Thursday, 01 March 2007 19:00
I almost had to laugh when I read a recent story of a court case coming out of Canada. A couple disagreed about whether or not to have children – she wanted them, he didn’t. So they decided that she would get pregnant through a sperm donor, and then they would draw up a contract whereby he would be free of any and all parental obligations.
That’s the part where I almost laughed, except for the fact that it’s so sad. I’m not the only one to think so. The article’s author tries to imagine the life this family would lead – the man (referred to in court records only as John Doe) who has to “slink away from the kitchen” when the child is hungry, who will not hold or cuddle the baby “in case that’s seen as parenting.” As if this wouldn’t have an incredibly detrimental effect on the child.
Predictably, the court ruled that a child’s interests come first, and by entering into a relationship with a mother (where they were all living in one home), the man has responsibilities as an acting parent. Probably most people could have told him that without the wasted time and incurred court fees. This sounded like a bad idea to me from the beginning. They probably didn’t bounce the idea off anyone before going ahead with it.
Really, if they couldn’t find a way to agree on such an important issue as whether or not to have children, perhaps these two didn’t belong together. After all, with all of the difficult and sometimes strange living situations that kids have to deal with today, we didn’t need to add another one to the list.