Oceania IVF babies and single women.

I personally believe that single women should NOT have access to IVF technology for conceiving children.

IVF should only be used for couples who are having difficulty having children, that is what the treatment was intended for anyway.

Lesbian couples aren't recognised as being "married", so have to register as single, and it is hard enough and expensive enough to get it as it is. What are they supposed to do?

As for the theory that a chld needs a mother and a father to grow up decently, it's crap and you know it, there are too many instances, in my own family even, that prove otherwise.
If you want to bring your child up up in a nuclear style family, fine, but don't try and dictate the way other people start and raise their families.

 

Several points:

a) a child is not an item you purchase on a whim it is a lifelong investment of time and money and emotions in varying proportions.

People who say 'lets have a baby' and expect it to turn out right are nuts.

ALL prospective parents, that is to say, couples, singles, intended and unintended pregnancies, IVF, and whatever other methods of having children have been invented... should have some form of counselling on the issues which are prevalent to raising children in this world.

Its called enabling, where society provides the tools and knowledge for its members to develop and enable others.We don't do enough of it.

b) Children require role models.

This is the mechanism through which they learn and develop. Monkey see monkey do is all too true. Children need both male and female rolemodels and interaction to learn about human interaction on ALL levels.

Meaning: Boys and girls need male and female interaction, not specifically father and mother but definetely some regular interaction at parental type level.

c) Medical treatements for infertility are just that.

The intention for medical treatments for infertility is to allow people (couples singles etc) who are physically unable to have children to become parents.

They were not developed with the intention of resolving 'social issues'* which may prevent someone from having children.

*This is a broad and sweeping, I apologise however couldn't think of a better way to phrase this.

Hope I cleared some of that up.

 

I don't believe single women should be allowed IVF.

In custody cases these days, the only rights that matter are the rights of the child. Parents have no right to have either custody or even visit the child if the Courts deem that it is not in the best interest of the child.

In a society that says the childs rights are paramount in custody cases, surely that logic follows through to a potential child whose best interests are not served by being born without a father.

I don't care what people say about single parent families - marriages and relationships break up all the time and that is unavoidable. To deliberately place a child in that circumstance is a different story.

I also don't like it because it belittles the role of fathers in a childs life.

Someone said that biologically the father inseminates the mother then buggers off. Biologically that is as incorrect as you can get. Humans are not herd animals or solitary animals. We have a very strong social need. This need is borne from the requirement that human infants take at least 12 yrs to reach sexual maturity. That means they take a lot of looking after and that means a family group is formed to do so. Fathers did not bugger off.

 

"All you need is a mother's love" sells lots of Mother's Day cards, but that's about all it's good for.


But another question - are these single mother's going to receive a single mother's pension?

Are they going to expect society to support them financially?

Or are they going to work and leave someone else to raise the child? If so, why bother?


The whole idea is irresponsible and selfish.

 

According to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (look, I did homework!), a child should grow up in an atmosphere of affection and moral and material security, a spirit of understanding and tolerance, and should be protected from any discriminatory practices. It also says that a child shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his or her parents (number and gender of parents not specified).

Now, can you say that a single mother or two mothers can't provide the love and emotional support that a child needs? Are their morals vastly different from a "normal" couple? If anything, they would be raised to be more tolerant than the vast majority of children these days.

As for the argument that they are trying to fill some emotional void and want something of their own to love - well, yeah. Duh. It's the same with heterosexual couples too. A human's basic instinct, regardless of sexual preference, is to breed, so most women want to have kids (along with most men - hell, I want kids someday and I'm only 17). Straight couples are only being as selfish as you claim single infertile women are - both groups think a LOT before having a kid about whether they can handle it, in most cases. It may not be true about every person wanting an IVF baby, but not all naturally conceived babies are well-thought out plans either, are they?

 

Um, yeah, like i said - it has NOTHING to do with morals and lifestyle or any of the other things you're going on about.

I don't care if the parents are from Tralfamadore and indulge in rituals involving farm animals...


If the mother is missing, or the father is missing, or if both are missing - it has a real negative BIOLOGICAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL effect on the child.
It may be slight and not even noticeable, or it might be profound and life-altering, but there IS an effect.


Sure, a single parent can raise a child. It might not have any problems - or any that are noticeable, anyway.

But does that mean its the BEST option?

Bottom line: when you take the father out of the picture, you are substantially increasing the risk of the child having problems. Is it worth that risk? My answer is ... No.



And I'm not saying that single parents are doing a bad job. They can be the best parents in the world. It doesn't make a difference. There is a real, negative, biological response that occurs with the absence of a parent - male or female.

So why do it on purpose?

 

Because in saying that child can't be brought into the world is not only denying it's right to be there in the first place, but also denying the parent's happiness. I still don't see why two irresponsible teenagers can have kids but a well-meaning single infertile woman can't.

I'm not sure what you mean by "biological" - it's still a normal child, despite being conceived somewhat differently. I admit that they would be raised a little differently, that's a given, but why is that a bad thing? Don't we value diversity? It's not automatically going to be a troublesome child just because it was raised by one parent or - god forbid - two mothers, just like all naturally conceived children aren't perfect. You can't say that a certain kid can't be born because he might not be brought up the same as everyone else. That's not philosophy, that's fact: you're denying him the right to simply be, and no one could argue they rather wouldn't exist than have an "alternative" upbringing. Well, manic depressants maybe, but that's another story altogether.

 

No-one said irresponsible teenagers should have kids. In fact I think that most of us here would agree that's a bad idea. It's not the issue though. The issue is whether or not it's a good idea for a child to be raised without a father or a mother. I say no for reasons that have already been mentioned several times. It's not about who the parent is.
Just out of interest, how many people in this thread are actually talking from experience as a parent.
*raises hand*

 

What he said, which is what I said but in a more concise version, somewhat.

 

What I meant by "biological" is that there are physical changes in the nervous system that result from the physical absence of a parent (male or female).

We don't know why, but it does.

Things like changes in the physical structure of the brain, changes in neurotransmitters in the brain, changes in receptors and connections, etc.

As a result of these changes, you get problems like decreased immunity, increased stress levels, increased aggression, ... things that you might not even realise or connect with it.

That is why I'm opposed to it.

It has nothing to do with the ability of the single parent. They can be the greatest parent in the world. It makes no difference. It still happens.



As for this whole "denying the right of existence" thing... Philosophy is a wonderful pastime. I could go out and get someone pregnant right now, but I won't. Am I denying that child the right to exist?

Ban condoms! Ban contraception! Make viagra free! We should spend all day conceiving - every second we don't, we deny a child the right to exist! FREE LOVE!!!

 

If the mother is missing, or the father is missing, or if both are missing - it has a real negative BIOLOGICAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL effect on the child.

Well if the parents are poor, or have a disease or have a mental illness, they shouldn't be allowed to use IVF either right?

Role models can be found in many other areas, family and friends for example, i'd rather my child have no immediate father figure, than a bad one or one I didn't love or something.

soneil, are you speaking from the experience of a single parent?

Iam speaking from experience of those in my family who are single parents and same sex parents who used IVF, the children get all the support and "male influence" they need from the extended family....and they all work and recieve no payment and are still good parents.

 

And for the millionth time, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ROLE MODELS OR SUITABILITY.

It is the PHYSICAL ABSENCE of the biological father (or mother).

The parent is NOT THERE.

There is NONE.

NONE. ZIP. ZILCH. ZERO.

NO FATHER.

AT ALL.


No more, no less.


The suitability of the father is a completely different issue.


And that's me done.

 

In any case, a kid could have dozens of uncles, mothers' boyfriends, next door neighbours etc hanging aroung but that's still no substitute for a father. There's a difference between a father and someone who just happens to be a nice role model.

 

I didn't say that there AREN'T biological and psychological effects on the child due to the absence of a father, but there are other circumstances in which children are brought up which also have negative biological and psychological effects on them so why only deny access to would be single parents?

 

Because I don't think as a society we should be willingly and knowingly placing kids in that situation.

When a couple have a baby there is at least the potential for the child to have two parents and a family. In this case there is no potential for it and I don't think that single mothers should be given the same priority as a couple on the same program.