January 31, 2008

Are fathers passé?

Perhaps that is not the real question. The real question, from the perspective of enlightened social engineering in the progressive UK, is "should" fathers be passé? To which question the unequivocal politically-correct answer du jour is certainly "of course!"

Now that lesbians and single women only need some sperm in order to have their very own babies, raised without a demanding and oppressive male biological father around, and social science research is supposedly starting to confirm the unlikely proposition that such children are not just AS well off but in fact even BETTER off in some ways than children whose biological father lives in the home (apparently because two lesbians are more caring and loving than a mom and dad), well then - what else are men, and what else should they be, but prospective sperm donors?

This is the real victory of feminism. Perhaps one day we will be able to clone sperm out of women's cells - a story like that appeared quite seriously in the media last year. If that happens then we won't need men at all in the end, and we could essentially breed them out of the human race and into extinction. Hurray for peace in the world!

The funny thing is that even as Britain struggles under the clamoring of the reproductive rights lobby to take away the legal recognition of the importance of fatherhood, in America the government is trying hard to do the opposite: to make deadbeat dads take some responsibility for their children, to stick around rather than abandon women to be single moms, to make an appearence in the lives of their children. But why should they? According to the UK's reproductive lobby, the fathers have done their job - they donated the sperm and created the baby. The woman chose to keep it rather than having an abortion. And social science says that fathers are not needed after all.

So maybe we should all act like a pack of wild animals once again, and have the fathers disappear after the copulation is done, for everyone's benefit. That is, unless the woman wants to keep one around, not for the child but for herself. The rumor has it that men are good at certain domestic chores and other heavier work...but certainly nothing that women couldn't do themselves and just as well, or even better.

7 comments:

Beagle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Embarassed Canadian Chick said...

A rather staunch view from someone who has never had to make such decisions. It's nice to know the world is such a black & white place and that you are the only voice of reason within it.

I can hardly wait to go home and scratch my dog's ears, pet both my cats and cuddle my daughter, who just so happens to be adopted. Oh well, at least I have a husband right? I must not be a total heathen.

Beagle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Veronica Thomas said...

Hi Beagle,

The case you refer me to is a very tragic case indeed.

Who should raise the new baby? Well, given that the father is a sexual offender, and the mother is a child herself, then the best outcome in this case is probably exactly what has happened here: that the child be raised by a foster family or an adoptive family.

However, as with any adopted child, I would still support this child having a right to meet his or her biological parents, and even to visit with the mother, if the child so wished (visiting with the father is obviously not a good idea, for the child's own protection).

As you can see, my position is not the black-and-white position that all children must, under any and all circumstances, be raised by their biological parents. That would be foolish.

My position is that adoption and foster care are commendable IN CASES OF NEED (such as the one you link to), in cases where they are the best solutions to a preexisting crisis situation. The child always deserves the best chance at a stable life and proper development, and when the birth parents are simply not up to the task, then foster and adoptive parents are a better solution.

However, this does not mean that I endorse the INTENTIONAL creation of children whose life is PRE-PLANNED so that they will be deprived of one or both of their biological parents. Children who are created with donor eggs and/or sperm are in a completely different category than the baby mentioned in the story above. These children are no accident. In the case of these children, it is their "adoptive" parents who PREMEDITATED the separation of these children from one or both of their biological parents, before these children were ever conceived.

Adoption and foster care are the best solutions we have to emergency situations. However, as good as they are, the preferred option is always to have the child be raised by its biological parents - WHERE THEY ARE UP TO THE TASK.

Beagle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Veronica Thomas said...

Hi beagle,

You are twisting my words a bit. I did not say that the sexual abuse was not premeditated. It may well have been. What was very likely accidental was the pregnancy itself. I doubt that the 40-year-old man, and the 10-year-old girl, intentionally set out to have a baby.

As far as how this baby will be raised and cared for, it is rather presumptuous of you to say that the baby will not be cared for as well as repro tech children. The baby may well be cared for by loving foster or adoptive parents, and you have no basis for saying that such parents are less loving or less good.

I never said that genes are the "sum" of life. That would be "narrow" indeed. But it is nonetheless true that our biological origins play an important part in our psychological development. People need to know who they are, and how they belong in the world - and an important part of discovering this is based on their observation of, and interaction with, their own genetic parents, siblings, extended families, and even their ethnicities and cultures. To take that basic knowledge and experience away from a child is to send him or her on a lifelong quest for this information, just like the experience of adopted children has shown.

As far as "slander," I certainly don't agree that I am slandering anyone. I am simply demonstrating the facts, the reality of what is happening. In any case, the people who are involved with repro tech don't see anything shameful in it, it seems - so why would they feel "slandered" when I merely point out that this is what they are doing?

Beagle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.