Single mother by choice - is it ethical?

Don't you remember 'Yes Minister' and 'Yes Prime Minister', jingl?

Who is Bernard Woolley?

Perhaps if you suggest that it may be unethical, you introduce an element of judging. But maybe I am overthinking it. Quite possibly.

<Bernard Woolley moment> Can it actually be judgemental to ask a question?

Oh right jings LOL

I don't think I would have started such a such a judgemental thread.

It doesn't need to be, and should n't be labelled 'ethical' or 'non-ethical'. It's an individual and private choice. Focussing on labels here is archaic. And small minded.

Some of us can decouple copulation from the consequence of pregnancy. I know you're talking about our (British) society, but there are millions of people who can't do that uncoupling yet. In those (human) cultures I don't suppose there is much opportunity for women to choose to be a single mother. It is probably frowned upon, as it used to be here, sometimes with very nasty consequences.

I don't know anyone who has chosen to be a single mother though I do know several people who became single mothers for various reasons. I don't think it is all that common, is it?

Perhaps it is selfish but so are a lot of other things people do. It's not a choice I would make (at least I don't think I would have done; too late now) but I don't feel like condemning others for it. We cannot know what has made them make that choice. In some cases, if we did understand the whys and wherefores, we might feel quite sympathetic.

Other apes, elephants, whales and cetaceans have more cultural mores than are just to do with food, I think. There could well be other species too – wolves and wild dogs, lions..... The food ones are important, as they are for humans, but they are not all there is.

Not saying copulation is not normal - but we are now able to de-couple it from the consequence of pregnancy. Animal "cultural" patterns - the ones I can think of involve food and getting food.
I have met women who are very alone and elected to have a child without any family support. I also know of one woman in her 40s, without much of a career herself, who had IVF twins. I think the assumption was that her parents who had been retired many years would support her. This has been the case while the girls have been under school age. But with her parents both now in poor health I don't know how she will manage the coming years.

Male role model..

There are some communities, in this country, where there almost a culture of missing fathers. Boys growing up without a good, male old model, in an environment where that is almost the norm. Despite strong matriarchs, these young boys so often turn to gang culture to provide something they see as mssing from their lives.

JessM I totally agree with your post of yesterday. I just cannot imagine having grown up without my father- and I know our girls would say the same. Sometimes, through tragedy, it is unavoidable- but to deliberately set out to bring up a child wihout a dad seems selfish in the extreme to me- even with a solid extended family. Adults can make choices- but should not impose them on their children in that way.

Thus the cultural rules or 'norms'. But these will keep changing, developing, evolving, like everything else.

There will always be some, I think, whether the society is of humans or of some other social animal. An advanced society will try to minimise the number of 'losers'.

If there are other supportive and consistent males (or females) around then that mitigates the problem of 'singleness'. It's those without good support networks who have the problem.

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.

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.

What about brothers, fathers, cousins, friends?

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

@ 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.