Choosing to have a baby - solo

catkins

Unlike the previous poster, I certainly do not think it is every woman's right to have a baby. A baby is not a "right" and not every woman that wants one should necessarily have one.

Ok lots of couples split up (sadly) and quite a few before the baby is born but I don't agree with starting off with no father. A child ideally will have a loving mum and dad living together. Not so ideal is if mum and dad are not together but if the child sees both of them that can be ok. If the child does not see dad that is sad but things may change.

NoLongerLurking_2

Hi Nickybat

I am lucky to currently be working for a firm which is very supportive of part time/working parents.

Part year working would be more difficult to arrange, however. Although the summer is our quiet period... To be on the safe side I would have to think about that one in terms of childcare. Another excellent point to consider, thank you!

VfM4meplse

Money_maker wrote: »

Please consider this very carefully, they are not pets.

Excellent advice, but not suited to a mature woman of nearly 30. Maybe you could take your message to the council estates where teenage conceptions are high, and aspirations are low?

mountainofdebt wrote: »

I understand what you are saying but I can't help feel you are considering your needs before the needs of the child.

With the exception of surrogate mothers, and with contraception and abortion freely available the fact is that no one in this country has children for anything but selfish reasons. That is not to say it is a bad thing.

mildred1978 wrote: »

Or not. I conceived my son at 34 within 2 days of starting to try.

Statistically it drops off sharply at 37, but there are of course many women either side of this mark who are a lot more or less likely to conceive.

NoLongerLurking_2

catkins wrote: »

Unlike the previous poster, I certainly do not think it is every woman's right to have a baby. A baby is not a "right" and not every woman that wants one should necessarily have one.

Ok lots of couples split up (sadly) and quite a few before the baby is born but I don't agree with starting off with no father. A child ideally will have a loving mum and dad living together. Not so ideal is if mum and dad are not together but if the child sees both of them that can be ok. If the child does not see dad that is sad but things may change.

Interesting.

At the risk of going off topic, where do you stand on:
gay adoption/assisted conception?
parents staying together despite being miserable/fighting?
divorce and the associated feelings of rejection for the children?

Actually this isn't going far off topic. Practical considerations aside (of which there have been many, much appreciated, keep 'em coming!), I am very interested in the question as to why one loving stable parent is considered to be an emotionally insufficient starting point. If two mums are, why not one? or a mum plus three wonderful grandparents and an adoring uncle and aunt?

Is it really the case that a child which will be well looked after and much loved is better off not being born at all because the male half of the partnership is not in place?

I'm going to take some convincing!

Memory_Girl

My DS1's dad got on a plane when DS1 was six months old and never came back.

I never wanted DS1 to be an only - but he was 7 before I felt financially able to have a second, which I did (with a "friends" blessing but no further input)

If I had gone with my head I never would have had DS2 - but I went with my heart knowing his Dad wouldn't be around and was prepared - as opposed to the first time around when I though the Dad would hang around and he didn't (much more difficult to deal with in my opinion).

We have a lovely family, the three of us, my boys are polite, well adjusted "foodies" and have an extended family that loves them.

Incidentally - out of DS's class there is ONE family that is still in its original "form" - one nuclear family,that's all. So whilst I concede it is the ideal, it is by no means the norm.

I wish you luck OP in creating your own family in whatever form that might take.

MG

MandM90

FBaby wrote: »

What I think its selfish is planning a baby who has little chance of having a father and expecting tax payers to fund it. At 40 when desperate maybe but at 29? There is still plenty of time to give a child the chance to be loved by two parents.

Studies done so far have indicated that lesbian parents raise kids that are more ambitious, confident and settled than their peers who have fathers. My DD has a father, but we are a 'rainbow family' and know many others with exceptionally healthy and adjusted children. And when did the OP mention being reliant on tax payers money? All adults without kids pay taxes which fund families' healthcare, education etc...it happens to be the way it works. I send DD to private school, have private healthcare and never used the free nursery hours - but I don't moan about other parents expecting our family to pay for their kids schooling etc.

And the OP says she is thinking for the future. The reality is she may not meet Mr right, and I for one think it's good she is open to hearing any issues she may not have considered and trying to weigh up the pros and cons.

DUTR

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I do not think it is the fact that dad was not around, but more than likely the circumstances surrounding the fact. i.e. waring parents or abandonment issues.

If the father was never there in the first place, I think the child would be fine.

My daughter has a friend who has never met her father and she seems quite well adjusted to me.

Why is it many adopted children , now adults seek their natural parents? I wouldn't normally watch it but the JK in the USA show this week, 'demonstrated' plenty of stories where dad was not around

NickyBat

NoLongerLurking wrote: »

Hi Nickybat

I am lucky to currently be working for a firm which is very supportive of part time/working parents.

Part year working would be more difficult to arrange, however. Although the summer is our quiet period... To be on the safe side I would have to think about that one in terms of childcare. Another excellent point to consider, thank you!

School is closed 13 weeks a year at the moment so is impossible to cover with annual leave. There are plenty of playscheme's around and out of school clubs, but as they get older a lot don't really want to go.

I think if it's something you want to do then i would wish you luck, but it seriously is hard work, i am married now and it is better in many ways, but not necessarily easier.

VfM4meplse

NoLongerLurking wrote: »

parents staying together despite being miserable/fighting?

I can say from personal experience that this is hell for the kids.

MandM90

Memory_Girl wrote: »

Incidentally - out of DS's class there is ONE family that is still in its original "form" - one nuclear family,that's all. So whilst I concede it is the ideal, it is by no means the norm.

MG

In DD's class she is one out of only two who do not have married heterosexual parents (the other girls parents were never married, are no longer together, but still holiday together and appear to parent together very harmoniously). She is only 4 so I wonder how that will change, but it's amazing how experiences differ in different places!