sins of the fathers
Aziz P
I think that this comment to an earlier post was rather overwrought:
You're position is basically shitting in the face of men who always wanted children, but can't because they are sterile. So when he takes his wife to a fertility clinic and gets her fertilized with someone else's sperm, are you telling me his is NOT the father? He's nothing?? What the fuck kind of bulls^&t is that?? Get off the fence. Either Fathers (step or bio) are good or they are S^&T. There is no in between.
As far as I could tell, at no point in the original post was an argument made that non-biological fathers are "nothing". Interpreting it as such struck me as a very dogmatic desperation to take offense, any offense.
But taking the comment on its merits, it appears rather disjointed. There are several issues being mixed up here. One is whether fertilization of your wife by another man's sperm at a clinic is "real" fatherhood. I may be naive here but that scenario seems fictional and contrived to me. Usually the point of fertility clinics is to get the couple's own sperm to implant in their own ovum, in vitro, to get viable embryos of their own for reimplantation (I have several friends and family who've been through the process with varying success). If the process fails, usually adoption is the next recourse; I guess I am old fashioned ut 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. In fact the idea verges on obscene in my mind. Adoption is an obvious alternative with zero moral complications, in fact a highly honorable and much less risky alternative at that.
The second issue is whether a step-father is better or worse intrinsically than a biological father. The answer here also seems obvious; the value of a father is how they parent, not who they are. That said, it's also rather obvious that all else being equal, of course a biological father is preferable. Pretending that the value of genetic inheritance, kin, and blood is ridiculous.
Finally, I take issue with the idea that a father is "either good or s^&t" with no in-between. Maybe the less said about that, due again to it's overwhelming obviousness, the better.
Or maybe I am just totally wrong on all counts. Still, I don't think that the comment in question was motivated by a genuine desire to discuss the merits of fatherhood in the abstract, but rather is yet another example of a pattern of abuse being leveled at this blog community as a whole. Rather than simply accepting the abuse, but also without responding in kind, I think the best approach is to simply respond on the merits of their arguments, such as they are.
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.