Ghost dad

I can understand why people do it, but personally I don't think I would.
(But I've never been put in that situation so who knows how I'd react.)

I think it's unfair to the child to never know his/her father, but that happens all the time so it's nothing new.

The legal aspects are something I've never even thought about, but now that you mention it I wonder how benefits would work.
Would it be similar to leaving behind a pregnant wife?
What if she went on to have several children that way - would they each get benefits?

Lots of questions. But I'm sure there are plenty of women out there that are dealing with this exact situation.

You know, it's the whole "fair" thing that has had me hung up on this question for the last week or so. I don't really know how I feel about it. I'm glad it isn't my decision to have to make. I really don't think I'd do it though.

Fair regarding which...the kid or the government?

In the case of a soldier, I was thinking that it wouldn't be fair to pay benefits to children that wereren't even conceived before he was killed....but they are still his children.

With new advances in science and medicine, we have a whole new set of "what's fair" questions.

No.

I can understand it and why you'd like to. But.

Big Loud From My Guts NO.

I lost my dad early. Nevermind never meeting your father. That's horrid to me. To actively choose that for your child? When there are other options!

God, No. Is that for the child's benefit or for the grieving wife. Or to extend a family sperm.

My own mother had to undergo several surgeries to have me. She had me early, and was persistent about bearing her own kids with my dad - all the while she was in and out of hospital (psych) because of the loss of her brother and mother.

She was a grieving mother, and that impacted me right from the beginning.
I was born to alleviate grief, to be somewhere to put her love, and she shone the image of someone I could never be onto me.

NO.

"Fair" I guess in the sense to everyone -- the mom, the dad, the kid, the grandparents, the government.

I approach this from the stance of someone who continuing biologically was never a big deal. I can certainly understand why people have kids but when they have so much trouble having kids I don't really get this whole "biology" bit.

Thanks, mushypancakes. It is good to hear from someone who has such a gut reaction to the issue. The whole thing just made me kind of squirmy -- not really knowing why it seemed so strange. Your experience is very telling, I think. I wonder is people are doing this for the "right" reasons. And, if so, what the "right" reasons are.

Truly this is one of the "there but for the grace of God go I" situations.

I feel about like the others on here. Not something I'd do, though I can understand some others wanting it.

Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should.

This seems self-indulgent.

I don't think that's a good idea.

Children should know their biological parents.

Thanks.

That poor child.

Imagine growing up with people showering you with memories of your father, and looking to you for similarities.
Someone you have never met, is who you are compared to and against for the rest of your life.

When people die, they are dead. The dead soldier will never benefit from the birth of a child, so why do people do it?

What if I believe that i am perfectly capable of raising a child on my own? (Which I do believe, by the way). Will that also be a "poor child" that didn't know both parents? Based on what? What if the father was a total jackass? Are two parents necessary for child's happiness and quality life and maturity?

Also, is it that diametrally different from women getting impregnating by sperm from a sperm bank? Or is that also selfish and not to be done?

I personally believe that it depends on the mother. I think it can be handled, like most things, well or badly. But I don't see anything inherently wrong or immoral in it.

There's also an angle of honoring the dead husband's wishes. I realize that it may or may not be fair to the child, but there is that aspect. Many children grow up without one or both parents. That's not ideal, but it happens.

I have mixed feelings about it, but I would not rule it out. Although I do think the potential mother should wait a certain amount of time to ensure she isn't strictly doing this out of grief and also to ensure she is fully capable of raising a child without the dad. I think that would be more my concern - that the potential mom is doing this out of grief.

As any potential single parent or perhaps some one who gets pregnant right before dad goes overseas, it is all on how you handle raising your child - you don't have to shower the child with memories of the dad - other than what would be appropriate and in the child's best interest. The child could have a potential dad figure such as an uncle or grandfather. To me, if it is handled correctly, it shouldn't be as horrible as some make it sound.

As far as raising a child on your own, what is the difference than going to a sperm bank and having a child as a single mom? You would also have to allow that situation.

As far as the not knowing your dad and the government covering things, what is the difference between that and some one who gets pregnant before a dad is sent overseas (or doing a leave)? Are we to outlaw or look down on those who have husbands in the service and get pregnant?

I do believe in personal choice. Dag, your points are good ones.

I don't think it's a question of right or wrong.

It's one of those situations where it boggles my mind. To choose to make life harder and to opt for one parent when you don't have to? When there are other options where a child could actually have 2 parents?

There's something special about having 2 parents. Lots of kids grow up wonderful with only one too.
But can anyone really say they wouldn't love to have 2 loving parents if given the choice and chance?

And to grow up knowing your father was gone when you were conceived, and you didn't get a chance to meet him? I can imagine struggling with that as a child and as an adult even.

I do find it selfish. I think that's clear though. Not because the choice is all wrong or that it can't work out. But because there was no need for it. It's "I want this, and damn the possible hardships it will put on my child".

My views, though, I do admit, are quite out there when it comes to children. This forum hasn't seen the half of it, and I've butted heads a few times.

Totally onside with this.

For so many reasons.

there's no need.... there's never a 'need'. how can anyone say that having a child with someone i deeply loved and is now dead is worse for the child than waiting for some other guy to come around? Just for the sake of having a father? That doesn't strike me as ethically much sounder.

"Johny, I really really loved Michael and wanted him to be your daddy. But he died. I didn't want you to not have a daddy, so I waited. Eventually I met Dan and he was OK, so now he's your daddy. He's not Michael, but at least you have a daddy. I hope that makes you happy, kid..."

..of course that would never go that way, most likely you wouldn't let your child know and possibly the second partner either, but... I just don't find it a morally better option. Ideally, you would love the #2 guy as well.... but what if not? what if that never happens again? Should the woman just not have a child at all? That seems cruel to me.

Obvious a posthumous child is not "natural" reproduction.

In this Brave New World there have been a lot of medical and technical advances which have expanded the old, traditional, "natural" facts of fertility.

Still, the bottom line is eternal: Some people are better parents than other people.

Hear, hear.

Again, I don't think it's a question of morally better or not.

I just personally find it selfish, and can't say honestly that it thrills me.

Personally, yes, if need be, I would go without having a child if the conditions were not right for me. And conditions being right for me includes do the best I can to provide my child with two loving parents.

That wouldn't be everyone's choice, and that's ok too. At the end of the day, all parents have to look their kids in the eyes and feel good about what they have done for them. That's all.

Thinking, thinking. A lot of it seems culturally based. What it seems to boil down to (to me) is these two cases:

a) When I decide to have a child with a partner, it's unselfish and natural.

b) When I decide to have a child on my own (sperm bank), it is selfish.

Why? I just cannot get on board with that. In both cases, I decide to have a child because I have the right conditions to raise one. But when I do it with a partner it's unselfish and when I do it by myself it's selfish... I don't see the logic. What sounds more logical to me is that it is AlWAYS a selfish decision. I could more easily agree with that, though I don't think it's very relevant to the raising of the child.