I don't know enough about Islamic law to say, but Jewish and Christian law don't have biology as the sole measure of fatherhood, and neither does American law. An adopted son is in the same position as a biological son.
The point of Dean's comment, to my mind, was that an old man should not impregnate his girlfriend so that she can be a rich single mother. If it were customary for such women to go on to marry another man to serve as the child's father it would be one thing, but I'm not down with the whole "I always wanted to be a mother; who cares if a child needs a father?" way of thinking.
I dont see why a woman would want to go through the hell of pregnancy to carry any baby but one that is unambigously hers and her husband's to term.
I don't either, although Jewish law seems to go so far as to require a brother to provide his brother's widow with a child who will be considered the son of the deceased brother. That's not your point, I know.
Yeah, last time I checked, I don't think Hefner is "A man who always wanted a child but can't because he's sterile".
Secondly, A man who takes his wife to be impregnated with donor sperm would not be a 'step' father, but an 'adoptive' father which was already conceeded as being 'real fatherhood'.
Third, step parents who choose to become adoptive parents are not the same, generally (yes there are many examples of exceptions, there always are with generalities), as step-parents that don't.
My MIL became a step-mom to a 14 year old girl (and a 26 year old man) several years ago. She is/was not 'Mom' to this girl and, in fact because the girl lives(d) with her biological mom, shouldn't be. This isn't a knock against my MIL, it's just not appropriate for her to take that role. Most step-parent situations are similar. The child still has contact with Mom and Dad, and adding a third (or fourth) person doesn't mean you have 2 Moms and 2 Dads. That just can't work.
When one parent is deceased, the situtation changes.
ah jerry i see, you were just taking your gripes with dean to the general public, on his own blog. understood. me, i tend to conduct my personal conversations in private, but that's just me.
hokie,
I'm not down with the whole "I always wanted to be a mother; who cares if a child needs a father?" way of thinking.
me either. its an attitude that says all fathers, not just step or bio, are irrelevant. its not clear to me how we got from there to the bevy of issues that jerry has with dean (which we now learn are personal, not general).
I have no idea where Jerry's coming from with any of that, to be honest. I just don't, and I don't care to even start to speculate. I have felt for many many years that as a rule step-parents are a negative phenomenon, and have written that on numerous occasions (just search the archives). Of course, not that all step-parents are bad and all stepchildren are screwed up or any of that, and furthermore, I don't see what any of this has to do with Hugh Hefner.
I have a stepfather I love very much, but that doesn't change my overall opinion that the phenomenon of step-parentings is an overall negative generally. Much social science backs me up on this. But obviously, there are spectacularly great step-parents, and horribly lousy biological parents.
I don't honestly see what's so bad about any of those beliefs, nor where holding them suggests that I think all non-biological parents are garbage or something. That would just be silly.
I think perhaps Jerry is assuming, mistakenly, that any such commentary has anything to do with our personal relationship or my relationship with my wife (soon to be ex-, sadly). None of this does and I can't even think of how it would. So I just don't know where Jerry's coming from, but he's welcome to give me a call if he wants to talk about it.
No personal gripes. Or am I assuming mistakenly. I just know how close you are to your STEP father, rather than your real father. It seems to me that you are trying to rewrite history and convince your son (who reads this blog) that just because you forgot about your father and bonded with a STEP father, that he should not follow the same pattern.
Maybe you should work to restore your relationship with your biological father, so you can put to practice what you preach.
But then again you won't; your position always seems to straddle the fence line so you can easily deflect a dissenting opinion.
I have no desire to call you, but each time you post a blog entry that I perceive as a veiled shot at my family, I will respond.
I would list them out, but I know you know which ones they are.
"I dont see why a woman would want to go through the hell of pregnancy to carry any baby but one that is unambigously hers and her husband's to term."
I don't either, but I know that there are women out there who enjoy being pregnant in a big way. And since I'm a science-fiction geek, I've read of scenarios that I would probably accept, such as a woman who is sterile and who really wanted a child by her deceased husband, but neither of them "did their duty" and put their sperm and ova in the gene bank. This is really psychologically damaging to her, and somebody suggests that since their parents had "done their duty", she carry a child that would be an approximation, her mother and his father.
That probably weirds a lot of people out but I can see the appeal.
Anyway, the Hefner scenario weirds me out, but then any of the March-December-hey-he's-rich scenarios seem pretty messed up to me.
You perceive wrongly, Jerry, and are talking out your butt about things you don't understand. Frankly, if this is the kind of behavior you're going to exhibit, you shouldn't be commenting here at all. Please go away.
No issues I have written about on this topic, either recently or in the past, have a god-damned thing to do with my current familial situation and anyone who says otherwise is being an irresponsible, presumptuous ass. There is *nothing* I've written on this subject in the last few days that I have not written multiple times in the past on this blog. My (sadly soon to be ex-) wife and I have both agreed we will simply not discuss our personal issues at all on our blog, and will nuke comments from anyone who starts to do that. Stick to the subject, people, and the subject is *not* me or my family. Perhaps in a year or two after things are settled and tempers have cooled I'll write publicly on *some* of the personal issues, but I will *not* be writing about them any time soon.
My wife has my respect and still has my love, and we will both be doing our best to do right by our kids even if we don't agree on everything. And that is all I will say on the subject. So please otherwise drop any discussion of the Esmay family's issues. Thanks.
(Damn me for getting drunk and feeling sorry for myself that one night and posting about my divorce at all. Then I'd be free to write about this subject just exactly like I always have without people trying to be "clever" and "read between the lines.")
I realize this is kind of tangential to the main point and I've never been in a position to consider it for myself, but I can see a number of reasons why a married woman might want to have a baby with donor sperm in preference to adoption. First, the baby *would* be unambiguously hers and would have a biological bond with at least one side of the family. Second, there would be a lot more confidence about the baby's prenatal environment - no worries that the lil' fetus was being bathed in alcohol or whatever. Third, it would give the parents a more 'normal' experience - sucky as pregnancy is, it's the standard way people get babies. Finally, the mom would be able to breastfeed the baby, which some people believe is important to health and is emotionally important to a lot of women.
I don't know, it doesn't seem all that weird to me. Why would it be creepy for a man to raise a child conceived with another man's sperm if it was gestated within his wife, but not if it was gestated in some unknown chick? Does it seem like some strange kind of adultery or something?
I actually know someone who has done this, twice. He was left sterile by teenage chemotherapy, and she wanted to have a baby. Not get a baby, have a baby.
Many women deeply enjoy being pregnant, in my experience, and don't for the most part find it sucky. Your mileage may vary and all that.
It seems inherently obvious to me that the urge to reproduce is an entirely natural, biological urge, and while I don't exactly "support" people who choose sperm banks or whatever, I can't say I find it surprising or even particularly surprising. I also think that single motherhood by choice is much less destructive among wealthy people than it is among poor people, as so many other questionable behaviors are.
1.27.2008 3:54pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
The point of Dean's comment, to my mind, was that an old man should not impregnate his girlfriend so that she can be a rich single mother. If it were customary for such women to go on to marry another man to serve as the child's father it would be one thing, but I'm not down with the whole "I always wanted to be a mother; who cares if a child needs a father?" way of thinking.
I dont see why a woman would want to go through the hell of pregnancy to carry any baby but one that is unambigously hers and her husband's to term.
I don't either, although Jewish law seems to go so far as to require a brother to provide his brother's widow with a child who will be considered the son of the deceased brother. That's not your point, I know.
Secondly, A man who takes his wife to be impregnated with donor sperm would not be a 'step' father, but an 'adoptive' father which was already conceeded as being 'real fatherhood'.
Third, step parents who choose to become adoptive parents are not the same, generally (yes there are many examples of exceptions, there always are with generalities), as step-parents that don't.
My MIL became a step-mom to a 14 year old girl (and a 26 year old man) several years ago. She is/was not 'Mom' to this girl and, in fact because the girl lives(d) with her biological mom, shouldn't be. This isn't a knock against my MIL, it's just not appropriate for her to take that role. Most step-parent situations are similar. The child still has contact with Mom and Dad, and adding a third (or fourth) person doesn't mean you have 2 Moms and 2 Dads. That just can't work.
When one parent is deceased, the situtation changes.
Yeah. You're totally wrong on all counts. But thanks for playing.
I was speaking directly to Dean, who I've known PERSONALLY for 12 years. He's not some blog-buddy who lives on the other side of the world.
But thanks for taking my blog comment and being all philosophical and shit with it.
One last thing. What abuse are you talking about?? Has DW been blasted by Bill O'Reilly or something??
hokie,
me either. its an attitude that says all fathers, not just step or bio, are irrelevant. its not clear to me how we got from there to the bevy of issues that jerry has with dean (which we now learn are personal, not general).
I have a stepfather I love very much, but that doesn't change my overall opinion that the phenomenon of step-parentings is an overall negative generally. Much social science backs me up on this. But obviously, there are spectacularly great step-parents, and horribly lousy biological parents.
I don't honestly see what's so bad about any of those beliefs, nor where holding them suggests that I think all non-biological parents are garbage or something. That would just be silly.
I think perhaps Jerry is assuming, mistakenly, that any such commentary has anything to do with our personal relationship or my relationship with my wife (soon to be ex-, sadly). None of this does and I can't even think of how it would. So I just don't know where Jerry's coming from, but he's welcome to give me a call if he wants to talk about it.
Maybe you should work to restore your relationship with your biological father, so you can put to practice what you preach.
But then again you won't; your position always seems to straddle the fence line so you can easily deflect a dissenting opinion.
I have no desire to call you, but each time you post a blog entry that I perceive as a veiled shot at my family, I will respond.
I would list them out, but I know you know which ones they are.
I don't either, but I know that there are women out there who enjoy being pregnant in a big way. And since I'm a science-fiction geek, I've read of scenarios that I would probably accept, such as a woman who is sterile and who really wanted a child by her deceased husband, but neither of them "did their duty" and put their sperm and ova in the gene bank. This is really psychologically damaging to her, and somebody suggests that since their parents had "done their duty", she carry a child that would be an approximation, her mother and his father.
That probably weirds a lot of people out but I can see the appeal.
Anyway, the Hefner scenario weirds me out, but then any of the March-December-hey-he's-rich scenarios seem pretty messed up to me.
Or am I assuming mistakenly
yes. Thanks for playing.
My wife has my respect and still has my love, and we will both be doing our best to do right by our kids even if we don't agree on everything. And that is all I will say on the subject. So please otherwise drop any discussion of the Esmay family's issues. Thanks.
(Damn me for getting drunk and feeling sorry for myself that one night and posting about my divorce at all. Then I'd be free to write about this subject just exactly like I always have without people trying to be "clever" and "read between the lines.")
I don't know, it doesn't seem all that weird to me. Why would it be creepy for a man to raise a child conceived with another man's sperm if it was gestated within his wife, but not if it was gestated in some unknown chick? Does it seem like some strange kind of adultery or something?
It seems inherently obvious to me that the urge to reproduce is an entirely natural, biological urge, and while I don't exactly "support" people who choose sperm banks or whatever, I can't say I find it surprising or even particularly surprising. I also think that single motherhood by choice is much less destructive among wealthy people than it is among poor people, as so many other questionable behaviors are.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.