas said, wants to tell the 95% of the rest of us what to do. But their game is about over.
By Jack
December 7, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this
Political correctness will be the downfall for this great country. Merry Christmas to all!
By Just Being Me
December 7, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this
Vince, your 8:10a is wonderful.
Jack, glad to have you back. You were missed (even though I totally disagree with you on this subject) :-)
By Just Being Me
December 7, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this
And, I’m STILL cracking up over your 5:01 yesterday, Renee!!!!!!
By blablabla
December 7, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this
vince,
i’m fine w everything you said except this:
Suggesting that a well educated, financially stable woman artificially inseminates because she isn’t attractive enough to snag a husband is once again a subtle attempt by the mainstream white heterosexual American male to dominate and control women.
what is it with you and thinking everything has to do with straight white men? is vince just a fake moniker? do you really wish you were a straight white man, and you’re p** that you weren’t invited to the special club?
By Jack
December 7, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this
Blablabla. Shhhhhhh! Don’t tell him about the club. Remember the oath.
By Jorge
December 7, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this
Has anybody taken into consideration that the economic differences may cause a problem? For example, I know a couple of guys that would feel inferior because they have make less money than their wives. Also, from some of the women that I know with phDs and 100,000 dollar salaries, it is hard to find a single man that is in that income bracket. A friend of mine complained for years about not being able to find a guy that wasn’t intimidated by her because she made close to 200,000 dollars a year.
By blablabla
December 7, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this
jack - i mean seriously. what’s wrong w these people who think straight white men sit around plotting how to control their lives.
btw, i look forward to your presentation tonite at the meeting outlining how we’re going to make life more difficult for women with three legs. we haven’t persecuted them enough recently. see you tonite.
By blablabla
December 7, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this
a dude who has a problem about his wife making more money is goofy. take the $ and run. who cares who it comes from.
besides, jorge, everybody in atlanta lives like they make $200k a year anyway.
By RF
December 7, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this
There’s one point that bears mentioning here. A woman who chooses a sperm bank to have a child would most likely be fairly educated and financially stable. She’d have to be to afford the procedures involved. This isn’t something you do on a whim. Most I’ve heard of were perfectly capable of finding a man but weren’t finding the ones that matched their criteria and actually inspired them to sex. After all the crap I’ve seen people do to kids they don’t want or don’t know how to raise, a woman making a conscious choice to have and love a child sounds pretty good. And isn’t one happy parent better than two unhappy ones? Sure, every kid in our societal definition ought to have two stable, Ward and June parents. But that’s not reality. And if a woman carefully chooses to go through the bank to get there, what difference does it make? Takes all the fun out of trying, but the outcome is the same.
By Renee
December 7, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this
Great post RF!
By Jack
December 7, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this
It is still depriving that child of a father. Where’s Dad? Oh, I don’t have one but I have several Uncles.
By The72John
December 7, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this
This topic, like so many others discussed on this particular BLOG, is really about the glorification of the self.
What utter nonsense. Glorification of the self? Why do I feel like we’re about to launch into a diatribe about secular humanism, or not “Giving God the glory?”
Individuality and the protection of the rights of the individual over those of the majority are what make this country great. Protecting the individual leads to the downfall of society? That’s just doublespeak for “if you’re different, you better hide it or else”.
If you’re so concerned about building community and family, you wouldn’t be so concerned about homogenizing society. If you ACCEPT differences between people and families rather than reviling anything that doesn’t align with your view of what constitutes a “correct” family you will build a sense of inclusiveness and community far faster than you would be reviling anyone who is different.
And just for the record - I haven’t read a single report of anyone being offended by “Merry Christmas”. Every article on this incredibly blown-out-of-proportion “debate” indicates that “Holiday” is being substituted in public places in defference to the fact that Christmas is not the only holiday being celebrated this time of year. The real question is why are you so offended that Wal-Mart and City Hall are trying to include ALL citizens?
By Jack
December 7, 2005 10:15 AM | Link to this
BTW Ladies. Straight white men do sit around and plot. How to get more sex. If married, how to get more sex without angering the female. After all, if Mama ain’t happy, nobody is happy.
By The72John
December 7, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this
Last time I checked, there were a whole bunch of straight, white men sitting around plotting how to run my life. I like to call them “Congress”.
By Just Being Me
December 7, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this
LOL @ Jack and John!!!
By RF
December 7, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this
Jack—that’s the only drawback I see. I’m not sure how I’d explain that to a child. But, as I’ve learned with my boys and the situation with their mother, honesty is the best policy. Kids are flexible and as long as you’re honest and focused on them, they don’t seem to have too many problems. Mine have to go to school and tell kids “my dad is really my uncle, my mom’s dead, and my real dad’s a drug addict”. I know that’s hard for them, but they are happy and know they have a good home. I can’t imagine a kid saying “my dad was an anonymous donor”, but if the kid is happy, how can it be any worse than what mine have to deal with?
72John— that’s good!! Here’s a question. If pro and con are opposites, then why isn’t congress the opposite of progress?
By Daphne
December 7, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this
Shaunti, shut-up. I happen to be a 30 year old single woman who is actively seeking single motherhood. I know there are many foster children who need a good home, but why should single mothers by choice be guilted into adopting one if what we really want is to have a biological child? You already have children, so I don’t care how many journals you read, you will never know what it feels like. As long as we can offer love and support, I feel that it is none of your business. I suggest you keep reading and you will find out a lot more about single mothers by choice.
By The72John
December 7, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this
“My dad was Lot #546-7B.”
By Chilao
December 7, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this
Last time I checked, there were a whole bunch of straight, white men sitting around plotting how to run my life. I like to call them “Congress�.
takes care of today’s humor, good one.!
By Chilao
December 7, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this
why isn’t congress the opposite of progress?
but it is. right now anyway. LOL
By kimberly
December 7, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this
Other groups of straight white men that sit around plotting and scheming: The Christian Coalition and Southern Baptist Convention (although they let some women out of the kitchen sometimes and help if they’re really really good), the Center for Family Values (the ones who clamored to the press that Sponge Bob was teaching kids to NOT hate queers…), the NRA (always holding a sharp knife next to congressional testicles), lobbyists for the insurance, banking, communications, and pharmaceutical industries, CEOs and Boards of Directors of all your major corporations (notice how your bill inches up and up gradually with no explanations?), Dick Cheney and his “engery task force” whose meetings are inexplicably private and not subject to our review….
There are more. Anyone want to add to the list?
By Renee
December 7, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this
John & RF good job!!!!! Too funny!!
By RF
December 7, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this
Is that his “donation” number or record number in the state prison system?? ;- )
I teach kids who don’t even know that much about dad, John!!—LOL Actually, that’s not really funny is it? Sad, to be honest.
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this
Repost, seeing as no replies were had:
But, Lets turn it around: just as I would not trust a trend (topic here! It implores being general.) of guys of having a woman have his baby to raise on his own; because of the issues associated with not even being able to find a half-a*ed mate - much less a “princess charming�; I would not trust the trend of single women getting AI.
Does that help with the notion of controling females? I do not think the issue is healthy in most cases, for good reason - period.
By The72John
December 7, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this
Lol, that would be a hypothetical kid, not me! My dad’s pretty much as close to perfect as any one person can come. But yeah, I was going for the “donation number”. :-)
By Murphy
December 7, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this
72John… It has nothing to do with glorification of God or anything like that. It has to do with considering how your actions affect the whole and not just yourself.
If that leads some to think about God, then so be it.
If that leads others to think about the environment, then so be it.
If that leads others to think about society, then so be it.
Protecting individual rights does not lead to the downfall of society. Propagating the idea that an individual should think of themselves first, without considering the impact on others or the the whole leads to the downfall of society. If everyone only ever looked out for “A number one” where the heck would we be? I’ll tell you this, we wouldn’t be a country, that’s for doggone sure.
Not to mention… Noone here has said anything about passing laws (I know I haven’t). We have tons of things that are “legal” that destroy our society. Just because they are “legal” doesn’t make them right. And when I say “right”, I mean in a certain person’s POV.
What you think is “right” is different than me, so the laws typically keep as many things as possible so you and I can coexist. You see, that’s the beauty of this country… I can tell you I believe you’re moral code is lacking, b/c you basically stand for nothing except a complete free for all.
BTW… Why do you think so many companies now have “Holiday Parties” instead of “Christmas Parties”?
Why do you think I walk through the malls and see stores with “Holday Sales” rather than “Christmas Sales”?
By The72John
December 7, 2005 11:16 AM | Link to this
Murphy, you have no idea what my moral code is, so you certainly can’t tell me it’s lacking.
As for “Holiday” and “Christmas”, which part of this sentence don’t you understand?
Every article on this incredibly blown-out-of-proportion “debate� indicates that “Holiday� is being substituted in public places in defference to the fact that Christmas is not the only holiday being celebrated this time of year.
Is it so hard for you to understand that companies are responding to a multicultural society by using inclusive phrases rather than exclusive ones? Why is it a big deal? Why do you have to have YOUR holiday take precedence over someone elses holiday, and why are you so worried about what a MALL calls the holiday sale?
By blablabla
December 7, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this
kimberly - you either missed the point of my comment or would prefer to take the discussion someplace else. my comment was that there weren’t a bunch of straight white men sitting around plotting how to run people’s LIVES (specifically women in response to vince’s repeatedly inane comments on that).
groups of people out there plotting and scheming in general (regardless of their gender or orientation) aren’t anything new and there are tons of them that plot and scheme for all sorts of stuff. there’s no point in listing them all bc we’d be here all week.
john’s comment was tongue in cheek, i’m presuming, regarding congress. but congress doesn’t plot how to run our LIVES, but rather a part of our gov’t. some may unfortunately see that as the same thing, but that’s a different story. and last time i checked there were openly gay members, women, lots of different skin colors, etc. it isn’t just straight white men. and another thing - you elected congress; you picked those straight white men. if you don’t like their scheming, you throw em out and elect some new schemers, or schemers who scheme the way you want them to scheme.
By Just Being Me
December 7, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this
BTW… Why do you think so many companies now have “Holiday Parties� instead of “Christmas Parties�?
Because many companies are becoming more tolerant of the fact that not everyone celebrates Christmas. Also, because they are celebrating the entire holiday season (including New Years, Christmas, Hannukah, and Kwanzaa) and not just Christmas Day.
Why do you think I walk through the malls and see stores with “Holday Sales� rather than “Christmas Sales�?
Because all consumers don’t celebrate Christmas, but the majority celebrate some holiday during the season.
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
Seeing as we are on religion again; someone explain this for me, Including if I have it wrong:
Why, if congress shall make no law…; does the government recognize confidentiality in confession?
As for psychs, doctors, and etc, they are not a religion; and therefore there can be a law - but religion?
{came up on Boston Law lastnight}
By blablabla
December 7, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this
Because many companies are becoming more tolerant of the fact that not everyone celebrates Christmas.
JBM what are you talking about? what you do mean not everybody celebrates xmas? what else is there?
By The72John
December 7, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this
Respecting the vows of a Priest does not violate the 1st ammendment. Forcing a Priest to testify in violation of his religious obligations WOULD.
By Just Being Me
December 7, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this
blablabla - Sit down. It’s time you and I had a talk. I have some very disturbing news to share with you… LOL
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this
Forcing a Priest to testify in violation of his religious obligations WOULD.
Why? They can force me to sit down {subpoena} and testify. If it purely because of religion that it is different; that is a law regarding religion, which is unconstitutional.
This was a major excuse in the Catholic Church pedophile conspiracy - so is relevant to major issues.
I am ignorant here, so looking for sensible info…
By Now but not then, a spoiled lesbian
December 7, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this
Daphne
Shaunti is God…didn’t you know that? She is DERSERVING of a healthy baby. Not the rest of us! Shaunti makes me sick. Pompass, ulgy, fat blob.
By RF
December 7, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this
Here’s a solution— do what the principal near ATL did. Forbid all Christmas references, including food, candy, parties, etc., and don’t allow your teachers or staff to say “merry Christmas” OR “happy holidays” in front of the kids. And that man’s dead friend will be visiting soon with his three ghostly friends I believe…
By Now but not then, a spoiled lesbian
December 7, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this
Pompous
By The72John
December 7, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this
The 1st ammendmant doesn’t prohibit any laws regarding religion, it prohibits laws establishing religion, or laws that favor one religion over another.
By Chilao
December 7, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this
FatMoose,
but if you are religious, you are a superior human being. (So the logic goes, not to be mis-construed as sensible information…LOL)
Coworker proudly let me know that back in the 1800/s, people were not even allowed to testify in a court of law unless they were Christian. He would like to go back to those days. I pointed out that the courts may have learned that (some)Christians could lie/misrepresent as well as non-Christians. He got indignant and walked away.
Been watching the 1956 Moby Dick, never read the book, too difficult to read. Strong distinctions made between Christian and non-Christian sailors in the movie.
I also think churches and their properties should be taxed, since they are basically in the business of souls.
By The72John
December 7, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this
Hit send too early.
Doctors, Priests, etc. all have one thing in common - they belong to a profession which demands confidentiality. All of them have sworn in some way to uphold the privacy of their “clients”, if you will.
Any figure of any religion can be granted the same courtesy by the court - it’s not just Catholic priests who have that. You or I can be compelled to testify because there is no expectation of privacy when individuals deal with us. When someone deals with a priest, there is.
By Chilao
December 7, 2005 12:06 PM | Link to this
oh, Merry Christmas, everyone.
(I heard Scrooges chains a’rattling….)
By The72John
December 7, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this
Scrooge didn’t have chains. Marley did.
By Just Being Me
December 7, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this
Well explained, 72John
By Chilao
December 7, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this
okay okay, guess I know the story well.(NOT) LMAO
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this
Still seems fishy to me:
Doctors, Priests, etc. all have one thing in common - they belong to a profession which demands confidentiality. All of them have sworn in some way to uphold the privacy of their “clients�, if you will.
But of the “professions,” only one of them does not get taxed…
Any figure of any religion can be granted the same courtesy by the court - it’s not just Catholic priests who have that. You or I can be compelled to testify because there is no expectation of privacy when individuals deal with us. When someone deals with a priest, there is.
Well; what if we have our Good-Friends religion?
Enough, I see what you are saying, it just still seems quite biased.
By The72John
December 7, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this
FatMoose,
I think if you look up the legal definition of “Privileged Communication”, you’ll find that it is applied across a broad spectrum. It is hardly biased.
By vince
December 7, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this
Hey blablabla,
“Hello pot, this is the kettle….”
Someone who doesn’t even publish their name is accusing me of being a “fake moniker”. Is that a joke?
No, I’m not upset at all with who I am. But, that doesn’t surprise me that you wish to divert the subject away from the true issue. Most of the time when someone knows they cannot win an argument, they try to change the subject.
By Jack
December 7, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this
My favorite was “The Christmas Carol” where Mr. McGoo plays Scrooge. I’m gonna tape it this year if I can catch it. Merry Christmas!
By Jack
December 7, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this
Hey FatMoose. If you came here for good info. you may be s.o.l. LOL
(I think it’s Magoo instead of McGoo sorry spelling police)
By Netbanker
December 7, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this
Late to the game again today…boy work sure gets in the way of my blogging!
Singlemom…don’t apologize. The items you point out are true. What is so odd about the scape goating of gays and lesbians is that the numbers just don’t add up to support the charges and moves to protect ‘traditional family values.’ If the approximately 10% of the population that is homosexual is as powerful and destructive to America as the religious right claims then the f* would already be running the place instead of fighting for equal rights.
The adoption and in-vitro moves you mention are completely laughable in terms of what their supporters seem to think it will fix. We’ll target approximately 10% of the total population knowing that a much smaller percentage of that population are actually raising children and by banning them from doing so we’ll fix all the problems of all children and the heteros raising them. So maybe 5% of the population is destroying all those families and is setting their values for them…forcing Moms to go to work so they can buy stuff they don’t really need, making heteros overspend and go deep into debt, demanding that parents everywhere attack teachers for failing their underperforming children, using subversive techniques to convince middle-class Americans to NOT discipline their children so they turn out to be spoiled, obnoxious, brats? JBM, Renee, RF…I bow to you, your children, and your super powers. hehehehehehehe Well actually I do bow to you in honor of your commitments to your families and being good folk.
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this
Netbanker;
In a word; what is your reply to the question:
Is the sperm bank trend among single women a good idea?
By Renee
December 7, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this
Awwww…thanks Netbanker!!
By Scalia
December 7, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this
blablablabla, I don’t think that women that have three legs can have babies, the last time that I checked. Science hasn’t come that far:)
By Scalia
December 7, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this
Scrooge with Bill Murray is the best. He is hilarious. One of my favorite scenes is when he is watching the guy get tossed out of the building after he fired him, and timing how long it takes for him to get thrown on the street.
This whole topic reminds me of the Will and Grace episode where Jack learns that Elliot is his kid, and the product of artificial insemination.
By RF
December 7, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
Net- thanks! You should give it a try-it’s awesome!
By Just Being Me
December 7, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this
NetB, how sweet!!!!! Thanks! But, uh… you and I need to talk about your allowing work get in the way of blogging. I think you need to get your priorities in order. Geez.
By Just Being Me
December 7, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this
…allowing work to get in the way of blogging.
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
December 7, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this
Wow,
The only good parents in the world, according to numerous studies and the majority in this country are two-parent homes. I had better correct that statement, because the correct response would be, two parents that are of the opposite sex. According to Shaunti and the majority on this blog, I am a bad parent, because I did not marry my daughter’s father. Well, maybe I am a bad parent, because I had premarital sex. I also found out that if I had chosen a sperm bank, I would still have been a bad parent, but a “good� Christian. You see, I am a good Christian, because I did not have premarital sex.
Would I still be a bad parent, if I shared my house with my younger sister or relative, who looks after my daughter, while I work? Who has her own business and sets her schedule, so that there is always someone available to look after my child/her niece. According to many views, a single mother, is the worst kind of parent. We don’t want the fathers in the child’s life or we only want more child support. Our children grow up to become criminals, because their fathers are not in the home to put them to bed. We have taken it upon ourselves to punish our children. We couldn’t possibly love them, because we did not marry their fathers or ran him off to be with another woman. According to many views, you should only be a single mom, if you are a widow. However, you must marry within two years or you go on the bad “Single� parent list. My mother was on the bad “Single� parent list, because my father was killed when I was about 2 years old and my sister was only a few months old. She married my stepfather when I was about 12 years old. His ex-wife went onto the bad “Single� mother category. Oh, how I love my two stepbrothers and stepsister – but we all have great careers and went onto college. My stepfather past away my senior year of high school, so I guess my mother moved back into the bad “Single� parent list, while I was in college.
I know first hand what happens to a child of a single mom. A single mom raised me. She did not raise me to become a single mom, but an educated person.
It doesn’t matter if you chose a sperm bank or just did not marry, not all people are good parents, with or without a husband.
Shaunti,
Put down the studies and come into my home. I’m not poor, on welfare or a bad parent. Both my sister, daughter and myself were honor students. My daughters father thinks I’m the best mother and so does his mother. You can ask him yourself, if you choose to come for a visit.
By Renee
December 7, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this
JBM - I’m starting to think english is your second language…LMAO
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this
Amazed,
I agree that there are a lot of opinions on here that are fringe and pssibly psycho-fringe; but when posed with the question: Is the sperm bank trend among single women a good idea?
What is your reply? {note the word trend; not instance, or best/worst case - but the TREND}
{seems no one wants to touch the simple question - or they want to change it before answering…}
By Renee
December 7, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
LMAO
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
Renee,
What screws up my typing is the chatting with my neices/nephews over the last year - all that shorthand has gotten into my work; and caused me to make up stuff!
I do love the use of ‘effin.’ Wonder when that will be * out!
By Jack
December 7, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this
They want to change it so that it suits their arguement. I get most aggravated on this blog when others put words in my mouth that I didn’t say and those who claim to know this or that when this is a blog and NOTHING is as it seems. Trolls do type and use PCs.
By lozen
December 7, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
Don’t we all wish we could understand what the heck FatMoose is talking about? Well, maybe not.
By Renee
December 7, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this
Trolls do type and use PCs.
Not trolls!!! Too funny!!!
By Just Being Me
December 7, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this
LOL@ Renee - cheap shot!!! LOL
FatMoose - will it make you feel better if I take your bait— I mean, answer your question?
Answer: It is neither a good nor bad idea. It is neutral in that it doesn’t specifically hurt or specifically help society, in my opinion.
Happy?
By DeltaX
December 7, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
Jack,
I get most aggravated on this blog when others put words in my mouth that I didn’t say…
Yep! I concur; as well as knowing what you meant better than you!
I mean, since the blog aggravates you, you must walk around all day aggravated - and carry it with you! {srczm}
Know much about Chick Corea?{band}
By Just Being Me
December 7, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
LOL@ Lozen… I thought I was the only one thinking that…
Oh, and Delta… that’s not how it works: if the blog aggravates Jack, then Jack is aggravated when he’s “on” the blog. Get it?
;-)
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
Jack,
Other examples of intelligent life on a blog:
Like “Take my bait?” It is the friggin blog question - so to call it MY bait is dumb.
Or random jabs: Don’t we all wish we could understand what the heck FatMoose is talking about? Well, maybe not.
If I was capable, I would do the nana-bobo crap; but this is like have a yelling match with kids - you win by stopping;)
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
December 7, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
FatMoose,
There is nothing wrong with a woman choosing a sperm bank. My question would be, does she really want a child? IF so, then no. I do not have a problem with it.
Do you have a problem with surogate mothers, when the husband donates the sperm to the chosen woman?
It sounds as if the method of choice is the problem, you are having with the idea of a sperm bank. Do you have a problem with a married couple using a sperm bank?
By Jack
December 7, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
Hi Delta. Been a long time since I heard Chick Corea. Trying to think of one of the songs.
Renee’. I said before that I live under the bridge at I-85 & Clairmont. Not too many children to scare here though. :)
By RF
December 7, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this
Moose- Yes That better?
And all this time I thought the purpose of a blog was to discuss, ramble, debate, converse, ramble some more, and argue. Where did I get that idea?
By Jack
December 7, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this
One of my favorite albums is “A Space In Time” by Ten years After. Alvin Lee can pick!
By blablabla
December 7, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this
By vince
December 7, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this
Hey blablabla,
“Hello pot, this is the kettle….�
Someone who doesn’t even publish their name is accusing me of being a “fake moniker�. Is that a joke?
No, I’m not upset at all with who I am. But, that doesn’t surprise me that you wish to divert the subject away from the true issue. Most of the time when someone knows they cannot win an argument, they try to change the subject.
yes, vince, the comment about you being a fake moniker was a joke. and if you’re not a fake moniker, why did you go from having a capital V for Vince earlier in the week, but now have a lower case v in this last post? perhaps you’re not the real Vince…
as for trying to change the subject, i didn’t. i merely responded to (V)ince’s post saying that it’s all about straight white men trying to control women’s lives and parenting, which is hogwash (imo).
By Just Being Me
December 7, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this
Oh, and Amazed - that was very well said.
By blablabla
December 7, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this
scalia - i was trying to come up with some fictitious group of people that all the straight white men could sit around and plot to lord over, since everyone knows that’s what straight white men do in america. i figured if i chose a group of people that actually existed, somebody might be offended, so i picked three-legged women. hopefully there aren’t any of them on the blog.
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this
Amazed,
You are assuming way too much.
I will start by stating I agree with: There is nothing wrong with a woman choosing a sperm bank.
But that is not the question; trend is.
And I do not agree that the TREND is good - although the availability and use, on instance basis is.
{example for the difficulty in reading the topic: Question Is the trend of death good; Answer: yes it is, but an instance may be a shame. Now use an analogy that is paralell: Is the trend of imortality good; NO, but the instance for someone like ghandi, yes}
By Jack
December 7, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this
Did you guys know that Chuck is really Randy and Randy is really Zack. We get three for the price of one! LOL
By Chilao
December 7, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this
LOL @ Jack - mine is “Shhhh”(of TYA) got it on amazon about a year ago.
By Jack
December 7, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this
How bout Uriah Heep’s Demons & Wizards? Ah the old days, when the air was clean and sex was dirty. Hehe!
By The72John
December 7, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
Yes, how exciting this blog would be if each post were just a “yes” or “no” answer.
That said - I think the question is poorly phrased. “Trend” is a pretty loaded word. I doubt that even a single percentage point of births in this country are the result of single women seeking artificial insemination from a sperm bank. That hardly counts as a “trend”.
I agree with the earlier poster - it’s utterly neutral.
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
December 7, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
FatMoose, do you think that the “Trend” is going to eliminate the old fashion way of producing a child? The women are not using artificial sperm, it comes from a “Real” man.
I know what the meaning of “trend” is and new trends are set every day. It doesn’t mean the destruction of the process entirely. The answer to the trend question, in my opinion, is “To Each his Own”. I would not use a sperm bank, because I know how to get what I need for free. I would not advocate my method, but I would never “pay money” for the results of my method either.
Why pay for something that you can get for free? That’s the only part of the “trend”, I find questionable.
By amber
December 7, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
I think the trend of single women to use sperm banks (and there are thousands and thousands of them; we all know a lot of women who are doing this don’t we….!) is a very good idea. I think the trend of married and single women to have abortions when they aren’t ready to be mothers is a fantastic idea. Both of these things are due to the new freedoms women fought for and acquired over the past 35 years. And some of you people just can’t stand it can you?I believe the trend of old over-the- hill guys using viagra to keep getting it up is very, very bad. What do you think about the new trend of middle aged women and teenage boys! I love it.
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
RF,
Well that explains the frustration many of us experience; here we are trying to deduce and solve a topic; and you want to ingore the topic; and shoot sh*t for kicks.
I learned this already and know how to deal with it successfully. It falls in the catagory of, just listen, do not try to solve. Men/Mars&Women/Venus.
Smile and nod, smile and nod….rinse and repeat…
Let me know what you all would like to talk CONstructively and proactively;) Till then, we will smile and nod;)
Success!
By Just Being Me
December 7, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this
FM - My “bait” comment wasn’t referring to your question, but to your repeated re-posting of the question… if you scroll up, you will see that we have been discussing the question for three days now. Perhaps no one person answered it to your satisfaction, but we aren’t here to just “answer” a question, we are here to discuss the question, debate the answers, and (if we’re open-minded enough) learn from each other’s ideas.
It seems like (and I could certainly be wrong), you ask these questions waiting for a person to give an answer that you don’t agree with so you can jump all over it. But, for the most part, everyone’s views on the subject have already been “voiced” at this point, so all you’d have to do to find a debate is scroll up… instead, you ask the same question posed at the beginning.
And, when no one answers you (for whatever reason they choose not to answer you) you start reposting the question and making comments about how nobody answered your question.
Now, your “intelligent life” comment was a total joke - and an unnecessary one. First, I never, EVER take personal jabs at you or anyone else (at least not openly), so you shouldn’t have even gone there. But, secondly and more importantly, I don’t think a single person in here (well, except maybe one who got annoyed with me) would call me unintelligent and you intelligent.
By Renee
December 7, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this
Okay, maybe I just have too much time on my hands, but I am really entertained by the blogs today!! Hilarious!
By RF
December 7, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this
Okay, I’ll bite. MOOSE- what’s bad about the “trend”? I’m trying to understand your point, honestly.
By Just Being Me
December 7, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
I just figured it out. Now I know who you remind me of Fat Moose. Clay from The Apprentice (current season).
By amber
December 7, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
Vince it sounds like you’ve taken some women’s studies classes or that you have a female (sister, mother, wife) influencing you and helping you understand what’s going on here. Never mind that so many of these uneducated clowns haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. You are right! Damn it!
By Jack
December 7, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
An old man using viagra is like putting a new flag pole on an old building.
By Just Being Me
December 7, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this
RF - Me too!!! I’m honestly trying to get the point, and I don’t. Or is he just posing the question mid-way through the discussion for the heck of it?
Well, at least I feel better knowing that one of the more intelligent folks around here is baffled too. Now I don’t feel so badly. LOL
By Jack
December 7, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this
A man said to his wife one day, ” I don’t know how you can be so stupid and so beautiful at the same time.”
The wife responded,”Allow me to explain. God made me beautiful so you would be attracted to me. God made me stupid to be attracted to you”
By Just Being Me
December 7, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this
Is something wrong with putting a new flag pole on an old building? What about the trend of putting a new flag pole on an old building? How about the religious implications of putting a new flag on an old building? Isn’t that a violation of the 73rd amendment?
By Renee
December 7, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this
JBM and Jack!!!!!!! TOOOOOOO FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!
I think all my intelligence is allowing me to do this afternoon is laugh!!
By Just Being Me
December 7, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this
Renee,
PUT
THE
JOINT
DOWNNNN!!!!!!! lol
By lozen
December 7, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
Here’s another example of FatMoose’s little (he probably thinks subtle) put downs of women in general:
I learned this already and know how to deal with it successfully. It falls in the catagory of, just listen, do not try to solve. Men/Mars&Women/Venus.”
And the first part: “Well that explains the frustration many of us experience; here we are trying to deduce and solve a topic; and you want to ingore the topic; and shoot sh*t for kicks.”
(Big bad choice of words FM. You can’t “deduce a topic” and you can’t “solve a topic” either.) Your teenager must have a basic grammar around somewhere there for writing her college papers. Pick it up man!
By Renee
December 7, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
Girl, I’m trying. But the weed, it keeps calling me (in the illustrious words of Chris Tucker in Friday) LOL!!!
By HaHa
December 7, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
What about building a new building to put under an old pole? Say the ‘pole’ had historical/sentimental significance?
By Just Being Me
December 7, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
LOL@ HaHa
I say that in order to keep from offending anyone, we need to recycle an old pole and refurbish the building, thus preserving our resources, and abiding by the Consititution of these United States.
After all that’s said and done, is the trend of old men taking Viagra a good one? Check yes or no.
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this
I guess I am just crazy to expect an answer FIRST; and then your points of why to follow.
No, I do not thinkit should STOP with the yes or no answer - inane post. It has not been addressed in the last three days by many though - I expect too much;)
Trend: A general tendency or inclination.
Therfore the question of the blog is: Is the general tendency/inclination of sperm bank use among single women a good idea?
Kind of screams for a general answer,to begin with , given he definition.
Smile;)
Regarding: Uriah Heep’s Demons & Wizards
Never got into a lot of the stuff like that and King Crimson - dirtier (not sex-wise, but sound) music of the 70s.
I just re-puchased that Chick Corea CD last month - and although I dig it, it hints of Weather Channel {was an avid surfer in CostaRica for a number of years during a break} too much for me now {boy, did they play the heck out of them!}
By RF
December 7, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this
Moose- What drugs are you on? You asked a yes or no question, and I answered YES. You are really proving your “intelligence”,your arrogance, and your incredible inability to participate in an educated discussion you arrogant jerk. I’ve never even bothered to try to offend you, but if you insist on being snide, rude, and disrespectful, so be it. I’m not, to use your incredibly inane language “shooting sh*t”. I’m expressing an opinion in free country on a friggin’ blog. If you don’t like what I say, ignore it. That’s usually what I do with your comments and “questions” which parse words and create circuitous, foolish debates over nothing. Get a life and quit trying so lamely to make others appear to be less capable. Pull you pants up, your incredibly small “brain” is showing. If you would put down the crack pipe and actually ask a question, read answers, and move on, we might all be better off. But no, you ask, we answer, you try to “rephrase” the question, which was stupid to begin with, and then ‘judge’ our responses to what is basically nothing on your part.
I’m out of here for today—I’m tired of this crap.
By RF
December 7, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this
apparently Renee got the laughing gas and I got the b*tch pills this afternoon!!
Thanks for the laugh JBM!!!—It’s a nice balance for those of us soooooo far beneath others.
What about the trend of younger women to go for the old men incapable of ‘rising to the occasion’, thus forcing the trend of viagra?
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this
Man.
Touchy people - just trying to get a straight answer FIRST; and you repeatedly cannot understand the question - as well as second guess its meaning.
It is the title of the blog! And you act as though I created it and was insidious!
Must be that I am in Georgia!
Smile everyone, smile!
By amber
December 7, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
Does anyone else want to change the topic? We’ve exhausted this one pretty much. How about my topic:
Is the new trend of older women and younger men a good idea? (Of course this really isn’t new either. My older sister always dated men 10 to 20 years younger than she after her divorce from a man 19 years older than she. She always said if she’d known what she was missing she would have divorced sooner! She eventually married a man 15 years younger and they’ve been together 20 years now. She will have someone to look after her when she’s old. If she’d stayed married to the old guy she would have been a widow for 30, 40, 50 years! And those younger guys don’t need the viagra either! ;-)
By Jack
December 7, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this
It’s harder for the older woman to kill off a younger man to get the money then marry the pool boy. LOL
By The72John
December 7, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this
See Jane Run. Run Jane, Run! See Dick Run. Run Dick, Run!
You get back to us when you’ve fully analyzed this passage, FM.
By Renee
December 7, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
RF - If you think I was laughing before, you should see me now!!!!
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this
Is the new trend of older women and younger men a good idea?
I do not descriminate - Love the older ones for the anything goes; and the younger ones for the squeals.
By amber
December 7, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this
RF, I’m surprised FatMoose didn’t ask if you were having your period. You touchy woman! We just won’t let him deduce and solve the topic! It’s because MEN/MARS, WOMEN/VENUS!
By kimberly
December 7, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this
Jack, that’s a good point, but if the older woman is NOT after the money, then she needs a younger man.
Older men are more financially attractive to younger women who have not yet hit their peaks full-on. Older women are more sexually compatible with younger men who can actually keep up with them!
By Renee
December 7, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this
Please stop!!!! My stomach is literally in stitches!! This blog has been so entertaining this afternoon. Thank you everyone for your part! I needed that! But stop, please, I can’t take any more.
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 04:04 PM | Link to this
Done.
My analysis: You are a dick;)
Smile;) Someone loves you.
By Renee
December 7, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this
Fatmoose - I guess that comment was to RF. Just my opinion here, but it looks like you were trying to pick a fight today. True it’s a blog, and everyone has their own opinion, but to resort to such personal name calling, when people are doing what they do on a blog, is immature, and insensitive, among other things. Your mind is not open, it seems, to anything that contradicts what you believe. Which is ultimately fine, but you can’t get mad with someone else for that.
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this
Amber,
Dont lie now, I said “Touchy people.”
Happy Happy Joy Joy.
By HaHa
December 7, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this
When I see Jane run, bouncing around, I feel like a Dick.
By Jack
December 7, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
Kimberly. That’s what viagra is for. Thats why more older women have smiles on their faces. Hehe!
By The72John
December 7, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
Actually, I’m more of a sarcastic bastard, but that doesn’t really change the fact that your demand for a simple yes-or-no answer to a question that has been roundly debated for three days represents a fundamental lack of ability to participate productively in a debate.
The first thing that College comp professors strive to teach their students is that responding to a “Yes or No” question with a yes or no is the worst possible tact. High school students use “Yes I…” or “No I…” as a topic sentence. Actually, make that Jr. High. Even High Schoolers know better.
I’m not sure what you were trying to accomplish by your incessant reiterations of a question to which everyone had already responded. I can only assume that your reading comphrension is so fundamentaly lacking that you were unable to extrapolate the positions of the various participants on this topic, and needed someone to do it for you.
Smile ;-) Someone is smarter than you!
By RF
December 7, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this
Amber—as a man, if I start having a period, then medical science better have a darn good explanation!!—LOL Although hormonally, I think we do. Oh wait, I might stray from whatever the original topic is this afternoon and start shooting sh*t, so I’ll quit now before the sphincter police get on to me for straying from topic of discussion.
Renee- what are you drinking/smoking sistah? I gotta get me some of dat!
By kimberly
December 7, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this
Jack, trust me, I AM grateful for that too! {;->
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
Renee,
No, that comment was for John and his childish remark - I thought it cute;) It was a play on dick running {his mouth}.
Just my opinion here, but it looks like you were trying to pick a fight today.
Wrong again, I wanted, as they teach in constructive critisism(sp?), a straight answer bw me and someone else; and THEN to compare reasons without the randomness - But I understand that I expect too much. I do understand that there are many that WANT to fight, so assume that is why it was second guessed.
I had posted my beliefe many times: The trend is not good, but the availability and instance may be great. Furthermore, I can try, by sharing my opinions and some facts/logic, to explain where I come to that notion.
By Renee
December 7, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this
Oops sorry Moose, your comment was to John, my same comment applies though just add Johns name! Lol
RF- I don’t know what’s going on with me today. Everyone has been so funny. I better sober up before I get home though lol.
By The72John
December 7, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this
Actually, it was sardonic, but I didn’t really expect you to grasp the subtelty.
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this
Wrong John,
If you never answer the direct question first, and instead you fill your paper with this and thats concerning the subject without a THESIS; you will fail the reagents. The first order is to STATE YOUR OPINION.
Did you pass your reagents? Not in the manner you claim - no possible way.
Dead wrong on that sir.
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this
Kinda like:
“I believe that the tred of…..”
In this paper I will prove that “@@@” is “@@@” by showing that A, B, and C.
A - specific example 1 - specific example 2 - specific example 3
and so on….
You went to school in GA, didnt you?
By lozen
December 7, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this
Ho, ho, ho. Merry Holidays! (credit to Mike!)
By RF
December 7, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this
Renee- just ship some of that on down here. This has been kind of a funny exchange today. Unless of course the trend to have funny discussions irritates some people, while the instance of it may be good, if the planets are aligned properly, and somebody’s panties don’t get in a wad. Actually, if the instance of having a drink this evening might be good for me, could it create a trend that might be disturbing to society or the quantum astrological balance of the universe??? Have a good one!!
By DeltaX
December 7, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this
Back from cali - man that was rushed.
FM -
Good show! You went to school up north too, huh? Although your tactics and refrain is better than mine this week; we agree this is a crackup group of “I cannot understand what you are saying” - when it is just the topic!
I tried the previous three days to get a decent conversation that began with the topic, and got the same crap - but did not handle it as well.
Take care all. We love the GA slapstick humour! It is like the keystone cops in here!
By The72John
December 7, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this
Well, first Fatty, a reagent is a substance used in a chemical reaction, so I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Possibly, you meant the Regent’s Exam, but seeing as how I went to undergrad out of state, I didn’t have that particular requirement.
As for a thesis statement, if you believe that it is a simple “yes or no”, you are woefully incorrect. It is a statement of position, the introduction of a hypothesis, the posing of a question, but never a straight forward repetition of the question posed with one’s own answer included. Again, unless you are in Junior High and don’t know better.
I am inclined to agree with the others - you are simply itching for a fight. I assure you, if you expect to discuss the finer points of writing style, you’ve picked the wrong fight.
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
Ahhh -
You are Bakediods! Makes perfect sense now!
Hence why your on your butts blogging at home on disability; or eating up your bosses $$$ doing nada!
By The72John
December 7, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this
LOL Fatmoose…did you just describe the five paragraph essay style? That is SO high school, SO predictable.
By NitPicking
December 7, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this
“I believe that the tred of…..�
Aren’t you supposed to be more direct and emphatic? Who cares what the author believes?
the author should flat-out State”:
“The trend of….blah blah blah”
By The72John
December 7, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this
Hence why your on your butts blogging at home on disability; or eating up your bosses $$$ doing nada!
Tell me, Fat, are you familiar with the pitfalls of assuming?
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this
I am inclined to agree with the others - you are simply itching for a fight. I assure you, if you expect to discuss the finer points of writing style, you’ve picked the wrong fight.
Right brother - I began where you obviously could possibly grasp. But, as it seems again - nope.
EVEN the most BASIC writing style requires a thesis; so you audience can FOLLOW you. As stated, I was not looking to END at a yes/no; but you have a hard time reading/comprehending.
You have been unable to understand, by your own admission, much so far - now you are a genius? I heard your rant on that already. Last week I believe, and they tore you a new one;)
Ill pass on a repeat of bile.
Smile:) You aint that bad:){in my best Southern Accent} There is always lozen or zack!
By FatMoose
December 7, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this
Just searched the blog, and no you have not stated your opinion of this topic clearly - around, under, and in odd baked ways you almost talked about it.
Yes, your point making skills are high.
You are on to me bc I was looking for exactly what the two idiots {Diane Glass & Shaunti Feldhahn} cannot do either - answer the question directly first.
YOU want to make it about something else. Examples: Yes/no only, a trap!, or writing style.
Smile!
By buspar and wellbutrin
December 8, 2005 03:50 AM | Link to this
yes.this is my site http://amazonka.allsoch.ru/buspar/buspar_anger.html Thanks.
By Vince or vince or Vincent or Vincenzo
December 8, 2005 08:25 AM | Link to this
Once again, you know you cannot intelligently debate the topic, so you are trying to shift focus.
By Vince
December 8, 2005 08:31 AM | Link to this
Hogwash? Then why do we have legislation over the abortion issue? Why is it even an issue about sperm banks? Why is the morning after pill a headline making issue? If men had no interest in controlling women’s bodies and lives these issues would be non-existent.
Because if the shoes were on the other feet, the legislation would read like: Is going to an egg bank such a good idea for single men? Or, should men be allowed to have sex without condoms? Should there be legislative regulations on the distribution of sperm and condoms? Should men be able to father more than two children?
Don’t tell me that the bodies of women aren’t trying to be controlled. Because this is exactly what the issue is.
By VINCENT vince VINCE vincent vicente vincenzo
December 8, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this
And, sperm freezing is done when the man faces radiation therapy or any procedure that might compromise his BODY and his HEALTH. But when a woman’s BODY and her HEALTH may be in jeopardy, our society would rather protect her unborn child, even if she could die.
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this
Vince,
Don’t tell me that the bodies of women aren’t trying to be controlled. Because this is exactly what the issue is.
For some it may be; for others they may see the sense in looking at all possibilities.
Example of more important issue: My GF has been looking for a job for the last 3 months {got one just last week and started yesterday}; and at EVERY interview, they asked if she was planning to have kids.
That is where the general population definitely comes in - it is a shame that the south is fill with an even higher percentage of pig-headed good ol’ boy idiots!
I wish one of them would have had it in their application; but alas the interviewer {all female - btw - so they are adhering to the craziness} asked it as though it was casual conversation.
By blablabla
December 8, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this
Vince,
oh really, i’m trying to shift the debate? first you say mainstream white, straight men trying to control women. now in this morning’s post, it’s just “men” are trying to control women. this may be news to you, but “men” and “straight, white, mainstream american males” aren’t exactly the same groups.
Because if the shoes were on the other feet, the legislation would read like: Is going to an egg bank such a good idea for single men?
vince, come back to earth. there’s no discussion about legislation of who can go to a sperm bank going on here. the blog asked a question about the trend of single women going to sperm bank and you answered this is the result of single, white mainstream american guy trying to control women’s lives. well gee, vince, is it the white guy’s fault for there being the trend, or is it the white guy trying to eliminate the trend? and you accuse me of failing to debate intellectually? please.
Or, should men be allowed to have sex without condoms? Should there be legislative regulations on the distribution of sperm and condoms?
nobody is saying anything like that. nobody would say women have to have sex without protection, or that they must. what are you talking about? hopefully though you do realize sex w/o condoms does have some public health impacts that don’t solely revolve around straight white men trying to control women?
Should men be able to father more than two children?
another nonsensical question.
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this
blablabla,
How you doing today?
Seeing as we are both trying to talk the subject without success from responding bloggers; want to compare notions?
If we agree, it may be boring and stop; but if not, we can keep it civil and non-random - but engaging.
By DeltaX
December 8, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this
FM,
I would engage you; but it looks as though it would be preacher/choir conversation.
Good day and enjoy.
By Bruce
December 8, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this
I personnaly do not have a problem with women visiting a sprem bank, be it trend or not. If it is her desire to have a child all alone then have at it. I would hope the decision would be a well thoughtout one that figures in all factors involved.
I also agree with whoever said, earlier this week, that if a woman makes this choice for her life then she is responsible to care for this child no matter what life throws at her without public assistance of any kind. My prayer would be that her and the child would live a fruitful and happy life.
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this
DX,
Agreed; I read your points, and they reflect mine quite eeriely{is that a word?}.
Take care.
By lozen
December 8, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this
Blahblah, maybe you missed the post about legislation being considered that would outlaw single women from using sperm banks? Someone said it’s already banned in Australia. Women in this country are being prevented from obtaining the morning after pill by legislation by old white men, pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions women are given by their doctors without losing their jobs, and a woman’s freedom to choose when to give birth is under attack. I could go on and on. Vince’s point is a good one.
By blablabla
December 8, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this
vince,
Don’t tell me that the bodies of women aren’t trying to be controlled. Because this is exactly what the issue is.
let’s play a game, vince. let’s pretend all the straight white mainstream men have to sit this one out. we’ll go by the vince book, that since men (and especially the straight white variety) don’t give birth they don’t have a say on issues like abortion, morning after pills, sperm banks, etc, and that only women can state their opinions and their beliefs on the topic(s). ok? you with me?
GUESS WHAT, VINCE? we’d still have an abortion debate. we’d still have a morning after pill debate. we’d still have a sperm bank debate. and the reason why is bc even if you toss out the opinions of all the men, the women of this country don’t all see eye-to-eye on these issues either.
so please, do us all a favor and stop saying that we have these discussions bc straight white men are trying to control women’s lives. we have these discussions bc people of both genders (and all you transgenders) disagree about the role that the gov’t plays (or should play) in issues such as reproductivity. how much is personal about reproductivity? where do one person’s rights begin and another person’s rights end? who has rights, and at what times? do the unborn have rights? people disagree, that’s why there’s debate. it’s not about control, all the time, regardless of how you’ve been brainwashed.
think about it another way… if all the straight white men place limits on women to control their lives, aren’t they also placing limits to control their own lives? generally speaking straight white men tend to get married and have children. any restriction the govt puts on my wife’s reproductivity is a restriction on me as well (albeit in a very different and less direct way). nobody wants their life controlled.
By Vince
December 8, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this
I said what if legislation…. and as far as come back to earth, you need to read the posting again, as it is a “what if” scenario. The come back to earth comment was exactly the right response because that situation is seen as absurd. And the question is why is it absurd to suggest or imagine men’s reproductive systems be regulated and in the same breath it’s perfectly fine for women’s reproductive systems to be regulated. Someone needs to come back to earth here, but it isn’t me. I am on the planet and want people to open their minds and stop accepting the way things are as justified. Why should women’s right to go to sperm bank be an issue? And then take the “why” and apply to men. It makes no sense. It’s gender control by mainstream white heterosexual American men.
By Akeya
December 8, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this
AMBER- not if the younger man is still in middle or high school.
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this
Bruce,
I would agree with that.
Seems if a guy was adopting or doing something simalar; we should require a background check on sex offender or is he already a deadbeat dad and the like. As well as a statement: “You are responcible for the duration {18yrs} - no matter your situation latter on.”
The problem seems to be that if there was legislation passed to refuse public aid - people would cry out pretty heavily.
Think back about the discussion regarding informing a woman of the risks of abortion before proceeding (disregarding either of our personal views). Women claimed it was a tactic of control, yet it is a requirement of any major proceedure - male or female.
The point being, how would any of that be implemented without the outcry and offence taken by so many?
By vince
December 8, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this
If men sat out the issue and left it to women there would still be a debate. Very clever. I just love how you are such the soothsayer. Predicting the future with such accuracy is remarkable. Wow. Learn something new every day. But then again, that is how the current Administration tried to do things until America wised up and realized their gloom and doom predictions were nothing more than mind control.
How in the heck would you know? And once again, you are trying to change the subject. This is not a debate about predicting the future. This is a debate about what is happening right now in the present.
So, I will not attempt to tell the future or declare what would “happen if”. The bottom line here is why isn’t there similiar discussions about men? It’s because anyone in this country who isn’t a white heterosexual American male is considered socially deviant and is open to be controlled.
By kimberly
December 8, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this
FatMoose, I challenge your 9:39 post. It is illegal to ask a woman in a job interview if she is planning to have children, just as it is illegal to ask age or marital status. Sometimes people slip up and ask anyway, but you said EVERY interview. Nuh-uh.
Vince, you’re right on the money, Dude. It IS about controlling women’s bodies, and ultimately, controlling women. Not every man wants to, of course, but the ones who DO, try real hard.
By blablabla
December 8, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this
lozen, you elected congress. it’s not just old white men. if you don’t like them, elect somebody else.
and don’t tell me for a second that all the women in this country wouldn’t still be debating all these issues if all the opinions of the men were flushed down the toilet. we could lock all the women in a big giant room and say “come out when you guys have an agreement on abortion”, and you’d never come out. it’s not all about old white men.
i read not all that long ago about the pharmacists. and while the specific incidents have revolved around getting birth control, pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions based on personal beliefs isn’t something i think is going to last. my opinion is if the doc prescribed it, it should be filled.
and saying something is banned in australia is pretty different than saying it’s illegal here. that’s not a valid argument. lots of things are illegal or legal in other countries that would be the opposite here. women in some countries in mid east aren’t allowed many of the same freedoms you are afforded here. are you worried you’re going to have to walk around covered up sometime soon?
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this
Lozen - lets TRY to see eye to eye on this:
I will probably get insulted by posting this, but I have no ego; so here is the story - all unfortunately true.
pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions women are given by their doctors without losing their jobs,
I have now had 3 pharmacists refuse my viagra prescription, 2 females and one male - for no reason.
I have also had, more importantly, the receptionist at my doctors office return my phone-in to refill; stating her diagnosis and belief which was insulting and slanderous, not to mention unfounded {if you are taking more that 3 a week; you have major problems were her words - yes, back/neck nerve issues}. She went as far as lying, and said she talked with the doctor, and I need to go to my urologist - because they can no longer fill my script.
I finally talked to my doctor and head nurse; which neither got the message or talked with the receptionist. She got fired.
This is a conservative/idiot issue we deal with, not a male/female one.
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
December 8, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this
Kimberly,
I was just about to point that out to FatMoose. Before anyone goes into an interview, they need to research questions that are illegal and legal for an employer to ask.
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this
Kimberly,
FatMoose, I challenge your 9:39 post. It is illegal to ask a woman in a job interview if she is planning to have children, just as it is illegal to ask age or marital status.
What are you challenging? I know and agree that it is illegal! But unfortunately, not written - so lawsuit would be difficult, and more over a money sink we do not have.
The point being, these WERE females that adhered to this “unwritten policy” - showing that this is not purely a male orchastrated system, but a conservative/idiot one.
By blablabla
December 8, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this
no vince, i’m not trying to change the debate. i’m trying to show you why not everything revolves around white men trying to control women’s lives. if men’s opinions were taken out of the discussion, women still wouldn’t agree abotu abortion. look at the wide variety of opinions that women have had on abortion on this blog previously. now multiply that by 125 million women in this country. they wouldn’t all agree, and to think otherwise is naive. 125 million men wouldn’t agree on anything either.
and honestly vince, if were were debating your “what if” legislation about who can go to a sperm bank (which we’re not, btw, but thanks for changing the subject), if it’s absurd to legislate on whether women can go to a sperm bank, it’s just as absurd to legislate whether a man can go to an egg bank. i’ve never advocated making women’s lives more difficult (bc i’m not about control, if you can’t tell) but since we’re not discussing either, you’re not making any point, or any sense. but that’s ok.
By blablabla
December 8, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this
fat moose, i’m fine. hopefully you are well. not to dodge you, but i need to get some stuff done. i’ll check in and talk more w you and others later. good day.
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this
Just so there is an idea of how many interviews we are talking about: around 25-35 with 10-15 having a female owner/boss; and all the initial interviewers posing this question involved were female receptionists or first level employees.
I would put money on if you were able to get the inital screening forms from these places, you would find some kind of mark indicating the response - although probably coded as a simple x or something.
By kimberly
December 8, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this
FatMoose, yes I know it happens. I was fired when I got pregnant (not legal), but easy and unchallengeable if they make up some other reason. But if I were asked that question in an interview, I would respond with a question instead of answering it. I would also document the date, time, and questioner in each instance and report it to the Dept. of Labor. IF your GF was asked this 25 times in the last three months, clearly the DOL has work to do making employers aware of the law.
By Bruce
December 8, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this
Just for the record according to the 2000 census this country was made up of 143.1 million females and 138.1 males.
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this
I will mention it to her, but unfortunately it can still bite you in the butt and she, like many, may not want to roll more dice: She was wrongly fired from her last job; and filed for unemployment. Although she proved absolutely that it was wrongful and therefore got unemployment for 3 months; the job hunt was near impossible because of the slander the previous employer would provide when called.
Why prvide the last job as a reference: Not providing that job as her last reference would have made it look as though she did not work for the last 5 years - and was not an option. Also - it sucked even more since she setup shop for him, established proceedure/clients, etc… and was fired for taking a approved day off to take me to the hospital for nerve-conduction tests (put needles in each of your major muscles from head to toe, 3x each, and make you flex hard as you can to test nerve reaction. Hence the neck/back issues). Was a bad day for all!
By kimberly
December 8, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this
In Georgia and most other states, an employer can fire at will with whatever reason he or she chooses to state. The burden of proof of discrimination is on the former employee, and all the employer has to do is say, “Nuh-UH!”. The issue or “fair” or “right” does not factor in at all. Sad. Been there, too. It’s tough these days. Workers, beware. Make copies of every piece of praise and every good review you ever get, and take them HOME! You might need them later!
By singlemom
December 8, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this
Well, I got tired and couldn’t read all the posts since yesteray. But I saw things going all over the place and off topic…so with that said: I went w/my oldest son to the Frosty the Showman yesterday. Will Smith was absolutely FANTASTIC!!!!!!!! We loved it!
He even helped a sinlge mom out w/presents and money and her son was standing on stage in awe…hmmm. I wonder if she was AI to have this handsome, sweet child!
By Jack
December 8, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this
Generally once you’re fired, you’re S.O.L.
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this
Yes, But if purely “at will” you may be entitled to unemployment - and he tried stating she pulled a no-show, and state she was at fault.
Luckily, as you state, she had documented her correspondence for approved leave (part of the systmen she implemented!) and he was hit pretty hard by the DOL.
Find it funny that this topic got more attention than my script being refused though. Makes it really hard to think the bias on the board is not heavily weighted. But, either way, you do what you can when you can - no grudges.
By blablabla
December 8, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this
from one vince: I said what if legislation…. and as far as come back to earth, you need to read the posting again, as it is a “what if� scenario.
from another vince: So, I will not attempt to tell the future or declare what would “happen if�.
so one vince, the one with the V is proposing what if scenarios. but the other vince with just the v doesn’t want to answer the what if questions.
see, not even all the vinces and their various personalities can agree on their position, but yet i’m a soothsayer for thinking that 143.1 million women (as of the 2000 census - thanks bruce) wouldn’t all agree about a complex topic.
By Jack
December 8, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this
We still love you Moose.
By Now but not then, a spoiled lesbian
December 8, 2005 11:47 AM | Link to this
RED - I am sure you love the fact your sister has no husband and children of her own. That way she can spend all of her time and money taking care of YOUR children. What a bonus - you don’t have to deal with taking care of your Mom.
Siblings like you make me vomit. As a lesbian, I see it all of the time - siblings being glad that their brother and sister has no family of their own so they get good old uncle/aunt will to care of thier kids!!
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this
Thanks Jack.
Nice when you reach the maturatity that you can pick your battles, instead of them pick you!
Ever listen to The Floating Men? Not a major label; but kicks butt. Look for Tall Shadows to begin with. {great musically and lyrically highly impressive} They play Eddies Attic a good bit.
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this
As a lesbian, I see it all of the time
I did not know that lesbians had better sight!
Just poking for fun - don’t go internalizing;)
By Ken
December 8, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this
Whenever I feel like things are spinning out of control, I know I can find consistency in the world while reading this BLOG. The same groups of folks arguing back and forth with the discussion eventually finding their way into both religion and abortion.
I would like to ask a couple of questions, that I am not intending at all to be trivial or condescending.
First, what is the big deal about a woman without a male partner going to the sperm bank?
Second, why would that same woman opt to go to a sperm bank over adopting an infant from here or overseas?
Three, and this is a doosey for all of the Kimberly’s in the world who think men simply want to control women. If a woman goes to the sperm bank and gets pregnant, what is her iobligation to then complete the pregnancy and not get an abortion?
By Chilao
December 8, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this
If a woman goes to the sperm bank and gets pregnant, what is her iobligation to then complete the pregnancy and not get an abortion?
You mean accidentally slipped on the sidewalk in front on the Sperm Bank Establishment building and ended up accidentally pregnant? Something like that? too funny.
But I would think if she wanted to spend $5 grand(or whatever it costs for a ‘stray’, back to livestock terminology) and then blow it on an abortion, it would be within her rights.
By Chilao
December 8, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this
sorry, fast keying:
Bull semen is sold in “STRAW” form, not the mis-keyed ‘stray’).
Can be ordered as ‘add to cart’ at some on-line sites.
By Renee
December 8, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this
I have to ask the question, what situation would present itself that one would buy bull semen. Maybe I’m really out of the loop.
By Chilao
December 8, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this
Renee - cattle owners who want better male genetics than their local bull. Artificial insemination for cattle and more has been available since the 1960s/, if not earlier. Sperm has to be kept super cold. freeze/dry-iced. Not up on the technology of it but personally knew an ABS guy, mentioned American Breeders Service Monday. He serviced from his little freezer(portable in the back of a truck).
By Chilao
December 8, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this
Renee- or dairymen especially who do not want the hassle of an on-site 2000 lb plus cantankerous bull. Safety issue sometimes.
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this
Had a GF that was friends with a Bull AI technition(sp?) - had the FUNNIEST stories and the mating call down to a T.
She was a must have at parties!
By Jack
December 8, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this
Snort,snort!!!
By lozen
December 8, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, you are right. In Georgia and most other states, an employer can fire at will with whatever reason he or she chooses to state. The burden of proof of discrimination is on the former employee, and all the employer has to do is say, “Nuh-UH!â€?. This could not happen if we still had powerful unions in this country. (Of course, we never had them here in the south.) Now this is not an issue to be laid at the door of old white men is it? Maybe it’s old business men we have to blame for workers having no rights. I’m sure a few of them aren’t white! ;-) A minuscule number may be females. Ronald Reagan and his flunkies did everything they could to destroy unions in this country. They weren’t old white men were they?
By Renee
December 8, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this
Ok, I was just thinking if it was for AI of a cow, that someone specializing in inseminating cows would be the only one able to order the goods, not just a random person online. But thanks anyway, don’t want to think too much about the in and outs of cow insemination.
By Jack
December 8, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this
don’t want to think too much about the in and outs of cow insemination. (I’m not going to touch that one!)
By Renee
December 8, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this
Yeah, I don’t support unions and I am definitely not a straight white man lol
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this
Lozen,
Guess you chose not to try to see EYE to EYE;) See above if interested…or lost.
They weren’t old white men were they?
Sure it is not PEOPLE in power - as females get there I have witnessed the same trend.
By Renee
December 8, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this
lol Jack (yeah no pun intended)
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
December 8, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this
Many of the women who ask that “inappropriate” question during interviews are probably weeding out the women who are prettier than they are. LOL:)
I have seen it happen. The women with the attitude - Oh, she can’t work here, because they need all the attention. You know the type.
By Chilao
December 8, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this
I thought it might be one thing to be the guy who travels from farm to farm, but to be the guy actually collecting the stuff?
shudder, shudder.
By Renee
December 8, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this
New topic please! Lol!
By Jack
December 8, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this
Did you see the show Dirty Jobs when he was working on the pig farm? I have a greater respect for the person that brings the bacon to the shelf!
By Chilao
December 8, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this
not just a random person online
you have your local vet do the mechanics, but if you were in the biz, of cattle raising, probably would do it yourself.
if you go to a livestock auction and buy a cow, they can tell you if she is bred or not, and how far along she is. they do not ‘guess’ that from looking at them. Long arms. LOL
By Renee
December 8, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this
I don’t have the stomach to watch Dirty Jobs.
By Jack
December 8, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this
I met a guy who collected horse semen. He made 160k that year. That was in 1986.
By Chilao
December 8, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this
Renee - well, actually the guy is wearing an arm-long condom, if you will, and sterilizes his arm in a bucket of disinfectant before and after, so it is actually real clean. LOL
By Renee
December 8, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this
I truly, truly, want to thank everyone (especially Chilao) for all of the information. No need to share any more, but I am deeply grateful for what has been shared so far. LOL
By kimberly
December 8, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this
Okay, raise your hand if “EEEEWWWWW!”
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this
Lived on a horse farm for 2 years - got past the EEEEWWWS
Besides, it is all just mucus, just different exit points;)
By Chilao
December 8, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
I wonder how they do it down on the topic Sperm Bank. Someone mentioned a turkey baster? Is that merely an euphemism ?
Oh, you’re quite welcome, Renee. Did not want you to feel out of the loop. LOL Probably more than you ever cared to learn about the livestock industry.
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
I wonder how they do it down on the topic Sperm Bank.
I was informed that they consist of a few playboys, a plastic cup {good luck, it is not quite like peeing!}, and non-sperm-toxic lotion….
By Renee
December 8, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
WAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY More!
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this
You all here about the stripper gone christain?
She pays for lap dances and tries to convert them during the 5min dance; of course her pastor insists on accompanying her for saftey reasons. True stuff.
HA!
By Gina
December 8, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this
www.suntimes.com/specialsections/livingsingle/cst-ftr-singlemain06.html
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this
www.suntimes.com/specialsections/livingsingle/cst-ftr-singlemain06.html
Broken link for me…
By Just Being Me
December 8, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this
Okay, I’m not going to get into a whole discussion on this because I’m obviously a little late. But, I want to say that there is something VERY fishy about a woman being asked on 25 different occasions by 25 different interviewers in 2005 whether or not she planned to have children… Very fishy.
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
http://www.suntimes.com/specialsections/livingsingle/cst-ftr-singlemain07.html
Does work though.
Have to wonder what Dr. Phill would say…but not going there again.
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this
Very fishy.
Yes, confirmed, reconfirmed and agreed it is illegal.
Gina, Have you seen the Dr. Phil that spotlighted a Single White Woman with the same problem as in the article?
They had a hidden video of her dates, and when played back it was apparent why she was not finding a long term companion. Combative and snide - although in a non-date setting she was pleasant.
I have to question such “all-in-one/got-it-made” but cannot find someone situations. People often times do not see themselves accurately on dates/intimate situations.
By Renee
December 8, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
~~waving~~ Hey JBM
By Renee
December 8, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this
everybody is not made to be compatible in long term relationships, they may have a lot of qualities that a man might not like in his mate but could be a great parent.
By Just Being Me
December 8, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
I’m not referring to the legality of it, I’m referring to the odds of one woman in 2005 being asked at a job interview whether or not she planned to have children 25 times. I’m referring to the odds of one woman in 2005 being a victim of the same unlawful questioning 25 times in a 3-month period. THAT’S what’s fishy.
~wavin~ Heyyyyyyyyy Renee!
By Just Being Me
December 8, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this
everybody is not made to be compatible in long term relationships, they may have a lot of qualities that a man might not like in his mate but could be a great parent.
Amen!
By lozen
December 8, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
It is against the law to ask certain questions like do you plan to have more children in job interviews. Yes, there are companies that will break the law just as long as they are allowed to. That’s why those companies need to be reported when that happens. The company where I work never asks those questions; they’re afraid of a lawsuit. We don’t give one zip what someone looks like either; all we want to know is, can they handle the job and fit into the team. For every person interviewed and not hired there’s a long form that must be filled out listing the reasons why they were not hired. All this is to COA due to the rules and regulations of the workplace. I just find it hard to believe there are 25 companies out there stupid enough to put themselves in jeopardy of a lawsuit by asking FM’s GF ;-) if she’s planning on having kids!
By Just Being Me
December 8, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this
Me too, Lozen. 25 companies in a 3-month period????? Really, is anyone good enough with math to give me an idea of what the odds are of something like that happening to the same person 25 times?
By Jack
December 8, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
Wow. 25 children from one female! She better get busy.
By Renee
December 8, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this
lol Jack!!!
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
I just find it hard to believe there are 25 companies out there stupid enough to put themselves in jeopardy of a lawsuit by asking FM’s GF ;-) if she’s planning on having kids!
It does not surprise me one bit - lots of idiots out there.
Were I used to work {state facility}; a payroll/finance employee had kept up the existance of a ex-employee for 3 years and kept the checks for herself.
Know how she got caught? She called in sick 3 payroll days in a row and the person who covered found out because of that!
By Just Being Me
December 8, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this
That example doesn’t support this wild claim. Sure, there are lots of idiots in here… I mean, out there.
But, how likely is it that 25 different corporate-level, HR professionals, or hiring managers would interview the same lady over a 3-month period, and unlawfully ask her whether she planned to have children?
I’m just asking a question - not trying to be funny, seriously. What are the odds of that?
In this day and time, it’s unusual for a HR professional to risk a million-dollar lawsuit by asking that question. If my partner came home 25 times in a 3-month period saying that the interview was good, but…. they asked her if she planned to have children, after about the 3rd time, I’d have to start wondering.
By FatMoose
December 8, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this
Any of you in mamagement or higher? {not being snotty, just that the things I have seen/heard have been numerous}
Funny one: {same state office} Someone brought in a pizza for the night shift because they got us out of a mess by working their butts off. Problem was, there was only enough pizza for each night person to have two - and a day shift that was staying a little late proceeded to take a piece.
Well, a manager informed him that it was not for the day people; and he seemed more than a little ruffled. Come to find out at a urgent meeting the next day that the employee was gay and thought the manager said this is not for the GAY PEOPLE {vs DAY PEOPLE}.
Everybody, including said employee had a good laugh - and was extremely relieved it was not the inappropriate situation we thought it was. We bought him lunch at a pizza joint for the stress, and ours, the next day.
By Just Being Me
December 8, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this
I’m not sure what you mean by “the things I have seen/heard have been numerous” — but that’s a good example of what I was saying earlier this week. Sometimes I just don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
Anyway, that’s neither here nor there. To answer your question, although I’m not a hiring manager at my new job, I have been a hiring manager for nearly ten years.
By blablabla
December 8, 2005 05:20 PM | Link to this
Fatmoose - to get back to you on the topic from this morning, i’m fine with single women using a sperm bank. most of my comments earlier on the blog had to do with the (imo unnecessary) disdain that some people had for adoption as an alternative. adoption is an alternative for both single women and married couples. the children that are up for adoption are real people, not the dregs of society as some made them out to be.
in general i think that women place incredibly high importance on all issues relating to reproductivity. the overwhelming majority of the women i’ve met don’t take much of anything more seriously. without meaning to be condescending in any fashion (as that is genuinely not my intent), i heartily applaud that. with that as a backdrop, i’m completely comfortable with a woman going to a sperm bank to get fertilized. it is completely within her rights, no question about it. since i know how important reproductivity is to them, i am comfortable that women will make the right choices for themselves. in short, i trust women.
as for single parenting, if the woman has made the educated choice to go get fertilized and have a child, i hope and trust that she’ll do a great job of it. i don’t think that having a traditional man-woman/husband-wife household is necessary to raise a well-rounded person. it’s my personal belief that a traditional family environment is probably the best situation to raise a child, but it’s certainly not necessary. i’d like to see men and women live together with their children in a big happy family, but that’s a fairy tale. reality is there are broken homes, or women that are ready to have children but don’t have a partner, or don’t want one.
i have some concern over the trivializing of the father in a child’s life. the single woman who chooses to have a child through a IA will need to make sure that the child is adequately exposed to both male and female role models since there is no father in the picture. but for this i revert back to my main point, i trust women. any women who’s made the conscious decision to get IA and have a child on her own will, i’m confident, do what’s best for the child and expose it to various role models to result in a well-rounded person.
you wanted my opinion. there it is. i’m sure it will get hammered by the other bloggers, but so be it.
By J.O'Toole
December 9, 2005 08:20 AM | Link to this
“Two parents are optimal in most studies because of the financial stability that comes with that statistic.”
One problem with Diane’s argument: my toddlers don’t care that their daddy makes what some might call a lot of money. They don’t care that I’m smart enough to invest wisely and am making a bundle on Wall Street. I doubt they care what car I drive, or where my suits come from. What matters to them is that I love them and their mother and that we all live together in a happy home. Even if we were poor, and as a former cop, I know what having no money is like, I think they’d still be just as happy. It is so difficult to raise children - even with both of us around (I work from the home) - that I cannot fathom how it is possible for a single woman - or man - to raise children. To paraphrase Chris Rock - it may be possible, like driving a car with your feet, but that doesn’t make it a good idea.
By vince
December 9, 2005 08:21 AM | Link to this
Nice posting blablablabla.
I agree with trivializing the role of the father. I also agree that the traditional model of family is ideal, but reality denotes otherwise in some cases.
Perhaps one way to prevent trivializing the role of the father is to find ways to improve the bad image of some fathers.
any thoughts?
By Renee
December 9, 2005 08:22 AM | Link to this
Hello everyone! Good comment blablabla.
Cold weather and a lot of snow here! I loved reading that DNA got another innocent man out of prison. I think the percentage released is probably minute (sp) to the actual number of innocent people in jail (don’t get me wrong, I don’t think jail is full of innocent people).
I have a quote for the day courtesy of Southpark.
Yesterday’s future is today! lol.
By RF
December 9, 2005 08:33 AM | Link to this
O’Toole- you can’t fathom because you are fortunate enough to not have to do it. If your wife passed away today, would you take on raising your kids alone? Of course you would, and you’d figure out how to do it. It’s not easy, but it can be done and done well if you choose to do it.
On the job interview thread— I’ve been passed over for a job because I’m a single parent of elementary aged kids. Some employers see it as a negative because you inevitably end up using your sick time up for your kids. I let it be known early in the interview so there’s no let down at the end. I’m lucky now to have a ‘boss’ (principal) with kids who understands the demands of a family and likes to have family-oriented staff. It makes a big difference.
HAPPY FRIDAY ALL!!
By blablabla
December 9, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this
ty renee and ty vince.
Perhaps one way to prevent trivializing the role of the father is to find ways to improve the bad image of some fathers.
candidly, this is a difficult nut to crack. in any group there will be some bad apples. you just hope that the bad apples don’t end up being what the whole group is known for. there are lots of wonderful fathers out there.
By Lyrazel
December 9, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this
Editor Note: Lyrazel is off her meds and has decided to make skewed-leaning commentary: Hearing this crap about men and women over and over again were better off in the dang good old days is the biggest horse pa-toot (and horsies have BIG pa-toots) that ever passes for smog in GA. 1949 my dad divorced my mother. Lets see what she had to face: no one at her church would come to visit in the crisis, even the minister casually suggested she take her praying somewhere else. (She did not. She stayed in that damn 3d row every Sunday with her little girls in gloves and hats). She was no longer so welcome at Fellowship by the wives who treated her suspiciously now that a man rejected her, bridge club with the ladies was over—they never said why. Mom had to get a job: the men hiring her made comments that she had to comply with the moral integrity of…GA schools…forgetting her prior school involvements. She got a Masters degree, sewed school clothes for 4 children—made us lunch, helped with homework, kept us academically strong to attend college which 3 did on scholarship (not me, nope I was the bad seed, ha ha). Few people in the neighborhood would ever speak to her again, referred to her in derogatory terms—referred to us as—bastard kids—and every year she had to prove she was actually married when we were born before we could register. What really irks me is how the sanctimonious bloggers love picking at the self-expressed single-and-content women with kids as inferior—or their relationships as less valid—or that their own married and happy strong life cant easily become: divorced & dealing with it… While I might have my own prejudices about becoming a mother because you just want to be a mommy not because you are fully prepared to raise children (get a dog at the humane society and hush), or the women who wont use birth control to stem their output, or the men who believe bc is a women-thing and they were tricked for child support (like what part of your kid is not yours, sir?), I remember my father always said my mother was a good example to follow. Loved him for that…but does not change the fact he left… You cannot plan forever-happiness just because you live in TV-inspired nostalgia for the 50s or have a good job and commute to the suburbs, folks. Enjoy life…happy friday…
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this
blablabla,
Nice post, and I agree with what you posted; with minor exceptions:
in short, i trust women. And it is not that I do not trust women in general, but PEOPLE in general. And given the topic is talking about the general trend; one must factor in ALL the reasons people would get AI.
Given that, I would believe that a large % do not know what they want or what they are up against in raising a child solo. Not that bc they are women they cant or non-sense like that mind you; but bc they are people.
An easy example of this is what has been posted this morn: To paraphrase Chris Rock - it may be possible, like driving a car with your feet, but that doesn’t make it a good idea. Most people barely think ahead enough to have a budget for the week; much less life!
The other part, in general, that I wonder about is: women that are ready to have children but don’t have a partner, or don’t want one.
I am back to the suggestions of DX that who are these people and under what circumstances would these cases exist? If compatability with another adult has been evaded, often the case with work-a-holics, or they do not want a husband, which also has a general trend of being burned and having resentment - I have to ask what do they think raising the child is going to be like? He/She is going to grow into thinking he/she {the child} is an adult at around 13 {refer to the joke, want a worker that knows everything, hire a teenager!}; and you are going to have to have a constructive/comprimising relationship their whole life. But this same person has been unable to do that for 30+ years…
If looked at purely from the perspective of what do I think about the reality that a woman CAN have AI - I trust and hope it is in light of reality; But if asked the actual question about the general trend, we are looking at a bell curve, and your examples are the edges, not the bell - because they fall in the catagory of people, not women.
Thanks for the clear posting - Enjoyed it.
By amber
December 9, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this
This is off topic but a subject close to my heart since I’ve known so many woman who have been abused by husbands and boyfriends. It seems as if every single day there’s another murder of a woman by a man, another child tortured and killed by a man. Every one of you men who isn’t an abuser needs to know there are ways you can help.
Susan McGee spent 25 years battling domestic violence in Michigan. McGee said she sees progress being made in combating domestic violence around the country and is encouraged when organizations band together. But she says she is discouraged by a continuing trend that blames victims for their abuse. “That belief still persists, and it is troubling to me,� she said after her speech to about 40 people. McGee has written extensively on domestic violence and has traveled the country speaking about ways agencies can work together and reach out to local residents. Such opportunities, McGee said, can come from the most unexpected places. Because abusers often hurt household pets to create a sense of terror, McGee said, veterinarians could be trained to recognize abuse in animals as a possible sign that a person is being abused, too. Cosmetologists often know the personal details of their clients’ lives and could connect victims with professional help, McGee said.
McGee also said men can play a major role, especially given that statistics show men are by far most often the abusers. She said men can be critical players in lobbying for new legislation and in talking about refraining from violence with their male peers. “We’re not going to end this problem without the participation of men,� she said.
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this
She said men can be critical players in lobbying for new legislation and in talking about refraining from violence with their male peers. “We’re not going to end this problem without the participation of men,� she said.
I cuncur with your post; it is refreshing to see someone understand that there are a lot of non-abuser men; and that they can help in the ways you mentioned - primarily by being proactive by not having a blind eye, yet not be persecuted themselves either.
This is one of the MAIN reasons I do not condone spanking - we want to stop adult/adult hitting, lets not teach that hitting/spanking is a way to teach better behaviour. Instead, lets treat teaching better behaviour by TEACHING/MODELING.
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 09:52 AM | Link to this
To be more acurate:
lets not teach that hitting/spanking is a way to teach better behaviour.
should read: lets not teach that hitting/spanking is a productive way to change behaviour.
By Renee
December 9, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this
Most people barely think ahead enough to have a budget for the week; much less life!
That’s a very general, invalid statement.
Given that, I would believe that a large % do not know what they want or what they are up against in raising a child solo. Not that bc they are women they cant or non-sense like that mind you; but bc they are people.
One could say the same to you. A person may not be up against as much as you believe. The large majority of single women going for AI, will have thoroughly thought about all the ramifications that will be involved. There are married couples, nonmarried couples, one night stands, etc, who have children without any thought process attached and no method to their madness. But when a single woman (who we naturally assume) would have gone through the entire thought process, expresses interest in having her eggs fertilized (at a hefty price, I might add), people suddenly want to holler “I don’t think you’ve thought of everything” or “do you understand what you are doing?” or “what will you do when _ happens”. These aren’t mentally retarded women doing this, women who have problems understanding, these are women preparing (as one should do when considering to be a parent). And not to minimize the fact that two parents and/or a daddy is a great thing, but children for ages and ages have been missing one parent and/or a daddy )due to very different circumstances I will admit), and have turned out fine.
True this kid could be presented with all the love in the world and end up with a chip on his shoulder because his father is a sperm donor. This could get him to harbor resentment, have different feelings etc. I’m not saying that couldnt happen. But life is full of situations. Some children have two parents and all the love in the world and still turn out to be bad, bad people. These situations don’t have to and won’t necessarily turn out to be the worse case scenarios. I doubt we’ll have many children growing up blowing up sperm banks when they get a chance, solely for this reason.
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 10:03 AM | Link to this
Renee,
I see what you are saying, and although I personally do not have that much faith in PEOPLE; I also personally hope and trust These aren’t mentally retarded women doing this, women who have problems understanding, these are women preparing (as one should do when considering to be a parent).
Understand that most americans do not have a budget; and manage their life on a week-to-week basis. Most are one paycheck away from loosing their house, but also have credit cards that are near lapsing; with two four-wheelers in the back yard. The hardest lessons in life are not to be stellar on occasion; but to do the consistent homework of life EACH DAY, little by little - you can see it in kids, as well as adults.
I really envy your faith in people; but I feel {with true respect for your views} that it is misplaced.
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this
With that said, I am happy that IF my outlook is correct or not; that AI exists for no matter WHAT the % is of people who think thouroughly before they act.
The ropes that bind one of us, bind us all!
By Renee
December 9, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this
Understand that most americans do not have a budget; and manage their life on a week-to-week basis. Most are one paycheck away from loosing their house, but also have credit cards that are near lapsing; with two four-wheelers in the back yard. The hardest lessons in life are not to be stellar on occasion; but to do the consistent homework of life EACH DAY, little by little - you can see it in kids, as well as adults.
While I feel that there are a fair number Americans that fall into this category, I cannot concur that this amounts to most Americans. I don’t think it amounts to me having more or less faith in people than anyone else. I just don’t fall in the category of people that think a change or something that may develop into a “trend” will be bad, without having first hand knowledge of it.
By MaryJo
December 9, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this
I do not think a woman needs to prove herself ??? by having a relationship with a partner before she’s entitled to have a child. FatMoose seems to be one of those people who believes a woman is inferior at least or a psycho of some kind at worst if she isn’t half of a pair. How tired and old that thinking is. All statistics show that single women say they’re happier than married women! I know I am; I listen to the married women I work with complain all day long about their husbands. I am very content with my life as a single mother. I think that shows maturity, not some kind of pathology as FM seems to think. I don’t need a man to support me and my child financially; I do that very well myself. I don’t want to use my time “working” on a relationship with a partner because that would take time away from my daughter. With things I hear on the news these days I would be afraid to date someone I didn’t know very, very well and have him around my daughter! I have many friends to socialize and do things with. I just hate the idea that a woman is lacking something or inferior in some way because she doesn’t have a man attached to her!
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this
I cant follow your last post, but believe we have communicated successfully our views; which is nice.
Seeing as I will never KNOW the general population; I have to refer to census reports and such. These do report that somewhere in the area of 85% of households are one paycheck away from loosing their home. They also report that they are in debt regarding credit cards and other 19-20% interest rates - which is not smart money management.
Look also, if you wish, on how much people spend on lotto tickets each day; yet refuse to put it in a savings acct for their selves or kids. Or spend on McDonalds; instead of a decent meal that can be reheated - and is healthy. {I want to aknowledge that I know you do not adhere to such inane practices}
We differ here in opinion; which is fine and healthy. Lets move on, seeing as more will not reveal pertinent info; and may only attract trolls.
By Renee
December 9, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this
I have to admit I do have the “inane” practice of getting fast food for the family. If I’m not up to cooking, or sitting in a restaurant, fast food it is. You can’t be healthy all the time!
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this
FatMoose seems to be one of those people who believes a woman is inferior at least or a psycho of some kind at worst if she isn’t half of a pair.
That is an unfair portrait of what I actually said.
It is a shame that people take things out of context; and then color it sick like that to BE offensive and BE right.
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this
I don’t want to use my time “working� on a relationship with a partner because that would take time away from my daughter.
You do not want to teach your daughter how to work on a relationship? And that it does take {constructive} work to keep it going?
BC that is what she would learn if you did take time “working” on a relationship. It is called modelling.
Relationships are the hardest thing in this world people. They bring out the best and worst in us - and precipitate what still needs to be worked on. We all have a seed of relationship work that emerges IN a relationship - if you are not in one, you cannot do THAT relationship work; and I believe that seed will get passed on - as is with no work done on it. That seems unfair to a child to me; seeing as the probability that they {the child} will be in a relationship one day of serious magnitude/depth is high.
Metaphor: You cannot work on your auto-repair skills without working on an automobile in practice eventually - you can start with the theoretical; but the practicle is where the rubber hits the road. And by example is ALWAYS best.
By Not PC
December 9, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this
Technically, the manless child will be a Bastard.
Socially, we need to put some teeth back in that word and see what happens…
By MaryJo
December 9, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this
FatMoose thinks it’s time to move on with this topic ladies. I guess he’s said everything he wants to say. 1/ If compatability with another adult has been evaded, often the case with work-a-holics, or they do not want a husband, which also has a general trend of being burned and having resentment - I have to ask what do they think raising the child is going to be like? In other words something is wrong with a woman who doesn’t have a longterm partner, therefore she should not go to the sperm bank to have a child if she so desires. 2/ these women shouldn’t expect any help if something catastrophic happens and they need help with any child produced by a sperm bank. I think this shows such a lack of respect for women and such a mean attitude toward women and children! All I can say to you FatMoose is that you are grasping at straws to build a case against single mothers because you don’t respect woman no matter how many times you claim otherwise. Now I am ready to move on not because the trolls might show up (you already have) but because I have said all I want to say to you.
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this
Lets move on, seeing as more will not reveal pertinent info; and may only attract trolls
And the trolls come marching! Can I call em’, or can I call em’;)
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this
2/ these women shouldn’t expect any help if something catastrophic happens and they need help with any child produced by a sperm bank. I think this shows such a lack of respect for women and such a mean attitude toward women and children!
Not anywhere in my posts - not without another sick alteration.
Come on then; if you want to understand what I mean; have a dialog. But if you want to assume and change it; agreed…move on.
By blablabla
December 9, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this
i thought the definition of the word bastard is a child born out of wedlock. is that incorrect?
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this
Read your posts mam; they are snotty and bitter.
That is WITHOUT altering a word.
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this
Socially, we need to put some teeth back in that word and see what happens…
If we did I wonder what word society would have for you…I am sure it could not be aired on TV.
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this
I thought the definition of the word bastard is a child born out of wedlock. is that incorrect?
Dont know/Dont care - enough damage is done to kids based on their parents already.
Not jabbing at you Bla - but find it an un-needed Q.
By RF
December 9, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this
Some people choose not to be in relationships. Do you know any possible numbers? I have a sneaking suspicion that many aren’t in relationships because they just haven’t met anyone worth working on a relationship with. Here’s a question, honest question Moose. Do you think, from your experience, that it would be better for a parent who is single (for whatever reason) to date and expose children to the ins and out of trying to find the right person? I’m thinking about dating relationships that last a few months and then end. Sometimes what starts out good doesn’t last and that seems to have an effect on kids (i.e. forming attachments). Thoughts anyone?
By Chilao
December 9, 2005 11:41 AM | Link to this
Those four articles at the chicago sun posted here yesterday are worthy reading. if you put an underscore in between where the word changed from regular print to italic print(or back), the link may have worked. I never got it to work but once I went to the Chicago Sun directly, was able to drill to FOUR very-worthy-reading articles. (and figured out why the link posted here did not work.)
By lozen
December 9, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this
MaryJo, I’m happy to see another smart woman who doesn’t let FatMoose get away with his misogyny!
He ain’t all bad though. His response to the idiot who said the manless child is technically a “bastard” was right on!
NotPC please go crawl back under your rock.
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this
Do you think, from your experience, that it would be better for a parent who is single (for whatever reason) to date and expose children to the ins and out of trying to find the right person? I’m thinking about dating relationships that last a few months and then end. Sometimes what starts out good doesn’t last and that seems to have an effect on kids (i.e. forming attachments).
{Nice to share views honestly;)}
My reply: I believe in modelling IN reality. So, if the person searches/dates smartly; I feel it can only benefit the child. For lack of words, we all plug-n-chug looking for a person for a relationship, and a child CAN learn that is an OK thing. Otherwise what is the child learning? That the first one must BE THE ONE? That is un-realistic.
This follows my same thinking on the general question: If they persue it smartly. So, although I feel it CAN benefit the child greatly - my GENERAL answer on would I prescibe it across the board, knowing how people ACTUALLY date and involve the child too early would be: NO, one should not.
Understand the duality that I am hitting? And the reason for it is what COULD be done on an INSTANCE basis; vs what the GENERAL population ACTUALLY does MOST of the time.
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this
But throwing bastard around is just as stupid as throwing around misogyny.
Or, in comparision to NOTpc, do you have SPECIAL privledges to change ones text and call names?
By RF
December 9, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this
That’s the problem I’m having is deciding when to introduce my boys to the new relationship. I probably make it a bigger deal than it is, but I worry about them forming an attachment to someone and then we break up. I worry sometimes that they are exposed to more loss than is healthy. I want them to have plenty of role models and see how relationships work, but with my record in dating in recent years (0 for 5), I worry that they may be unintentionally learning that relationships don’t normally work out. It’s tough to date with kids without worrying about the effects it has on them.
By Tim
December 9, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this
hello all… my 2 cents… worry about your own dang family more than what some women is or isnt putting in her v****… and kids wont be as screwed up as they are now… no matter if they are from a single parent, gay parents, straight parents, or any other family unit that is out there
Netbanker… hey I am around here every now and then… I started a new job when I got back from L.A. so not a lot of time to read the blog… I loved CA! will definitely be back… got an AWESOME deal at Fred Segal while I was there :)
By Tim
December 9, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
oh and I’m with the spoiled lesbian… I’m not about to adobpt someone’s messed up kids… when my partner and I start a family in the next couple of years… we are using his sperm and my sister is carrying the children… if my kids are gonna be messed up… I wanna mess em up
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this
What I did while dating a woman with a 11yo girl is plainly explain that it IS a rarity {or not commonplace} to find someone you are attracted to and is functional long term. I talked frquently about how we are people on a learning curve that is not dis-simalar to hers and friends/what-not.
Just as you, they will meet many girls and you may get attached to {happens my mom gets attached to many of the girls I dated} and is a aspect you need to learn to handle healthily (sp?) in life.
There will be time we miss others presence, but long term happiness is paramount, and you want mom or dad to be happy; just as I want YOU to be happy.
Feedback?
By Jack
December 9, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this
RF. I am unable to comment on that one because I’ve been married to the same woman forever. I imagine that is a tough situation to be in.
By blablabla
December 9, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this
oh and I’m with the spoiled lesbian… I’m not about to adobpt someone’s messed up kids… if my kids are gonna be messed up… I wanna mess em up
that’s heartwarming to see, tim. with that attitude about children that are up for adoption, i’m sure you’ll succeed in messing your children up.
By RF
December 9, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this
I’m a worrywart parent, Jack, so I overanalyze everything that impacts my boys’ lives. Sometimes the kids are a great way to meet someone. Their pretty blue eyes draw the prospects into the net, so to speak. ;- ) I’ve always heard a cute dog or kids is a good way to meet.
Good point, Moose. That’s pretty much what I’ve done, and it seems to work. I want them to be ready for reality but shield them from some of it at the same time. It’s the catch22 of parenting.
By Tim
December 9, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this
thanks for the support blablabla… your opinion means a lot since I know nothing about you and you know nothing about me
By Ken
December 9, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this
Mary Jo… I didn’t read all of FM’s posts, but I definitely get the imporession he was saying anything aginst single-parents, so I think it is out of context to see it as so.
He does make an interesting point about modeling behaviors to your children. I would be curious to know the percentage breakdown children of divorce getting divorced. Is the percentage higher among children of divorced parents vs. non-divorced parents? Not sure.
If you as a parent do not build and work through relationships when they become difficult, then how will your child learn to build and work through relationships when they become difficult?
Chances are they won’t because they either will not have the skills or will be too afraid to become part of one. I can’t say that is a good thing. It would seem that over time, reinforcement of that behavior will erode the male-female relationship? How long of a time period that will take to effectively eliminate those relationships, I can’t say. Although I do believe it is already happening.
By Tim
December 9, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this
if you actually knew me you would figure out that my comments were mostly sarcastic… my heart actually aches for suffering children… I would adopt 10 of them if I could… but the state of GA wouldn’t like that… now would my partner… he wants his own… that’s why we are going that route
By Tim
December 9, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
now should be nor
By Nikita
December 9, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this
Let me repeat this: In my experience thus far there are plenty of non-screwy kids in foster care, and there are plenty of kids who will become non-scewy with a loving and dedicated parent. Let’s see — there’s a family of three beautiful children (4,5,6) with no real issues other than being in foster care for two years, but their mom is in jail and won’t be able to reclaim them. Their father is deceased. But the two kids who are the reason why I got interested in adoption to begin with are older, and are the kind of kids anyone would want — two honor students (13 and 16) in a nearby county who a friend of mine teaches, who will both be college-bound on scholarship. One is the only child of a drug addict who can’t maintain a home and the other was abandoned due to asthma (her mother decided she wouldn’t/couldn’t care for her) and has never had a home. Their situation is certainly messed up, but I wouldn’t say that they are.
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this
I want them to be ready for reality but shield them from some of it at the same time. It’s the catch22 of parenting.
Well, think of the pool ananlogy: You do not want them to jump in the pool for the first time, no matter what age, with no understanding of the tools it takes to swim; so explain this is the learning and fun of life.
Exmplain also: Yeah you will want to, and will end up throw your hands up in the air on OCCASION, but to keep them up will result in drowning also!
Learning is the closest thing to a guarentee to not going through the lesson again - but to do that, you cannot blame the lesson!
The waters are scary sometimes, but whats the alternative? Denying there IS a pool?
By blablabla
December 9, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this
well, tim, you said you agreed w spoiled lesbian about not wanting to adopt other people’s “messed up” kids. what did you expect people to think of you? but i’m glad to see that you have a heart, bc spoiled les’ comments (taken in their entirety) were some of the cruelest things i’ve seen written about children that are up for adoption that i’ve ever heard or written anywhere.
By Nikita
December 9, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this
P.S. Tim, I don’t have issues with your choice. I wish you and your partner the best of luck, in fact.
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this
Ken,
Thanks for seeing what I was posting.
You rephased it well.
Plus: Is the percentage higher among children of divorced parents vs. non-divorced parents? Not sure.
I believe they have many studies out there that prove this IS the case. And do not get me wrong - if it is an impass, I support divorce. But, there are a lot of divorces that continue the bad relationship, and therefore REENFORCE what the parents were trying to omit.
“The only thing worse that a bad marriage relatiionship is a bad divorce relationship.”
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this
rephased = rephrased
Damn Star Trek TNG!
By Tim
December 9, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this
blablabla… that’s why you shouldn’t judge… you know NOTHING about me… but quite honestly I see no problem with what she said… she has every right to believe that her only choice shouldn’t be to adopt a ‘messed up’ child
Nikita… thanks you very much for the kind words… I wish you the best as well :)… like i said in my first post… if we all worried about our own homes as much as we worry about others our children would be better off :)
By RF
December 9, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this
Moose- true. Lately though, considering the lack of activity, I’ve begun to think somebody put up a ‘pool closed’ sign!! LOL On a serious note though, I wish more parents would think about how much their kids watch what they do and become what they see. It’s sad to see how many parents forget or don’t care that they’re the role model for their kids.
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this
she has every right to believe that her only choice shouldn’t be to adopt a ‘messed up’ child
But she did not state that it was/would be her only choice; nor was anyone saying it should be her only choice.
She flat out call foster kids slanderous names/labels - in absolute terms. That is cruel and wrong.
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this
Reply to SpoiledLes:
spoiled lesbian, you talk about these children that are up for adoption as if they’re completely the dregs of society, that bc one parent was a crack whore and another was a violent criminal that the child is ruined and worthless.
Her Reply: By Now but not then, a spoiled lesbian December 5, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this Adoption - as a single woman and a lesbian - get this straight folks - I don’t want your screwed up foster kids. Go hock them off on somebody else. You screwed them up, don’t dump them on me to fix. I want a beautiful, healthy, un-screwed up, BABY, not your Wednesdays children formed from crack mothers and criminal fathers with sex abused histories.
Yep, it sucks what the staight crowd does to thier own children but these kids are not mine to fix. I don’t see heteros and married people running to DFACS to grab up these kids.
Once again, single women (well, not lesbians we should all be on an island or camp somewhere away from children and society) are a second class group - what Shaunti is saying - single women you don’t deserve a healthy baby but here you can take one of our throw backs, full of mental problems and health problems. Here raise this for us
That is HARSH, and more importantly untrue of many foster kids.
I understand you were joking, but when using material like that; you cannot expect people to find it pallatable. {not knocking you, but pointing out that also you cannot find fault in someone reacting to statements like THAT}
By Tim
December 9, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this
FM… ok… I can definitely see your point there
By blablabla
December 9, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this
she has every right to believe that her only choice shouldn’t be to adopt a ‘messed up’ child
sure she does, tim. nobody suggested otherwise. congrats, you’re arguing something that nobody contested. however, despite all the dialogue, she failed to see (1) that adoption is an alternative, not some requirement for a single woman (just like adoption is an alternative for married couples), (2) and that not every kid in foster care is awful and has massive problems.
her ignorance of children in foster care is laughable, and the cavalier manner in which she grouped all children that are up for adoption as “messed up” is a heartless and grotesque overgeneralization.
you’re agreeing with her comments and telling me i shouldn’t be judgemental of her ignorance and prejudicial comments. that was you being sarcastic, right?
By Tim
December 9, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this
I reacted to someone judging me without knowing me… yes I certainly can find fault in that
By Tim
December 9, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this
I believe she was commenting on the fact that Shaunti stated that single women should adopt children that are ‘already here’ rather than have her own child… I think she is intelligent enough to know she has options… she was commenting on that fact that Shaunti said she should adopt instead… and sorry but most children that are ‘already here’ and have not been adopted usually do come from less than ideal circustances… and a single lesbian would probably not have a chance to adopt one of the ‘desirable’ children… they would probably have to ‘settle’ for the ‘messed up’ kids
as for the judging… I commented on you judging children I don’t even have and my ability to be a parent by ONE statement I made
By blablabla
December 9, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this
i reacted to someone judging me without knowing me… yes I certainly can find fault in that
tim, if you don’t want to be judged like spoiled les for saying things that are ignorant and prejudicial, don’t hitch yourself to her without understanding what she really meant and said. i realize your “i want to screw em up” comment was tongue in cheek. it was the first part where you said you agreed with what she was saying elicited my response.
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this
considering the lack of activity, I’ve begun to think somebody put up a ‘pool closed’ sign!!
Cant agree more!!! And I agree, weaving between the goofballs is difficult!
We also ahve to remember {many of us anyways} that we ONLY deal with the opposite sex; so my dealings are primarily with females, and you males {mistaken here?} - but either way, our perspective is polarized.
Meaning, I ONLY see the screwed up women, since I do not date men. I am sure the other side of the fence is just as tiresome!
By Renee
December 9, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this
Spoiled lesbians comments were possibly insensitive in the manner in which they said, but if you look past that at the underlying meaning, she has a point. Personally, I wouldn’t word in that fashion, nor do I think that statement applies to all children in foster care or orphanages. I will say that although there are countless children who need adopting, I see nothing wrong with someone deciding not to go that route when planning a family.
By blablabla
December 9, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this
I believe she was commenting on the fact that Shaunti stated that single women should adopt children that are ‘already here’ rather than have her own child… I think she is intelligent enough to know she has options…
1) that’s not what shaunti said - here’s the direct quote: And there’s another dynamic to consider. Up to half a million U.S. children — many of them newborns — are languishing in foster care, waiting for a loving parent
another dynamic to consider.
2) if you think she really made the distinction about alternatives, then you should look at her comments later in the blog where she screams (paraphrasing) how shaunti thinks she’s better than everybody bc she can have a healthy baby and everybody else gets the awful leftovers. it was clear that she didn’t make any distinction about there being alternatives.
By Jack
December 9, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this
“The only thing worse that a bad marriage relatiionship is a bad divorce relationship.�
The number one cause of divorce is marriage.
By Tim
December 9, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
Shaunti does not suggest that single women should adopt children who are ‘already here’ rather than have a child of their own? yes she does… and I am sorry but the children who are ‘already here’ are not the cute lil blonde hair blue eyed little cherubs… those babies are practically adopted before they are even born
and you want to talk about generalizations… you take ONE comment I make and GENERALIZE that my hypothetical children are going to be ‘messed up’… I smell something… oh wait… it’s the stinch of hypocrisy
By Jack
December 9, 2005 01:36 PM | Link to this
Hello Tim. Long time no hear. Good to hear from you.
By blablabla
December 9, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this
Personally, I wouldn’t word in that fashion, nor do I think that statement applies to all children in foster care or orphanages. I will say that although there are countless children who need adopting, I see nothing wrong with someone deciding not to go that route when planning a family.
renee, if she’d said what you just said, it’s likely that nobody would have taken issue with her comments. i know i wouldn’t have.
to think that some women who are single will want to have their own biological children as opposed to adopting is perfectly reasonable. i never took issue with her saying that. what is not reasonable is to make ridiculous overgeneralizations like she did about children in foster care and to take someone writing “another factor to consider is adoption”, and blasting off into orbit thinking the author is saying that single women have to adopt, or should adopt.
By Tim
December 9, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this
hello Jack… nice to read some of your comments again… those one liners are always good for a quick laugh :)
By Ken
December 9, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this
How can anyone know whether or not a newborn is “screwed up”? Their only “flaw” is being a victim.
By RF
December 9, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this
Tim- I got mine at 3 and 4 yrs. old. Not exactly cherubs, but they became that way with a little time and effort. I fully support anyone wanting to have their own, but a lot of the supposed rejects just need a little stability and a good home to bring out the good in them.
Moose- between the oddballs and high standards, I’ve begun to wonder if there’s one out there worth considering for marriage. I have friends of all persuasions who have the same complaints. There seem to be an abundance of oddballs out there. I refuse to settle though, so I guess I’ll just keep hanging around the pool and hope nobody’s peeing in it!
By Gina
December 9, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this
Fatmoose, I didn’t see the Dr. Phil episode. Yes, you are correct. Many people don’t see themselves accurately in a dating situation.
By blablabla
December 9, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this
Shaunti does not suggest that single women should adopt children who are ‘already here’ rather than have a child of their own? yes she does…
no, she doesn’t, tim. reading comprehension. “another factor to consider” is not logically equivalent with “you should do X”. a middle schooler would know the difference.
and I am sorry but the children who are ‘already here’ are not the cute lil blonde hair blue eyed little cherubs
you prove with every post that i had you pegged right off the bat.
By Renee
December 9, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this
Hi Jack. Too funny!
author is saying that single women have to adopt, or should adopt.
That is exactly what she is saying!
By Tim
December 9, 2005 01:58 PM | Link to this
Yes, the mother-father family is ideal, but since these children already exist and already have no parents, I encourage single women who want to become single moms to pour out their love on them.
that doesn’t suggest that a single woman should adopt rather than have a child of her own?
yeah u sure did have me pegged bla… glad you are as intelligent as you think you are
By Nikita
December 9, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
Re: blue-eyes, blonde cherubs, I don’t desire one and therefore adoption of existing fostered children is really attractive to me. Not that I’m opposed to said children, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder and my eye beholds a wider range than “Aryan infant.” If I gave birth to kids they’d probably fit that description — but I can appreciate kids that are dark-skinned, dark-haired, etc., too.
It’s a very interesting fallacy afoot here — that adopted children are inferior to any child you might produce yourself. In my family there are a few criminals and a few slackers — and they’re all naturally born to seemingly normal two-parent families. You like to think that that whatever you produce will be perfect, but it’s a form of roulette. If anything, adopted kids can be less a roulette — I can choose, for example, not to adopt kids with severe illness or mental issues, and if I gave birth to them they’d be my cross to bear, wouldn’t they?
By Nikita
December 9, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this
P.S. Just to run this discussion completely off track, I’m gonna go ahead and state another motivation that I have — the motivation to do something that is not merely gratifying to me, but beneficial to others. I would like to be a parent to a child — but if I’m creating one to fulfill my desire, am I really doing anything to make the world a better place? I have a lot of things in my life that other people didn’t appreciate. I think I am better and they are better for our association. I enjoy giving those things meaning, and I would enjoy improving an existing child’s life.
By Jack
December 9, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this
RF. A female that loves you as much as you love her IS the perfect candidate for marriage. There really is no Ms. Perfect or Mr. Perfect. Who is?
By Renee
December 9, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this
Perfection = me!! Lol jk
By Jack
December 9, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this
I’m sure your partner thinks so!
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this
A female that loves you as much as you love her IS the perfect candidate for marriage
Kinda slippery ground there - most of the split up people I know WERE at that place, but because functional {add a dis before?} parts eroded that love; it came to a hault.
Love is not the endpoint - unless you are defining it in a grander way than feelings; but also actions over the long haul.
{I believe I could love anyone; so I now look for f******* and some chemistry}
By Jack
December 9, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this
Moose. If you really want to get to know someone, go primitive camping with them over a long weekend. No make-up, no air conditioning, no shaving. If you can stand each other after that, you got a keeper.
By Tim
December 9, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
Jack… please don’t ever suggest that again… I would be single for the rest of my life… no one would have me lol
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
Jack,
Interesting - not sure if it is a true litmus for all; but bet it would work for many.
By blablabla
December 9, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this
I encourage single women who want to become single moms to pour out their love on them.
that doesn’t suggest that a single woman should adopt rather than have a child of her own?
no, tim, it doesn’t. the operative word that you’re using is rather. you’re suggesting the author is saying do one thing instead of doing another. she doesn’t say that. nowhere does she say single women should adopt instead of having your own child. it’s merely an alternative to consider. surely you can see a difference.
yeah u sure did have me pegged bla… i was playing w you.
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
Looks pretty bad: f*
The word was f-u-n-c-t-i-o-n-a-l-i-t-y.
Geez!
By Jack
December 9, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
That wasn’t the word we thought it was. You dog you.
By Tim
December 9, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
blablabla… you’re playing semantics… we’ll just agree to disagree on this one
sorry for not getting the joke… have fun playing
FM… I couldn’t for the life of my figure out what word was being blocked… I was wondering if a new word came out that I hadn’t heard yet
By RF
December 9, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this
watch out— sounds like Renee’s smoking the ‘stuff’ again!!LOL Only kidding, as long as your partner thinks so, that’s all that matters.
Jack- I agree. That’s my problem here lately. I keep meeting ones that LOOOOVE me but aren’t ringing any bells for me, or vice versa. I haven’t met anyone in a long time that was the one I just couldn’t live without. I’m not looking for the Hollywood perfection, but I think you just plain know when you’ve met the right one. Time will tell, and the stats show that most end up not working out. I just don’t want to cross that line until I’m pretty sure I can help make it work.
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this
Hence why I had to ammend!
I like fun stuff; but have long learned it does not sustain a relationship. {plus, I did not want lozen to have an actual reason for coming down on my a$$;}
By Jack
December 9, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this
Thou shall not bogart. Pass it.
By FatMoose
December 9, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
I did not believe it until I looked it up; but bogart is refering {no pun meant} to Humphry Bogart and how he would not put down his cigar to ash.
By blablabla
December 9, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this
tim, let me try one more time and we can let it go.
I encourage married couples who want to become parents to pour out their love on them.
all i did was change shaunti’s phrase of “single women” and “single moms” to married couples and parents.
reading that, do you think shaunti’s position would be to encourage married couples to adopt instead of having their own kids?
if you answer “no”, then why would you read something into it when she says “single women” and “single moms”?
By lozen
December 9, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
Hi Tim sweetie. I was beginning to think I’d have to send the patrol out after you. Glad you enjoyed your trip and glad you’re back. At one time or another we all say things on this blog that others can pick apart and go on and on about if they want to. Carry on darlin’. We love ya.
By Tim
December 9, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this
wonderful bla… you win… I am done… you aren’t going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours… you are welcome to carry on if you want… I am moving on
Lozen… hey ma! :) I know what I meant… and when it boils down to it… that’s what matters… hope you are doin well :)
By Jack
December 9, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
It’s almost time to go lay around the shanty and put a good buzz on. TGIF!
By blablabla
December 9, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this
fair enough, tim.
By HaHa
December 9, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
and make sure you do some f-u-n-c-t-i-o-n-a-l-i-t-y with the wife.
By RF
December 9, 2005 03:20 PM | Link to this
Jack- I’m with you on that one! Come on over the trailer park and bring a few cold ones, will ya? :-)
By Now but not then, a spoiled lesbian
December 9, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this
And although you can’t see the battle to protect marriage as you can a military war, its cultural ramifications may be just as radical. When the countries of pre-World War II Europe noticed Adolf Hitler’s emerging aggression, they said, “It’s not my business.” But, as we now know, it was their business. How much sorrow might have been prevented had they recognized that burying their head in the sand wouldn’t help? Wage war on gay threat to marriage
By SHAUNTI FELDHAHN Published on: 07/06/04
Ok, all you Shaunti lovers, try and spin this to make the hateful awful woman not the condescending bigot that she really is.
By Now but not then, a spoiled lesbian
December 9, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
I found this article sickening and even more sickening that she compared Nazi slaughter to the quest for gay marriage rights!
By HaHa
December 9, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this
see gay marriage = Nazi Brownshirts.
dripping sarcasm
By Renee
December 9, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
Funny RF!! And yes Jack, TGIF. I have so much work on my desk it’s not even funny! I can’t get out of here soon enough!
By Jack
December 9, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this
I didn’t read that when Shaunti wrote it. She is really off the chain.
By lozen
December 9, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
Tim, son! Just got back from two weeks in Rome and Florence. I love Italy! Even better, I like my job and the wonderful people I work with so I didn’t even dread coming home. Life is sweet.
By lozen
December 9, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this
Spoiled lesbian, I think she’s disgusting. I see why you despise her. And I also think if you read between the lines just a little and take her comments on this subject in context, you are reading her right.
By Now but not then, a spoiled lesbian
December 9, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this
For the full article, just google Shaunti & nazi
By Renee
December 9, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this
Spoiled, I missed that comment. I’m glad you brought that up.
By Now but not then, a spoiled lesbian
December 9, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
Wage war on gay threat to marriage
By SHAUNTI FELDHAHN Published on: 07/06/04
The importance of next week’s Senate vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment — the proposal that we amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman — is difficult to overstate.
It may not seem like such a big thing — just one vote in one chamber about one important initiative among many — but the key pivot points of history often don’t loom particularly large at the time. Sun Tzu observed that wars are actually quietly won or lost in the temples of leadership before the battle is joined.
EMAIL THIS PRINT THIS MOST POPULAR
And although you can’t see the battle to protect marriage as you can a military war, its cultural ramifications may be just as radical. In his new book, “Marriage Under Fire,” James Dobson notes that, “This struggle is not being fought with guns and bombs, but with ideas, with creative uses of the law … It is a battle for the very soul of the nation.”
Many of us feel discomfort at confronting this issue. I sure don’t like writing about it. Shouldn’t we live and let live? But as Dobson points out, history demonstrates that initial appeasement just worsens the eventual ramifications.
When the countries of pre-World War II Europe noticed Adolf Hitler’s emerging aggression, they said, “It’s not my business.” But, as we now know, it was their business. How much sorrow might have been prevented had they recognized that burying their head in the sand wouldn’t help?
Today, we are facing a Pandora-like threat that — once allowed to escape — can never be put back in the box. With activist judges rewriting the will of the people, it’s only a matter of time before gay marriages are declared legal nationwide. And then what are we going to do to restore the will of the people — void marriages that have been solidified during those years? Rip apart families who have built their lives around their legal union? It is one thing to fight out the cultural decision now and prevent gay marriages. It is quite another to rescind that right once granted.
If we are going to confront this cultural decision, we need to do it now. That’s why, on July 12, the Senate leadership will bypass the usual lengthy committee process and ask for a vote on whether to begin the process of amending the Constitution. A Senate source recently told me that no one in leadership really wants to tackle this issue: It’s too politically costly, too divisive. But because of judicial excess, “We can’t not act,” he said. “Our hand is being forced.”
It is important to note that the danger to marriage comes not from gay individuals (as opposed to gay activists), who just want what they see as a civil right. Rather, it comes from not protecting a definition of marriage that has served as the foundation of society for millennia. In areas of Norway allowing de facto gay marriage, the regular institution has inevitably lost its meaning, so most children live in an unmarried home. And since the average gay marriage among men in Scandinavia lasts 1.5 years, most of their children will experience a broken home many times over.
As I have noted before, nearly all social problems — from poverty to crime to drug use — are caused by family breakdown. As much as we want to be compassionate, and live and let live, we simply cannot afford appeasement. Redefining marriage would not just legalize alternative marriages, but would negatively impact the traditional ones that are the backbone of our society.
• Shaunti Feldhahn of Norcross is the author of several books. Her column appears Wednesdays.
By HaHa
December 9, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this
If gays are allowed to marry, there will not be any more hetero-marriages, everyone will turn gay, reproduction will stop, except for Sperm Banks and civilization will end.
Okay, another dripping sarcasm.
By Nikita
December 9, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this
Boy, does that column sadden me. I think we can all argue that many things are causing the breakdown of traditional marriage. I would argue, furthermore, that traditional marriage is somewhat of a mirage that very few people participate in, and that’s not a new thing. (for example, how many people are married throughout their entire adult life, without exchanging one partner for another? way back in the day people swicthed partners often due to death — now it’s choice. but still, not much of the society is married and remains married, raising only the children who were created within a lifelong, committed relationship. But to blame this on gay marriage is a joke. The statement in Shaunti’s column is fallacious regarding gay marriage and children in non-traditional homes. They are happening simultaneously, but not necessarily in a causative relationship.
By blablabla
December 9, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this
I found this article sickening and even more sickening that she compared Nazi slaughter to the quest for gay marriage rights!
let me be clear on something - i’m not defending shaunti’s comments or feelings on the issue in any way (bc i disagree w her)…
but this is yet another example of spoiled les not reading what was really written. shaunti isn’t comparing nazi slaughter to the quest for gay marriage rights, as spoiled les says. shaunti is saying that the strategy of appeasing hitler was a failure and doing so with respect to gay marriage would be a failure as well. she’s drawing a parallel between the strategies for dealing with the two issues, not comparing slaughter to gay rights. admittedly i think she made an awful choice, but as usual, spoiled les would have you believe shaunti is saying something she isn’t.