Children

Peared

There has been a lot of talk here recently about women reaching a certain age and becoming 'desperate' and all that malarky.

If you want children and reach an age where its now or never would you look into having them without a man in your life?

By that I mean using a sperm donor or an unsuspecting one night stand or maybe a willing friend.

Or would you just accept that it's not going to happen for you?

I know some may suggest adoption but from the little I know of the subject, it takes years, singles are not viewed favourably and the chances of getting a newborn are virtually nil.

CeilingCat

Peared wrote: »

There has been a lot of talk about women reaching a certain age and becoming 'desperate' and all that malarky.

If you want children and reach an age where its now or never would you look into having them without a man in your life?

By that I mean using a sperm donor or an unsuspecting one night stand or maybe a willing friend.

Or would you just accept that it's not going to happen for you?

I know some may suggest adoption but from the little I know of the subject, it takes years, singles are not viewed favourably and the chance of getting a newborn are virtually nil.

I definately wouldn't go down the unsuspecting one night stand route. I don't think I could start off a baby's life by deceiving/tricking some guy.... apart from not being fair on the guy or the child, it could really come back to bite you.

Having already been a single mother for 15 years, I'd have to say I would prefer to have the father there as part of the family unit, and it would have to be someone I loved first and wanted to spend my life with, before babies were even discussed. I wouldn't change the way it happened with my first child - myself and the father weren't compatible, but he's there for my child and they have regular contact.

If I had a child with someone else and it didn't work out, then fine, no problem being a single mum again as long as the child and its father had a good relationship . I think I'd rather forego more kids altogether though, than get pregnant in a panic because time was running out... if it's not meant to be, then it's not meant to be.

(I probably would feel a bit sad though )

LolaLuv

If I haven't met anyone by 35 I'll probably think about adoption or a sperm donor. Chances are equally good that I'd just accept it, though. I'd like to have kids but it isn't the end of the world if it doesn't happen. Still a lot of life to be lived.

SarahSassy

I definitely would not do the one night stand route (STI's :eek: ) and it would not be fair on the fella (maybe would serve him right if he were stupid enough not to wear a condom)....

Sperm donor and adoption I would consider, however, I would prefer to have a partner to share the experience with.

jellie

its not something id like to think about yet..

i do want children. but if it got to the stage where it was now or never i think id probably just have to accept it. i hope id be ABLE to accept it. i dont think i could put myself through the process of adoption on my own, & i dont like the idea of sperm donation (& DEFINITELY not the one night stand route).

the thought of being in that position kind of depresses me..

CathyMoran

Im almost 35 now but I was always petrified of being pregnant as I am a diabetic so I would have gone for adoption...nature intervened though!

fetishphil

WHAT ON KIDS !!!!!!!!!!!!!! at you age O! my god!!!!!! your pissed off .........who pissed you off? you do what you like ok!!!................ apart if it's from your doc than your in the s**t ....... if you like a hand with the one night stand call me

The_Conductor

fetishphil wrote: »

WHAT ON KIDS !!!!!!!!!!!!!! at you age O! my god!!!!!! your pissed off .........who pissed you off? you do what you like ok!!!................ apart if it's from your doc than your in the s**t ....... if you like a hand with the one night stand call me

My head hurts.
What on earth are you trying to say?

Peared

What in the name of...?

For the record weirdos, I am not anywhere near that age, nor am I in that situation and I definitely do not need a hand with a one night stand.

Go back to examining marigolds or whatever.

Zaph

fetishphil wrote: »

WHAT ON KIDS !!!!!!!!!!!!!! at you age O! my god!!!!!! your pissed off .........who pissed you off? you do what you like ok!!!................ apart if it's from your doc than your in the s**t ....... if you like a hand with the one night stand call me

Any more shíte like that here and you're banned.

metrovelvet

fetishphil wrote: »

WHAT ON KIDS !!!!!!!!!!!!!! at you age O! my god!!!!!! your pissed off .........who pissed you off? you do what you like ok!!!................ apart if it's from your doc than your in the s**t ....... if you like a hand with the one night stand call me

If she wanted to have sex with her thumb, she would!

barbiegirl

I always said if I hit 35 with no man, I'd go down the sperm donor route. I have my own house and a good career. Then at 29 met my now hubbie, defo the preferred way, but had he not come along then yep the popsicle was preferrable to either a one night stand or the wrong man.

metaoblivia

I don't know how I feel about having my own kids. On the one hand, I love my niece and nephews, especially now that they're all school age and can hold conversations.
On the other hand, I really like my alone time, and my understanding is that when you have your own kids, you don't get alone time. I think I may go insane under those circumstances. Additionally, I'm not very fond of young children and babies. They require too much work.
But, should this change when I'm in my mid to late thirties, I would consider a sperm donor. I would also consider adoption, but that's a diffcult process.
A lot of this would also depend on my financial stability. I would have to be very stable before considering taking care of a child.

Edser

(At least you gals have the option. It's much more difficult for us lads )

But realistically what's the difference between a doner and a one night stand?

Wexford Girl

I'd probably adopt or use a sperm donor if i was in that situation.

Peared

People will say that a donor knowingly contributed but a one night stand didn't.

Although the lack of wearing a condom may make that point moot.

shellyboo

Edser wrote: »

But realistically what's the difference between a doner and a one night stand?

Um, ethics? With a sperm donor, the donor has given his consent for a child to be made from his DNA. Tricking some randomer into knocking you up raises some serious moral questions.

SarahSassy

Edser wrote: »

But realistically what's the difference between a doner and a one night stand?

A name, a kiss, a date, a bed (?) a condom being left at home by a donor and a condom not being used by a ONS.

Zaph

Edser wrote: »

But realistically what's the difference between a doner and a one night stand?

Well for starters, as has already been mentioned, there's consent. Secondly, a donor would have been screened for STIs, whereas you couldn't be sure about a one night stand being disease free. Finally, my understanding is that there's usually a profile of the donor, so a prospective mother can choose what attributes may be passed on to her child, intelligence, athleticism, the ginge, whatever.

Madame Razz

I think it would be a tough thing to do on one's own. My hat goes off to the single mums out there, a few friends of mine are in this position and it is not easy for them, esp one as she gets NO support AT ALL from her childs father....she has tried but has failed....the law is quite the ass in this regard really:rolleyes:, anyhoo, thats a topic for another day.

Basically I really admire my friends and how they are always smiling despite the tough times and what a credit to them their children are. Even if I was financially stable enough to contemplate having my own child, if say by the time I am in my late thirties and perhaps haven't settled down, well then I would take the attitude that perhaps Baby having wasn't meant for me, and instead volunteer to babysit on occassion for my friends and relish handing them back:D:D:D.

It's deffo not something I would plan on doing alone, i think I would rather have the support of a partner....eitherway, i am in NO rush to be having kids any time soon;)

Kya1976

I personally don't want to have kids but if I did I'd go the sperm donor route.

Edser

shellyboo wrote: »

Um, ethics? With a sperm donor, the donor has given his consent for a child to be made from his DNA. Tricking some randomer into knocking you up raises some serious moral questions.

Zaph wrote: »

Well for starters, as has already been mentioned, there's consent. Secondly, a donor would have been screened for STIs, whereas you couldn't be sure about a one night stand being disease free. Finally, my understanding is that there's usually a profile of the donor, so a prospective mother can choose what attributes may be passed on to her child, intelligence, athleticism, the ginge, whatever.

Mmm, a ONS without adequate protection - consent is implied, no?

Some doner who has potentially been paid to knock one out or a doner you may possibly know and ask to 'help' out, but both may come back at some stage to get access to their progeny laeading to hassle, heartache, etc.?

spinandscribble

i would definately consider sperm donor if by say 35 i've no kids. brianthebard has promised me his sperm when the time comes (hey, i'm that chick off the net who thought your hair was good enough for my babies? knock me up). i'll be having no gingers thank you.

shellyboo

Edser wrote: »

Mmm, a ONS without adequate protection - consent is implied, no?

Some doner who has potentially been paid to knock one out or a doner you may possibly know and ask to 'help' out, but both may come back at some stage to get access to their progeny laeading to hassle, heartache, etc.?

A ONS without adequate protection implies stupidity more than consent. I mean, there would have to be some deception going on there. Even ridiculously careless guys don't just lash it in there without at least asking if you're on the pill... what are you going to say? 'No, but I'm trying to get pregnant'??

And I'd say the hassle and heartache associated with a donor - someone who's given explicit consent - would be less than that associated with some randomer were you to tell him you're pregnant. Which would be the right thing to do.

The Corinthian

Edser wrote: »

But realistically what's the difference between a doner and a one night stand?

From a male perspective, a doner is anonymous, thus will have no obligations to the child and will not even know it exists. He will also generally be paid a fee.

This is not the case for an informal doner (a friend who comes to an arrangement) or a one night stand (that can be identified/traced). In the case of the former, there have been a number of cases where 'friends' donated and were later hit for child support.

Technically, even if anonymous a doner who can be traced is liable to pay child support or be sued for inheritance - and since they changed the law in the UK to allow this, there has been a collapse in 'donations' there.

McCABE1

At the end of the day, nobody in their right mind would have a one night stand, unprotected, with some random stranger, ( I hope). The risks are just frightening.
If it were me I would definitely go down the sperm donor route, wouldnt bother me in the slightest. As long as I felt I was ready and financially stable for a kid then I'd do it. With wanting children, if its always been a top priority then its something that you shouldnt miss out on experiencing, just because you havent met the right person. And while the best possible scenario is a loving two parent family, I still believe that one parent can do a decent job also and provide a lovely home for a child.

Peared

shellyboo wrote: »

A ONS without adequate protection implies stupidity more than consent. I mean, there would have to be some deception going on there. Even ridiculously careless guys don't just lash it in there without at least asking if you're on the pill... what are you going to say? 'No, but I'm trying to get pregnant'??

And I'd say the hassle and heartache associated with a donor - someone who's given explicit consent - would be less than that associated with some randomer were you to tell him you're pregnant. Which would be the right thing to do.

There are many many men who 'lash it in there' without asking any questions.

Sad but true.

CathyMoran

CathyMoran wrote: »

Im almost 35 now but I was always petrified of being pregnant as I am a diabetic so I would have gone for adoption...nature intervened though!

Aaww Congrats Cathy!!!!!
So Happy for teh pair of you

Jebus never mind man the panic stations.....35 is my imaginary start age for considering to have children.

I'm not considering these possibilities because it isn't going to happen to me. [insertfingersintoearholes]~LALALALALALALALALALA~

AnnieB82

although I have a 6 month old now, if I were in that position I would definitely try and have a child somehow by the time I reached my mid 30s. I would probably have gone with a sperm donor if not in a relationship.

Malari

Edser wrote: »

(At least you gals have the option. It's much more difficult for us lads )

But realistically what's the difference between a doner and a one night stand?

I think your initial point was overlooked by your crashingly naive second comment, but it's true, at least girls do have a number of options open to them. It must be hard for guys who have always wanted children to accept they might not ever have them. It seems there are fewer guys who desperately want them compared to women...or is that just something that society makes us believe?

The Corinthian

Malari wrote: »

I think your initial point was overlooked by your crashingly naive second comment, but it's true, at least girls do have a number of options open to them. It must be hard for guys who have always wanted children to accept they might not ever have them. It seems there are fewer guys who desperately want them compared to women...or is that just something that society makes us believe?

Men don't have the same time constraints as women in principle - Charlie Chaplin became a father at 73, for example. In practice, men too have time constraints as our sperm quality does decrease with age and, more importantly, so does our ability to attract a mate who will be young enough to bare children.

If women could have children in their 70's (the main limit on this is the age of their eggs), I'd imagine the biological clock would not be as noticeable in them either.

However, until such time that an artificial womb is perfected and men can legally 'purchase' an egg just as women can sperm, it's a moot point. Actually, on the question of an artificial womb, it will be interesting when it does happen as it will allow for 'abortion' without termination. Interesting moral dilemma there as the principle argument used by pro-choice groups is that it is about a woman's right to her body, not as a means of birth control.

Malari

The Corinthian wrote: »

If women could have children in their 70's (the main limit on this is the age of their eggs), I'd imagine the biological clock would not be as noticeable in them either.

I know men can make babies in their 70s, but it's not exactly the same as being young enough to have a family and watch them grow up and be actively involved in raising them. So maybe men who want to do this have an extra 10-15 years on women, but hardly much more.

The Corinthian

Malari wrote: »

I know men can make babies in their 70s, but it's not exactly the same as being young enough to have a family and watch them grow up and be actively involved in raising them. So maybe men who want to do this have an extra 10-15 years on women, but hardly much more.

True, but remember I said men don't have the same time constraints as women in principle - and it is the last bit that's the kicker. I've heard a number of women argue that 'science will have caught up' by the time they're 'ready' and given that 'option' it is all too easy to procrastinate, because there's always time in principle.

Women have a definite deadline. By the time they're 45 they've less than a 1% chance of getting to term with IVF treatment (higher if they go via egg donation). Men don't have any such deadlines. We vaguely know that we may be a bit old to have them, but at least we still can - not ideal, but then again is having a child through sperm donation?

I'd agree that men have perhaps an extra 10 years on women in practical terms, but the option to wait longer is there, and I suspect that if women had the same option, they'd probably do the same.

rainbow kirby

Ideally I'd still be childless at 35! I don't intend on having kids, ever. Even if I did, going the donor route would pretty much be my only chance of having them anyway.

Blush_01

I'd ideally like to have children at some stage, preferably in a stable, loving relationship like that of my parents. Likewise, a certain degree of financial security would be a must. Other than that, I guess it's all a matter of how the cards are dealt.

LeahBaby

I'd call on my gorgeous haired Gay BFF to donate if it didn't happen for me!!!

The Corinthian

LeahBaby wrote: »

I'd call on my gorgeous haired Gay BFF to donate if it didn't happen for me!!!

Hope he reads this first.

Chinafoot

Ideally I'd like my first baby at 30 and my second at 32/33.

If my circumstances change and I'm childless past this age then I would definitely go down the sperm donation road.

The way I look at it, I want to be young enough to enjoy them and young enough to have a life when they're older.

Curlypinkie

At 35, IF I'm with a man, he'd have to talk me into having a baby.
Can I stress enough I would have to be talked into it? Or maybe blackmailed. Yeah blackmail sounds realistic...

At a present ago of 30 I so don't have any maternal needs in me yet, I find it hard to even imagine what it would be to have a baby.
There's no room for one and I'm not sure there ever will be.

Then again when I'm 35 i might dig out this discussion to add my 5c. (And probably get banned for digging out old threads, lol)

GirlInterrupted

I don't see myself going down the lone parent route voluntarily to be honest, I want the full deal with the husband and everything before I multiply.

I would love to be a mother when the time is right, but only if the circumstances were all in place and I felt totally secure in my relationship.

GirlInterrupted

GirlInterrupted wrote: »

I don't see myself going down the lone parent route voluntarily to be honest, I want the full deal with the husband and everything before I multiply.

I would love to be a mother when the time is right, but only if the circumstances were all in place and I felt totally secure in my relationship.

I've been thinking about it because of this thread.
I don't think I could make the decision to make a child, if I knew for certain that they wouldn't have a father.

I'd worry to much that they would lack support in life, if anything happened to me.

twanda

Bloody hell, how old are all you posters? I just turned 30 and thought I still had loads of time, but this thread has started to panic me!!
Better hop on the other half when he comes in the door this evening

Aaliyah

I'm 35 this year, married with 4 step children ageing from 15 to 24. Two step grandchildren age 2 & 4. I am now at the last chance saloon and debating with myself whether to have a child or not. I'm kind of putting the cart before the horse - I have done all the teenage year stuff with my step children and the grand child bit. Now I have to decide whether to start again and have my own baby! Tough decision I can tell you. As my husband is older and has done the rearing of his children I would not expect him to have as much an input or be as hands on with the rearing of any children I may have myself. I'm really stumped on it.

If I were single now, I think I would definitely go for it. I think I would choose a friend. The one night stand thing would be a real no no.

So it's decisions, decisions for me!!!!:(:rolleyes

nomorebadtown

Edser wrote: »

(At least you gals have the option. It's much more difficult for us lads )

true. when it comes to making babies the ladies are holding all the cards.

midlandsmissus

shellyboo wrote: »

Um, ethics? With a sperm donor, the donor has given his consent for a child to be made from his DNA. Tricking some randomer into knocking you up raises some serious moral questions.

What's ethical about sperm donors?

You wouldn't see a rich older man thinking 'ooh I'll ethically donate some of my good genes'

Sperm donors are young lads desperate for a bit of cash, do you really think they've put that much thought into it?

GirlInterrupted

nomorebadtown wrote: »

true. when it comes to making babies the ladies are holding all the cards.

I never really thought about it from that angle.

I suppose I never really considered it to be a man's issue, although of course its a people issue.

The extended timeframe a man has tends to focus the subject on women, but you certainly are right, women have options that men simply don't have.

But would men (in general) consider single parenthood, to the same extent as women?

The Corinthian

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Sperm donors are young lads desperate for a bit of cash, do you really think they've put that much thought into it?

Are they? (honest question)

I have heard that some agencies specifically target ABC1 males as they can charge more to potential recipients. Can't confirm this.

GirlInterrupted wrote: »

I suppose I never really considered it to be a man's issue, although of course its a people issue.

You'd be surprised how many women don't consider it a man's issue until the subject of maintenance crops up.

The extended timeframe a man has tends to focus the subject on women, but you certainly are right, women have options that men simply don't have.

We have if we have the money to pay for a surrogate - *cough* Michael Jackson *cough*

But would men (in general) consider single parenthood, to the same extent as women?

Of course, but as I said earlier in this thread, there's no absolute cut-off point for fatherhood - in theory. So that, combined with the obvious biological considerations mean that we tend to put things off in the hope of finding miss right.

midlandsmissus

GirlInterrupted wrote: »

I never really thought about it from that angle.

I suppose I never really considered it to be a man's issue, although of course its a people issue.

The extended timeframe a man has tends to focus the subject on women, but you certainly are right, women have options that men simply don't have.

But would men (in general) consider single parenthood, to the same extent as women?

I don't think women have options that men don't have. Men can use egg donors, and surrogate mothers in the same was women use sperm donors. The singer Ricky Martin just became a single father, using a surrogate mother for his twins. Men have exactly the same options open to them.

GirlInterrupted

The Corinthian wrote: »

You'd be surprised how many women don't consider it a man's issue until the subject of maintenance crops up.

Cynic!

midlandsmissus wrote: »

. Men have exactly the same options open to them.

Um. Pregnancy?

The Corinthian

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I don't think women have options that men don't have. Men can use egg donors, and surrogate mothers in the same was women use sperm donors. The singer Ricky Martin just became a single father, using a surrogate mother for his twins. Men have exactly the same options open to them.

That's not the same though. To begin with the cost of something like that would be outside the reach of most men - eggs cost a lot more than sperm, let alone the cost of a surrogate.

Secondly, as with any surrogate facilitated birth, there are potentially legal problems attached. Contracts between surrogate and father are not valid in many countries, and even when they are can be challenged.