I consider myself happily independent and rather highly educated (I am completing a doctorate at an Ivy League institution). I am moving into a senior position and building a pretty decent financial portfolio.
I am also 40 and single, and I really want to have a child.
Thus, the perspective presented by Mr Han Ming Guang ("Unplanned teen pregnancies of greater concern"; Wednesday) - that independent and financially capable women who deliberately choose to bear a child but not marry its father should not be chastised, but regarded by the state, first, as mothers - is a very attractive perspective to me.
Yet, I respectfully disagree.
Such a perspective does not benefit society. It also predetermines a system in which children are deprived of a relationship with their fathers.
First, giving benefits to women who choose to exclude the child's father sets in place a system that rewards such a decision.
The perspective does not differentiate between welfare and incentives. A woman who is left high and dry by an irresponsible husband should receive compassionate help.
But if society abets in an individual's selfish desire to exclude a child's father, Mr Han's perspective would perpetuate such actions.
We must stand for what is best for society - intact families with a father and a mother raising their children as the best building block for a healthy society.
Second, the child is at the centre of any discussion on family, but is absent from a perspective that names only "mothers" and "the state" as players.
Children's rights are human rights. To get a child (through in-vitro fertilisation or other means) because I am financially able, while imposing my choice to sever that child from his father, is not love but the abuse of power.
I have a duty to love my child's father. Children yearn for a father, and have a longing to know one's history. Money cannot take the place of a father.
Tan Mei Ying (Ms)