Baby Talk

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243689/jennifer-aniston-no-spin-zone-kathryn-jean-lopez
Jennifer Aniston wants a baby. Jennifer doesn’t have a husband; or at this present time even a viable interested male-type person who is consistently in her life. But, we have all this technology and all this brou-ha-ha over single parent households, same-sex marriages and the obsolescence of gender definition. So why shouldn’t she be able to have a baby using every available method known to human kind?

Argument #1: She isn’t married. So she should get married – an arranged marriage – to have a sperm donor and life-time father figure for said child(ren). I mean, she was married to Brad Pitt and dated John Mayer for quite awhile. We’re going to completely forget about the whole, sad Vince Vaughn incident. I think if she had any plausible alternatives in this category, she would have already done it.

Argument #2: If she was meant to have a baby, she would have had one already the “natural” way. Great; maybe it’s not in God’s plan for her to have a child. And maybe by using medical advances she is overstepping her boundaries in God’s will for her life. But does that mean that married women who don’t conceive naturally are doing the same? God only intends progress to be used in moral ways? I don’t necessarily agree that anyone who wants a baby should be able to pay for and have a baby; but honestly, who decides where the moral line is on this one? If a woman is pregnant and her husband dies before the baby is born – should she be required to give the baby up (or any other children) to a family that is a two-parent household?

Argument #3: Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. This works both ways. Men who are 55 or 60 or 65 or older CAN still create children. But they shouldn’t. However, the news is filled with men who procreate with their fourth (or whatever number) wife or girlfriend at whatever age (mostly celebrities, because who writes news articles about the guy next door that has been married four times and has 12 children – his last at 65). And the general thought is “good for him”. Because it’s obviously not disgusting or irresponsible for a man to create a life at 65 when he won’t be around to raise it, pay for college or walk it down the aisle. But when women around the world have ‘procedures’ to have babies, we all (including ME) scoff and say “she’s too old. She won’t even be around to raise the child. What was she thinking?”

So, although I believe in a two-parent home with a mother and a father, I think that there are worse things than wanting a child as a single woman without a viable male-person in your life. It’s not the easiest way to go, but in all honesty, Jennifer won’t be the one to raise it anyways. The nanny and the housekeeper will probably do more parenting that she will. Maybe she ought to just advertise for the nanny now and not worry about the sperm donor.