Newsweek Quotes Glenn on 'Single Mothers by Choice'
October 30th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Newsweek magazine writer Lorraine Ali quotes from my co-authored column Rise in Out-of-Wedlock Births Is Bad News for America’s Kids (Washington Times, 12/4/06) in her new piece Knocking Yourself Up--Some women laugh about turkey basters replacing Mr. Right. The ongoing debate over going it alone (Newsweek, 11/5/07). The piece centers around Louise Sloan, author of the new guidebook Knock Yourself Up: A Tell-All Guide to Becoming a Single Mom. Sloan now has a fatherless 16-month-old son.
As you could guess, the piece favors women who decide to have fatherless children--the only named opposition to the practice in the piece is my short quote. Ali also quotes Rosanna Hertz, author of Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice. Hertz and Peggy Drexler, author of Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men, are the leading feminist gurus of voluntary single motherhood.
[To read my previous critique of Hertz and her book, see my co-authored column Are Single Mothers the 'New American Family?' (World Net Daily, 9/28/06). To see my previous critique of Drexler and her book, see my column Raising Boys Without Men: Lesbian Parents Good, Dads Bad (World Net Daily, 9/10/05)]
Obviously I disagree with much of what Ali (and Hertz and Drexler) have written, but I'll limit myself to just two:
1) Ali tries to denigrate the importance of fathers in children's lives by downplaying the numerous studies which show the vast differences in child well-being between single mother and two-parent households. She is correct that this difference is narrower when looking only at highly-educated, economically-secure mothers. However, the difference is still there.
2) Not all "well-being" can be measured by social scientists. Are there any adults who really believe that it won't matter to Sloan's 16-month-old boy that he doesn't have a father?
Ali's article is below.
Knocking Yourself Up--Some women laugh about turkey basters replacing Mr. Right. The ongoing debate over going it alone
By Lorraine Ali
Newsweek, 11/5/07
Sex And The City's" Carrie Bradshaw once asked, "What if Prince Charming had never shown up? Would Snow White have slept in that glass coffin forever? Or would she have eventually woken up, spit out the apple, gotten a job, a health-care package and a baby from her local neighborhood sperm bank?" Though it's hard to say how Disney would have grappled with a no-show prince, if Ms. White were to awaken alone today, it's possible she'd take the advice of Louise Sloan, author of the guidebook "Knock Yourself Up: A Tell-All Guide to Becoming a Single Mom."
Sloan found herself single at 41, though she'd always considered herself "definitely the marrying kind." Determined to become a mother, the Brooklyn-based writer inseminated herself with sperm from an unknown donor she refers to as No. 2, "a tall, handsome green-eyed actor (Favorite color: blue. Favorite pet: dogs)" in the attic of her conservative family's Kennebunkport, Maine, summer house. Sloan now has a 16-month-old son, and uses her experience—as well as those of almost 50 more unpartnered, educated and financially independent straight and gay females over 30—to propel her humorous "how to" book for aspiring single moms. She offers practical advice on choosing the right donor and informing prospective grandparents in chapters titled "Oops, I Forgot to Have a Baby" and "Trysts With the Turkey Baster."
Sloan's amusing take on this provocative subject is already spurring caustic feedback online, though it's the lightest offering among several recent books that include Rosanna Hertz's academic account, "Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice," and Mikki Morrissette's firsthand account/guide, "Choosing Single Motherhood." "We're in a transition period—people are not just getting married because that's what you do if you want to have kids," says Sloan. "Women now have careers, are financially independent and waiting until they find the right guy. Most of us want to meet the perfect person and live happily ever after, but sometimes we don't."
Whether by choice or circumstance, the evidence suggests that more and more women are considering single parenthood. Unwed births among 30- to 44-year-olds rose 20 percent from 1991 to 2006, and last year alone, four in 10 U.S. babies were born outside of marriage even though teen pregnancies hit their lowest point in 65 years. Fairfax Cryobank, one of the biggest sperm banks in the United States, says its single-female clientele jumped 20 percent in the last decade and now accounts for 60 percent of its customer base.
Not everyone is embracing the unorthodox version of mommy. Fifteen years after Vice President Dan Quayle admonished TV's Murphy Brown for having a baby out of wedlock, a recent review of "Knock Yourself Up" on Salon.com generated plenty of criticism, like that from someone who identified himself as "straight, married white male, three biological children." He wrote that Sloan is an "upper-middle-class white woman pursuing her pregnancy fantasies." And recently, blogger Glenn Sacks wrote on the Fathers & Family Web site that the rise of single mothers by choice was a "disturbing" phenomenon and is "bad news for America's children." "It's provocative, this question of 'Do men bring something unique in the raising of a child?'?" says Hertz, chair of the women's studies department at Wellesley College...
Read the full article here.
"));
19 queries. 0.390 seconds.
October 30th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
What a selfish idea to deprive a child of the father by choice, despite overwhelming evidence of the harm to the child!The biggest life lesson she's teaching her fatherless son is, of course, the feminist pabulum that only women, not men, are truly necessary. Welcome to the world, little boy.
October 30th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
...I've always wondered what are these women teaching their sons about their responsibilities as future parents other than that they are completely unnecessary and in the way? And who said there was no Men's Liberation movement?...
October 30th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
We have given women the power of “God” to decide who will live, and who will die, who will have a father, and who will not.
If these children are at risk, don’t blame women for the problem; blame yourselves for giving them the power to make these kinds of decisions.
The Constitution guarantees everyone in the United States the inalienable God Given Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights, no doubt, were intended to include an unborn child. I’m sure the Founders could never have imagined the day we would legalize the murder of unborn children.
It’s time to reverse Roe vs. Wade and restore fathers their right to an equal role in the care and custody of their children. The “Tender Years” are best spent in the care and custody of BOTH parents.
Women should not have the right to give birth for selfish reasons. Sperm banks should be for couples who can’t conceive on their own, if at all. They should not be used by selfish women trying to make sense of an unfulfilled and meaningless lifestyle.
Most of all, children are not “cash cows” to be exploited by unscrupulous government.
Kevin Merck
October 30th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
"It's provocative, this question of 'Do men bring something unique in the raising of a child?'?" says Hertz, chair of the women's studies department at Wellesley College...
Only inside that head of yours, Roseanna.
October 30th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Wait till the boyz grow up. The wimmin' won't be so hot on it then.
The Geezer has spaketh.
October 30th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
"...women's studies department at Wellesley College..."
Gee, I wonder if I can predict exactly what she'll say about this...
Ahh, I see. "This is not about creating a world without men." Perish the thought.
Kind of makes you wonder why a world without men is a major theme in feminist science fiction, tho.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Kevin Merck is right. Men created this world and it is an unintended effect of abortion. However I disagree with you about sperm banks. They should not be for anyone. If a couple can't conceive, that's god or nature telling them they cannot conceive. That's the breaks. Some people can't play baseball either. Too bad. Adopt. Or get a hobby. Not everyone gets to be parents or play in the majors.
The good news is that statistically these women are a small, small minority and the publication that heralds them is a magazine that is shinking with fewer and fewer readers. Because of stories like this.
Why would men subscribe to a magazine that's come right out and said they are irrelevant to the ultimate biological act -- producing offspring?
October 31st, 2007 at 3:57 am
My mother was not single by choice and I can't imagine any woman wanting to raise a child alone. I mean she did the best she could with what she had and my brother and I turned out great, thank God! But I think it is a selfish idea to willingly deprive a child of a father. It's like willingly taking a shot without a chaser, you still get the shot, but it's a lot rougher than it should be...
October 31st, 2007 at 9:06 am
Seems pretty obvious whats going on here. If you can convince women to get themselves into an ugly situation by being single moms, it's easier to get them to rage against the "patriarchy" when their perfect flawless dream of single motherhood is harder than all the books lead them to believe.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:53 am
When are you guys going to stop blaming women for your own shortcomings? Man hating and father bashing is not a rampant phenomenon, except in your own dishonest propaganda and the misogynist projections of the kooks and worse connected to MRA groups.
If "men" as a group want to be responsible fathers:
1. Start focusing on relationships and communication with women.
2. Pick partners that share your values and don't have sex with unless you agree on what you will do should she get pregnant either intentionally, or by accident.
2. Knock off the "give me some" mentality and start respecting women you have sexual relationships with not only as human beings, but potential mothers of your children.
3. Take responsibility for birth control. If you don't want kids, use a condom, get a vasectomy, or better yet, don't have sex.
4. Stop viewing sex with women as YOUR right, or some kind of a sport.
5. Teach boys and young men that sex is for babies...literally and they shouldn't be doing it unless they are ready to face the responsibility of a pregnancy and a child.
6. If you don't want your sperm to make a baby without you, don't give it away freely, including to sperm banks.
(Conversely, if you treat women like sperm banks, remember that once you make your deposit, it's her choice as to whether or not to let it mature...)
October 31st, 2007 at 10:58 am
Idiotssuck, all those things are well and good, if both sexes were expected to follow them. As it stands though, if either partner doesn't, it's the men who suffer.
October 31st, 2007 at 12:39 pm
What I meant to say was; if sperm banks should be allowed at all, it should be for parents who can’t conceive on their own.
I agree that they shouldn’t exist, but maybe it’s asking for too much to expect to reverse this trend in the near future.
Abortion on the other hand has run its course and needs to be dealt with NOW. There are 1,500,000 murders of unborn children annually, 50,000,000 since 1973. This is unacceptable to any “reasonable human being” and needs to stop.
Fathers being denied the equal protection of our laws, and the care and custody of their children, needs to stop NOW. It needs to stop for so many “painfully obvious reasons” that it needs no explaining to any “reasonable person”.
Kevin Merck
October 31st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Idiotssuk:
The only “kooks” associated with MRA groups are cowards like you who comment hiding behind a fictitious name.
You are no different than K.K.K. hiding under bed sheets, making inflammatory remarks about the targets of your hate.
Kevin Merck
October 31st, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Idiotssuk Says: ...
1. Start focusing on relationships and communication with women.
Ooh! I get the joke. It's irony becuase Idiotssuk isn't listening while he tells us to be better listeners.
October 31st, 2007 at 1:24 pm
1. Start focusing on relationships and communication with women.
You make assumptions too easily. I have wonderful relationships with my mother, sister and many female friends. We are talking about male bashing, you are doing just that, assuming that all men have poor relationships with women. If you mean this as a way to defer to women into giving men rights to their own kids, you are sadly mistaken. Rights are rights are rights. They do not need permission from the 'better sex' to be so.
2. Pick partners that share your values and don't have sex with unless you agree on what you will do should she get pregnant either intentionally, or by accident.
Picking partner who share your beliefs is a great idea.
Unfortunately, while women have all reproductive rights, this can only do so much. What's the point of a prior agreement if she can trick you into impregnating her, deny you any rights to your child and then sue for support? Again, men should not have to ask women's permissions for their rights.
2. Knock off the "give me some" mentality and start respecting women you have sexual relationships with not only as human beings, but potential mothers of your children.
Again, making misandrist assumptions about men. Have you seen any posters on this site moan about 'not getting any'? No. Personally, I think people should have the right to consensual sex WITHOUT having to considering parenthood. I'll think about potential mothers when I get married. Please do not make unbased steriotypes about any groups here, neither misogyny or misandry are tolerated here.
3. Take responsibility for birth control. If you don't want kids, use a condom, get a vasectomy, or better yet, don't have sex.
40% of 'unplanned' pregnancies are not accidents. I'll give you a clue, it's not men lying about contraception in those cases. Most men do use condoms, and a vasectomy is a very risky procedure for men to have to go through. Until a male pill exists, things will never be fair in the aspect of contraception.
4. Stop viewing sex with women as YOUR right, or some kind of a sport.
Yet more misandry. Have you heard anyone on this site ever call sex a 'sport'? If not, then you are making assumptions that all men do this, which is false and morally wrong. Not to mention rather intellectually lazy.
5. Teach boys and young men that sex is for babies...literally and they shouldn't be doing it unless they are ready to face the responsibility of a pregnancy and a child.
Good luck! As a teenager, let me tell you something. Kids WILL have sex whether you tell them to or not. What needs to be done is encouraging safe sex. The abstinence policy does nothing but increase teenage pregnancies.
6. If you don't want your sperm to make a baby without you, don't give it away freely, including to sperm banks.
(Conversely, if you treat women like sperm banks, remember that once you make your deposit, it's her choice as to whether or not to let it mature...)
'Desposit'
Man's right to bear children is as a deposit? All every son and daughter is to a loving father is a 'deposit'!
Sperm banks are a completely different issue, as far as I'm aware women can't sue for child support from a sperm donor. (Though it wouldn't surprise me)
And the third misandrous statement in your post. I'm not even quite sure what 'treating women like sperm banks' means, but I presume that it has something to do with men treating women like dirt.
To summarise, if you want to bitch at men, go to the local University women's studies class. Here, we discuss serious matters, and would appreciate if you did not try to disparage half the population, one message board at a time.
October 31st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
[...] Background: Newsweek magazine writer Lorraine Ali briefly quotes from my co-authored column Rise in Out-of-Wedlock Births Is Bad News for America’s Kids (Washington Times, 12/4/06) in her new piece Knocking Yourself Up--Some women laugh about turkey basters replacing Mr. Right. The ongoing debate over going it alone (Newsweek, 11/5/07). The piece centers around Louise Sloan, author of the new guidebook Knock Yourself Up: A Tell-All Guide to Becoming a Single Mom. Sloan now has a fatherless 16-month-old son. The piece favors women who decide to have fatherless children. To learn more, click here. [...]
October 31st, 2007 at 5:58 pm
It up to you, guys. You see what women are doing -- deliberately cutting men out of the family unit. STOP DONATING SPERM! Start a campaign or something and get the message out to other men!
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
You know, it's easy for those of you to comment that live in your own hypothetical world. Unless you've walked in the footsteps of many of the many single women you are condemning, you have no idea what you would do if you were to trade positions. Like many of the other "Moms" on this blog, I too was raised in a home with both a Mother and Father present, or, sort of. Given the more "traditional " roles of "family", when I was raised, my Father was the "breadwinner". He was never a hands on Dad. My Mother, for the most part, was both Mom and Dad to my brothers, my sister and I. She provided the majority of the discipline, she took us to all our games or practices, and she provided the majority of the loving. Is that what I want for my child? No!!! While I was raised with a "Dad" in the home, I don't ever remember my father throwing a ball with my brothers. He was never present at my ballet performances or recitals. To his credit, he was a very stable provider and provided a stable home enviroment.
I am well educated and well able to support myself. I am neither gay nor unattactive. My choice to become a single parent is mine alone. As a young girl, I always dreamed of one day growing up to become a wife and a Mother. My dream was to marry a man that would be a loving, involved, husband and a father that displayed a strong work ethic, traditional family values and a strong faith in Christ. Unfortunately, that man never showed up. The men I've dated have had other goals, passions or values that did not mirrior my own. Certainly, I could have married any one of them to have a child in the "traditional" sense. However, knowing that union would ultimately end in divorce, wouldn't that really also make me a selfish, irresponsible woman for raising a child on my own? Does it make me any different or better than these single Moms that have made the decision to raise their child on their own? We live in a day when a woman's choice means more now than ever before. Somehow, society has deemed it OK to give women the "choice" over life (to abort their child), but now we're disputing whether it is right or just for her to have the right to raise a child alone??? How does the one one freedom or "right" outweigh my right to be a single Mom by choice?
Due to the challenges and complexities of adopting an infant domestically, as a single woman, I chose to adopt internationally. For all of you standing on your soap boxes stating what a selfish decision it is for me to have a child on my own, how selfish is it for us to turn a deaf ear to the cries of the orphans abroad who need us? Are you going to maintain that it would also be better for these children to be raised in third world countries, alone, than to be adopted and raised by a Single Mom?!?!?!?! I can not imagine raising another child other than the one God has given me. And YES, I do believe GOD has given me this child. She is more than I ever prayed she would be. She has made being a Mommy more fulfilling than anything I've ever encountered.
I do continue to pray that God will bring a man into my life, and into my daughters. If I thought I was selective about the man I would one day marry before, it is even more important now than ever before as I have a child to consider. Her needs come before my own. Certainly, I wish my daughter to have all the benefits life has to offer, including a Daddy, but if that never happens, I know in my heart that I've given her a better life here, with me, than she'd have ever experienced without me.
It's a sad day when the opinions of others, and their disappointing past experiences, should be the standard for every other child, or every woman.
Children are raised every day by single Moms as a result of divorce , death, abuse or abandonment. If it is "selfish" for a woman to raise children alone, by choice, would you infer that we as a society should remove children from homes where they are being reared by Single Moms, not of their own choice?!?!
It's time to drop the pride, pomp and arrogance and give people the freedom to live out their dreams. I've checked the Scriptures, raising a child alone is neither illegal nor immoral. If God doesn't have a problem with it, why should you????
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
TAJ: You men are not "donating" sperm out of the goodness of your hearts ... You're selling it!!! Let's get honest! You woudn't be doing it unless there was some direct benefit to you. And for those women that truly want to be Mom's you won't stop them with your "campaigns". They'll adopt. Let's see you try to campaign against that too!
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
To Peas'n:
How you arrive at the situation of being a single mom makes a difference. This blog is mostly about mens' rights, and there is a legitimate concern when women decide to become single mothers by excluding a man from his right to be a parent. Women have the ability today to raise a child with a man's income --- needed or not--- while denying the same man any ability to participate. Other women intially believe they will raise their child on their own, then subsequently go back on the chosen responsibility, and the presumed father can be tapped (more like bludgeoned) economically years later, made responsible for another person's choice, when the same choice is not available to the man. I do not believe many people here have a grievance against any person, including a single mother, who takes responsibility for her own actions, as long as she lives up to those responsibilities consistently, and the child she raises is not conceived by means of deceiving another.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Let me clarify one thing, Peasncarrots. I would never sit in a sperm bank and heedlessly give away my gametes to an unappreciative unit such as a sperm bank, a place that seems to regard men only as sperm-dispensing machines who are insignificant in a child's life. The very idea is reprehensible to me, so your statement regarding sperm donation does not apply to me in the least. You can take a few breaths, too; I am equally disappointed in men who donate sperm because they are working against their own kind and may be putting their potential sons at risk of becoming psychologically scarred by both his and his future recipient mother's selfish actions. While some boys who are reared by single mothers go on unaffected, some boys are indeed affected. I write from experience because I was raised by a single mother. My mother loved me, of course, but I had plenty of psychological hang-ups that resulted directly from me not having a father in my life.
As for your rant ...
"... And for those women that truly want to be Mom's you won't stop them with your 'campaigns'. They'll adopt ..."
Good for them! First, many orphans and abandoned children are in need of adoptive parents. So, there's really no need for single women who want children to start from scratch. Second, this move does not involve children being deliberately created with the intent of depriving them of their biological father. These children already exist, and some of them might have known both their fathers and their mothers, but, via tragic circumstances such as death of parents, abuse, or abandonment, were separated from them. Third, the insult of men simply being used as sperm donors would not exist. So, if at any time in the future, women decide to become Single Adoptive Mothers by Choice, KUDOS! There will be no campaigning against it from me because hopeless children yearning for a family will be benefiting by such a movement, and children come first even before women's issues and men's issues.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Well said Andy.
Peasncarrots:
There are 1,300,000 children born to single mothers every year. That is a full 1/3 of all births annually. Most of these women are coming after a purported father for “child support” and a full 1/3 of the DNA tests performed annually come back negative. There is rampant fraud and deception going on. Many single women see getting pregnant and receiving a generous child support award as comparable to hitting the lottery. They want children anyway, and have a guaranteed marriage to the state, and view the child support award as some really nice icing on the cake.
This is destroying our country. There is no shortage of statistical data to prove that these children are at severe risk. Here is just one link that will give you some insight. There are other sources if you are really interested in the subject.
http://fathersforlife.org/divorce/chldrndiv.htm
Let’s look at this from another angle. Let’s say our legislators grew a conscious and decided something had to be done to reverse this tide. Let’s say that in the “best interests of children” they awarded custody to the father in the 1.3 million annual cases of single mother births.
Let’s say they gave the father adequate housing, full medical and dental coverage, free legal counsel, free schooling, and a check every month, child support, food stamps, WIC coupons, and a whole host of other “free” entitlements, and gave the mother the option of getting out there and finding a job to support the father and baby or “land” in prison.
She shall have up to 75% of her income garnished for support and if she can’t make it with one job, she can get two or three. She will be able to see the baby twice a month under supervised conditions if she is current in her child support, upon completion of a full psychological evaluation, that she shall pay for, of course. She shall pay for any legal services obtained by the father. She shall pay child support until the child has completed their secondary education, for which the mother shall pay for all books and tuition.
I probably haven’t thought of all her “obligations” but I’m just trying to illustrate a point.
The simple fact of the matter is that this would bring a “screeching halt” to these out of wedlock pregnancies virtually overnight. It would truly be in the “best interests of children” and everyone else involved except for the corrupt courts, lawyers and all the other associated parasites involved in the child support industry.
Think about it.
Take care,
Kevin Merck
November 5th, 2007 at 1:15 am
[...] Background: Newsweek magazine writer Lorraine Ali quoted from my co-authored column Rise in Out-of-Wedlock Births Is Bad News for America’s Kids (Washington Times, 12/4/06) in her recent piece Knocking Yourself Up--Some women laugh about turkey basters replacing Mr. Right. The ongoing debate over going it alone (Newsweek, 11/5/07). The piece centers around Louise Sloan, author of the new guidebook Knock Yourself Up: A Tell-All Guide to Becoming a Single Mom. Sloan now has a fatherless 16-month-old son. The piece favors women who decide to have fatherless children. To learn more, click here. [...]
November 5th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Some women will always do this, no matter what. I guess my question is what is being done to protect the "sperm donor" from having the mother come after him years later claiming paternity and child support. In the two cases I am very familiar with, the children were born out of wedlock to unmarried parents.
My god daughter was "fatherless" and while my husband and I loved her very much. However, there were numerous incidents where E's mother would get furious when my husband or I paid particular attention to our son. My husband did have to sit down with E's mother and explain that while he loved E. very much he was NOT E's father. Ironically, once they moved away, we had virtually no contact with E., despite our calls and letters.
One of my son's good friends is also "fatherless", but knows who his dad is. There have been at least two occasions where "dad" has come for a visit in over 18 years and C. is carried on his father's health insurance. C. has a younger brother who is "fatherless" without any contact. C's mother had two or three men kind of in orbit who provide her with assistance when needed. Recently, I went through a period where due to circumstances beyond my control, I wasn't paid for a month -- and still have outstanding pay coming to me. When I said we were short on cash, C's mother became very aggressive and claimed that as a single mother, she would never let the situation happen and I shouldn't complain since I have a husband to provide for me,... yadda yadda, yadda.
I know both these women (who did not know each other) were doing the best that they could with their situations, but I found that they would not hesitate to attack me for having a husband. Based on the experience I've had, I would not support this type of lifestyle. Murphy Brown may have had it all, but the level of resentment and anger that I have seen doesn't make it worth it in my estimation.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
The statistics are in, and they are indisputable. As compared to dual-parent households, and even as compared to single fathers, in general single mothers make TERRIBLE parents. We know that the best place for a child is in the household of its biological father -- whether or not the mother is present. The selfishness and cruelty of women who choose to "knock themselves up" is breathtaking! While not every single mother is an abject failure, nonetheless the observed negative results of single pregnancy by choice (which of course excludes the adoption of a parentless child) should be presumed child abuse. Also, from the point of view of the long term benefit of the species, women who cannot, or will not, attract a mate for the purpose of child-rearing SHOULD NOT BREED -- they are evolutionary dead-ends. There are very good reasons why scorn for unmarried mothers should be making a big comeback! But, since feminism demands that women be held unaccountable for their own irresponsibility, this is not going to happen anytime soon. Too bad, so sad -- for the kids.
November 6th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
I cannot believe the selfishness of the women who choose to be single mothers. All their justifications are for what *they* think is best for them and not the child.
They may think having that choice is great, but I would have to ask: "Yes, but did your child choose not to have a father?"
November 9th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Having children should be about the BABY, not about the mother. As long as the well-being of the child is kept as the the first priority, I have no problem with it. (I'm assuming most 17-year-olds aren't planning in this way)
November 12th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Donating or selling sperm isn't the issue. If a woman really wants to raise a child on her own, she will find a way. I must say though adoption is a wonderful idea. It doesn't really do anything for the concern of single women parenting their own new babies, but it does provide a parentless child with a mother. I guess it's easier not to take issue with single women who adopt because it doesn't seem so selfish as just creating another life to take care of alone when there are so many little ones out there whose biological mothers didn't want to be in that situation of being a single mothers in the first place.
November 14th, 2007 at 1:43 am
I don't expect to many women to understand the mental and psychological detriment the Single Mothers by Choice movement could have on their sons. You are not male, so you can never understand what it is like to be male. You are basing your statement from a female's prospective, but you must come to terms with the fact that there is a possibility males will be brought into these single-parent institutions. Studies have shown that an alarming number of boys are negatively affected by being raised by single mothers, usually far worse than girls. No, not all boys are negatively affected; but many are. Most crime is committed by males raised in single parent families than by males in which a mother AND father are present. Many studies have proven this; but as always, these studies go ignored for the sake of pampering selfish women. I was raised by a single mother, and I know it did a bang-up job on me. In my case, I did not become a criminal, but I certainly have psychological scarring as a result of being raised in such an environment. As of today, my brothers and I have not even married. Two of my brothers have horrendous relationships with women -- the root cause is unknown -- while me and two of my other brothers have no wishes or plans to marry and start families of our own because we truly do not know what are place is in the family unit considering that their was no father in the household, or a consistent father figure. Sure, we had plenty of male role models, but they didn't live with my mother and provide us with an example of what the heck a man is supposed to be or what he's supposed to do within the family unit. As far as we are concerned families and children are for women, not men. Ironically, my sister, who grew up under the same conditions, had, virtually, a trouble-free childhood, did well in school, and is now married with children. We boys were constantly in trouble, being diagnosed as having emotional behavioral disorders, and are still trying to pull our lives together.
November 14th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Oh forgot to add ...
Yes, donating sperm has much to do with the Single Mothers by Choice Movement because if men went on strike and stopped donating sperm -- heck, if they had never done it in the first place when the concept of IVF was engendered -- we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:26 am
If I really wanted to be a single mother, I would not need to go to a sperm bank to get pregnant. It's just as easy to have sex and call it a day. I guess what I'm saying is that regardless of how it happens being a single mother by choice is still very possible. The same problems will still arise, and unfortunately at the end of the day there is still a poor child's life that is caught in the middle. I think the child's best interest should always be the main focus when deciding to have a child or not. If there are all these studies that suggest children raised in single parent homes are at higher risk for having psychological issues or behavioral disorders, then why willing put them in that position? Let's not forget what this discussion is really about...
November 19th, 2007 at 10:54 am
If I really wanted to be a single mother, I would not need to go to a sperm bank to get pregnant. It's just as easy to have sex and call it a day. I guess what I'm saying is that regardless of how it happens being a single mother by choice is still very possible. The same problems will still arise, and unfortunately at the end of the day there is still a poor child's life that is caught in the middle. I think the child's best interest should always be the main focus when deciding to have a child or not. If there are all these studies that suggest children raised in single parent homes are at higher risk for having psychological issues or behavioral disorders, then why willing put them in that position? Let's not forget what this discussion is really about...
The article at hand is not about single women having sex with strange men to get pregnant and become single mothers. It's about single women using reproductive sciences to do so. This is why I am speaking against men helping these reproductive facilitations by donating sperm. If the scenerio you mentioned should take form in the future, it wouldn't be that difficult to start a campaign, educating boys and men to only engage in protected sex if they should get involved in a one-night stand to avoid becoming some selfish woman's sperm-dispensing machine, or worse, contracting an STI. And just in case the woman in question is desperate enough to take his contents after it has been thrown away to use it for auto-insemination (I once read a story that involved this bizarre situation), explain to them how to completely destroy a condom with their "reproductive material" in it after sex. However, the primary goal for such a movement, if needed in the future, would be to gear them away from one-night stands completely; but if they decide to engage in one warn them to be exceedingly cautious of a woman who says he does not have to use protection during intercourse because they're either trying to infect him with a sexually transmitted infection or trying to get pregnant. If the latter of the two should happen, she could also hunt him down for child support and he may end up paying for a child he did not intend to have. Hopefully, male birth control, which is right around the corner, will eliminate this threat.
As you stated in your post, the main focus at hand are the children and the damaging effects single parenting and fatherless homes can have on them. You'll get no dissenting retort from me on that one. However, men CAN be part of the solution to the problem if we wisen up and stop exacerbating the problem with our heedless actions such as donating sperm and engaging in unprotected sex with strangers, aquaintances, or ones we are not in a true relationship with, knowing that these actions could consequently lead to fatherless children.
November 26th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
When I read this article took it from a personal perspective. Coming from a single mother upbringing (not by choice) I immediately thought of how hard it was for me growing up without my father. I really can't understand why someone would willingly put a child in this position. I take no issue with a couple that physically cannot conceive going to a sperm bank to get pregnant. However those who do it for the reason of just wanting a child, my initial thought is selfishness. I don't see anything wrong with sperm banks or the men who donate to them. I just think there should criteria for who is eligible to receive sperm. I think being single should be disqualifying factor.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:57 am
I suppose ultimately it is the decision of the woman, but I really think that the interest of the child should seriously considered. I personally know what effects are possible of being raised by a single mother. I can not stress enough the importance of a father in a child's life. These is even an advertisement on this site advocating the child-father bond...
I would even go so far as to compare this to abortion. Despite the too extremes life and death...it's the choice of the woman, it's a woman's right to decide what happens to her body, a male has little if any say in the matter, a male is not even necessary for either to take place, both life changing decisions....Basically it comes down to a critical thought process, what is going to be best for the woman, and more importantly for the child?
April 4th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I am amazed that the list of commentors to this stuff is so heavily from men. Where are the women with some semblance of an I.Q. left ??? This crap about a lesbian mother being better for a child than a real father -
how can you stand by silently and listen to this insanity ?
This horrible global SCAM about how women are some kind of underclass that has been sought out and destroyed by men and traditional values, is a complete lie ! The systematic outrageous bias of the family courts toward women is an atrocity and a slap in the face of any logical person's right mind.
I am even more shocked at the complacity of Americans at this wholesale slaughter of truth and justice.
Most of Hollywood, the majaor news media, and society has been so brainwashed by this INSANE OFFENSIVE
garbage that I wonder how much longer we as a free country can remain truly free.
Our freedoms came from the sacrifices and dreams of free-thinking people. I guess that's a lost cause nowadays...
May 28th, 2008 at 5:27 am
I wonder how Louise Sloan`s little son Scott is going to feel when some day he reads his mothers book, describing his conception as "knocking yourself up"? From the subtitle: "No man?-no problem!" he will learn how little responsibility his mother expects of him when he grows up. In a "No man?-no problem!"-society the moral and legal foundation for collecting child support from unwilling fathers will have eroded. He may feel free to "knock up" as many girls as he cares to, and even expect to be paid for it.
I recommend parents to put up an ample trust fund for their daughters when Scotts generation hits the mating market in twenty years time.
Some times single mothers by choice is described as a "liberation" of women. It is easy to forget that the bottom line of this liberation is actually a liberation of men, not having to invest ressources in their offspring. It doesn`t take a Nobel prize in economics to understand that such a socity can`t exist for long.
February 15th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
What episode was it in sex in the city that carrie had her shoe stolen from a party? and the host had to buy her a new pair?