Posted on 12/18/2006 5:26:26 AM PST by shrinkermd
So to me, it is just something else to overcome.
&&&&
But does that make it right or a good idea?
I see from your personal page that you, yourself are a father. How important that is: I am not at all exaggerating when I say it is not only important for a moment (a baby's conception) or for a short time (until your daughter is 18) but for generations to come.
If we could see things the way they really are, we would be pale with amazement to see the waves and waves of a father's generative, social, and spiritual impact on the building and renewing of civilizations, even --- if your acknowledge the immortal soul --- for eternity.
Read my tagline, sir. That's for you.
Born cursed -- that is to say, at a constant handicap to the rest of us, it takes considerable effort on all to undo or alleviate that curse. And the biggest effort falls to the one so cursed to be born out of wedlock, and we help that poor soul not at all to deny there is such a curse, such a burden. To deny that burden, that curse, a name is to deny the most effective means of remedy. A name is a handle by which it can be handled by the one person who must handle it: the bastard, him or herself.
"But does that make it right or a good idea?"
Neither.
Simply a fact.
"Read my tagline, sir. That's for you."
Thanks.
The one thing that drives me forward is to not let happen to my daughter that happened to my sister and me: Fatherless.
Beautifully said.
And children who were abandoned by their father (what to speak of anonymous sperm donors) know that somewhere, out in the world, is a father who could give a **** about them. I know several children like that - it is a wound that is not easy to heal.
Yet now, look at our society. He was right.
Simply a fact.
&&&
I am focusing on the act that begat the fact. Cancer is fact, but if we knew how to prevent it we would try to do it, wouldn't we.
If the woman can afford to get IVF, then I doubt she is poor.
I am advocating for the needs of children, which were regarded as essential by our Founders -- that children would be raised properly in order to perpetuate a free republic.
That's a bunch of self-righteous malarkey. How do you know...maybe a single woman who has IVF will get married a couple of years later and create your idea of an 'ideal' family. She must have money because the procedure is expensive! Who are you to say she wouldn't raise the child "properly"? There are plenty of kids from two parent homes who have nobody who gives a crap about them, and they weren't even wanted in the first place! Your thesis, generalizations, and statistics forget about one major fact...people are INDIVIDUALS, not cookie-cutter fodder for sociology textbooks. It is INDIVIDUALS who make this a free republic.
You are mistaken about IVF in the situation we are discussing on this thread. And anonymous sperm donor's contribution is quite low-tech. Lesbians often find a willing male friend to make the contribution. The technology involved is a turkey baster, and to be quite gross about it, both women of the 'couple' participate in insertion of said implement.
IVF is for hetero couples who are having problems getting their own egg and sperm together in the natural way.
You assume.
You don't know who the father is. That doesn't mean the kid doesn't know.
It's not wrong to be poor. Poor, honest people can have beautiful human qualities and have wonderful families. I'm a little perplexed about your point here.
Who is to say that a woman who has had a child by IVF won't get married a couple of years later?
She might, and more power to her. She's already demonstrated that she doesn't think a man is necessary to a family, nor an act of love the fitting way to beget a child. This doesn't bode well for future marriage. And the fact that she thinks her wants are more important than her child's needs, doesn't bode well either. Still, she could change. People do.
And any single woman who has sex and then gets pregnant could be said to 'deliberately' conceive...there's always a chance of getting pregnant, but those people didn't plan it.
True. Among the many reasons why nonmarital sex is wrong, that's one of the biggies.
Also, some people have great conditions in their lives when the woman gets pregnant, but then they divorce a few years later, or their financial situation changes, anything could happen.
That's true, too. But there's a difference between a family being wounded by divorce or death, and a child being brought into existence deliberately fatherless. In the latter, something is being willed for the child (intentional, planned fatherlessness) which ---and the mother has no right to on purpose deprive the child of his right to a father.
A father is not an optional or redundant feature. Per analogy, a child could lose a hand in an accident, and still go on to have a good life; but nobody should deliberately maim a child by cutting off a hand.
Well, he must o' thought that is quite a joke
And it got a lot of laughs from a' lots of folk,
It seems I had to fight my whole life through.
Some gal would giggle and I'd get red
And some guy'd laugh and I'd bust his head,
I tell ya, life ain't easy for a boy named "Sue."
How is it self-righteous for me to provide you with a link to an article about what our Founders planned for children raised in our Republic, in that we are on a conservative republican news forum? It would appear you did not read the article, since you did not comment on the article.
One of the reasons nations fail is when the populace becomes so accustomed to meeting individual wants that individuals develop contempt for the needs of the society as a whole, and even for the dependency needs of their own children -- republics descend into welfare states so that the taxpayer will take on the role of the father, allowing individuals the "freedom" to evade the emotional challenges of forming a solid relationship.
All of the three of us who have consistently been trying to contact you on the level of ideas are aware that people can and do differ from the statistical averages. But in no way should you or anyone else reading this underestimate the difficulty and the sheer physical and mental effort involved in exceeding the norm for the group in which a person places his or her child according to the circumstances of its birth. Childrearing is very hard work in the best of circumstances. And mistakes you make cannot be swept under the rug -- both parent and child will cope with the results of childrearing mistakes for the rest of their lives.
That is why civilizations have traditionally made marriage a rite of passage to adulthood, and have had high expectations of people who want to have sex and create a child. Traditional societies also valued the perspectives of elders; while they may not be more intelligent than the young, they are more experienced. When older parents share their perspectives as we have done, it is with a view to preventing heartache, danger and difficulty, and it is in that spirit that we have posted to this topic, for the benefit of those whose decision to go it alone could lead to a lifetime of heartache with a child who is brought into the world to face the certain absense of half its natural family, identity and resources.
She (Jodi) doesn't know either. She went to a clinic that does artificial insemination from anonymous sperm donors, albeit higher class ones, ie IQ, creativity , etc. ........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.