Children Of Single Parents.

As per google dob he completed three years and he is on 4th year

 

Dear joylokhi,

You have raised a serious question. It calls for deep introspection. The whole incident, which I had read about too, goes against nature. In the present instance, the child will have a father, but its mother will have no meaning for it. This is sad. It will be sad for the child in school. Friends will have parents, this child will have just a parent. I am sure it will create psychological pressures. Of course, one hears of the other kind of single parent too. A woman decides to have a baby through artificial insemination. In this case too, problems can arise, but the child will know at least that it has lived inside its mother during her period of pregnancy.

oj

 

We know a lot of single parents, either by choice through adoption and assisted reproductive technology or through divorce or more tragic circumstances. Most of them are raising productive children and have created a larger community for themselves, the proverbial village. Of course there will be less than ideal examples, but the same can be said of traditional households.
The ethics of single parents having biological children will always be debated, but so far the sky hasn't fallen from people "****ing with nature" for the sole purpose of creating much-wanted offspring. They are just fulfilling a very primeval desire now that the means and opportunity to do so exist.

 

Dear Joylokhi,
You have taken an important topic for discussion.Love, marriage, parenthood have been the ambition of most people in the world.Some have been lucky
to have healthy babies in appropriate time and some are not.For those unlucky few the procedure, whatever it is,Fertility treatment, adoption and surrogacy are blessing in disguise.
Even in regular conception, parenthood is never the choice of a child.Human Rights law can never be about the choice of parents.
Even in earlier days, when infertility was considered the disorder of women alone, men married many wives to have a descendant from any one.The '
the process of'adoption' started , preferrably from known families, now spread thro agencies.

It is in a way true that the deep desire for a child does not justify the exploitation of another woman's body. Children are not commodities to be bought and sold, and women are not containers to be used as baby makers.
legalization of commercial surrogacy to single parents may not bring ethics to the procedure.Surrogacy is dangerous. The surrogate mother - often callously called a "gestational carrier" - is required to submit to a three to four week drug regimen in order to prepare her womb for pregnancy. These drugs can make her very sick, possibly with long-term effects.

What is demanded of a surrogate mother is the manufacture of a perfect baby - this is eugenics in action. If the product is deemed flawed, she must consent to an abortion, selective reduction or foetal surgery in the womb.

Surrogate mothers say it was their "choice."What choice is it for the baby? Did she or he really "choose" to be separated from their birth mother?

In short it is trafficking in babies; reproductive slavery; a violation of the human rights of both the birth mother and her offspring.

Once surrogacy comes to stay in force, there can be no more arguments .
After all love and affection ultimately win;and genes takea back seat.
I personally feel that legal adoption of existing children ,who are orphaned ,may be far more beneficial to the society and equally satisfying to the parental instincts rather than the risky procedure that is more harmful to
women.

Jayasala 42

 

@joylokhi if such persons want a child, why dont they adopt orphans, who are needy and crave for love. It will be more satisfying to both child and parent. i have more respect for people like salim khan and shushmita sen, in this context, rather than persons like shah rukh khan and tushar kapoor.