Single man in UK has kids without female partner

Started by VK, May 18, 2006, 02:19 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

VK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4986804.stm

"Ian Mucklejohn made history when he became the first single man in the UK to have his own children without a female partner"

workingmom

I think this is great.  I just hope that, considering his age (58 when they were born), he keeps himself healthy so he can be around to raise them through their teenage years.

The article says he wouldn't have been able to do this in the UK.  Is there a law against surrogacy there, or just against egg donors, or both?

VK

Quote from: "workingmom"


The article says he wouldn't have been able to do this in the UK.  Is there a law against surrogacy there, or just against egg donors, or both?


There is a law against paid surrogacy, which makes it much harder to find a surrogate. Similar for egg donation. In both cases you can cover costs, but not pay on top of that.

SIAM

Hmm, a single father of 58 to triplets.

I don't think this is so great at all.

It's as bad as women choosing that their children will not have a father by having artificial insemination using the sperm of a stranger who ticks the right DNA boxes.

His kids won't have a mother. He's old (let's face facts). Most guys die around 75.  That's when his kids reach 17.  He might die before.  I don't think this is the best scenario to bring children into the world, and shouldn't be applauded.

If you want to avoid the feminist apparatus of the family courts and no-fault divorce, but want children - you can side-step the entire feminist network by moving to another country and having children AND a wife there.  That way your kids get to have a mother too.  He spent 50K pounds so it's not like he doesn't have money. He could marry a younger woman so when he dies his kids will have a parent right into their adulthood.

I like the fact that they mention the risks of getting married and having children with women in the UK - but it doesn't justify this (IMHO of course!).

From the words of their natural mother:-

Quote
"I felt attached to them but not in the respect that I feel they belong to me," she says. "I don't see myself as their mummy because I'm not doing the job of a mother. I realise they are Ian's responsibility - not mine."


These words are cached on the internet forever. I only hope her children never read them.

whome112

I'm generally with IMHO.

-  58 is too old to be a new parent.
-  we should work against having more single parents

The whole thing has problems whether it is a male or a female doing it.

whome
ay what you mean: Mean what you say.
http://jwwells.blogspot.com

Haefalas

It just brings out the lunacy in single parenthood in general.
Now this is true equality... at the detriment to all those involved. Surely if you are seeking equality it should be a progressive movement not a backwards one?

It certainly illustrates just how some men feel though. Hopefully not only the case but his reasons will be publicised at least.

Also, not to be pedantic but he's 58 and the children are already five.
s God willing to prevent evil, but not able?  Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?  Then from where comes evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?  Then why call him God?
Epicurus (circa 300 AD)

neonsamurai

Well, good luck to him, but his timing sucks. I was quite vocal on the BBC about the 63 year old woman who was pregnant, but it wasn't just her but her family who would bring up the kid (she had 3 grown up children).

I'm sure he's a great dad and all, but being a single parent of three five year old boys when you're almost turning 60 must be very hard work. At least older fathers like Paul McCartney or De O'Connor have younger spouses to rely on (well one of them does), but this chap John has no-one.

Like I've said before, good luck to him, and I wish his family all the best, but I think he was too old to become a planned single parent.
Dr. Kathleen Dixon, the Director of Women's Studies: "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech!"

TheSage

Sadly, you can't tell people what to do with their gametes.  If it hadn't been for him or for the two women, those children wouldn't have existed anyway.  I'd rather exist with a 58-year-old single parent than not to have come into existence at all because of an age factor.  That's just my opinion, and I don't mean to offend anyone, so I say "to each his own."

Setaseba

just wait til humanity has the artificial womb

scientists are developing them as we speak: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,648024,00.html

you want to talk about panicked women when men can produce offspring of their own without any female input

Quote
'There are going to be real problems,' said organiser Dr Scott Gelfand, of Oklahoma State University. 'Some feminists even say artificial wombs mean men could eliminate women from the planet and still perpetuate our species. That's a bit alarmist. Nevertheless, this subject clearly raises strong feelings.'


gee, feminuts weren't all that upset when it was men that were to be annihilated! go figure...

Christiane

come on, jimbo...  you like us.  Really you do...   Even without childbearing, you'll still need us for....  ironing?    Ok, fine then...  how about nagging you to floss or send your sister a birthday card?   Uh...  ok...  well alrightie then....      Shit, this isn't good...    :(

I agree with TheSage - to each his own.   Having an oldie for a Daddie is better than not being here at all.   Especially given that the kid is wanted.  I don't think this will become the norm, no matter how much technology advances.   Let's face it, having kids after 40 gives the vast majority of us the heebie jeebies, regardless of our, or their, gender.

selkie

#10
May 19, 2006, 10:02 PM Last Edit: Jul 24, 2012, 01:12 PM by selkie
***

dr e

The best place for children is with both  parents.  If people want to make that choice it is up to them but I think we need to encourage two parent (mother and father) families whenever possible.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

TheSage

Quote from: "Jimbo"
just wait til humanity has the artificial womb

scientists are developing them as we speak: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,648024,00.html

you want to talk about panicked women when men can produce offspring of their own without any female input

Quote
'There are going to be real problems,' said organiser Dr Scott Gelfand, of Oklahoma State University. 'Some feminists even say artificial wombs mean men could eliminate women from the planet and still perpetuate our species. That's a bit alarmist. Nevertheless, this subject clearly raises strong feelings.'


gee, feminuts weren't all that upset when it was men that were to be annihilated! go figure...


You think that's weird check out this weblink about sperm cells being turned into eggs.  http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060206_fish_story.html

Although this can only be done in fish presently, it's only a matter of time before scientists start moving this experiment up to humans.  When I read an article a couple of months ago about male fish producing egg cells in their testicles after being exposed to certain chemicals, I already knew this was possible,  and I warned my friends.  They thought I was crazy, but when you think about it from a scientific standpoint, it makes perfect sense that with some altering, males could produce female gametes for the simple fact that males bear both the male and female chromosome.  In fact, if cloning were permitted, males could make female clones of themselves by simply stopping the activation of the 46 chromosome -- the Y chromosome.  The fetus would become a female.  All males begin developing as female until the Y chromosome activates after eight weeks of conception.  That's why we have nipples on our chests because that feature develops before our Y chromosome kicks in and begins the process of making us anatomically male.

I'm with Christine.  If, in the future, men are able to procreate without women, I would still rather have plenty of women on the planet.  I could see myself now, if men tried to rid the world of women, sneaking into a reproductive clinic and putting an X sperm cell to an egg cell grown from sperm so that I could introduce a female back into the human species.  Forgive me, I have a wild imagination.

Psycho misandrists like Maureen Dowd think that future reproductive sciences will benefit women most, but they are sadly mistaken.  On the surface, it appears that way.  But when you scratch pass the surface, you realize men would have the upper hand.

Even if parthenogensis becomes possible for women to procreate without male input, it would result in many failures.  Probably one or two out of five hundred attempts would work because of the surrogation of the missing sperm gamete with another egg cell.  With men, sperm and eggs could be grown from them so there really wouldn't be much of a problem --  especially if artificial wombs were available.  But for the sake of a good argument, let's say parthenogenesis worked perfectly for women.  They would only be able to produce female children without male input, because they do not have a Y chromosome to give.  This wouldn't matter to demoniacs like Maureen Dowd, because she probably wouldn't want male children anyway.  Men, on the other hand, could still decide whether or not they want male or female children.  One male could have his sperm converted to an egg cell, the other could decide whether to use his X sperm cell to create a female child or his Y sperm cell to create a male child.  

This is shockingly frightful, but it's the horrors of reproductive science.

Men and women need to learn to settle their differences and learn to respect and love each other or we may end up living on opposite ends of the planet.  Rats!  I hope I'm not giving anyone ideas.

Christiane

I think I love you Sage!

Dowd is a mysogynist who is without any doubt an unhappy person.

antimisandry

I can't believe what I just read:

It's terrible...

The BBC must be either paying attention to taxpayers, or not 'filtering' their content as much as usual

Quote from: "The British Bitches Corporation"
Also, if the relationship broke up, the mother would get custody.[/url]

See?

some other quotes not of the usual BBC's feminacentric reporting style:

Quote

Melissa's own mother walked out on her when she was just two. She does not feel that she suffered as a result, which could explain her ability to remain detached. It was more emotional for surrogate mother Tina, who cried when she saw the boys.

"I still feel connected even though I don't know them," she says. "My heart felt full just watching them play and watching them with their Dad. It felt nice to have been part of it and seeing that they are a family."


And it states at the bottom:

"One Life: I'm The Daddy will be broadcast on Wednesday 17 May at 2240 BST on BBC One."


can SOMEONE find a way of transferring this programme to digital media - I can host it for others to download, not a problem - but I have no means of copying it (being out of the country makes it moreso difficult lol). And naturally, i'll give credit to whoever can send me a full recording.
ny man living in this feminized world has got to be tough to tolerate it.

>> http://antimisandry.com <<

Go Up