Single mothers using sperm banks

People who are already alive are biased - of course they'd want to maintain the status quo. You cannot ask children whether they want to be born before that happens.

All in all, I do think it is rather pointless to argue from the potential child's point of view.

From the point of view of the surrounding society, I would much rather have women become single mothers on purpose than have children with a wholly unfit man, and then end up single mothers who have to cope with a horrid ex on top of single parenting.

Germany suffers from a shrinking population due to a low number of births, so much that the idiots from the political right want to ban abortion to increase the number of births, and I think in that situation, it would really be preferrable to implement proper legislation for sperm donor babies. Like, state pays child support, sperm donor neither has to pay money nor gets to sue for custody.

It is not perfect for those children, but then, whose life is? Of course children should be able to find out who their biological parents are (in fact, it should be known to the mother, anyway, because inherited diseases, etc.), but I don't think the demand for a traditional two-parent family is reasonable.

I know so many women and children who have been let down by crap dads who walk away, reject children again and again, replace them with a second family, do their best to avoid maintenance (and those are the ones who are just crap not abusive).

Yes, maybe a stable loving partnership of two parents might be the ideal, but it's certainly not the only way - and imo far better to have no dad than have a crap one.

I know three women who have had babies alone using donor sperm, and several more than that who are raising children alone with minimal positive emotional or financial support from mostly absent fathers. I can't see that the second scenario is better for anyone than the first.

Hello. Have recently conceived using a donor, who is an old friend.
I had conceived back in April but miscarried in June. Back then I was with my partner of 8 years who then left me 2 weeks after the miscarriage saying the experience 'made her realise she didn't want children'. Nice.
I then decided to go it alone and, hey presto, am 5 weeks pregnant again. Though it is lonely and difficult and I wish things had worked with my partner, I am pregnant now and will go it alone, not in an unhappy relationship. The donor and I are trying to work out his role.
First time round he was going to be hands off but has been so supportive since the miscarriage. The only worry is he has an awful boyfriend with a personality disorder, whom I wouldn't feel comfortable leaving my child with. I would like my child to know who their father is from as soon as they want to know and allow visitation, but not sure how to get around the rest. I am thinking not putting him on birth certificate. Thus mainly in case something happens to me, in which case would want child to be adopted by my brother or ny close friends here in London. He is Italian and lives in Italy so any maintenance would have to be privately arranged anyway.
Am slightly worried about the months ahead but feel proud of myself for the courage to go it alone. Especially when I look at the misery of people waiting for someone before trying.

I think - know - that at any time, any of us might find we are in a position where a child feels resentful of or affected by a circumstance of birth.

The advantage is that single mothers by choice (though I dislike that phrase) are prepared, in a sense.

I would never dismiss someone with 'would you rather not be born at all' but it is an argument that is strong - without the donor sperm, you would not exist. Your parent might have had another child but that would not be you.

I tried, when choosing a donor, to choose someone who best offset some of my less wonderful characteristics - in particular height - at a mere 5'2 in stature, I tried to choose someone tall to at least give DC a chance at not being forced into Next Petite range for the duration of their adult life!

People also forget that sperm banks are not just for single women but for same sex couples and for heterosexual couples unable to use 'their' sperm.

Its a great idea that single women be allowed this service legally.

But the child will own day grow to have their own opinion and rights about the circumstances of their life and lineage that may, or may not, be at odds with their mother.

If it is at odds, blowing a kids legitimate search for identity off with a question Would you rather not be born at all? would be something only a narcissist would parrot.

jw35 I just wanted to pick up on what you said above My 9 month old was conceived using donor sperm... It wasn't through a sperm bank though it was through a website called coparents.com

I'm sure you already know this but others thinking about this might not so I thought I should mention that legally it's not treated as donor sperm unless its through a licensed clinic. So legally speaking the man is the father of your baby and you could bring a claim for child maintenance and he could bring a claim for parental responsibility and contact with the child etc. It sounds as if this is the last thing that either of you want to do but people can end up in difficult situations in these DIY arrangements. From the law's point of view it's just the same as if you have a child with an ex-partner - the method of conception is irrelevant.

I didn't say that additional parents were good. I said they were better, by your reasoning.

By your reasoning, a child brought up by adults in a poly relationship is better off than one brought up by a couple.

By your reasoning, a child brought up by a single mother with six siblings who are involved in the child's life is better off than one brought up by a couple who are both only children.

So we should be criticising only children who reproduce and everyone who isn't part of the poly community?

Additional parental figures are good too, sure. Why wouldn't that be the case? Personally I don't have an 'issue' with any parents except for bad ones, I don't think that choices should be taken away from people and absolutely it would be a better world if a cadre of men didn't think that they could behave like shits and still get the women that they want essentially because of biology.

I just think it would be even better if most children had both biological parents and their wider families as positive influences in their lives.

Children born after 2005 (in the UK at any rate) have the right to trace their donor.

However, as with most things, everyone will be different and some children aren't remotely interested in their genetic heritage whilst for others it will be key. Some may resent their parent(s); some may not. However, this applies to so many areas of raising a child that to use it as a reason why a woman should not raise a child alone is both bizarre and cruel.

Many children in the world suffer. For the most part, evidence suggests children born to same sex and single women who use sperm banks do not form the vast percentages of children who do.

I'm not one of them Beatrice. And yes almond, my issue is purely with the anonymity. Before I met my biological mother's family I used to say that I didn't want my mother back, I just would have liked a couple of hours with her to ask her all the questions I had about me. And when I did meet them, I got the answers I needed.

I'm also confused by Nooka's point. If two parents are better than one, then surely three parents are better than two?

I would have thought the most stable arrangement for a child, with the least chance of breakdown between the adults, would be a mother raising the child with the help of biological family members of hers? Mothers become estranged from partners far more often than they do from sisters, brothers, their own mothers etc.

So people don't have an issue with donor sperm then, just the anonymity?

Believe me, no one who conceived a child via a sperm bank would suddenly tell the child at adulthood. It is part of their life from the moment they are old enough to process information.

No one has a problem with single parents, but a number of people have a problem with women people choosing to be single parents.

It's not single parents I have a problem with Beatrice. It's a biological fact that a man's input is needed when deciding to have a child, and I do believe that the child has a right to know who that man is. I would say the same to a couple in a traditional relationship who decide to use donor sperm because of medical issues. Of course the most important bit of parenting is actually bringing up a child, but the child needs to be able to know who supplied the genes as well as the love. Obv nowadays anonymous sperm or egg donation isn't allowed,and so children do get the ability to know their genetic parent at 18, but I would argue that it's a much easier relationship to build if it's built up gradually rather than being something huge for the child to discover upon reaching adulthood.

I understand what you mean nooka but for many of us (and by now, I know a few!) it isn't that we've had relationships characterised by stress and unhappiness but that we haven't been in the right place at the right time.

However else it is put, all things will never be equal because families vary so greatly. Grandparents can hugely add to and enhance a child's life but if they have passed away before the child is born, it is sad but doesn't make their childhood any less happy than a child who grows up with four sets of wonderful grandparents.

My own father was wonderful and I adored him, but he set the bar very high and as a result I was not prepared to tolerate selfishness or rudeness or arrogance. It is a huge personal loss to me that he died but then that is because he was a fabulous man.

I do think i have a great deal to offer a child and that a child's experience growing up with me will be a happy, stable and overall positive one. Statistics indicate this to be the case overwhelmingly for 'single mothers by choice.'

The truth is, people feel odd and peculiar about creating a child without a man - it is muttered to be 'unnatural' (but fine if your male partner has a genetic disorder or zero sperm count) and that 'children need a father' (ignoring the domestic abuse cases, the thousands of tumultuous and miserable divorces that result from this view) and that really, 'these' women have ideas above their station; working successfully AND having a child? Becki with three children by age 22 in a council flat on benefits is alternately an innocent victim to be patronised or a sign of broken Britain depending on your political view - but no one - or very rarely - will tell Becki her children should not have been born.

Use of sperm banks isn't in itself positive. The message - that women are making decisions about their families independently of men - is. The more men who realise that there aren't thousands of thirtysomethings desperate for them to marry and set up home with them, the better. What we want is a society where people make choices that suit them, not where people make choices because they feel they have to.

From observation of others, I'd say those who struggle with an absent parent are the ones with a parent, usually a father, who pops in and out of their life when they feel like it. Rather than those who have no memory of their fathers involvement.

I did add caveats about the quality of the parents and their families, of course that has to be factored in, but I think it's better to consider this argument on an 'all other things being equal basis'.

The thing is I can easily compare that list to many two parent families:

Financially secure and intelligent. Tick
Loving and caring. Tick
Not abusive. Tick
Interested and caring. Tick
Involved and nurturing. Tick

The only thing that looks like a potential two parent issue is being two involved with each other. However a single parent might well look for relationships or romance (and why not) so there is also a chance of distraction there too.

My point is simply that when you have two parents you double the chances that at any time one of them will be a good parent. I guess you could also say that it doubles the chance that at least one of them will be a bad parent.

I am not in any way saying that non standard families are worse than standard two parent families, or that people should stick with bad relationships in order to have children/for the sake of children just that growing numbers of women choosing to go ti alone isn't particularly positive.

If I thought it was then logically I think I'd also be saying that the fact that many women get to their late 30s/40s without having found a relationship not characterised by unhappiness and stress is somehow a good thing.

I also of course bring my personal experiences to this (don't we all), and my father was hugely important to me, while my relationship with my mother was/is stressful at times. Likewise at times my dh is a better parent than me, he brings different things to the table that are equally important to my children than the qualities I bring. I woudl consider it a huge loss to my children not to have him, and certainly consider it a huge personal loss to me that my own father has died.

I posted on the thread linked to above.

Nooka, when phrased in the language you have chosen it is easy to see why it can be viewed as negative.

Typically, single mothers using sperm banks will be in their late 30s/early 40s, financially secure and, as is often the case, intelligent to boot.

Most don't see it as 'giving up on finding a man' but rather, refusing to tolerate behaviour from a man that would ultimately lead to unhappiness and stress further down the line. Many get to a point where we realise we either need to find a man in the next six to twelve months or make a positive decision to have a child alone.

Having two parents is better than one if both parents are loving, involved, dedicated, positive role models and care and provide equally. That's the environment I grew up in (for the most part, at any rate!)

Two parents is not better than one if one parent is verbally, physically, sexually or financially abusing the other.

Two parents is not better than one is one parent is disinterested and uncaring.

Two parents is not better than one if both parents are more interested in their relationship with one another than their children.

Two parents is not better than one if they allow the child to grow up in filth and squalor, if they do not attempt to take the children to the park, the zoo, the beach.

The unfortunate fact (for a country with such a high divorce rate) is that being in a bad relationship is distressing for the children while it's happening and upsetting if it breaks down altogether.

By contrast, one parent might be one parent, but she can provide the all important stability, love and support a child needs during their formative years. As I said on the other thread, I don't doubt some children will feel a strange sense of identify as they grow but it does not follow that all will and in any case, many of the 'issues' people mention are a concern about the choice - Sarah aged 19 who has a one night stand which results in pregnancy is told in comforting tones not to worry, you'll be a great mum and have you looked on entitled.to? Mary aged 37who plans to visit a sperm bank, is told she is depriving her child of his genetic heritage.

Really, a lot of this is the simple twenty first century fact that families don't all look the same and all that truly matters is that children are loved and well cared for regardless of the number of people doing the caring or the sex of the people providing it!

I'm struggling to see why it would be seen as positive that more children are being brought into the world without fathers, or that more women are giving up on finding good co-parents. Both seem like negative things to me.

In general having two parents is better than just one (usual caveats about the parents being good enough) and knowing both your parents and their families (again taking the assumption that those families are generally OK).

Even just thinking about simple redundancy, having only one parent has significant downsides, one carer, one income, one person to get along with, share interests with, be healthy, survive until your adulthood and beyond etc etc.

It is not my 'test'. I have only reply TJE's post where she said she wouldn't wish it on any child to be ignorant of his father's identity, saying such babies with anonymous donors for fathers should not be conceived

I do wonder how many people in this situation genuinely are concerned. I'm not, but my goodness plenty of people seem to know better than me that I should be.

There was an interesting discussion here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/guest_posts/2460267-Guest-post-We-chose-a-donor-online-and-ordered-sperm-in-my-lunch-break

But you could say that of many genuinely terrible fates as well, cases where everybody would say it's not right to have a child. Retrospectively saying "I wish I'd never been born" is fortunately so rare (except fleetingly) that it doesn't work as an argument to say "it's fine to have a child then".

There is no reduction to absurdity here. You are not only completely missing the point but also making a pointless reference.

It is not my 'test'. I have only reply TJE's post where she said she wouldn't wish it on any child to be ignorant of his father's identity, saying such babies with anonymous donors for fathers should not be conceived.

In reply, I pointed out that these children would presumably be glad that they exist, even if they don't know their fathers. TJE agreed.

Therefore, TJE is wrong to say that children who won't know their fathers should not be conceived at all. Sure, it would be better for them to know their fathers, but it is not so terrible a fate that they would rather not be born at all.

It helps to read the thread before you post.

I'm criticising the quality of the argument with a reductio ad absurdam Cote. If your test doesn't say that you shouldn't have a child when absolutely anyone except the Pope would say "no, don't have a child (for the sake of the child)" then it's not a reasonable test.

My dds father might as well have been a sperm donor for all his involvement in her life. Except his involvement with me prior to that was far longer lived. As a father he's a waste of oxygen. As a genetic sperm donor pretty much perfect.

My dd is 11, and perfectly happy and well adjusted, with a pleasant life and as yet no worries. Her father is a topic she knows is open to discussion, but as yet her interest has been little. She appears to view his role as similar to some mammal fathers, they aren't involved. Meanwhile I had 2 married till death parents and I would have given dd up for adoption if I thought I'd offer her a childhood like mine.

If I had the finances to have more a sperm donor is definitely a route I'd be open to.