Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tektronix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!tektronix!moiram
From: moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison )
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Single Parenting: a defense
Message-ID: <3279@tektronix.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Aug-84 20:19:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: tektroni.3279
Posted: Fri Aug  3 20:19:25 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Aug-84 06:00:01 EDT
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 71



perhaps in my attempt to take my personal feelings out of this discussion,
I have presented an attitude that this is rather a frivolous idea.  I 
assure you that I do not consider it such.   

[Rob DeMillo]:

   Clay, Judy and others ---
      The concept of a child being a surrogate pet for some
   has occured to me over and over. 

I saw a completely different theme in Judy's posting from the
one in Clay's.  Judy was saying that with all the adoptable kids in the
world, there's no reason to bring a child into the world knowing that
s/he will suffer the deprivation of a father.

Whether or not there is an abundance of adoptable children seems to depend
on how much the parent(s) is willing to pay, how much of a risk the parent(s)
is willing to take ( specifically regarding the health of the child), and
what your stand on abortion is.  Many agencies discriminate against single
people (why deprive the child his/her right to a 2-parent family).  
Besides I hate to pay for something I can do myself :-) :-) :-).  Seriously
though, I think you do single parents a great disservice to categorically
affirm the benefits of a 2-parent family.  The nuclear family is a
a twentieth century idea.  Much more traditional is the extended family.
What? You mean you don't live with your parents?  How can you deprive 
your children of their grandparents?

Clay's theme was really the one Rob addressed.  The child as surrogate
pet.  Why does *anyone* choose to have children.  I examined the various
reasons people would have children, and I can't think of one that isn't
completely selfish.  This has nothing to do with whether a person is 
married or not.

Which brings us to: 
 [Rob again]

    I know quite a few single
    people (mostly women - not a comment, just a statistic) that
    want a child. These people vary in age from mid-20's to
    late 30's, but they all have one thing in common: they have
    never had a child and do not wish to get married.

Well, I will comment on the "mostly women" phrase.  I got a lot of 
why-don't-you-wait-till-you-get-married kind of response to my first
posting, mostly from men.  And the conclusion I draw is that men in
their twenties, thirties, even forties, who will remain fertile into
old age do *NOT* understand what it is like to be faced with 'now or 
never ' on this question.  Virtually every woman faces the 'biological
time clock': a period in her late 20s thru early 30s when the maternal
instinct hits like a ton of bricks.  Many women get through the period
without having a child, but even the women I've known who were absolutely
clear from late teens that they didn't want children have gone through
a period of wanting one.  

This is not to say that a woman should act on the instinct.  *BUT* it
is the last chance  for many women without the fear that the effects
of a later-in-life pregnancy carries with it.  Given the choice of 
bearing a child now, who would grow up without a father in the home
(worst case) and bearing a child in 10 years that would go through 
life with a severe handicap, I'd choose the former.

One last point: it is not safe to assume that because a woman considers
or even chooses to give birth to a child while she (the mother) is 
single, that she does not wish to get married at some future date.
Just because the sand in the hourglass is getting short is no reason 
to jump at the first offer.  Now that's a real mistake!

Moira Mallison
tektronix!moiram