|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
Wiley 
©0®ÞØ®4+3 whØ®3
Group: Members
Posts: 1268
Joined: Oct. 2001
|
 |
Posted on: Jun. 08 2002,16:06 |
|
   |
Wow, he's good.
--------------
There's a sucker born every minute ...but swallowers are hard to find.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
 |
Posted 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.
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
Pravus Angelus
Codito Ergo Sum
Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: May 2002
|
|
Posted 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").
--------------
"Lately, the only thing keeping me from being a serial killer is my distaste for manual labor"
--Dilbert
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
CycleLady
carpe diem
Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: Apr. 2002
|
|
Posted 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.
--------------
No smoking, unless yer a dragon
..***...**..oO~~
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
wix
politically unstable
Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: Jun. 2002
|
|
Posted 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.
Edited by wix on Jan. 01 1970,01:00
--------------
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session."--Judge Gideon J. Tucker, 1866.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
