Over at Ann Althouse's blog, the newest thing is the fad of single mothers perusing sperm donors online, having the sperm shipped to their doctor, and then of course, having babies as consciously-chosen single mothers. It goes without saying that these mothers have the means to support the children, since they are trying to have children.

Many of Althouse's commenters (mostly conservatives, as Althouse's blog is home to mostly conservative, though reasonable, viewpoints) generally responded in horror, saying that it would be terrible for children to grow up without fathers. Many posters even said that the children of these women were almost certain to become criminals, citing studies (although not giving links to sources) that say over 90 percent of men in jail were raised by single mothers. The problem I have with this assumption that these children will grow up to be criminals is that, first off, it really makes no sense.

Most children who are born to single mothers are born to single mothers who unintentionally became pregnant, and who do not have the resources to provide for their child. In these situations, no doubt, the child is more likely to become a criminal, however there is no indication that is because of lack of a father, but rather that it is a product of the poverty in which the child grows up.

When mothers choose to have a child as a single parent, and they have sufficient resources to take care of the child, there is no reason the child should be predisposed in any way to any criminal activity. If this were true, children in which the parents divorced when the child was very young should be just as likely to become criminals as children of povery-stricken single mothers. The reality of the situation is nothing like this. Poverty and ignorance are the greatest factors that contribute to criminality, and there is nothing to indicate that these children of well-off single mothers will be any more prone to violence or theft than anyone else.

Of course it is an entirely different subject if people think that a male role model such as a father is necessary for the child to be "completely healthy" in mind and body, but it is really no one's business but the mother's and the father's -- both whom have consented to the insemination procedure -- who actually raises the child. What of children who are raised by grandparents, or a single grandparent? What of children with 2 parents who they never see, who are constantly in day care? There are innumerable less-than-ideal (in the traditional sense) family situations, and people need to realize that this is the reality of the world. Just because something is different doesn't mean it is unhealthy or will make children into criminals.

Of course most children would probably rather have two parents, however the cries from the crowd at Althouse's blog that these women were "selfish" seem to be nothing but holier-than-thou condescension. There is nothing selfish about wanting to bring life into the world if you believe that you can provide for the child, which without a doubt these women do believe. There are probably many two-parent couples who do a worse job of taking care of children than these competent single mothers. In short, I think it is wrong to judge these women and assume they are "selfish" and treat children as "accessories," as many claimed. Why is it that the motives of couples in having children are always unassailable, but single women who want children are assumed to be petty and selfish?

Thankfully these people do not have the power to enforce their small-minded and shallow views of what is right and wrong.