Isn’t Motherhood--Not Giving Birth--the Real Issue?

When 44,000-plus children in California have no health insurance, I can definitely see why Linda Dackman (“All She Wants Is a Baby; All She’s Gotten Is Grief,” March 19) doesn’t get much sympathy.

Never mind the fact that she is lucky to have affordable health care at all or an understanding ex-boyfriend. Dackman is so desperate that she moans about the “wicked insurance witch” and “torture” she has gone through as if this is the worst thing that could ever happen to her. (Not to mention that the “wicked witch” was probably some clerk only doing her job.)

Please, do us all a favor. Next time you have a First Person article, let it be about a really serious problem or experience instead of someone who has no concept of “heartbreak” or “struggle.”

JULIE T. BYERS

Temple City

*

While the article is wonderfully written, and Dackman’s plight well documented, it galls me that a 44-year-old woman feels the need to give birth to her own child at great expense (that, I may add, others pay for through their insurance premiums) and under enormous duress when there are so many children who need homes. This feeling extends to married couples in the same situation.

A friend of mine resolved her desire for a child this way: Married at 43, she and her husband were very much in love and wanted a child. They went through the whole fertility routine without conception occurring.

My friend finally asked herself if she wanted to be a mother or just wanted to have a baby. She chose motherhood and they adopted.

What is so all fired important about giving birth? Isn’t parenting the issue?

PENELOPE HELENICK ADDY

Sherman Oaks

*

I’m sad that a 44-year-old unmarried woman would bring a child into the world, sentencing it to a life with no real father. A close friend providing sperm is not a substitute.

I am also sad that an insurance company is forced to pay for this.

VICKI DATT

San Gabriel