Is intentional single parenthood selfish? (infants, toddlers, permanent, adoption)

[Elained10]

Originally Posted by auntieannie68

amen to that!

Thank you, you too Jaded

[Natsku]

I suppose technically its selfish as the parent is doing it out of their desire to have a child (although if they adopt, particularly an older child instead of a baby, then I think thats pretty selfless) but that doesn't necessarily mean its bad or it won't work out ok for the child. If they have a good enough income to only need one income and have a good support network of family and friends so the child(ren) has more role models then I think it can work out pretty well.

[lkb0714]

If it were selfish than it wouldn't matter whether it was a bio kid or an adopted kid.

So it's not selfish.

Additionally, the only thing we know for sure is that economics is more important than almost anything else. So all this "data" being thrown around about poor outcomes for children of single parents is really about those with lower incomes.

A real comparison is a single person compared to a two parent family with the same hours working and same upper middle class income. No one here has shown that one group is better or worse there

[Natsku]

Originally Posted by lkb0714

If it were selfish than it wouldn't matter whether it was a bio kid or an adopted kid.

So it's not selfish.

Additionally, the only thing we know for sure is that economics is more important than almost anything else. So all this "data" being thrown around about poor outcomes for children of single parents is really about those with lower incomes.

A real comparison is a single person compared to a two parent family with the same hours working and same upper middle class income. No one here has shown that one group is better or worse there

Well I think it does matter. If its a bio child then they are purposefully bringing a child into a less than ideal situation whereas if its an adopted child then they are taking the child out of a worse situation (single parent home is better than no home)

I agree that economics does make the biggest difference.

[Coldjensens]

Personally I think any decision to have a child when you cannot provide them with a balanced stable home is selfish. It does not matter whether it is one or two parents, if you are not able to commit to adequate time, care, attention, etc, it is usually selfish. While many more single parents are not in a position to provide adequate care, time, attention, some are. Some single parents decide to take a job with set hours and spend all of the free time attending to their child(ren) and give up any social life. Some are independently wealthy and can stay home and devote all f their time. Some have parents or other relatives who will provide the necessary commitment to fill in the time. Many couple parents are not willing to provide the time and attention necessary. It is just as selfish for them to have or adopt a child. For a single parent without a ton of above normal support, a commitment to having a child mean giving up every other aspect of your life. For a couple it is less intense of a commitment because they can share the responsibility. Still they should be prepared to make a major commitment.

To me the purported financial prerequisites are just silly. Sure it is nice if you can provide health insurance and a college fund, but it is hardly selfish or wrong to have or adopt children if you are not able to do so. Health insurance, a college fund, a physical trainer, professional haircuts and Gucci purses are all int he same classification. A nice luxury if you can provide them, but not a requirement.

Even in the situations where it is selfish, that does not mean the person should not have or adopt a child. Maybe the child will be at a disadvantage compared to more balanced families, but they can still have a good life, contribute to society etc. and as pointed out they will often be better off than the alternative.

[jdallas]

Originally Posted by capitol

intentionally getting pregnant with no regard of the father. Is doing that considered selfish?

I have known of a couple women who have done this. They get married, have a child in the first couple years and then divorce. One even recommended to her sister to 'hang around' for 10 years so she could also claim the ex husband's SS benefits.
Yes, that's selfish. It's also somewhat sociopathic behavior.

[thethreefoldme]

Originally Posted by capitol

I'm talking about adoption, intentionally getting pregnant with no regard of the father, in-vitro, etc. Is doing that considered selfish?

In the case of adoption the child is already for some reason being deprived of their biological family/parents anyway. So long as the individual adopting them is willing, able, & well-prepared to meet the needs of an adopted child (which may include helping them grieve the loss of bio family & information) I don't think it is selfish for a single-parent to adopt.

Now in the case of anonymous donor conception you are unnecessarily creating a life with the intention of keeping their father or mother & half their biological family a secret no matter how that may negatively impact them. In that case, yes, I do think there is a selfish element to that choice. We are just now beginning to hear stories of people who were conceived via anonymous donors & the challenges they have experienced because of it.

[War Beagle]

Depends on the situation, but generally I think it is selfish. Single parenthood has become a way of life in our society, but it isn't optimal. If the choice is between a well-adjusted household with a mother and father and a well-adjusted single parent household, the two parents household is definitely better for the child.

That said, everything is relative and a single parent household might very well be better for a child than a childhood spent in foster care.

[Sunny72]

unfortunately if you like it or not it's gonna happen.

[Foodmuse]

I don't think so as long as you can afford to do it on your own, without the handout of "free" services courtesy of the taxpayers.