Want a Scary Peek at the Future? Look to Indiana

79 thoughts on “Want a Scary Peek at the Future? Look to Indiana”

1. I thought she backed off this:
   see e.g.
   here

2. Yes, Legislator drops controversial plan

   State Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, issued a one-sentence statement this afternoon saying: “The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission.”

3. always late to the party…thanks Mason.
   I’ll update the site
   (This is what I get for blogging so sporadically).

4. NIAT (not intended as threadjacking) but Edward, could you assist me with a vocabulary question? Do you (or does anyone?) know why we differentiate (and what IS the difference) between “gay” and “lesbian?” Doesn’t the term “gay” essentially mean homosexual and so wouldn’t that, by definition, already include lesbians? When I hear people refer, as you did in your post, to gays and lesbians, I wonder what exactly I’m missing that is clarified by the two different terms. Thanks. Just curious.
   PS: What a hateful idea for a piece of (sh#t) legislation.

5. Soooo last week, Edward.
   But, hey…you’re back?

6. you’re welcome!
   now if I only had a rant of my own …

7. xanax,
   “gay” or “gays” is used much as “mankind” is used (yes, quite patriarchally [and obnoxiously if you ask some people]) to include both genders, or just the men, but not the women by themselves generally (although that seems to be changing somewhat).
   There is no additional customarily accepted term for just gay men (perhaps much as there’s no counterpart in English to misogyny) parallel to “lesbians” unless you get into slang, and then, Mary, let me tell you, that entry in the thesaurus runs to 19 pages now.
   It’s odd for me really, because within the comfort and safety of the community, all these words have very pleasant or at least non-threatening connotations. It’s only in the mouths or texts of other people that they can become ugly in my ears. Minority issue, I guess.

8. Leaving aside the silliness of this particular bill (which was problematic on a number of levels):
   First off, this isn’t really an anti-gay measure (although it doesn’t mind kicking gay couples along the way), as much as it is a means to legislate reproduction within a highly Puritan worldview, with the clear intention that only those who share this worldview can pass it along to posterity.
   Y’know, there is another view, which is that childrearing is a two-parent job and thus we should discourage (and perhaps even prohibit) individuals from intentionally creating a single-parent home through artificial insemination. I don’t see how believing that we should encourage two-parent families is “puritanical”; rather, it seems prudent. Even, perhaps, a matter of common sense.
   Now, I obviously can’t just take the standard conservative line — true though it may be in this circumstance — thereby pissing off our liberal readers. That’s not my “way” (to the extent I have one). No, I must interject the following point to ensure that I piss off our conservative readers as well: Legal issues aside, I think that the principle of limiting artificial insemination to married couples is fine, so long as gay couples are allowed to marry.

9. Leaving aside the silliness of this particular bill (which was problematic on a number of levels):
   First off, this isn’t really an anti-gay measure (although it doesn’t mind kicking gay couples along the way), as much as it is a means to legislate reproduction within a highly Puritan worldview, with the clear intention that only those who share this worldview can pass it along to posterity.
   Y’know, there is another view, which is that childrearing is a two-parent job and thus we should discourage (and perhaps even prohibit) individuals from intentionally creating a single-parent home through artificial insemination. I don’t see how believing that we should encourage two-parent families is “puritanical”; rather, it seems prudent. Even, perhaps, a matter of common sense.
   Now, I obviously can’t just take the standard conservative line — true though it may be in this circumstance — thereby pissing off our liberal readers. That’s not my “way” (to the extent I have one). No, I must interject the following point to ensure that I piss off our conservative readers as well: Legal issues aside, I think that the principle of limiting artificial insemination to married couples is fine, so long as gay couples are allowed to marry.

10. Leaving aside the silliness of this particular bill (which was problematic on a number of levels):
    First off, this isn’t really an anti-gay measure (although it doesn’t mind kicking gay couples along the way), as much as it is a means to legislate reproduction within a highly Puritan worldview, with the clear intention that only those who share this worldview can pass it along to posterity.
    Y’know, there is another view, which is that childrearing is a two-parent job and thus we should discourage (and perhaps even prohibit) individuals from intentionally creating a single-parent home through artificial insemination. I don’t see how believing that we should encourage two-parent families is “puritanical”; rather, it seems prudent. Even, perhaps, a matter of common sense.
    Now, I obviously can’t just take the standard conservative line — true though it may be in this circumstance — thereby pissing off our liberal readers. That’s not my “way” (to the extent I have one). No, I must interject the following point to ensure that I piss off our conservative readers as well: Legal issues aside, I think that the principle of limiting artificial insemination to married couples is fine, so long as gay couples are allowed to marry.

11. Jeebus, now I’ve triple posted. Sorry.

12. “Soooo last week, Edward.”
    Coming down with a touch of Gary Farberitis are we Slarti? Hope it’s not the avian variety.
    Thanks for the explanation, Edward. Makes some sense, even to one as thickheaded as I.

13. I blame Dan Qualye.

14. Von: I think that the principle of limiting artificial insemination to married couples is fine, so long as gay couples are allowed to marry.
    Artificial insemination is simple enough technically (and sperm is sufficiently accessible, hem hem) that no law can prevent single parents: it can only turn single parents into outlaws. Given that single parents tend to have a tougher time than double parents (because bringing up children is hard work enough with two) it seems illogical to pass any legislation that deliberately makes the life of a single parent harder than it needs to be.
    See Nick Kiddle on Alas a Blog, who discusses this very issue with rather more personal feeling involved than I.

15. I don’t see how believing that we should encourage two-parent families is “puritanical”; rather, it seems prudent. Even, perhaps, a matter of common sense.
    It’s a rather long jump from “We should encourage this kind of family” to “We should prohibit all the other kinds.” Likewise . . .
    Legal issues aside, I think that the principle of limiting artificial insemination to married couples is fine . . .
    There’s no principled reason that I can see, taking all your other premises, for not also limiting natural reproduction to married couples, if one believes this. After all, there are going to be a lot more single parents having children the old-fashioned way than there are having them through artifical methods; if it’s a real problem, why not ban it at the source, right?
    I think anyone who can afford to pursue it should damned well be permitted to, and the government can stay the hell out of it. Government Reproduction Licenses, even when limited to IV technologies, are too big a step down the road to Huxley and Atwood for me to be comfortable with it.

16. I should make clear that when I say “legal issues aside” I mean that “our liberal democracy aside”. IOW, whatever preference I have for two parent homes, I don’t want singles to have to fill out a nine-page form before they can purchase a turkey baster (to allude to an answer to Jes’s charge). That said, it isn’t puritanical or prudish in the least to insist that those who willingly take on the burdens of single parenthood are behaving in a way that, on average, is selfish and irresponsible.

17. Just because people can get married doesn’t mean they must. Long term “coupled people” (for lack of a better term for same and opposite sex partners without a government/church license) with ample commitment to a two parent family, as well as the financial resources to pay for assisted reproduction, would also be out of a bill like this. The bill would invalidate non-married two parent homes as being two single people, regardless of their parental status.
    But, as others said, it’s moot now.

18. childrearing is a two-parent job and thus we should discourage (and perhaps even prohibit) individuals from intentionally creating a single-parent home through artificial insemination.
    I feel strongly that this is invasive, though, von. Take for example Ms. B, a woman I know, who tried to get married so she could have children, but when she found time running out decided to get artificially inseminated and raise her daughter on her own. What your POV suggests is that she should either 1) marry someone she didn’t want to beforehand or 2) never reproduce.
    Neither of those options is justifyably legislatable in my opinion. Yes, society can, in its not-so-subtle way,s push folks toward an ideal, but when that prince in shining armor doesn’t come along before the sun sets, who are the rest of us to tell the heroine she must die childless?
    I cannot support that.

19. von: I actually considered having a kid by myself quite seriously, when it became clear that, much to my personal chagrin, my hypothetical child’s father wasn’t putting in an appearance in some more conventional way. I didn’t so much decide not to as get offered a job that made it impossible (b/c of moving to a new city without a support system of friends and relations) when I was deeply torn about it, and throwing up my hands and taking the job.
    Like most of the women I know who have considered it (I put it this way because I don’t know any guys who have; maybe not facing the same sorts of age limits explains this), I thought a lot about what the problems of single parenthood would be, and how best to compensate for them. I don’t think, actually, that it would have been bad for the kid, given that I would have done my best to take whatever compensatory steps I needed to. Which is to say: given that I recognized that raising a kid is a serious responsibility, and thought hard about how to do it right.
    Myself, I think that that, and of course loving the kid to pieces, matters more than anything else.

20. That said, it isn’t puritanical or prudish in the least to insist that those who willingly take on the burdens of single parenthood are behaving in a way that, on average, is selfish and irresponsible.
    Should have kept reading. I disagree with this even more.
    It implies that bringing a child into the world under less than the ideal terms is selfish. I understand what folks think that means, but when you look at it a bit more, it seems absurd.
    The argument goes that child A deserves a better life than he/she will have if born into a single-parent family. But this is ludicrous in regards to the fact that Child A would not otherwise exist at all. Children are not dispensed from some cosmic gumball machine to the next set of parents who get it on. Child A, if he/she was meant to be, will only come about through the sloppy, un-ideal, possibly through selfish intentions that she/he must come about.
    Child A deserves all we can give him/her, it’s true, but nothing we can give him/her can hold a candle to life itself.

21. That said, it isn’t puritanical or prudish in the least to insist that those who willingly take on the burdens of single parenthood are behaving in a way that, on average, is selfish and irresponsible.
    Hmm. I congratulate your masterful use of qualifiers, Von.
    What you seem to be saying is that those who willingly (which I am going to infer to mean ‘activley seek out’ rather than ‘the condom broke and I am pro-life’) seek out parenthood as an individual (rather than part of a couple) are behaving in a way that STATISTICALLY (given the proven advantages of a two-parent home) is selfish and irresponsible. That’s a fine needle to thread. Well done.
    Now that the english major in me is through wanking off to the construction (and de-construction) of just one sentence…
    Legal issues aside, I think that the principle of limiting artificial insemination to married couples is fine…
    Since you say ‘legal issues aside’ I am going to assume you mean that, morally and ethically, this is okay. Having made that assumption, a few questions… if you find it unobjectional (and assuming it passed muster with that pesky little right to privacy established by Griswold and Roe) , do you feel that it would be a benefical thing to be enacted into law? I haven’t heard you really weigh in on that (I apologize if you did it between the time it took me to write this and post it) and I’d be curious to know your actual view.
    I should add that, personally, I feel that a person should be empowered as to make their own judgements as to whether or not they are qualified to bear/sire a child, and that the state should only intervene in clear cases of massive unfitness (as they are empowered to do in every state, though standards and effectiveness varies) or in the case when a person wishes to adopt a child (such child being a ward of the state, and thus, the state having the right to determine what a suitable environment will be.) Governing purely by the stastistical best case scenario is a tricky, perilous thing, and has gotten plenty of people in plenty of trouble over the years.

22. Indiana is a very scarey peek into my past. I don’t go there.

23. Hilzoy:
    I’m already married, but this shouldn’t stop you from adopting and raising me. I’m seriously immature and I draw the line at curfews on school nights, but college is already out of the way, a handy up-front savings.
    And, you’d be an instant grandmother, which I’m not sure is an immediate goal of yours, but there it is.

24. I can’t agree with you von. I know enough married people that would be horrible parents and single people that would be ok that while 2-parent homes should be encouraged, they should not be mandatory.
    I won’t go so far as to say that those who actively seek children are good parents (working at the dependency clinic in law school cured me of all such notions). But a large enough percentage of single parents who are actively seeking parenthood would be good parents to make me think that such a law would be a bad idea.

25. von, sometimes you have an authoritarian streak that is quite alarming. whatever happened to small government conservatism?
    1. you are pro-life. however, when you were asked about your willingness to invest govt dollars in effective programs to reduce unwanted pregnancies, you appeared reluctant to spend tax dollars that way. So unlike the famous Clinton viewpoint of “safe, legal and rare” you apparently prefer a world of “unsafe, illegal and far too common.” Now, since rich women will still travel to Canada for their “procedures”, those who cannot / will not procure an illegal abortion are those most likely to drop onto welfare rolls.
    You’re not saving any money there.
    2. You say that single women should be prohibited from obtaining IVF. So rich women will travel to other states / countries for their procedures and those middle-class women who could afford the procedure but not the added cost of travel cannot. I’m not sure what goal you’re trying to achieve here.
    i’ve never understood conservatives who claim to be both pro-life and pro-small government. If abortion is illegalized, there’s going to be a need for a massive increase in law enforcement and a massive increase by law enforcement in the oversight of the private lives of individuals.
    but von’s (moral) support of this legislation puts matters in even more stark relief. All aspects of human reproduction should be subject to state oversight, in this world. From where von is, it is only a very small step to incarcerate drug users (including of course alcohol) during their pregnancy to protect the fetus.
    And from there are we really so far from incarcerating / incapacitating those who wish to travel out of state to procure an abortion? the right to travel hardly holds equal weight to the right to life.
    i think there are sound reasons to keep the state out of reproductive decisions. i am especially baffled by those so-called small government conservatives who wish to have the state become involved.

26. ” I don’t see how believing that we should encourage two-parent families is “puritanical”; rather, it seems prudent.”
    von, I don’t wildly disagree with your initial premise: that, generally speaking, kids are better off with two parents rather than one.
    But, see, those kinds of arguments aren’t very useful.
    Try it this way and see how it sounds: “I don’t see how believing that we should encourage two-parent families where the total family income is $65,000 per year is a problem; rather, it seems prudent.”
    Or:
    “I don’t see how believing that we should encourage two-parent families where the total family income is $65,000 per year and neither parent is an alcoholic, a drug addict, or a chronic gambler, is a problem; rather, it seems prudent.”
    See where I’m going? You could make a utilitarian argument for your premise, for my variations on your premise, and for a host of others. But, one, we don’t live in a utilitarian society; and two, mandating any of them by law is neither prudent nor utilitarian.
    The idea also comes a-cropper since most single-parent families didn’t get that way via artificial insemination. Unless you’re going to outlaw single parenthood period, outlawing artificial insemination is aimed mostly at gay couples – who were in fact the target of the proposed Indiana law; and who do not, as yet, have the right to marry in the US anywhere outside of Massachusetts.
    I agree that too many people are having children who shouldn’t be. (And not all of them are single, not by a long chalk.)
    But the best way to prevent that, as many have pointed out, is via policies that conservatives don’t like: useful sex-ed (as opposed to abstinence-only); easily obtained birth control (including morning-after pills); and legal, inexpensive abortion.
    (To these things I wish we could add a sea change in our cultural attitudes towards having children. Chiefly, I’d love to see a change in attitude away from the idea that children are necessary for self-fulfillment, or as a way of proving one’s femininity or masculinity, or of holding a failing relationship together, or of acquiring something that will belong to only you and love only you even if no one else does.)
    Outlawing turkey basters does nothing to address any of that.

27. “Jeebus, now I’ve triple posted. Sorry.”
    Posted by: von
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
    Von is a trained and certified operator of this blog. If **he** can triple post, then I can infinity-post, with no guilt whatsoever!!!!

28. If two parents are good, why wouldn’t three be even better? ;^)

29. I think maybe you guys should go reread what von actually wrote, rather than what you think he wrote.
    Just a thought. That’s the hope, anyway.

30. slarti, this is a direct quote: “we should discourage (and perhaps even prohibit) individuals from intentionally creating a single-parent home through artificial insemination”.
    as to his pro-life position, that is i believe a matter of record.

31. Von: That said, it isn’t puritanical or prudish in the least to insist that those who willingly take on the burdens of single parenthood are behaving in a way that, on average, is selfish and irresponsible.
    I’d love to see how you manage to combine this belief with your belief that abortion is wrong.
    It would appear, you see, that you think that if a woman who isn’t married gets pregnant accidentally, thinks it over, decides she isn’t able to have a child on her own (or with whatever help she can find) and has an abortion, you don’t support that option.
    But neither do you support the option of a woman who isn’t partnered with a man getting pregnant deliberately because she’s thought it through and decided she is able to have a child on her own.
    If a woman who gets pregnant accidentally and doesn’t want to be shouldn’t abort, even if she’s single, and yet no woman who’s single should get to decide she wants to have a baby, it seems as if the only common thread is that women shouldn’t get to decide when they do or don’t want babies – someone else should get to decide that for them.
    From a legislative standpoint, this would be a totalitarian nightmare: but even just as a statement of morality, women shouldn’t get to decide whether or not they have babies is hard to justify unless you’re a hardline anti-feminist. Which I don’t get the impression you are, your occasional dips into being anti-choice aside.
    I say “seems as if” because I’m quite sure you have some other rationale in your head… and that’s what would be interesting to see you explain.

32. But neither do you support the option of a woman who isn’t partnered with a man
    Or a woman. Sorry, I didn’t mean to make you sound like you were anti- gay marriage, too. 😉

33. slarti, this is a direct quote

    Ripped from context, sure you can go to town on it. Maybe, though, it’s best to ask, or at least bother to read the preceding Y’know, there is another view…, because that does change the flavor a bit.

34. A few broad responses:
    1. As a threshold matter, I agree (as I said in 10/10 6:35 p.m. post) that passing a law like that proposed by Sen. Patricia Miller is a mistake. My prior reference to “perhaps prohibit” was in the nature of a thought experiment, although that’s not terribly obvious from my post — which is why I wrote again at 6:35 p.m.
    2. I haven’t seen a refutation of my central premise, which is that, on average, two parent households are superior to one parent households. The fact that we can find exceptions to that rule — e.g., Hilzoy and Ed’s friend — does not invalidate the rule.
    3. The personal empowerment argument (i.e., I am entitled to have a child because I want a child) is at least fifty percent bunk. There are two folks in the parent-child relationship, and the wants and needs of the parent are not the only wants or needs to consider.
    3a. Or, put it this way: Perhaps we’re comfortable with Hilzoy having a child on her own — after all, she’s smart, has some money, has great family values, and would likely make a terrific mother. You’ve put your foot on the lever and pushed it down and done gone found your single-parent posterwoman. But yank the lever the other way: what about the 99% of folks who ain’t Hilzoy? What about the single woman who is not stable (in her career or emotionally), does not really have the resources to raise a child, but who also promises you that she will love her child to death. In fact, she loves children so much that she wants three or four of them. What if she needs fertility treatments to have a child? The fact that you’ve found someone to put on a poster for your cause does not mean that your cause is just or wise — particularly since no one is disputing that on average a two parent home is superior to a one parent home.
    4. A number of folks have raised what amounts to a slippery slope argument, i.e., the “once you use statistics to enact law X it inevitably leads to using statistics to enact laws Y and Z, which are terribly silly[.]” First, this argument is misplaced because, per point 1, I’m not agitating to enact law X. Second, this argument presupposes that all slopes are slippery. They’re not.
    5. Jes says that I’m a “hardline anti-feminist” because I think that, in most circumstances, “women shouldn’t get to decide whether or not they have babies[.]” (I’d actually split the infinitve and say “to solely decide”.) There are two folks who need to come together to create a child, two sets of genes that are being passed on, two folks who should ideally raise the child once born, and two folks who are legally responsible for the child. Obviously, the woman rightfully takes a superior position with respect to many matters during pregnancy — the kid is growing in her belly, after all. It’s her body, to use the cliche. But that does not mean we can brush off the importance of fathers or fatherhood: Every study I’ve every seen indicates that fathers play a crucial role in child development and socialization. Indeed, one of the principle causes of the cycle of poverty and crime in America’s inner cities is a result of failure of fathers to be involved in the child rearing process (there are other causes as well, of course: racism; economic disadvantages of birth; etc.) By proclaiming that men are unnecessary, you’re essentially suggesting to would-be fathers that they needn’t take responsibility for their charges — perpetuating a vicious cycle.
    6. Or, simply put, empowering women does not always require denigrating men.

35. I’d love to see how you manage to combine this belief with your belief that abortion is wrong.
    It’s easy: When faced with a choice between a lesser evil and a greater evil, I tend to choose the lesser evil.

36. Hmm. I congratulate your masterful use of qualifiers, Von.
    As a lawyer, I get paid by the qualifier.

37. Or, simply put, empowering women does not always require denigrating men.
    Not disagreeing or agreeing, but this brought to mind this NYTimes article about infant toilet training, probably because of this quote:
    Ms. Boucke, the author, noted that many fathers enjoy infant potty training. “They can’t breast-feed, but they can work on the other end,” she said.

38. Edward:
    My frequent rants are usually interrupted somewhere in the middle of “this is exactly how Nazi Germany got started”, (typically, by my laid-back wife, who points out that she doesn’t recall Hitler mentioning being made to put those anti-static sheets in the dryer in “Mein Kampf”). so I know how you feel.
    On the other hand, I find nowadays that some in the opposite political persuasion will soon and once again rise to the occasion, giving me the opportunity to recycle the previous half-used rant.
    They’ll be back.

39. i’m really most interested in an expansion of point 3. i’ll concede the substantive point — i agree that a baby is not a fashion statement — but i want to press the procedural one.
    so what are you going to do about it? just grumble? or do you believe that the state should play a more active role in deciding who gets to reproduce?
    my “cause” in your 3a is that the state should not exercise its police powers over reproductive decisions. Given this country’s history with eugenics, i firmly believe that my cause is both just and wise.
    since you recognize that inner city poverty is in part attributable to absent fathers, wouldn’t it make a LOT more sense to use state powers to do something to keep fathers around and something to reduce unwanted pregnancies?
    Haven’t you, in fact, just argued in favor of:
    1. Effective (reason-based) sex ed programs in public schools;
    2. Inner city job training programs, especially in trades-type work that cannot be offshored;
    3. Increases in minimum wage;
    4. Substantial reductions in prison time for non-violent offenders; and
    5. Single-payer health care,
    among other programs popular with democrats?
    Those programs, NOT state interference with reproductive decisions, will support your central premise that two-parent families are on average better for the child.
    and as to the very idea that the state should become involved in determining parental fitness, i reiterate: eugenics.

40. von: I’m curious about why you think that those of us who disagreed with you were ‘denigrating men’. We were, of course, saying that while men are of course necessary for conceiving a child, they are not (literally) necessary for raising one well. But ‘not necessary’ obviously doesn’t mean ‘not important, not a very good thing’, etc.
    Speaking for myself (and the rest of the 1% of the population who apparently are me — at least, if there are only “99% of folks who ain’t Hilzoy”): when I thought about having a kid alone, it wasn’t at all because I didn’t want to have one as part of a couple. On the contrary: I had been waiting for the other half of that couple to show up for a while. (Note to any young women who may be reading this: spending your mid- and late twenties trying to work your way out of heartbreak that runs deeper than you would have thought possible has even more problems than you’d think.)
    It was only when it became clear that this wasn’t going to happen, and that time was running out, that I began to consider the alternative, which to me was obviously second-best. And whether or not I’m atypical in any other respect, I don’t really think I’m all that unusual in this one.
    This has nothing to do with not wanting guys to be involved in raising children. Given the unfortunate fact that I couldn’t do this by the more conventional route of marrying a guy, one of the things I thought a lot about was whether there were guys I knew who would be willing to spend time with any kids I might have.
    Personally, I think that while empowering women may on occasion involve denigrating particular men, empowering women generally helps to empower men as well. It’s all about making it possible for anyone, male or female, to live the life they think best, without having to fight their way through a mass of stereotypes that only impede them. It’s a shame and a waste when women are brought up to think that success and being a woman are at odds. It’s also a shame when men are brought up to think that their own success is in conflict with that of people they claim to love. It just harms everyone.

41. (Note to any young women who may be reading this: spending your mid- and late twenties trying to work your way out of heartbreak that runs deeper than you would have thought possible has even more problems than you’d think.)
    Oh dear. Well, does that mean that I get to grow up to merge into the 1% Hilzoy population?

42. given that the US population is about 300 million, and so there are 2,999,999 other hilzoys, we now have an explanation for the frequency and quality of her posts– she’s using her CLONES!
    cheater.

43. There’s still adoption, hilzoy, and there’s quite a few ways for a single parent to adopt. It all depends on where the drive to be a parent is coming from; to what degree propagating the genes is a concern as compared with raising a child.

44. 2. I haven’t seen a refutation of my central premise, which is that, on average, two parent households are superior to one parent households. The fact that we can find exceptions to that rule — e.g., Hilzoy and Ed’s friend — does not invalidate the rule.
    On average, wealthy households are better for raising children then poverty-stricken households. What do you recommend we do with that information?
    What about the single woman who is not stable (in her career or emotionally), does not really have the resources to raise a child, but who also promises you that she will love her child to death. In fact, she loves children so much that she wants three or four of them. What if she needs fertility treatments to have a child?
    I would suggest that if such a woman has both the means and time to pursue IVF or other fertility treatments, she’s probably more likely to be in the hilzoy camp than she is to be living in the projeccts.

45. One thing that always interests me in this debate is somewhat exemplified by this paragraph of von‘s, or rather the void following it:
    2. I haven’t seen a refutation of my central premise, which is that, on average, two parent households are superior to one parent households. The fact that we can find exceptions to that rule — e.g., Hilzoy and Ed’s friend — does not invalidate the rule.
    There are innumerable properties P for which parents with property P will be superior child-raising environments to parents without property P. Why is it that we only ever talk about this kind of discrimination when P is “two-parent” v. “one-parent”? Why do we not deny, say, alcoholics the right to procreate in this fashion? [After all, I think everyone will agree that parents who aren’t alcoholics are by-and-large superior to parents who are alcoholics.] Certain kinds of fundamentalism clearly make for inferior child-raising environments; why not discriminate against them?
    Likewise:
    You’ve put your foot on the lever and pushed it down and done gone found your single-parent posterwoman. But yank the lever the other way: what about the 99% of folks who ain’t Hilzoy?
    Fair enough — but again, what about the massive numbers of people who are clearly suboptimal parental figures? [Which would be, well, everyone. Sorry, dad.] I can actually cut my argument above even finer: given any parental configuration I can find some non-trivial property P for which they’re inferior relative to parental configurations which possess property P. Why allow anyone to procreate then?
    Or to put it as pithily as possible: what’s so special about one-parent v. two-parent that entitles one to discriminate against that distinction that doesn’t automatically allow one to outlaw procreation altogether?

46. von: I’m curious about why you think that those of us who disagreed with you were ‘denigrating men’.
    It depends, in part, on the emphasis:
    1. Stating, as your last post essentially does, that “I recognize that the ideal world would be a two-parent family, but, having been unable to reach the ideal despite substantial trying, I chose the the second-best option” is one thing.
    2. Stating, as I understood Jes to argue, that I’m a “hardline anti-feminist” because I think that, in most circumstances, “women shouldn’t get to [solely] decide whether or not they have babies” is something completely different. This argument is that there is only one relevant voice in the child-having process: the woman’s. My point is that just because the woman’s voice is (rightfully) louder than the man’s voice when it comes to child-bearin’ issues, it does not mean that the man’s voice is irrelevant.
    Amend 99% who ain’t Hilzoy to 99% who ain’t Hilzoy-like.
    Francis, we can discuss the means to reduce inner city poverty on another thread; suffice it to say, however, that agreeing on the causes of poverty does not necessarily mean agreeing on the solutions.
    As for the mechanism of “enforcement,” my preference would be a general societal recognition that a two-parent household is rightly regarded as generally superior to a one-parent household, and societal and government inducements to encourage two-parent households.
    Anarch, the question at hand is whether we want to have society to generally approve certain social relationships. Does society generally approve of alcoholic parents? No. Does the government provide them with alcohol if they cannot afford it themselves? No. (I am not comparing single parents families to alcoholic parents, by the way; rather, I’m merely demonstrating why Anarch’s example is inapposite.)

47. von: Darn, I was getting to like the idea of there being so many of me.
    Jackmormon: I’m so sorry.

48. given any parental configuration I can find some non-trivial property P for which they’re inferior relative to parental configurations which possess property P.
    I realize why I couldn’t hang with the hard science career path. I know people who truly surprised me by their parenting abilities and others who, well, didn’t seem to live up to their pre-partum promise. It seems to me that we can’t predict who will be good parents, but that is the liberal arts major kind of argument. Still, I would really warn anyone off of trying to predict who will be a good parent or a bad parent.

49. Anarch:
    “Why do we not deny, say, alcoholics the right to procreate in this fashion?”
    Well, when you consider the amount of procreation done, even encouraged, under the influence of alcohol and when you consider that same sex couples (or hetero couples) probably never show up at the fertility clinic or the adoption agency other than resolutely sober, this is an excellent question.
    As to the general efficacy and competency of parenting, good luck. As I’ve pointed out to my son, there are a few traits of mine that he is permitted to emulate. The many less-than-optimal mistakes of mine should be avoided, despite the amusing time I had making them.
    So, if he comes to me with a particular piece of stupidity someday with the excuse that “well, you did it!”, he is aware that won’t fly. Why, he will ask? I don’t know, I just made it up, like I do everything as I go along, which by the way, is not a process worthy of emulation. My stupidities are cautionary tales, not the stuff of heroes. And what do you mean that light had already turned red?
    That he has turned out to be a great kid is a result of my wife’s hard work and my uncanny ability to slide through with a certain amount of luck. Besides, we love each other so what more do we want?
    Other than money, fame, and incredible amounts sex, not much!

50. Von: This argument is that there is only one relevant voice in the child-having process: the woman’s. My point is that just because the woman’s voice is (rightfully) louder than the man’s voice when it comes to child-bearin’ issues, it does not mean that the man’s voice is irrelevant.
    No. And you will never find me arguing that the man who got the woman pregnant is irrelevant to the decision-making. I just think that the man’s inclusion or exclusion in the decision-making about whether or not to continue the pregnancy that he helped to create, is rightfully the woman’s decision to make, no one else’s. She’s the one who knows best if he will help or hinder her to make the right decision, whatever the right decision is for her.
    That is something quite different from supporting legislation that removes the right to make a decision from the woman who’s pregnant.
    Supporting anti-choice legislation, or legislation that makes it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion once she’s chosen to have one, means stripping the woman of her right to make the decision, and handing that right over to the state. People who support making abortion illegal, are arguing for a return to illegal abortions. Either they have not thought the consequences of this decision through, or they have, and they want women to suffer and die.

51. Von: As for the mechanism of “enforcement,” my preference would be a general societal recognition that a two-parent household is rightly regarded as generally superior to a one-parent household, and societal and government inducements to encourage two-parent households.
    Why not a general societal recognition that some single-parent households are unavoidable, and that as being a single parent is generally harder than being a parent of two, single parent households deserve more social and government support, not – as you suggest – less?

52. I think von‘s point is jumping up and down furiously, hand in the air. Von?

53. von, there is a world of difference between a right and an entitlement.
    Here, you are arguing against an entitlement: “Does society generally approve of alcoholic parents? No. Does the government provide them with alcohol if they cannot afford it themselves? No.”
    Who here is arguing that poor women have a right to fertility treatments? That’s a whole different thread, where we can discuss the consequences of the new Connecticut law.
    Here, you are arguing FOR an entitlement (or at least new govt programs): “societal and government inducements to encourage two-parent households.” (You can respond to my proposed anti-poverty programs at your leisure.)
    But here, you are arguing to turn a right into an entitlement: “The personal empowerment argument (i.e., I am entitled to have a child because I want a child) is at least fifty percent bunk.”
    The personal empowerment argument is 100% true, UNLESS your conception of state power includes the power to determine who can become pregnant / raise a child.
    Put another way, who precisely is going to stop your (hypothetical 18-year old) daughter from not using birth control, picking up some guy in a bar and having a child? Or should the state force single mothers to give up their children for adoption, to heterosexual married couples only of course?
    a massive increase in adoptions does seem to be a natural consequence of a pro-life viewpoint. Are you sure there’s an adequate supply of competent adoptive parents?

54. “I haven’t seen a refutation of my central premise, which is that, on average, two parent households are superior to one parent households. The fact that we can find exceptions to that rule ”
    Agreed, because they are superior. But that doesn’t close the question.
    How much worse on average is a single parent household? Bad enough to make it very difficult? I doubt it.
    How many people are we talking about? Causing problems for tens of millions of potentially good single parents might not be worth the average difference.
    Are the bad single parents going to be deterred? On average, I suspect not–because lots of the bad single parents are getting pregnant due to sex without birth control. The proposed rule doesn’t do much to change the problem you are targetting.

55. Slarti, chime in anytime.
    She’s the one who knows best if he will help or hinder her to make the right decision, whatever the right decision is for her.
    So, if he would prefer that the child be aborted and she decides not to, he’s off the hook for child support? I also assume that if a man decides that abandoning his wife and kid is the right decision for his career, we all should applaud his empowering decision. And, obviously, we wouldn’t want to consider any pain or suffering the kid might feel in such circumstances, whether in or out of the womb.

56. I think this general issue is a good Rorschach test.
    Mention “single woman who want to be artifically inseminated” and I immediately picture someone who fits the description that von calls the “single-parent posterwoman”. After all, artificial insemination ain’t cheap.
    Other folks however, seem to immediately picture someone on crack who shouldn’t be allowed near anyone’s children, let alone be considered a good candidate for motherhood.
    Why is that? I can’t think of any crackheads who would spend their money on artificial insemination.

57. Edward,
    Artificial insemination is frequently covered by health insurance, making it not too expensive for a working mother with a job which includes it (our first child was conceived that way). In vitro fertilization is not generally covered, and can cost over $10,000.

58. After all, artificial insemination ain’t cheap.

    It can be. When we were considering it, our doctor suggested we contact the lesbian community for techniques better suited to our budget. Hence the turkey-baster references. If you’re sticking with clinics, or if you need in vitro, then yes it’s almost by definition expensive.

59. our doctor suggested we contact the lesbian community for techniques better suited to our budget
    How perfect!
    No offense at all, but I love this in a “see, you do benefit from our being here” sort of way.
    Thanks for the clarifications about costs, though, Slarti and Dantheman.

60. “see, you do benefit from our being here”
    I thought that was already clear from “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”.

61. Isn’t this (now thankfully moot) policy discussion strictly limited to insemination by licensed health-care providers?

62. I personally benefit from How Not To Dress.

    No offense at all…

    I’m not sure why you’d think that would offend, Edward, but certainly no offense taken. We didn’t do the turkey baster bit, but it was in the plan of attack up until the point where we decided to adopt, instead.
    Which was good, because as it turned out, we were both infertile. Which only reinforced the idea that we were truly made for each other.

63. Off Topic – the picture up on Atrios’ site right now is priceless. I’m buying one for my office.

64. If you follow the amazon link, the reviews are pretty entertaining, too.

65. That’s old news — check out Concurring Opinions.

66. Let’s try that again…

67. A Playmobil body-cavity search, now that’d be something to…oh, maybe not.

68. kenB-
    Thanks. I’m seriously ordering one as soon as I can find something else I want to put me over $25 for free shipping on amazon. Consume! Consume! Consume!

69. Anarch, the question at hand is whether we want to have society to generally approve certain social relationships. Does society generally approve of alcoholic parents? No. Does the government provide them with alcohol if they cannot afford it themselves? No. (I am not comparing single parents families to alcoholic parents, by the way; rather, I’m merely demonstrating why Anarch’s example is inapposite.)
    Er, what? I don’t recall arguing that the government should induce or encourage alcoholism. I do recall you saying that the government should actively discourage single parenthood, however, and I’m wondering why it shouldn’t similarly discourage alcoholics to procreate, or (certain kinds of) fundamentalists to procreate, or whoever else might be, as a class, “inferior” parents.* Your argument of inapposition isn’t just inapposite itself, it’s not even vaguely analogous.
    And I’ll also note that while it may be true that society “doesn’t generally approve” of alcoholic parents — considered as distinct from societal disapproval of alcoholism in general — but I don’t recall any major debates about the plight of the children of alcoholic parents, or how we should institute policies that encourage parents to sober up before procreating, or what have you… let alone broadening this to other potentially “inferior” classes. So why is “single parenthood” such a greater (political) issue than “alcoholic parenthood”? Why aren’t more bills passed to deal with this pernicious evil? Why aren’t people thinking of those children? Etc.
    IOW: what is it about “single parenthood” that you think warrants active governmental intervention — or at least “discouragement”, however that might manifest — that doesn’t equally apply to “alcoholic parenthood” (or whatever)? What measure of “inferiority” do you use to distinguish one from the other and from the broader class of parents as a whole?
    * Note for the snarky pedants: it hasn’t been proven, and I’ll wager it’s false, that this notion of “inferiority” is transitive… which could lead to the amusing conclusion that every single person is too inferior a parent to have children!

70. which could lead to the amusing conclusion that every single person is too inferior a parent to have children!
    How does one parse ‘every single person’? Cause if it’s like ‘every last one’, I’m inclined to agree…

71. “which could lead to the amusing conclusion that every single person is too inferior a parent to have children!”
    “How does one parse ‘every single person’? Cause if it’s like ‘every last one’, I’m inclined to agree…”
    If we adopt this thinking, the terrorists win.

72. This is probably a stupid question, but here goes anyway…What is the evidence that single parenting is inferior to partnered parenting? The statement that two parents are better than one sounds “obviously” true, but is there any actual proof?

73. Dianne:
    Merely anecdotal evidence.
    You can play good cop-bad cop. As in, wait until your father gets home. Or in my (the Dad) case, wait until your Mom gets home. And lately, from the kid, wait until Mom gets home .. to me. We all try to look innocent.
    There is minor evidence that, with the exception of language acquisition, wolves do a pretty good job of raising and nurturing human children. Plus, there are no humans that I know of, as yet, who have been raised by wolves and grow up to run for political office with the express purpose of cutting Medicaid, though the local squirrel population tends to look askance.
    I think everyone does the best they can. There is no perfection, only minor, barely measurable improvement. When parents fail, there is the community in various forms, and then government, the last of which is going by the unfortunate wayside.

74. There is more, Dianne:
    I’ll wager that if you carried out a statistical analysis of famous and infamous individuals biographies say, over the past 500 years, you would find that a preponderance of successful (in the world, not necessarily in the blasted landscapes of their private lives) were raised by their widowed or abandoned mothers, who drove them, somehow, mysteriously, to better things.
    Only on T.V., do you have the widowed father raising the good kid — Andy of Mayberry. Then again, you have Andy Hardy’s Dad, the kind, wise one. But the Mom carried the water up the hill, I’ll bet.
    Conclusion: I have none, but maybe you might.

75. How does one parse ‘every single person’? Cause if it’s like ‘every last one’, I’m inclined to agree…
    Yep, that’s how I meant it.

76. Here’s my anecdotal evidence, Dianne:
    One of my best friends growing up was the child of a single mom. (My parents were and remain together.) This friend of mine had every damned opportunity her mom could find for her: she played soccer, she learned ballet, she went to summer camps, she did after-school plays, she went to private school, the whole nine yards. As her children were doing all of these activities, the single mom passed the bar and began practice in a well-regarded SF firm.
    Now, as a child growing up in a two-parent, Mormon-influenced household, I heard the following gossip: “She is surely working herself ragged in the benefit of her kids”…”She has worked so hard for her kids, and I hope she can find someone who will make her happy.”
    She did work herself ragged to support her kids, and her kids grew up to respect what their mother did for them. (I later learned how hard their mother indeed had fought for them, when their father had made aliyah and claimed them in Israel against her wishes.) But I grew up next to these children, and I knew they were not less loved than I was.
    Sure, my playmate had some issues about male role models; her grandad was a great man but died when she was 20. But, good god, we all have issues with our parents, real or imagined. She’s doing fine, and I have every reason to expect that you lot will be hearing of her within the next ten years.
    Indeed, I’d lay odds on her being a more successful, more happy, more influential, and better-known individual than myself, despite my upbringing in a nuclear and integrated family.
    Data-point.
    Hilzoy: I didn’t really mean to command sympathy, but, having effectively done so, thanks for your reply.

77. As for the mechanism of “enforcement,” my preference would be a general societal recognition that a two-parent household is rightly regarded as generally superior to a one-parent household, and societal and government inducements to encourage two-parent households.
    Which in practise means making things harder for single parents – who allready have a harder time.
    Are you against divorce too, if the couple has children?
    I met my soulmate the month of my 32d birthday. Since I had always known that I wanted children I had seriously considered becoming a single mother. I’d rather become a single mother than start a relationship with someone who was just conveniently available just because I wanted to start a family – and I had enough examples of the latter in my environment.

78. dutchmarbel: a related data point (for two claims): (a) my Dad, one of the sanest and most decent people I know, was raised by his mother, who divorced his father when he was 3 or 4 or something. (b) His mother married a second time, apparently to provide her children with a father figure; this marriage, which lasted only a few years, had so little effect (beneficial or otherwise) on the children in question that I only found out about it when I was in my mid-twenties.

79. Anecdotal info I can provide plenty 😉
    My mother was 1 of 8 kids (from three fathers), had to leave school and earn money at 12, married at 18 to a charming alcoholic to escape home and divorced my father when I was 8. Though she wanted the best for us she thought having a highschool diplome would be all I needed in life. She didn’t understand why I wanted to study, when I could be out and make money 😉
    Name a family problem and I know about it from close in my family circle…
    My husband has an Oxford graduate Irish mother and a Cambridge graduate British father who suprisingly enough never divorced ;). Yet I feel luckier than he in the upbringing department. My mother provided a much better stable and transparant environment than his parents did. People can create nasty undercurrents and powerstruggles in relationships, even if they think they do fine (my MIL states very proudly that they never had a figt or a heavy argument).
    There are many factors that play a part in the well being of children. Having two parents in the house who love both the kids and each other is a benefit, but there are so many other influences and many of those bigger.

Comments are closed.