I was listening to the radio this morning
and a female caller wanted to know if she should have a
child. She wasn't in a serious relationship (let's not
even talk about being unmarried and having sex and kids),
and didn't want to be with any man long term. However,
she wanted to have a child. She was financially stable
and could adequately provide for the child. My answer in short is . . . NO!
While I understand that this is a prevelent question
among working independent women, I think it is a selfish
and shortsighted one.
Now I expect to take some
heat for this, but the reality is that the woman who is
considering this is putting her need or desire to have
someone love her (or whatever it is) before the needs of
that child. Women have done admirable jobs as single
parents. However, a single parent household is not
comparable to a household with two loving parents in it.
Period.
Men aren't women and react
and love differently. Women aren't men and react and love
differently. The way God designed the system it takes
both parents (a man and a woman, not two women or two
men) to conceive the child and to raise that child. That
child therefore deserves the optimal upbringing and
should not be short changed because mommy wanted a baby
(nor should the baby be short changed because daddy just
wanted some booty).
I grew up in a single
parent household and my mother did a great job. However,
when I needed a man to talk to or relate to or learn from
she was inadequate. This is not a knock on her (or any
other single parent). She just wasn't a man.
Don't think of only
yourself. Think of your child who needs both loving
parents and God. Don't short change him or her because
you came out o.k. in a single parent household. It simply
isn't fair.
Thursday, June 17, 1999 04:59:45 PM
|