Single mother by choice - is it ethical?

I totally agree rosequartz.

charleygirl

This thread has popped up again and I realise that I didn't answer bags' question. I do agree of course that the urge to reproduce is present and that's all I really meant, that we are satisfying our own urges by having children, so that is selfish, to a degree.

I just realised that I didn't answer jess's question either. I think you may be right, jess, that some people want a baby and don't really think through the follow-on. But I'd guess it was always thus without even including "accidental" pregnancies before contraception (and after it). I'm not sure I'd call wishing to fulfil such a fundamental life urge selfish. I know what you and baubles mean but somehow I'm not comfortable with that description of a normal animal urge which some people are apparently less able to resist, or which they feel more strongly than average perhaps.

I don't think it's a choice I would ever have made, but I would have been taking other considerations into account, such as possible disapproval from family.

After all, I'm thinking, we wouldn't call 'wanton' reproduction in any other animal selfish; we'd just accept it as how life happens.

I'm trying not to waffle here. Let me just say that there's a lot of discussion among animal behaviourists at the moment about whether other animals have self-consciousness at all. I think the feeling is growing that we are not so different from other animals as we like to think we are.

RQ
I so much agree with your 1st point, tho' I'd say 'fair' rather than bountiful. If your, and my, wish were to come about in that respect, perhaps we would be income tax free - but not VAT free.
Oh dear - it's a 'whim' to want a baby?
Does '' loving partner'' include a female partner - I do hope so.
What level and type of ''loving'' qualifies, and where will the Test Centres be?
My point was WE are part of that support network - or should be.
No child is an island, ask not whose babes are crying, they are in part, OURS, and soon will care for us as we should care for them now. [And their mothers]

I suppose it all depends on who is going to fund the wanton reproduction

I'll leave it all for you to sort out, AAAHappyMan, as you obviously have such strong ideas on how society should be structured..

Ok! A bit of "Devils advocacy" coming up.

I do not quite see why it can be regarded as any more or less "ethical" or "selfish" to deliberately have one child as a single mum, than it is to have several within a two parent family.

As ThatBags says most living organisms have a biological urge to reproduce and I can very much understand that, but does the urge (or carelessness) to go on producing offspring after that become a selfish act?

There are families both in and out of work who have far more children than the average. It could be argued that these large families are "greedy" as they take up more than their fair share of state money as a family.

Every child costs the state a lot of money in terms of our free education system NHS etc. These costs have no bearing at all on whether or not the families are in work or on benefits.

How about just making sure that any persons, married couples or singles just produce enough children to replace themselves. It could be argued that to have more than "replacement numbers" of children is just being greedy and self indulgent with what the state provides.

wanton
ˈadjective
1.(of a cruel or violent action) deliberate and unprovoked.
2.(especially of a woman) sexually immodest or promiscuous.
Phew !
''Judge not, lest ye be judged. For with the judgement that ye judge,ye shall be judged.''

Every child costs the state a lot of money in terms of our free education system NHS etc.
Free at the point of use =/= Free
These costs have no bearing at all on whether or not the families are in work or on benefits.
Part of the difficulty here is that many ''hard working'' people are paid so little that the state [Us] has to subsidize the share holders' profits so those employees can make ends just about meet
How about just making sure that any persons, married couples or singles just produce enough children to replace themselves.
Sounds like a good idea to me - just like the =
*..one child per family law in China, resulting in massive numbers of abortions and infanticides of females, and now lots of kidnapping of young women for forced marriages
*.. Mr Gandhi's (alleged) regime of forced reproductive sterilization in India.
Will rich people be able to bribe - [Ooops, buy] - exemptions?
And what about the religious, e.g. certain groups which ban contraceptive use?
On second thoughts ......

I agree, AAAman, that authoritarian rules are not a good idea. You are right to find fault with my use of 'wanton'.

We should stop thinking of people as burdens, as costs to the rest of us. Anyone can be made out to be a burden. That way lies Naziism.

AAman

I did say I was playing devils advocate.

I will make it clear that I was in no way suggesting that family size be enforced. That is unworkable, as is stopping benefit for more than a set number of children. That affects the welfare of the children who did not ask to be born.
I do have serious issues with those organisations, who refuse to allow contraception.

I suggest working at parental replacement numbers.

I was just putting forward the idea that with finite resources, to use more than your share of these resources in this case by having lot more children than everyone else might be considered greedy.

What is wrong with rationing scarce resources?

I was widowed in the seventies , our daughters were seven and five . We were part of a large loving extended family and had the love and support of the church community . None of this took away the wistful look on the faces of our girls when their cousins were hugged by their fathers and large family gatherings just heightened the sense of loss of that missing parent - not speaking of grief. It gave our daughters too much responsibility too, something they took on themselves , they wanted to protect me no matter I assured them I didn't need protecting. Our girls are now 43 and 45 so I can say with quite a few years of experience - children need fathers just as much as children need mothers .

And on a selfish note, parents evenings at school were hell, racing up and down staircases from classroom to classroom to get around every teacher whilst my sisters and friends shared the list , I never failed to speak to every teacher and always came home exhausted

Nothing wrong with it when it happens naturally, nelliem, which, as the falling birth rates among 'westerners' shows, does happen as living standards rise and as health care is put in place that reduces infant mortality and cares for society's old people – so that people don't have to have lots of kids as insurance for their old age. My view is simply that I don't think politicians or other (usually holier than thou) activists should dictate what they think is right for the rest of us. Talk about it, yes. Encourage thinking, yes. Tell us how to behave, no.

@ thatbags Fri 18-Apr-14 08:01:22
Very generous of you to write that !
And your subsequent comment is shocking - but so very, very true !
Kindest regards.

Nelliemoser Fri 18-Apr-14 09:01:24
AAman I did say I was playing devils advocate.
I was just putting forward the idea that with finite resources, to use more than your share of these resources in this case by having lot more children than everyone else might be considered greedy.
What is wrong with rationing scarce resources?
----
The ''Torygraph' recently reported that ''Gap between rich and poor growing fastest in Britain ...faster in Britain than in any other developed country over recent decades.''
According to the UNDP - United Nations Development Programme, in the league table of Countries with the Biggest Gaps Between Rich and Poor, UK comes 7th :
Share of income or expenditure (%)
Poorest 10%: 2.1 .......... Richest 10%: 28.5
----
Let's ration the access to the scarce resource that is used to buy scarce resources, or is stored up to accumulate to be available to buy scarce resources in the future.
A tax on WEALTH

Not quite following yr argument there AAA but maybe its a bit early.
Bags do you think we should equate our decision making to that of animals? We are blessed/cursed with brains that can handle much more complex ideas and also we live in human culture, not in the forest, so decisions are made within the constraints of that culture surely?
One could argue that humans evolved within family groups so deciding to have a child who will not be part of such a group is flying in the face of biology?
I don't necessarily think children are burdens on society. We need people to have children who will grow up and do useful things and generate tax income in 25 years time don't we?

Other social animals have cultural rules as well as us, jess. Forest-dwelling is irrelevant.

"One could argue that humans evolved within family groups so deciding to have a child who will not be part of such a group is flying in the face of biology?"
I don't think copulation, whether in 'approved' circumstances or not, is flying in the face of biology. Also, since we are such social animals, one can think of an entire society (in the past, hamlet, village) as family group. As chimpanzees, our cousins, do, for instance. In more primitive times this was necessary because life was more dangerous. There will have always been orphans as well as single parents for various reasons.

"I don't necessarily think children are burdens on society. We need people to have children who will grow up and do useful things and generate tax income in 25 years time don't we?"
Hmm, yes, but not all things that generate tax income are useful. Think celebrity culture and rich folk who avoid paying tax. There will always be some members of society who, through no fault of their own, cannot be as 'useful' in those terms (generating tax income) as others. They are not necessarily of less 'worth' to society – in some cases maybe more.

Fantasy hat on here - Perhaps our society is moving toward that of some other primates, where copulation is between any two individuals who fancy it, and any children conceived are brought up by their mothers, but defended by all the males in the troupe because none of them can be 100% sure that they are not the father?

And why not, elegran?

However, I was thinking further about this during my morning ablutions and it occurred to me that artificial insemination is not the same as copulation, wanton or otherwise. But my thinking is that when we observe the behaviour of other animals we tend to assume that all their behaviour is 'natural' or at least a 'natural' reaction to something. We are a phenomenon of nature too so why would we regard behaviour (such as artificial insemination, which we've worked out how to do for our benefit) that humans engage in as in any way 'unnatural', whether it is approved by some parts of our society or not?

The question was whether it is unethical for women to choose to be single mothers. I say no, it isn't.

But being a 'single' mother implies there are no males in the group defending/supporting her.

What about brothers, fathers, cousins, friends?

Single only implies that the child's father is not present, not that there are no men in her life. Or other women, come to that.

You don't have to live in the same house as someone to support them in various ways, as many members of gransnet know only too well.