 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Parenting / April 2008Preparing sibling for birth process?
We'd like to have the option of having the Bug (4.5 y/o) present at the birth when the little dude is born. My mother, who is very involved in her life, would be at the hospital as the designated Bug manager so that they can go in and out of the room as seems appropriate. But of course I wouldn't want to spring this on her unawares, and am more mystified and apprehensive about how to open the discussion with her about the (relatively) gory details of birth than I am about actually having her there. I know a lot of people on these lists have had older siblings present at birth and am curious about any good resources you know of (books, videos, whatever) to educate preschool age children about birth. Growing up as a doctor's daughter she's generally knowledgeable about the body and enjoys looking at my rather graphic medical school anatomy textbook. She particularly likes the drawing of the abdominal wall splayed open to show the stomach and intestines -- point being, she's not squeamish about this sort of thing, so I could see a non-kid oriented photographic book about pregnancy and birth also serving as a good tool to prepare her. Kate, ignorant foot soldier of the medical cartel and the Bug, 4 and a half and something brewing, 4/08 > We'd like to have the option of having the Bug (4.5 y/o) present at > the birth when the little dude is born. �My mother, who is very [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > discussion with her about the (relatively) gory details of birth than > I am about actually having her there. � My midwife had a whole lending library of videos about home births. I know we watched a couple with the girls (who were only just four when Peter was born). We weren't planning to have them there, but wanted them to be prepared in case the birth happened to be really fast and did happen with them at home. (Ha! it was a first labor, the twins having been C-section, and took days.) I'm sorry I can't remember titles, but http://www.homebirthvideos.com has a lot. --Helen S. What about watching a couple birth shows, like A Baby Story or Birth Day. Ask her how she feels about being there when Jr. is born. Explain that you may make sounds or cry out, but that it's good pain, blah blah blah. Let her know that Nana will be there with her and she could leave at any time, etc. Then let her decide. It sounds like she is a good candidate, since she isn't squeamish.  SignatureJamie Clark > We'd like to have the option of having the Bug (4.5 y/o) present at > the birth when the little dude is born. My mother, who is very [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and the Bug, 4 and a half > and something brewing, 4/08 I second Jamie's idea. I would watch the shows, especially the ones on the Discovery Channel because those are more realistic. Watching those with her will open up a discussion about it. I do know that one of the midwives on the pregnancy group has a website with lots of videos and pictures of births, but darn it I cannot remember her name right now. (Anne, was it Stephanie, but I don't remember her website). SignatureSue (mom to three girls) > We'd like to have the option of having the Bug (4.5 y/o) present at > the birth when the little dude is born. My mother, who is very [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and the Bug, 4 and a half > and something brewing, 4/08 > I second Jamie's idea. I would watch the shows, especially the ones on the > Discovery Channel because those are more realistic. Watching those with her > will open up a discussion about it. I do know that one of the midwives on > the pregnancy group has a website with lots of videos and pictures of > births, but darn it I cannot remember her name right now. (Anne, was it > Stephanie, but I don't remember her website). I think you mean BirthDiaries.com Clisby >> I second Jamie's idea. I would watch the shows, especially the ones on >> the Discovery Channel because those are more realistic. Watching those [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I think you mean BirthDiaries.com yup, that site owner's name is Stephanie, her screen name was Elfanie. Anne > We'd like to have the option of having the Bug (4.5 y/o) present at > the birth when the little dude is born. My mother, who is very [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > any good resources you know of (books, videos, whatever) to educate > preschool age children about birth. My kids watched "Unconventional Births / Born in the USA" from Puget Sound Birth & Family Center. I got it free at a conference. It included home, birth center and hospital births. Most of the women did a good bit of screaming and even the home births were more interventionist than I was comfortable with. None of this bothered the kids, ages 3, 6, and 9. This is interesting since we have a TV free home and my 6 yo finds almost any children's movie too scary. They asked to watch it over and over. I shared my opinions on how each birth was handled. I think it was good for them to see the families on the video and hear their stories in addition to the births. When it came to the actual birth, the kids were in the living room and rushed in the moment they heard the first cry. This meant that they were there to see their sister right away, but were also present for the scary stuff. There was a lot more blood involved than any birth video would have and my disappearance to the hospital. My 3 yo is the only one (other than the midwives) who seems to have been bothered by seeing all the blood. In the days after the birth, she asked about it repeatedly. Now, a month later, she seems fine. I don't regret allowing my kids to be around. --Betsy > We'd like to have the option of having the Bug (4.5 y/o) present at > the birth when the little dude is born. �My mother, who is very [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and the Bug, 4 and a half > and something brewing, 4/08 I've watched "A Baby Story" with my two older kids (now ages 7 and 4.5) and discussed the birth process with them, not because I'm planning to have them in the delivery room with me (I don't like distraction when I'm laboring) but because they were interested in how babies come out. One thing I found helpful was reframing the labor process as "hard work" rather than "incredible pain" -- I told them that the mommy has to work very hard to get the baby out, and that hard work can hurt, but I kept the focus on the work involved. And I told them that even though the hard work can be painful, the mommy is so excited to see the baby and doesn't mind working hard for it. Also, when they remarked on the bloodiness of the process, I told them that mommies make lots of extra blood when they're pregnant and they don't need that blood anymore so it's okay that it comes out with the baby. I think it's just important that kids realize that there's nothing *wrong* with the mother during labor, that everything that happens is okay and just part of having a baby. Good luck! Bryna > We'd like to have the option of having the Bug (4.5 y/o) present at > the birth when the little dude is born. My mother, who is very [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and the Bug, 4 and a half > and something brewing, 4/08 You're better off having your husband watch the kids in the waiting room while you give birth. Spare the husband and kids your ordeal. Regards... "agsf_57@yahoo.com" <agsf_57@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8c49e765-6d28-4dd6-a2dd-55d248b55e56@s50g2000hsb.googlegr oups.com: > You're better off having your husband watch the kids in the > waiting room while you give birth. Spare the husband and > kids your ordeal. what the hell are you doing trolling here? slow night on a.g.? can't you go poke at Olympiada or something & stir up stuff that way? lee SignatureLast night while sitting in my chair I pinged a host that wasn't there It wasn't there again today The host resolved to NSA. > "agsf...@yahoo.com" <agsf...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:8c49e765-6d28-4dd6-a2dd-55d248b55e56@s50g2000hsb.googlegr > oups.com: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > lee I participate in numerous newsgroups. Just because I share my opinion doesn't mean I am trolling. You think a 3 year old is able to comprehend mom in labor and baby being born? Do you really think it is wise to expose the children to this? Maybe you can have them watch you have sex as well. Regards... > You're better off having your husband watch the kids in the waiting > room while you give birth. Spare the husband and kids your ordeal. Spare the husband? It's his baby LOL I have no respect for men like you. My husband caught our daughter and was proud and excited about it. And my kids were excited, also. Grow some balls... Marie >> You're better off having your husband watch the kids in the waiting >> room while you give birth. Spare the husband and kids your ordeal. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >were excited, also. Grow some balls... >Marie Some marriage if it's "her" ordeal... Banty > Some marriage if it's "her" ordeal... agsf_57 is a real prize. he doesn't have a high opinion of women, although he maintains he is married. i can't believe any sane woman would stay with such a mysogynistic piece of crap, but i suppose there's one out there somewhere... lee SignatureLast night while sitting in my chair I pinged a host that wasn't there It wasn't there again today The host resolved to NSA. >> Some marriage if it's "her" ordeal... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >crap, but i suppose there's one out there somewhere... >lee Yeah - I know. It's litte statements like that which more reveal how he views marriage and women than all the advocacy postings he puts in on soc.men and elsewhere. "*Her* ordeal" indeed. Plus it's just - wimpy :-) Faint-at-sight-of-blood problem on his part, perhaps? Banty >>> Some marriage if it's "her" ordeal... >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Banty /slaps forehead He baited and you guys bit! btw, I agree with you ;-) Nan >>>> Some marriage if it's "her" ordeal... >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >/slaps forehead >He baited and you guys bit! We need some kind of fun around here... >btw, I agree with you ;-) :-) Banty > /slaps forehead > He baited and you guys bit! i didn't bite. i asked him why he wasn't trolling a.g., which is his usual place to be stupid. lee SignatureLast night while sitting in my chair I pinged a host that wasn't there It wasn't there again today The host resolved to NSA. >> /slaps forehead >> He baited and you guys bit! > > i didn't bite. i asked him why he wasn't trolling a.g., which >is his usual place to be stupid. >lee What's a.g? Nan >>> /slaps forehead >>> He baited and you guys bit! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What's a.g? alt.gothic. remember, i'm one of *those* people ;) i will say one thing for mr.agsf (which he "borrowed" from the AGSF) though, he's a pretty consistant troll. he's been making himself at home over there since 1997 or so... kinda like those annoying neighbors that won't take a hint & go home. lee SignatureLast night while sitting in my chair I pinged a host that wasn't there It wasn't there again today The host resolved to NSA. > >>> /slaps forehead > >>> He baited and you guys bit! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > alt.gothic. > remember, i'm one of *those* people ;) There's more of us than you can imagine. > i will say one thing for mr.agsf (which he "borrowed" from the > AGSF) though, he's a pretty consistant troll. I stole to make a point. > he's been making > himself at home over there since 1997 or so... kinda like > those annoying neighbors that won't take a hint & go home. > lee Well, stop peeing on my yard and I will stop coming over to talk to you. ;) Regards... > alt.gothic. > remember, i'm one of *those* people ;) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >those annoying neighbors that won't take a hint & go home. >lee Good grief... a Goth with a 1950s marriage. That sounds like a bad comedy! Nan >> alt.gothic. >> remember, i'm one of *those* people ;) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Good grief... a Goth with a 1950s marriage. That sounds > like a bad comedy! he's not a goth. he's a troll. lee SignatureLast night while sitting in my chair I pinged a host that wasn't there It wasn't there again today The host resolved to NSA. >>> alt.gothic. >>> remember, i'm one of *those* people ;) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > he's not a goth. he's a troll. >lee Oh, okay. That's more believable. Nan > >> alt.gothic. > >> remember, i'm one of *those* people ;) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > he's not a goth. he's a troll. > lee Yeah, it's easier to label someone as a troll than to argue or acknowledge their point of view. I don't think a child or a father should be in the delivery room. I was there for my son's birth (The goth in me took pictures and video of the eventual c-section after 14 hours of a failed labor) and if I had to do it all over again, I would have waited outside. In asking a question, one must be prepared to look at all points of views. Also, having many girlfriends, both live in and non, and experiencing the attitudes and views of how feminism has rotted their brains, only a fool would marry in the US and a bigger one would marry to a Westernized woman. There is simply no reason why a man should get married in this day and age to this type of woman until they change the laws to make it more equal and fair. So yes, a traditional marriage of the "50's" where a woman is not selfish and is supportive of her husband is much better than a modern marriage with a high divorce rate. In California, our divorce rates are near 70%!!! Anyway, in regards to the husband in the delivery room debate, here is a source that covers all aspects: http://www.squidoo.com/husband-in-delivery-room or http://tinyurl.com/34u8zg Regards... [...] > So yes, a traditional > marriage of the "50's" where a woman is not selfish and is supportive > of her husband is much better than a modern marriage with a high > divorce rate. [...] The question is, though - better for whom? As I understand it, the traditional marriages to which you refer have two salient features: 1. One partner gives up their career, or their chance at having a career, in order to take care of all the cleaning, cooking, and childcare needs of the couple. 2. The decision as to which partner does this is made not on the basis of ability or desire but on the basis of gender. Now, I can see why this would be better for most men. It's pretty self-evident that having someone in your life who'll do all your housework, cook all your meals, and sort out all your childcare issues, all totally reliably and for minimal cost, is an improvement over not having said someone. I can also see how it would be better for some women - if bringing up your children and maintaining a household is what you want to do with the rest of your life, then obviously the best thing for you is to be able to do it. However, lots of women did, and do, want careers either after or instead of bringing up children. In addition, some men rather like the idea of staying at home with children full time for at least some years. For people who feel that way, traditional marriages really aren't better. The problem with one-size-fits-all solutions is that generally they don't. All the best, Sarah Signaturehttp://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell > agsf...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The question is, though - better for whom? For the family. > As I understand it, the traditional marriages to which you refer have > two salient features: > > 1. One partner gives up their career, or their chance at having a > career, in order to take care of all the cleaning, cooking, and > childcare needs of the couple. Ideally, one person should stay home with the children. > 2. The decision as to which partner does this is made not on the basis > of ability or desire but on the basis of gender. With modern technology, either parent can now stay home with the child. > Now, I can see why this would be better for most men. It's pretty > self-evident that having someone in your life who'll do all your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you want to do with the rest of your life, then obviously the best thing > for you is to be able to do it. Again, it is because of modern technology that women can and want to go out and work. Even today, the hardest and physically demanding jobs are still held by men. > However, lots of women did, and do, want careers either after or instead > of bringing up children. In addition, some men rather like the idea of > staying at home with children full time for at least some years. For > people who feel that way, traditional marriages really aren't better. I don't see how having two parents play a certain role defies a traditional marriage. > The problem with one-size-fits-all solutions is that generally they don't. Generally they do. It's the feminist doctrine that perverts and attacks the marriage model. > All the best, > > Sarah Regards... >> agsf...@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> [...]> So yes, a traditional >>> marriage of the "50's" where a woman is not selfish and is supportive >>> of her husband is much better than a modern marriage with a high >>> divorce rate. [...] >> As I understand it, the traditional marriages to which you refer have >> two salient features: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ideally, one person should stay home with the children. When they're young, yes. That doesn't mean the entire job should fall to a single person within the marriage. For many marriages, it might work very well for both partners to work part-time so that they can split childcare between them. Or for the two to alternate the time they take off so that first one person takes a career break of a couple of years, then the other. >> 2. The decision as to which partner does this is made not on the basis >> of ability or desire but on the basis of gender. > > With modern technology, either parent can now stay home with the > child. Not sure what modern technology has to do with it (beyond the fact that it's made it easier to keep a baby on breast milk even if its mother isn't staying home full-time), but I agree entirely with the rest of your statement. The point I was making was that the traditional 50s marriage model was for the woman always to be the one who stayed home. You may have meant the phrase 'traditional marriage of the 50s' in a looser sense, in which case we may be talking at cross-purposes. [...] > Again, it is because of modern technology that women can and want to > go out and work. Not sure where you're getting that from. >> However, lots of women did, and do, want careers either after or instead >> of bringing up children. In addition, some men rather like the idea of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't see how having two parents play a certain role defies a > traditional marriage. Not quite clear on what you mean by this? >> The problem with one-size-fits-all solutions is that generally they don't. > > Generally they do. It's the feminist doctrine that perverts and > attacks the marriage model. <shrug> I don't think there's such a thing as *the* feminist doctrine. Feminism is a pretty loose and widespread set of beliefs (I know one feminist who defined her own feminism beliefs simply as "the belief that women are fully human"). I think there are beliefs on feminist, anti-feminist, and couldn't-care-less-about-feminism sides that can potentially pervert and attack marriage. Sarah Signaturehttp://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell > agsf...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> agsf...@yahoo.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > it's made it easier to keep a baby on breast milk even if its mother > isn't staying home full-time), I mean with the advent of air conditioned offices and careers in which men and women can produce equal results, such as in computers. The jobs of the past women did not want to do and they still do not want to do jobs of physical labor. However, if there ever becomes a day where a person can construct a building or home with a push of a button, women will jump on that opportunity. > but I agree entirely with the rest of > your statement. The point I was making was that the traditional 50s [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > [...] I could care less who stays home. However, I also think having predetermined roles in place can avoid arguments and build and maintain a healthy relationship. It is also important to note that each role is equally important to the stability of the family. When my wife stayed home, she wasn't seen as a maid (even though her friends told her she was) and I didn't consider myself to be a walking ATM machine. Both her and my role were equally important. > >> However, lots of women did, and do, want careers either after or instead > >> of bringing up children. In addition, some men rather like the idea of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Not quite clear on what you mean by this? I meant that the traditional marriage model of one parent focusing on the family while the other parent earning the living is a great model. What I see in America today is a couple has a baby and immediately dumps the baby in daycare while they both pursue careers. > >> The problem with one-size-fits-all solutions is that generally they don't. > > > Generally they do. It's the feminist doctrine that perverts and > > attacks the marriage model. > > <shrug> I don't think there's such a thing as *the* feminist doctrine. It exists. It tells women that they are doormats, maids and human slaves if they stay home and/or take care of their husbands and children. It also tells women that they are inferior and taken advantage of when in fact, the realty was that women had/have a better life and were more respected and valuable prior to and after feminism. > Feminism is a pretty loose and widespread set of beliefs (I know one > feminist who defined her own feminism beliefs simply as "the belief that > women are fully human"). I think there are beliefs on feminist, > anti-feminist, and couldn't-care-less-about-feminism sides that can > potentially pervert and attack marriage. Know of any that can promote a healthy marriage? > Sarah Regards... > I mean with the advent of air conditioned offices and careers in which > men and women can produce equal results, such as in computers. The > jobs of the past women did not want to do and they still do not want > to do jobs of physical labor. However, if there ever becomes a day > where a person can construct a building or home with a push of a > button, women will jump on that opportunity. And why not? If a woman can do It as well as or better than a man and she wants to do it, why not? We are not living In primitive conditions anymore and so we are not constrained by them. >> but I agree entirely with the rest of >> your statement. The point I was making was that the traditional 50s [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > told her she was) and I didn't consider myself to be a walking ATM > machine. Both her and my role were equally important. I do agree that someone should stay home with the child, if possible. I also agree that both the role of provider and SAHP are equally important. > I meant that the traditional marriage model of one parent focusing on > the family while the other parent earning the living is a great model. > What I see in America today is a couple has a baby and immediately > dumps the baby in daycare while they both pursue careers. I think it's usually because both have to work. When there is a choice, many times one will stay home, and that is usually the woman. It doesn't have to be. I personally prefer that I be home rather than DH. It's sort of a selfish thing, because I want to see my kids grow up. I'm glad I have that choice. I wonder if men would like the choice to be home sometimes. > It exists. It tells women that they are doormats, maids and human > slaves if they stay home and/or take care of their husbands and > children. It also tells women that they are inferior and taken > advantage of when in fact, the realty was that women had/have a better > life and were more respected and valuable prior to and after feminism. All you have to do is look to more traditional societies to see that women are more often than not viewed as inferior to men. That view didn't begin with the feminists. >> I mean with the advent of air conditioned offices and careers in which >> men and women can produce equal results, such as in computers. The [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >And why not? If a woman can do It as well as or better than a man and she >wants to do it, why not? This air conditioned office thing is just plain silly. There are female soldiers, female firefighters, female ironworkers, female atheletes. Never mind recent examples, we have Clara Barton working in hot battlefields, Jane Goodall working and living in jungles. I guess he imagines it's the women shouldn't swe..., um, perspire. It's the woman-on-pedestal thing. It's the old expectation that she be an object of admiration for physical looks, while fulfilling a limited set of roles. That's long been confused with 'respect'. Banty >>> I mean with the advent of air conditioned offices and careers in which >>> men and women can produce equal results, such as in computers. The [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I guess he imagines it's the women shouldn't swe..., um, perspire. No, ladies merely glow surely? Debbie > It's the woman-on-pedestal thing. It's the old expectation that she be an > object of admiration for physical looks, while fulfilling a limited set of > roles. That's long been confused with 'respect'. > > Banty > In article <ftuome$h5...@aioe.org>, toypup says... > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Banty No, not at all. Women, even today, make up the minority of the jobs you describe. Respect is dying and putting your life on the line for your wife and children. A married woman covered in a burka in Afghanistan has more respect and value than an unwed single mother in America. However, from the American's point of view, she is oppressed. Regards... >> In article <ftuome$h5...@aioe.org>, toypup says... >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >Afghanistan has more respect and value than an unwed single mother in >America. However, from the American's point of view, she is oppressed. And you don't even realize you just said this to an unwed single mother in America huh. Banty > In article <3a60540a-5e0e-47b3-8648-c952dfc42...@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, > agsf...@yahoo.com says... [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Banty Then you should have first hand experience of what I am saying. It's you and your child. No one to help you in life. No one to put their life on the line for you and your child. You were some guy's temporary toilet. Your level of respect and value is the same as of that toilet. You go girl! Regards... >>In article <3a60540a-5e0e-47b3-8648-c952dfc42...@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, >> agsf...@yahoo.com says... [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >Regards... Bzzzzt!! Wrong on all counts. You go to the back of the line. Banty > In article <327fa574-2913-400e-b4c6-2f1124938...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > agsf_57 says... [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > Banty Care to elaborate. Usually unwed single moms are alone raising a child by their own means. Regards... >> In article <327fa574-2913-400e-b4c6-2f1124938...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, >> agsf_57 says... [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > >Regards... I don't feel like hand-holding - so just compare with what you just said, with what you said above. Banty agsf_57 schrieb: <snip> >> And you don't even realize you just said this to an unwed single mother in >> America huh. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Regards... Have you ever heard the term widow? And can we now please stop feeding the troll? cu nicole >agsf_57 schrieb: ><snip> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Have you ever heard the term widow? Who are on the street in Afghanistan... >And can we now please stop feeding the troll? Say what he may, he's not a troll. Not in the Usenet provocateur sense anyway.... Banty > In article <fufs0c$p5m$0...@news.t-online.com>, NL says... > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Who are on the street in Afghanistan... Usually in a patriarchal society, the older brother of the husband, or the husband's father cares for the woman after the husband has died. > Banty Regards... > Usually in a patriarchal society, the older brother of the husband, or > the husband's father cares for the woman after the husband has died. But in such a society, there can be a lot of resentment and the woman ends up not being treated well. She must also be subservient to the IL's, acting almost as a slave to the IL's. Also, if the IL's do not want to care for her, she is left on the streets to fend for herself. In such a society, a woman left to fend for herself cannot do very well. > agsf_57 schrieb: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Have you ever heard the term widow? I said unwed single mom. > And can we now please stop feeding the troll? Your passive aggression is noted. > cu > nicole Regards... > agsf_57 schrieb: > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Have you ever heard the term widow? Not agreeing with the troll, but technically speaking, you are not an unwed single mother. You're a widow. I'm sorry for your loss. > And can we now please stop feeding the troll? > > cu > nicole Yes, please. I blocked him ages ago, so only see the troll feeding posts, not the original. I wish everyone would. SignatureJamie Clark Jamie Clark schrieb: >> agsf_57 schrieb: >> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I'm sorry for your loss. Eh no. I'm not a widow. I was just trying to say that jumping down single mothers throats, calling them temporary toilet might not be such a smart thing to do because generally single moms didn't turn into single moms by waking up one day and deciding "hey, raising children on my own, that's what I want to do with my life." for lots of us it wasn't something we chose to do, it was something that happened. It's just that somehow in most peoples minds single mothers are the root of all evil and we must be... weeded out. And also, something must be really wrong with us because we didn't manage to hang on to the father of our child(ren). And we're really the ones to blame for the children not growing up in a happy family. Well, I left because I was beaten, kicked and verbally abused. I don't think that's a healthy relationship/family to grow up in. I think being a single parent family is much more healthy than a family where abuse happens regularly. But of course I'm cheating my child out of a wonderful relationship with his other parent... sure. >> And can we now please stop feeding the troll? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, please. I blocked him ages ago, so only see the troll feeding posts, > not the original. I wish everyone would. I did, too. But this just really struck me as something to speak up about.. cu nicole > Eh no. I'm not a widow. I was just trying to say that jumping down > single mothers throats, calling them temporary toilet might not be such > a smart thing to do because generally single moms didn't turn into > single moms by waking up one day and deciding "hey, raising children on > my own, that's what I want to do with my life." for lots of us it wasn't > something we chose to do, it was something that happened. I can't think of a reason why choosing *responsibly* to be a single mother would be a problem either (not that I think that's what you meant). I know one woman who adopted a child as a single woman, one who has twice had babies by artificial insemination, etc. And that's just in real life -- on the internet I know far more examples. --Helen hschinske@mouse-potato.com schrieb: >> Eh no. I'm not a widow. I was just trying to say that jumping down >> single mothers throats, calling them temporary toilet might not be such [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > who has twice had babies by artificial insemination, etc. And that's > just in real life -- on the internet I know far more examples. I don't see anything wrong with that either, it's just that it's not the majority of women waking up one day thinking "Hey, raising kids on my own, that's what I want to do with my life". Most single parents I know were in relationships that didn't work out. And I think a relationship that's over should not be continued "for the sake of the children" because children do not benefit from living in an environment where the parents resent being together. (not that I think the fights going on after divorce/split ups are beneficial either, but that's different story). cu nicole In article <58ee85f9-d86f-4cbc-9140-a36f758bef6c@l25g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > I can't think of a reason why choosing *responsibly* to be a single > mother would be a problem either (not that I think that's what you > meant). I know one woman who adopted a child as a single woman, one > who has twice had babies by artificial insemination, etc. And that's > just in real life -- on the internet I know far more examples. Actually, I think it's extremely foolish to choose single motherhood. My Mum left Dad when we were small and took us to live with her widowed mother. Grandma dyed her hair and went to work until Mum was fit enough to work herself. Grandma was the SAHP for the next X years -- I always say I had three loving parents. But even with that support, being a single parent was terribly hard on my Mum. To walk into such a difficult life *voluntarily* boggles my mind. SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/ > In article > <58ee85f9-d86f-4cbc-9140-a36f758bef6c@l25g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/ Me too. Until I had my DD, I always thought I'd could have coped as a single mother. Then I had a child! I look forward to DH coming home and sharing the task with me! I love being a mother, and God forbid I was widowed, I hope that I could cope, but there's no way now that I'd ever choose to do it on my own. Everyone needs a day off, whether it be from working or from parenting. Lucy x > In article > <58ee85f9-d86f-4cbc-9140-a36f758be...@l25g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > terribly hard on my Mum. To walk into such a difficult life *voluntarily* > boggles my mind. Wow, Chookie and I agree on something :). One caveat, though. Although I think married couples should be given preference over unmarried couples and single people in adoption, if there are not enough such couples to adopt the children available, single people should be considered. A single woman who has the resources, financial and otherwise, to provide a good home for a child who would otherwise be in an institution or in foster care should be applauded for doing so, IMO. Artificial insemination of single women, is different IMO. Here the woman is deliberately creating a child who will never know his or her father and his relatives, and that is wrong. I've read stories in the New York Times about how women choose sperm donors, and a few mentioned that they would not want a "prolific" donor, because that would increase the chance of accidental incest of his offspring. That is just one reason why a child should not be deprived of knowing who his or her father is. From the societal point of view, male sperm donors should not be able revoke their responsibility to financially support the children they father. If the mother dies, for example, the father, not the taxpayer, ought to be first means of support, and he ought to be given the chance to adopt the child. >> In article >> <58ee85f9-d86f-4cbc-9140-a36f758be...@l25g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >in an institution or in foster care should be applauded for doing so, >IMO. How odd. Wouldn't the children with more needs, need two legally committed adults in their household to deal with the difficulties, and more resources than those who don't? Banty > In article <43888c68-4ca6-41c8-91c5-9b8c4f62f...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > >Wow, Chookie and I agree on something :). One caveat, though. Although > >I think married couples should be given preference over unmarried [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > adults in their household to deal with the difficulties, and more resources than > those who don't? Yes, but they are probably considered less desirable adoptees by most people, and standards may need to be relaxed a little to get them adopted, but not to the extent that the children would be better off in an orphanage. >> In article <43888c68-4ca6-41c8-91c5-9b8c4f62f...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.= >com>, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >adopted, but not to the extent that the children would be better off >in an orphanage. So this is not about the children, but rather about prospective parents, and only married ones. Banty > In article <98b506c8-3f00-472c-9b77-549db86c7...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > Beliavsky says... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >> adults in their household to deal with the difficulties, and more resources than > >> those who don't? Not necessarily. Sure, having two committed and loving parents is better than having one. However, having one is way, way, *way* better than having none, and what these children actually need above all is a relationship with one loving, committed parent. If a two-parent family is available, great. But if there isn't, and if there is a single person happy to adopt the child and able to cope, then the child should go to that person rather than linger on in an institution or impermanent foster care setting in the hope that the Perfect Family (tm) *might* come along at some indeterminate time in the future. What a child in that situation needs is stability and a proper attachment *now*, not a two-parent ideal sometime/never. > >Yes, but they are probably considered less desirable adoptees by most > >people, and standards may need to be relaxed a little to get them [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So this is not about the children, but rather about prospective parents, and > only married ones. Huh? Not following that at all. All the best, Sarah -- http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com >>In article <98b506c8-3f00-472c-9b77-549db86c7...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> Beliavsky says... [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >What a child in that situation needs is stability and a proper >attachment *now*, not a two-parent ideal sometime/never. I understand that viewpoint; its a common one. For single people wanting to parent; gay and lesbian couples get that a LOT, too. But heres the weird thing - first the argument is made that gays and singles shouldnt be allowed to adopt because it's not good for the adopted children, that adopted children *need* two parent (and one of each model) household to grow up in. But then, when it comes to the *neediest* of the children, suddenly, even though they need MORE, suddenly they're in a separate class where it's OK if they get supposedly *less* - that single parent or same-sex household that didnt pass muster for children with *no* special needs. So, what's REALLY being said is - - married couples is a preferred class to adopt first in line, not the kids that need them the most, but the kids THEY want. Then, since there's leftovers, well, if singles and gay people still are so all-fired up about being parents in their substandard situations, then at least they can help out these other kids that the GOOD families passed over and get them off society's hands. (Which is believe you me how it sounds to people - it's all dressed up whenever it's said, but thats what it really is.) So, when it comes to who should adopt, it's all about how children should have the best. But when it comes to special needs kids, they don't get the best, and theres seemingly no longer any of this about how adoption should be built around the needs of the *children*. Actually, there's a school of thought that, since nearly half of marriages end in divorce, but singles who adopt often remain single (later in their lifetimes, it's a Plan B for most of them), single adopters in the long run offer a *more stable* situation. (But thats never brought up with regards to special needs kids, since they would be greatly more stressful for a single person than two people to adopt.) So tell you what - single people over, say, 35 should get first crack at the adoption pool. Because thats what you're talking about is *really* about - who gets first crack. Not about addressing the kids needs. Banty Banty schrieb: <snip> > So, when it comes to who should adopt, it's all about how children should have > the best. But when it comes to special needs kids, they don't get the best, and > theres seemingly no longer any of this about how adoption should be built around > the needs of the *children*. <snip> But that's a general problem. In germany the law says that the wellbeing of the children has priority in all things involving parental rights and if I recall correctly the rights are now no longer parents rights but children's rights (i.e. the child has a right to know/see both his biological parents, not the parents have a right to know/see the child...) Anyway: -If a father wants nothing to do with his kid he can not be forced to see the kid, even if the child desperately wants to see the father. This is a court ruling. -If a father wants to see his child and the child does not under any circumstances, see his father, that child will be forced to see the father. Not only that but it will be forced to stay at this fathers place for long(er) periods of time. Also a court ruling. And of course both rulings are made declaring it's in the best interest of the children! cu nicole > I understand that viewpoint; its a common one. For single people wanting > to [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > people > - it's all dressed up whenever it's said, but thats what it really is.) That's not it. A couple wanting to adopt happy, healthy kids wants to adopt happy, healthy kids and may likely decline the adoption if the kids are special needs. They are the ideal adopters, so they get what they want; because if they don't, they won't adopt and everyone loses. The single person adopting is not an ideal situation. They get the leftovers, because the kids who don't get placed are doomed to remain parentless forever and one good parent is better than no parent. Honestly, if you make it so that the special needs get top priority in being placed with couples, you wouldn't get many couples trying to adopt. The agencies have to deal with reality. >> I understand that viewpoint; its a common one. For single people wanting >> to [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >leftovers, because the kids who don't get placed are doomed to remain >parentless forever and one good parent is better than no parent. It *is* the same thing. Two classes of kids being matched to two classes of families. >Honestly, if you make it so that the special needs get top priority in being >placed with couples, you wouldn't get many couples trying to adopt. The >agencies have to deal with reality. The other part of reality is singles and gays having working reproductive bodies, and choices as to adoption (from around the world, for example). Banty >>> I understand that viewpoint; its a common one. For single people >>> wanting [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > of > families. I didn't say it wasn't the same thing. Your reasons are wrong. They don't do it because special needs kids deserve less. They do it because no one wants special needs kids, even if they were at the top of the priority list. If they were at the top for two parent families, there would not be many people in line for adoptions and the adoptions of happy healthy kids would also suffer. >>Honestly, if you make it so that the special needs get top priority in >>being [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The other part of reality is singles and gays having working reproductive > bodies, and choices as to adoption (from around the world, for example). Yes, but the agencies are trying to maximize the number of adoptions in the home country. Doing it your way would only make more people go outside the country to adopt. Let's not forget that single parent adoptions and gay adoptions in other countries are often also lower in priority (or even banned). >>>> I understand that viewpoint; its a common one. For single people >>>> wanting [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >do it because special needs kids deserve less. They do it because no one >wants special needs kids, even if they were at the top of the priority list. That's what I'm saying. This isn't *about* adopted childrens needs. It's *about* what parents want. Which isn't actually a complaint of mine. *Of course* people building families through adoption have to go by what they think they can take on, and what they desire. But it just doesn't hold up rationally to say, for these kids, they all must have the (purported) best of situations, but that other class can go to an identified set of (purported) *substandard* situations, even though their needs are *more*. It's talking out of both sides of the mouth. >If they were at the top for two parent families, there would not be many >people in line for adoptions and the adoptions of happy healthy kids would [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >home country. Doing it your way would only make more people go outside the >country to adopt. I don't propose any "way" other than whats pretty much happening now - children placed according the prospective parents express desires after having evaluated them in a home study. I don't even have any objection to that, all other things being equal or even not quite so equal, a household of married parents be often deemed more suitable to adopt any particular child for that reason. Because *of course* there will be more energy and attention and resources, and more prospects for stability by many measures. That only makes sense. I do have serious objections to this idea that, *by policy*, only married parents be allowed to adopt, except for this "leftover" class of children in need of families. The two classes of kids (and that their placement would be aligned exactly opposite of what they actually need) being one big problem. But also that, for example, my long stable household would be rejected out of hand in favor of just about *any* married-couple household that meets some minimum standard. Imagine - all the folks who wanted me to give up my child for adoption, would have possibly granted him to be raised next door, to be entrained during his adolescence in a horrible mess involving stress and strife and breakups and makeups, moves in the middle of the school year, cheating on both sides, "non-paternal" half siblings (yes thats plural) on the way. Because they're a married, church-going family. With a long marriage. Heh. >Let's not forget that single parent adoptions and gay adoptions in other >countries are often also lower in priority (or even banned). Depends. China for some time required *older* parent or parents over 35, and strongly preferred those with an intent to create a single-child household. Other countries aren't necessarily even looking at this in terms of the USian culture wars - a lot of this is all about our hangups in our piece of the world. They have a whole orthogonal set of considerations to ours sometimes. Banty > Depends. China for some time required *older* parent or parents over 35, > and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > world. > They have a whole orthogonal set of considerations to ours sometimes. China bans single parent adoption. >> Depends. China for some time required *older* parent or parents over 35, >> and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >China bans single parent adoption. Now they do. They didn't before (read my paragraph again). Banty >>> Depends. China for some time required *older* parent or parents over >>> 35, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Now they do. They didn't before (read my paragraph again). Yes, and I said single parent adoptions and gay parent adoptions are *often* banned in other countries. *Often* banned doesn't mean banned everywhere. You cite China where single parent adoptions used to be legal. It is no longer legal. If you think hangups WRT special needs kids and gays is strictly USian culture wars and other countries don't have such hangups, you are very wrong. Not only are we not alone, it's much milder here than it can be elsewhere (where they might just be put to death). BTW, I am all for more adoptions of special needs kids and I think gays and lesbians and singles should be allowed to adopt; although under identical circumstances, I think it's preferable that the child go to a two-parent family. >>> In article <98b506c8-3f00-472c-9b77-549db86c7...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >>> Beliavsky says... [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > it's OK if they get supposedly *less* - that single parent or same-sex household > that didnt pass muster for children with *no* special needs. Oh, I get it – so you were disagreeing with Beliavsky's second statement not because you actually did disagree with that particular statement, but because you wanted to highlight the problems with his first? In fairness to Beliavsky, he didn't actually say that children *need* two parents, but that it's *preferable* to find them a two-parent family where this is possible. I would actually agree with this statement, as far as it goes - other things being equal, I do think children are better off having two parents rather than one. Of course, the point at which it breaks down is that other things never are equal, and all sorts of other factors come into play, many of which are too complex and subtle to be balanced against each other to put people wishing to adopt into any sort of ranking order of Best Then Downwards. So, you're right – a policy of all couples being considered before any single people can be would actually lead to a situation where a lot of people who would have made excellent parents wouldn't get that far, and where, in many cases, they would be passed over for people who would in practice make less good parents. > So, what's REALLY being said is - - married couples is a preferred class to > adopt first in line, not the kids that need them the most, but the kids THEY > want. *All* people who adopt should get to adopt a kid they actually want, regardless of whether or not that child happens to be the Most Needy. Adopting a child you *don't* want is an absolute recipe for disaster. > Then, since there's leftovers, well, if singles and gay people still are > so all-fired up about being parents in their substandard situations, then at > least they can help out these other kids that the GOOD families passed over and > get them off society's hands. (Which is believe you me how it sounds to people > - it's all dressed up whenever it's said, but thats what it really is.) You know, you came out with a much better argument in your later post (where you were talking about how your situation as a single parent was actually much better than that of the unhappily married couple you knew and this shows that placing too much reliance on marriage as a criterion isn't a good idea). So, maybe I'm being too nit-picky, but I find it a shame that that argument came out as an afterthought and that the first thing you came out with was the argument that a married-first policy wasn't FAIRRRRRRR to non-married people. The issue is whether they make good parents, not whether everyone gets an equal share of the Children Pie. All the best, Sarah Signaturehttp://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell >>>>In article <98b506c8-3f00-472c-9b77-549db86c7...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >>>> Beliavsky says... [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >far as it goes - other things being equal, I do think children are >better off having two parents rather than one. No - he said they should be *given preference*. Which I take as quite a different statement from, say, recognizing that for an individual child, the greater resources and the pair of parents in one given prospective household would be better than a given single parent household. If that's all Beliavsky meant, then he's had ample opportunity to qualify (and he still can). When it's proposed that singles look over the 'leftover' kids, it's usually in conjunction with the proposal that *as policy*, married households be given precedence or even that single adoption, except in these 'leftover' cases, be banned. Which would mean things like, denying a 38 year old woman well-established in her career and able to take time off and very stable by all accounts, being rejected in favor of a married couple which, during the homestudy, it's noted that one of the parents is ambivalent about the idea of adoption (which is farily common). Do you think that would be a good thing? >Of course, the point at which it breaks down is that other things never >are equal, and all sorts of other factors come into play, many of which [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >far, and where, in many cases, they would be passed over for people who >would in practice make less good parents. Yes. Or maybe less good parents to adopt, or to adopt a particular child (not suited to cross-racial adoption, for example). >> So, what's REALLY being said is - - married couples is a preferred class to >> adopt first in line, not the kids that need them the most, but the kids THEY [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >regardless of whether or not that child happens to be the Most Needy. >Adopting a child you *don't* want is an absolute recipe for disaster. I agree. Read farther down the thread. I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that prospective adoptive families need to adopt within their self-assessed abilities and desires. I have no problem with the likelihood that in many cases a married household would be more suitable for any given adoption than a single household for that reason. My problem is with this talking out both sides of the mouth about how single parent households are by that very fact unsuitable to be parents so that for the sake of the needs of the children they shouldn't be placed there, but now for the *neediest* all that goes by the wayside. Revealing that it isn't about what the kids need in the speaker's mind at all. >> Then, since there's leftovers, well, if singles and gay people still are >> so all-fired up about being parents in their substandard situations, then at [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >wasn't FAIRRRRRRR to non-married people. The issue is whether they make >good parents, not whether everyone gets an equal share of the Children Pie. I have more than one point! First of all, this kind of proposal *is* about setting up a preferred class to get first servings of the Children Pie, while making needs of the children a talking point! And my point isn't that it isn't "fair" - it's about the denigration of, not only single parents proposing to adopt *as a class* (which isn't great, but people may disagree), but ALSO the denigration of a *whole set of children as a class* that they're LESSER so they can settle for what said proposer just said was *substandard*. Unless you're on the receiving end of this little piece of logical and social monstrosity, people don't seem to catch it. "Oh, THEY can take all the little ones other people don't want - woudln't THAT be WONDERFUL." I remember a spot on the Bill O'Reilly show where he was so proud of himself for his 'open-mindedness' while interviewing a lesbian couple, that he WAS for lesbian couples raising children - but only in that special case. Jees. Consider if someone told *you* that. Banty >> So, what's REALLY being said is - - married couples is a preferred >> class to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > regardless of whether or not that child happens to be the Most Needy. > Adopting a child you *don't* want is an absolute recipe for disaster. I think her point is that the whole "holier than thou" thing about certain people (gays, single parents, other "undesirables") being ineligible as adoptive parents because It's All About the Needs of the Children is rather ironic given that *if* this were *truly* about meeting the needs of the children, the programs would actually be *more* concerned with the qualifications of parents for the neediest children. In point of fact, the standards are actually relaxed for the neediest children. So, it's not really all about the needs of the children, which pokes several holes in the fundamental premise underlying many of the arguments against allowing adoption by "undesirables." Banty wasn't arguing that any particular parents should be forced to adopt any particular kids. She was just observing that some people perhaps ought to get off their high horse about how the adoption system is all about making sure that adopted children get the very best. One can certainly make the argument that there should be incentives to adopt hard to adopt kids, including widening the pool of prospective adoptive parents. However, if one does that, thereby saying that gay parents and single parents and whatnot are good enough to parent high needs children, then it seriously undermines the argument that those same folks should never be considered as adoptive parents of normal children because it's damaging to children to be parented by gay parents or single parents--which, after all, is the argument some make. Folks just can't have it both ways--if it's horrifyingly bad for these folks to adopt, then in good conscience one couldn't approve allowing them to adopt high needs kids. If they're good enough to adopt high needs kids, then let's face it, it's not the end of the earth for them to adopt normal kids and just maybe it's a bit hypocritical to exclude them from that adoption pool. I wouldn't argue at all with your argument that *all other things being equal*, two parents are better than one simply because it means more resources are available. But, as you also observed, all other things are rarely equal, at which point it becomes a very complicated situation to evaluate all the tradeoffs...again, arguing that excluding prospective parents from the adoption pool on the virtue of some of these single criteria probably isn't optimal. Best wishes, Ericka >>> So, what's REALLY being said is - - married couples is a preferred >>> class to [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >from the adoption pool on the virtue of some of these single >criteria probably isn't optimal. Yes - there are fundamental problems with the whole proposition. It is *also* true that, in the application, even some non-high needs children would be placed into suboptimal married households when there may be a better single-parent household wanting adopt. And that point may be more convincing to Sarah (which is fine..). But being the logic-oriented type I am, I went first for the foundational problems with it. ;-) And, having been on the receiving end of these trains of thought, I have some more emotion-oriented objections to the content of the underlying assumptions as well. That doens't mean that the logical problems aren't there. Or the problems in application. Banty I'm thinking of some of the "less desirable adoptive parents" some of my students have had, and, honestly, those "less desirable parents" who adopt those high-need kids often are, I suspect better informed and better qualified BECAUSE they go in knowing that they're probably going to get a child with "issues"-and don't care. They just want a child. I have a two-mother couple now, where one of the partners legally adopted twin boys from a former Soviet republic, at age 3. One of the twins was completely non-verbal when adopted, and had a cleft palate which was easily corrected in the USA. At almost 5 now, these boys have both come a LONG ways-and honestly, I don't think any other couple would have been better. These two ladies are both devoted to their sons, have the financial and emotional resources needed to raise children who are dealing with all the issues involved in internationally adopting older children, let alone those with special needs (and both boys have some special need areas, although they're improving dramatically). I've known a few other "less desirable" couples, who have taken on special needs kids, older kids, and sibling groups, and, again, I can't imagine those kids with anyone else, simply because the parents had made the choice to adopt KNOWING that they likely wouldn't have a perfect baby, and therefore had their eyes open in ways that many natural parents or adoptive parents of infants (especially those who adopt through agencies which specialize in adopting babies of the same race to married, churchgoing parents who look, on paper, like the perfect family) did. > > In article > > <58ee85f9-d86f-4cbc-9140-a36f758be...@l25g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > revoke their responsibility to financially support the children they > father. Why not? Every time a woman aborts, adopts out or legally abandoned her child, she just revoked her responsibility to financially support the children she produced. A post-coital choice to men should be extended as well. So when a man learns that a pregnancy occurred, he should be able to waive all responsibility as well. That way, women must procure the commitment from a man FIRST prior to giving birth if she has any expectation of receiving resources to help her (just like how we men must procure the commitment from a woman first before we can be parents). Currently women have abortion, adoption and legally abandonment laws to opt out once a pregnancy occurs. Men have none. >If the mother dies, for example, the father, not the taxpayer, > ought to be first means of support, and he ought to be given the > chance to adopt the child. Only if he wants to be a father and to be financially responsible for the child. Like I stated before, maybe he didn't want to be a parent in the beginning. Why should he be forced to be one now? Regards... On Apr 25, 3:50�pm, "agsf...@yahoo.com" <agsf...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > In article > > > <58ee85f9-d86f-4cbc-9140-a36f758be...@l25g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > revoke their responsibility to financially support the children they > > father. Please snip properly. The above is by Beliavsky, not me. --Helen On Apr 25, 4:09 pm, "hschin...@mouse-potato.com" <hschin...@aol.com> wrote: > Please snip properly. The above is by Beliavsky, not me. > > --Helen Better? Regards... >On Apr 25, 4:09 pm, "hschin...@mouse-potato.com" <hschin...@aol.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Regards... Oh don't be snarky about it. Helen informed you of a point of netiquette, and asked your consideration. Banty In article <43888c68-4ca6-41c8-91c5-9b8c4f62fd65@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > Wow, Chookie and I agree on something :). One caveat, though. Although > I think married couples should be given preference over unmarried [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in an institution or in foster care should be applauded for doing so, > IMO. I had better put in my caveat: I do not know how I would approach this legislatively. > Artificial insemination of single women, is different IMO. Here the > woman is deliberately creating a child who will never know his or her > father and his relatives, and that is wrong. But I believe I know a lesbian couple whose children do know their bio-father; he's a gay friend of theirs. Secondly, because of the risk of incest, I understand that my state government is looking into registration of sperm donors. In the area of adoption (and I see AI as a kind of adoption) I think it is very important for children and parents to have the chance to know who their bio-parents are, not only to prevent incest and deal with medical issues (I have a friend in this situation), but to deal with the emotional issues. OTOH I don't know how pleasant it would be to know that my bio-dad had been short of cash one day so he decided to get paid for spending a few minutes with a girly magazine and a jam-jar! > From the societal point of view, male sperm donors should not be able > revoke their responsibility to financially support the children they > father. If the mother dies, for example, the father, not the taxpayer, > ought to be first means of support, and he ought to be given the > chance to adopt the child. I'd agree that he should be given a right of refusal, but it would depend on whether there were really no other relatives capable of looking after the child. He should be counted as a relative, but not a very close one. More like the kind you get in old stories, where the girl is orphaned and goes to live with an elderly relative (who she has never previously met) on the other side of the country! SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/ Chookie schrieb: > In article > <43888c68-4ca6-41c8-91c5-9b8c4f62fd65@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, <snip> >> From the societal point of view, male sperm donors should not be able >> revoke their responsibility to financially support the children they [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > live with an elderly relative (who she has never previously met) on the other > side of the country! The problem with this approach is that the sperm donor then has to also be given the right to meet his children, theoretically even if the mother/parents of the children do not consent to this. And how would you feel if your children were pushed over to some guy they never met, some guy _you_ never met? And who has not had a homestudy done and who might not be an even remotely ideal father? You're treating sperm donors like mothers/parents in an open adoption and I don't really see those two things as the same, which they are not. cu nicole > >> From the societal point of view, male sperm donors should not be able > >> revoke their responsibility to financially support the children they [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > be given the right to meet his children, theoretically even if the > mother/parents of the children do not consent to this. The parents aren't giving consent because they are in the morgue. I am not sure if you are misunderstanding, or just applying a different set of legislative assumptions. > And how would you feel if your children were pushed over to some guy > they never met, some guy _you_ never met? And who has not had a > homestudy done and who might not be an even remotely ideal father? At this point, we're getting towards having a child made ward of the state because we can't find any close relatives. Who is to say that a *willing* bio-father, who has grown up quite a bit since his sperm-donor days, might not be a good choice? Why should we assume that he would not be assessed for suitability first, anyway? > You're treating sperm donors like mothers/parents in an open adoption > and I don't really see those two things as the same, which they are not. Not at the moment, in my jurisdiction. But as I said, they may draw closer together in future. A generation ago, all adoptions were 'closed' here, until the psychological toll on the mothers and children became apparent. I don't see any reason for the children of sperm donors to be less hurt by the current level of secrecy. SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/ |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message