Melinda Millsaps wants to be a mom.

The 42-year-old Florida resident is a neonatal nurse practitioner and
has helped deliver thousands of babies for over 20 years. Now she wants
one of her own.

The only problem is she’s single, and doctors at the UF/Shands
infertility clinic turned her away when she came to them to undergo
artificial insemination. That was two years ago, and ever since then,
she has been fighting to get the doctor’s decision overturned.

This was all reported in the Oct. 31 edition of the Gainesville Sun.
The reason doctors at the clinic turned her away is because they have a
policy to only offer their services for artificial insemination or in
vitro fertilization to heterosexual couples. Their policy is based on
several factors, including scarce resources and the fact that they do
not consider not having a male partner a medical condition.

The dilemma is not new.

In a 1994 report from an ethics committee of the American Society of
Reproductive Medicine, and in response to an increasing number of single
women seeking artificial insemination, a guideline was established
regarding the practice. The report states, “We believe that the child’s
best interest is served when it is born and reared in the environment of
a heterosexual couple in a stable marriage. Therefore, we find it, in
general, ethically questionable to offer infertility services to single
individuals who do not provide this most appropriate environment.”

Well, I, for one agree with the ethics report, as well as with the
doctors, and applaud them for standing on sound principle.

This is, of course, going to fly in the face of every feminist who
believes that women are immeasurably better off without men in their
lives. But what’s interesting here is not just Melinda Millsaps, it’s
every woman who believes there is nothing wrong with artificially
oneself to become a single mother.

This whole absurd idea is nothing less than the result of radical
feminist dogma.

Many women who came of age in the war of the sexes have now become
what can only be described as casualties. The radical feminist movement
characterized men as chauvinistic pigs and offered up as truth that the
only difference between a woman and a man was a few physical attributes.
Feminist dogma pressed for unfettered access to every bastion of
manhood, regardless
of propriety, and shoved an entire generation of women out into the
workforce not by encouragement, but by shame. Instead of leveling the
playing field, this agenda effectively doubled the average woman’s
workload at the same time it simultaneously unencumbered an entire
generation of men of their obligations as fathers.

It was the belief that women could both bring home the bacon and fry
it up in a pan that compelled a staggering number of women to put off
both marriage and childbearing in pursuit of careers, to a point that
surpassed many a woman’s biological clock.

Regarding her decision to have a baby as a single woman, Melinda
Millsaps said, “This isn’t the way I wanted to do it. I wanted the
husband and the house and the dog and everything. But Prince Charming
never came along. I didn’t want to marry a loser, but I’ve always wanted
a baby.”
Imagine that. She didn’t want to marry a loser.

A whole lot of women felt the same way, and all were waiting for
Prince Charming, the perfect man who was not like all those chauvinistic
pigs. Prince Charming was sensitive and expressive and would bow down to
a woman’s demands. Unfortunately, no women will ever find that prince if
she’s looking for him.

Unlike the losers who bowed down to feminists, Prince Charming is not
interested in self-absorbed women who demand a certain demeanor from
their men. Prince Charming appears to those who understand that
relationships evolve out of mutual admiration and respect, and to the
chivalrous notion that women should be honored, which is a position
quite above equal. So thousands of women wasted their years pursing
careers and dodging losers.

And what’s left in the wake are the children.

They are the true victims of feminist ideologue, and of the
contemptible attitude that children are better off without a father.

It’s tragic enough that so many children today have to endure the
instability and uncertainty of broken homes and absent fathers, but to
intentionally deny a child the opportunity of having two parents and a
loving, stable home is so incredibly selfish it’s beyond narcissistic.

No matter how well-intentioned or well-financed a woman might be, the
best interest of every child has always lied and always will lie nestled
between the pillar of two parents who love and respect each other.

So if Melinda Millsaps really wants to be a mother who loves and
cherishes her child, she should stop fighting to get doctors to
artificially impregnate her and start fighting for a man.

At least then, if she were to become a mother, not only would she be
able to say she holds her child’s best interest at heart, she’d be
showing it.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.