« Bibles in School | Main | Looking for votes in all the wrong places? »
Due to recent automated spamming attacks on our blogs, we are temporarily requiring commenters to authenticate themselves via TypeKey® before posting comments to any News & Record blog in order to prevent denials of service. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.
Explore This Blog
Search This Blog
More Recent Posts
- You're a caring bunch, Greensboro
- The power of a prayer shawl
- Bernie could have learned from Emily
- "Sunday's" worst behavior?
- Does Satan exist?
- Condoms not answer in AIDS fight, Pope says
- Faith in humanity
- Church Internet safety night with cop who poses as teen
- Land of the freelancers
- Catholics urged to give up texting for Lent
Archives
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
If it's what the 2 parties decided on prior to one's death, then it's easy: yes. That's why folks have living wills. This is a PERSONAL decision and your ethics and mine have nothing whatsoever to do with their decision.
Posted on January 29, 2005 5:54 PM
Just because something technically is possible, does not make it ethical. However, in this case, I agree with Sue. I cannot find anything about this particular case that violates medical ethics. It was a personal decision, and one that was very life affirming. What could possibly be a basis for criticizing this?
Posted on February 1, 2005 12:38 PM
Good point, Mark. Is it fair for the child to never know her biological father?
Posted on February 1, 2005 8:06 PM
How many times does a father die prior to a child's birth? In some cases, it's the mother who dies during childbirth. In either case, the child never knows her parent. Single parent families thrive with love so what's the "fair" in this case? Because it's a choice?
Posted on February 1, 2005 9:20 PM
I think it is a mistake to conceive a child intentionally to be born into a single parent family. The statistical data are too overwhelming on the adverse medical, social and psychiatric outcomes. While it is true that there are individual success stories, this is a bad idea, and should be actively discouraged.
Posted on February 2, 2005 4:01 PM
I neglected to mention that ethical parenting involves placing the needs and long-term interests of the child, and of the larger society, on a higher plane than one's own personal fulfillment or self-interest.
Posted on February 2, 2005 4:04 PM
Joe, if the mother was a teenager, then it would be very difficult to make it work.
There are so many single parent families nowadays, that it really doesn't make a difference whether it was a choice or not.
And sometimes two parent families have problems too.
(Personally, i thought it was sweet.
The whole thing should be made into a movie!)
But seriously, i think other couples who have difficulty having children should consider adoption.
Posted on February 3, 2005 8:08 PM