Topic: Pregnancy out of Wedlock
started by: Wiley
Posted by Wiley on Jun. 05 2002,19:05
I know this doesn't cover everybodies opinion ...just wanted a straw poll about the Pregnancy out of Wedlock question ...as well I thought I'd throw in a bit of the Absolute Morals question.
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 05 2002,19:16
its an ethics question not a morals question. Is it moraly wrong for a woman that was raped to have a baby out of wedlock? no
is it moraly wrong to have an unplaned child out of wedlock? Yes
Since these are both to a woman that is not married how can the answer be different?
because your discussing ethics...
and
i never got a chance to vote since it told me i already voted.
Posted by editor on Jun. 05 2002,19:18
One of IB's eternal mysteries!
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 05 2002,19:28
bah too many choices.woldguard, you are right but for the wrong reason. the answers are different, not because they are ethics (same definition as morals), but because the question is flawed.
Posted by kuru on Jun. 05 2002,19:47
As long as the person who chooses to have and raise the resulting kid does so in a responsible and sane manner, providing the loving, disciplined, stable enviornment a kid needs to grow up healthy, who the fuck am I to say whether marriage is required to make it moral?What matters is how a kid is RAISED. Not why that kid's mother chose to continue the pregnancy or how she got pregnant to begin with.
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 05 2002,19:57
| Quote (CatKnight @ 05 June 2002,14:28) |
| bah too many choices. woldguard, you are right but for the wrong reason. the answers are different, not because they are ethics (same definition as morals), but because the question is flawed. |
ethics...
1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles or values b : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> c plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> d : a guiding philosophy \
morals
1 a : the moral significance or practical lesson (as of a story) b : a passage pointing out usually in conclusion the lesson to be drawn from a story
2 plural a : moral practices or teachings : modes of conduct
You see that ethics are a grouping of morals.
The questions i used as an example are moraly opposed so you are forced to think ethicly.
<im hoping im not going to regret this>
If a woman is pregnant and the birth is going to kill both the mother and the child is it ok for her to have an abortion?
If she gives birth they are both dead.
If she has the abortion she will live and have a chance to continue to cotribute to the world.
Your moral stand point says that abortion is wrong.
but ethicly you know its also wrong to let them both die.
Posted by Wiley on Jun. 05 2002,19:59
| Quote (CatKnight @ 05 June 2002,11:28) |
| woldguard, you are right but for the wrong reason. the answers are different, not because they are ethics (same definition as morals), but because the question is flawed. |
Is it moraly wrong for a woman that was raped to have a baby out of wedlock? no
is it moraly wrong to have an unplaned child out of wedlock? Yes
Where is the flaw in either of these two questions? Isn't it Absolutly Immoral ...if so then how can different circumstances change your answers? It's like a violation of the entire concept of absolute. Have you ever heard of variables? Do they still teach that stuff in l33t physics?
Example:
I say that sky-blue is absolutley the correct color to use when painting a picture of the sky. Everybody agrees that the sky is blue ...and this color was made with the sky as a model so my statment is 100% true.
What if you're painting a picture of sunset? Or night?
You question is flawed. You have no argument. sky-blue is the color of the sky ...ask anybody.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 05 2002,22:12
I didn't mean wolf's questions, I was talking about wiley's original question. but yeah wolf i agree with you.| Code Sample |
moral: 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> ethical: involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval |
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 05 2002,22:26
| Quote |
| who the fuck am I to say whether marriage is required to make it moral? |
A person with a college education, who should be able to make judgements about life? Maybe I'm wrong...
| Quote |
| What matters is how a kid is RAISED. Not why that kid's mother chose to continue the pregnancy or how she got pregnant to begin with. |
< Studies show > that kids who are born under parents who are married and stay married do much much better in life then kids from single-parent families.
I am NOT saying that proof makes it immoral, I am saying it IS immoral, and here is proof.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 06 2002,00:14
Figures, the one time I CAN vote, I don't want to...I can't say yes or no on this topic, because there are always exceptions. It would depend on the circumstance, or from who's point of view. (the woman, the community, etc.) If I made a blanket statement, someone would point out an exception, and turn up the flamethrower to "extra tasty crispy."
"Life is an excersise of exceptions."
-Cmndr. William Riker, Star Trek TNG
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 06 2002,01:26
| Quote (CatKnight @ 05 June 2002,17:26) |
| I am saying it IS immoral, and here is proof. |
Just because you see it as immoral does not make it so.
im sure i could find a study that is inconclusive or reverses the one you are quoting.
Morals are personal and will alway conflict with someone else's.
And CK, you never did answer the ethical delema above...
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 06 2002,01:30
Just because YOU can't make the distinction between right and wrong, doesn't mean the distinction doesn't exist.I'm sure I could refute any studies you find to prove me wrong, because they would be wrong. We could go in circles like that for ages, it wouldn't really prove anything.
Morals are NOT personal, if they were, they wouldn't be called morals.
and yes, I did answer the question.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 06 2002,05:24
| Quote (CatKnight @ 05 June 2002,21:30) |
| Morals are NOT personal, if they were, they wouldn't be called morals. |
The code that you have up there doesn't say whether or not morals are personal. Please, elaborate on why they are not.
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 06 2002,13:58
| Quote (CatKnight @ 05 June 2002,20:30) |
| and yes, I did answer the question. |
| Quote |
| <im hoping im not going to regret this> If a woman is pregnant and the birth is going to kill both the mother and the child is it ok for her to have an abortion? If she gives birth they are both dead. If she has the abortion she will live and have a chance to continue to cotribute to the world. Your moral stand point says that abortion is wrong. but ethicly you know its also wrong to let them both die. |
No, you did not
Posted by kuru on Jun. 06 2002,14:43
CK, that doesn't show a thing about morality, and you've made a big mistake with your assumptions.1. You assumed that all kids of single parents are doomed to failure.
2. You assume that two parents are 'always better' off than kids raised by single parens.
In all actuality, if a kid's father is a raging abusive alcoholic, and his mother is a supportive and stable person, that kid would be far better off with Mom alone than with both Mom and Dad around.
Your biggest mistake is applying an average as if it means 'true in all cases'.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 06 2002,19:04
you must be out of legitimate arguments if you are critisizing me for minor details like that. so my response is:who cares
Posted by kuru on Jun. 06 2002,20:53
Since you keep starting threads in which you criticize people whose morals are not identical to the ones you hold I would say..Who cares?
CK does.
Posted by joelthegreat on Jun. 06 2002,21:09
Pregnancy out of wedlock, I believe is NOT moraly wrong. There are many circumstances to take into consideration. It could have been a "mistake." (the only 100% way of not having a child is not having sex). That does not make it moraly wrong. For example: the brakes in your car fail, and you run into an old lady. It is moraly wrong to run over old people yes, but it wasn't your fault. It was faulty equipment. Also, some states don't allow same-sex marraiges, so what if two "women in comfortable shoes" (lesbians) decide they want a child and one gets artificially pregnant...does that make it morally wrong? They are not married?
Anyways, I probably just made an ass out of myself. Oh well.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 06 2002,22:28
one of the biggest problems with all the studies that "prove" that single-parent homes are bad for kids is that they fail to consider other factors besides the # of parents.for example, I'd be willing to bet that as a group, single-parent families are a lot poorer. I'd also be willing to bet that the mothers, on average, come from a much lower rung on the social ladder than do two-parent homes. And I'd bet that on average, the FATHERS of single-parent kids are a lot shittier than in two-parent homes.
So while some small-minded people decide that it must be single parents that cause all the trouble, IMHO they've got it all wrong.
The same shit that fucks up kids (violence, poverty, etc.) also creates a lot of single parents.
Meanwhile, the best momma I've ever known had her baby at 19. She's still not married. Her child is one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, and well-behaved kids I've ever met. So there is at least one exception to the rule...
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 07 2002,04:48
Marriage can be looked at in one of two ways. One, it's an official, legal bonding between two people that affects taxes, various rights and jurisdictions (such as over their children), etc. Two, it's a religious ceremony to honor the commitment between two people.Typically, marriage is used in the former sense, and sometimes also in the latter sense.
But what is it about not being married that could possibly have anything to do with your ability to raise a child? If you're religious (and obviously, depending on the religion), maybe you feel you have some commitment to not piss off god by having sex prior to paying a church $20,000. But what if you're not?
Coming from a secular perspective, doesn't it seem a little silly to suggest that it's a moral offense to have a child without first agreeing to change your tax status and officially declare somebody else to be your life partner? The important part is for the family unit to be tight, and for the parents to be able to love and support the child. Whether or not the technicality of marriage has occured or not has no impact at all on their ability to raise the child. Other than a religious perspective, how could this possibly be seen as immoral? My aunt and uncle had both of their kids before they were married, they lived together for years (as is common in many countries) -- have they commited some kind of hideous atrocity whose sinister vileness is so satured with immorality that it's actually quite hard to find?
Sure, coming from a religious perspective you can think up lots of reasons why it's immoral (that's the cool thing about religion -- you don't need to justify arbitrary rules, you can just say that's the way god likes stuff done). But from a secular perspective there seem to be far more imporant things to think about before marriage. And you're certainly not hurting anybody (unless I'm missing the link between having a child out of wedlock and an increase in teen suicide....), so I really can't see any justification for judging a person immoral for it.
BTW, a lot of this discussion seems to have focus on single parents vs non-single parents. non-single non married parents exist (though not in the United States as much as some Euro countries), and I don't think there's been a lot of secular reasoning to claim that they're immoral.
Posted by Wiley on Jun. 08 2002,16:06
Wow, he's good.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 09 2002,00:07
hey yeah that's a good argument, except that it's not. What is generally assumed is that out-of-wedlock would mean that the parents are not together to raise the child. also comparing failing breaks to voluntary sex is absurd.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 09 2002,04:09
| Quote |
| What is generally assumed is that out-of-wedlock would mean that the parents are not together to raise the child |
first off that's more true for the US than anywhere else. Like I said, in various other countries (like Sweden) it's quite common for couples to be together (possibly with children) long before they're married. Oddly enough their divorce rates are astronomically lower too... (for those who need it...that was slightly sarcastic)
secondly if that were the case then the question should be reworded to ask is it moral to be a single parent? Since it seems you're equating out of wedlock with "not together" and deriving your harms from the "not together" aspet. Pay attention...I'm really not twisting your words or anything...
syllogism (sp?) time:
1. out-of-wedlock == not together
2. question was "is it immoral to have child out-of-wedlock"
3. question can be reworded (because of 1) to "is it immoral to have a child if you're 'not together' with someone else" or "is it immoral to have a child if you're a single parent?"
now, see my previous post for why out of wedlock but together shouldn't be immoral from a secular point of view (I'm not too concerned with the religious point of view, probably because I'm a staunch atheist). Is it immoral for someone who's single to have a child? I don't think so. Maintaining a relationship and raising a child are two different skillsets. Could go into this more if you contest, but I think it's fair enough to assert (let me know if it's not). If you can't maintain a relationship (and this very likely might be the partner's fault), I don't see why that would render immoral your having a child. Sure, single mothers probably have it harder, but so what? If you have a more difficult time providing for your family does that make you immoral? (hint: "no").
Posted by CycleLady on Jun. 17 2002,22:20
Providing for a child or children is tough for a single parent household. I don't see any logic in calling that individual "immoral." If that individual is trying their best, why slam him or her? What I do have a problem with is an adult who is spending his or her cash on drugs or booze instead of feeding their kid(s). Abandonment of children is also a major issue. One case I know of was that of a woman who worked jobs that took her from one city to another. Where were her children while she worked? With her friends, who by the way... raped... the... kids (both children were under the age of 1-1/2 at the time). The mother eventually abandoned the kids with a friend, and that friend abandoned the children with an agency. This gal plunked those kids down in that office and LEFT.
I think folks need to get some perspective on this issue. There are many people in this world who are parenting alone and doing a fine job. Instead of pointing fingers at them and calling them "immoral" they really ought to be praising them for trying their best.
Posted by wix on Jun. 18 2002,05:28
Why on earth does it matter if a) someone has sex out of wedlock or b) they have kids out of wedlock.Religiously, morals/ethics (whenever you guys figure out which one it really is, I don't care much either way) are absolute, but in reality they are relative.
Good and evil are simply concepts which are engrained in us and something that we have to learn to overcome. Humanity is all we have, and all we need, and until we can abandon social conditioning for what is best for oursevelves (and I think logically follows) our offspring, we're stuck in a rut denying human nature.
I choose not to say that it is either moral or imoral simply because I don't believe it can be applied in this case. Good and Evil has either no bearing or no application to having children, because having kids is an Amoral act-- a process of human nature. Taking an arbitrary, and completely socially constructed item such as two parents or marriage, or demanding that children be born into a nuclear family, seems as rediculous to me as saying it's immoral to bring children into anything less than a one man-six woman marriage. The social constraint for this "morallity" is abstract at best and isn't nessicary.