NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it immoral to have a child out of wedlock and decide to raise that child? Does the answer to this question depend on age, sex, income, net worth, or other factors?

No it's not provided that you can and will give that child all the resources, love and support it needs to maximize it's chances of becomming a happy and healthy person.

No.

Is it immoral to have a child out of wedlock and decide to raise that child? Does the answer to this question depend on age, sex, income, net worth, or other factors?

I believe not, provided, as DC says, you can provide for such child.

Depends on your set of morals.

Nope.

Is it immoral to have a child out of wedlock and decide to raise that child? Does the answer to this question depend on age, sex, income, net worth, or other factors?
No, it may be immoral according to some moral systems, but IMHO it's more illogical than "immoral." Raising a child is a full-time job for at least one person, and if that person has to work, the child suffers, whether we like to admit that or not.

No

Is it immoral to have a child out of wedlock and decide to raise that child? Does the answer to this question depend on age, sex, income, net worth, or other factors?
Yes, it is. What you should do instead is eat the child and then throw yourself into a volcano or deep fryer (whatever is more convenient) to wash your immorality.

No. What would be immoral about it?
A child might do better with two parents, but why would it be a moral requirement for them to be married?

the unpopular opinion is yes. It cheats the child out of many things that can only be provided in a household with two parents.

I should point out that there are a lot of things that I find immoral that are none of my business, and this would be one of them.

"out of wedlock" doesnt necessarily mean that the child doesnt have two parents.

No there is nothing inherently wrong with an unmarried couple having a child, nor is there anything inherently wrong with being a single parent.

No, but it is immoral for only one parent to take part in raising the child. Both parties are responsible for bringing that person into the world, and both have a duty to see that the kid makes it into adulthood in reasonably good shape physically, mentally and emotionally.

No, but it is immoral for only one parent to take part in raising the child. Both parties are responsible for bringing that person into the world, and both have a duty to see that the kid makes it into adulthood in reasonably good shape physically, mentally and emotionally.
OMG! We agree again! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! [ faints ] :D

There are not objective moral values, the the question is moot (unless you posit a intersubjective stardard).

No, it may be immoral according to some moral systems, but IMHO it's more illogical than "immoral." Raising a child is a full-time job for at least one person, and if that person has to work, the child suffers, whether we like to admit that or not.
That has little to do with marriage, and more to do with income. There are plenty of married couples who require two incomes to survive; there are plenty of unmarried couples who live, and stay, together; there are probably even a few single parents with enough money to stay at home full-time looking after their child(ren).

Edit: And there are plenty of people who'd have you believe that all single parents deliberately wind up that way, just for a work-free life at the expense of the state...

For Christian believers yes it is immoral. But not everyone is a Christian so...you have to make up your own mind

Depends on your morals. It's not against mine, but not everyone agrees with me.

"out of wedlock" doesnt necessarily mean that the child doesnt have two parents.

No there is nothing inherently wrong with an unmarried couple having a child, nor is there anything inherently wrong with being a single parent.
ah, but I think it's immoral to live with/ have sex with someone to whom you are unmarried, so it would still be immoral to me.

(however, that's another one of those things that's none of my business)

"out of wedlock" doesnt necessarily mean that the child doesnt have two parents.

No there is nothing inherently wrong with an unmarried couple having a child, nor is there anything inherently wrong with being a single parent.
i agree, they could have just decided that they wouldn'tlike to be officially married

No it's not provided that you can and will give that child all the resources, love and support it needs to maximize it's chances of becomming a happy and healthy person.
I agree

If we're defining the bounds of the question as only dealing with the married/nonmarried status of the parents, then no it's not immoral. That's leaving out the question of support entirely. With no modifying circumstances, no one can logically say that simply having a kid out of wedlock is wrong.

Now if you're going around having kids and skimping on providing for them, using one's unmarried status as the loophole, then that is wrong, because there is an identifiable harm to the child.

ah, but I think it's immoral to live with/ have sex with someone to whom you are unmarried, so it would still be immoral to me.

(however, that's another one of those things that's none of my business)

So... Immoral to you? That barely makes sense, usually when someone make a moral claim, they mean that its binding and applies to everyone (is objective). "Moral or immoral to me" (i.e. only applies to the speaker) is a strange way to understand morality. Essentally, your saying that morality is nonbinding, thus moot.

No. But then I have to declare a personal interest. My wife and I had our kids before we got married.

So... Immoral to you? That barely makes sense, usually when someone make a moral claim, they mean that its binding and applies to everyone (is objective). "Moral or immoral to me" (i.e. only applies to the speaker) is a strange way to understand morality. Essentally, your saying that morality is nonbinding, thus moot.
since I don't go about trying to force my moral view on others the point of what I find immoral and what I don't is pretty moot, don't you agree?

So... Immoral to you? That barely makes sense, usually when someone make a moral claim, they mean that its binding and applies to everyone (is objective). "Moral or immoral to me" (i.e. only applies to the speaker) is a strange way to understand morality. Essentally, your saying that morality is nonbinding, thus moot.
What you have described is the reason why trying to make laws that bind all that are based on "morality" is a really bad idea. Morality is indeed subjective and individual, and based on the perspective of the person doing the action. That's why law needs to be based on something more substantive.

since I don't go about trying to force my moral view on others the point of what I find immoral and what I don't is pretty moot, don't you agree?

Well... belief in binding morality usually involves duties and obligations to uphold its principles. What a strange moral system that would allow one to aviod upholding their moral obligations. If children outside of marrage is objectivly wrong and you have a duty to uphold moral law, then your inaction is immoral.

What you have described is the reason why trying to make laws that bind all that are based on "morality" is a really bad idea. Morality is indeed subjective and individual, and based on the perspective of the person doing the action. That's why law needs to be based on something more substantive.

Agreed.

This issue is exactly why gay marriage is so important. Gay couples adopting out of wedlock... the sheer thought of it is enough to make me go mad.

Well... belief in binding morality usually involves duties and obligations to uphold its principles. What a strange moral system that would allow one to aviod upholding their moral obligations. If children outside of marrage is objectivly wrong and you have a duty to uphold moral law, then your inaction is immoral.
I think Sminkee's point (and mine, as well) is that personal morality is not binding on others.

No it's not provided that you can and will give that child all the resources, love and support it needs to maximize its chances of becomming a happy and healthy person.
Seconded, though one resource in particular that I feel is worth highlighting is contact with different kinds of people. Kids need to have others to relate with from a young age, and not just their schoolmates. I'd think that a child with two parents (even if not married, arguably especially if not married) would be more likely to have a broader range of friends and acquaintences (some with their own kids, even) for the child to get to know and learn to interact with as they grow up.

No, wedlock is irrelevant in this case. What matters is the devotion to the child. There are plenty of married people who have children and aren't good to them, and there are plenty of unmarried people who have children and are good to them. Wedlock has nothing to do with that, and in terms of having a child, what matters is what happens with the child.

Is it immoral to have a child out of wedlock and decide to raise that child? Does the answer to this question depend on age, sex, income, net worth, or other factors?
Of course not. Whether or not a person is married has little to do with how able a parent they will be.

I think Sminkee's point (and mine, as well) is that personal morality is not binding on others.

Then its not morality, its just personal sentiment and who care about that, if I happen to disagree, you have no means to compel me. If Sminkee is only expressing a personal sentiment, I’d like to know why he holds that belief, it seems queer, provided that a marriage is just a legal institution and not some natural thing.

Is it immoral to have a child out of wedlock and decide to raise that child? Does the answer to this question depend on age, sex, income, net worth, or other factors?

It was an immoral act to begin with, but the best course of action at this point is to atone by getting married as soon as possible. Your relationship will endure as long as the best interests of the child are paramount in the parents' minds.

Otherwise, adoption is an alternative. There are so many married couples looking to adopt a child because they cannot have one on their own.

It was an immoral act to begin with, but the best course of action at this point is to atone by getting married as soon as possible. Your relationship will endure as long as the best interests of the child are paramount in the parents' minds.
marriages are not built on a child's best interest, niether will it be enough to make one last.

just because it's immoral doesn't mean there is a way to "fix it" even by trying to fix what you percieve as the moral dilema.

Are you in an exam right now? ;)
Are we answering something for you?

The answer is No
But you won't get many marks for a one word answer (or giving other people's reasons)

Then its not morality, its just personal sentiment and who care about that, if I happen to disagree, you have no means to compel me. If Sminkee is only expressing a personal sentiment, I’d like to know why he holds that belief, it seems queer, provided that a marriage is just a legal institution and not some natural thing.


1) I am FEMALE (but I will let it slide since you are new)

2) it's Smunkee, Smunk, or Smunkeville, no other variations are acceptable*

3) I have a very clear view of what is moral and what is not, and I don't believe it is moral to legislate morality.

*this rule does not apply to a select few

marriages are not built on a child's best interest, niether will it be enough to make one last.

just because it's immoral doesn't mean there is a way to "fix it" even by trying to fix what you percieve as the moral dilema.

Perhaps the child ought to be first in the minds of all parents.

I know you are still in high school, but your perspective will change once you have your own child, preferably after you're married.

Perhaps the child ought to be first in the minds of all parents.

I know you are still in high school, but your perspective will change once you have your own child, preferably after you're married.
married for 6 years, have a 5 year old and a 3 year old, but nice try.

Putting the children first in all things, is a disaster waiting to happen, children do not function well if their parents are in a bad marriage.

married for 6 years, have a 5 year old and a 3 year old, but nice try.

Putting the children first in all things, is a disaster waiting to happen, children do not function well if their parents are in a bad marriage.

Children function better in a bad marriage (assuming there is no abuse) then when their mother (or father) is dating or even if they are raising the child alone. It is we (older people) that put our own self-interest first (and pretend it's the child's) that is the error.

But, I'm just saying this, I know that morality is up to each person individually. There is no right and wrong beyond what you make of it. We evolved from the Chimpanzee so their is no point to life.

Perhaps the child ought to be first in the minds of all parents.

I know you are still in high school, but your perspective will change once you have your own child, preferably after you're married.

No, some things are still more important than the child. For instance, killing a bunch of people so that the child can live isn't cool. (Don't tell me why that would happen, I don't know, but if there were a situation.... I'm just making an extreme example to give you the idea of what I'm talking about.) :/

But the child is more important than many things, yes, and the parents should be focused on that.

Is it immoral to have a child out of wedlock?

Not if the child is loved and cared for.

Not if the child is loved and cared for.

That UN Declaration of Children's Rights that the UK follows so closely, should say that children have a right to a mother and a father, instead of the garbage that it has in there now about children having a right to their own copy of the Communist Manifesto.

Kill every "child" born out of wedlock and every parent of that abomination.
:fluffle: :sniper:

Children function better in a bad marriage (assuming there is no abuse) then when their mother (or father) is dating or even if they are raising the child alone.
is that fact or personal opinion?


It is we (older people) that put our own self-interest first (and pretend it's the child's) that is the error.
a child thrives in stability and security, parents in a bad marriage can not provide these things. It is important to meet the needs of the child, it is more important to meet the needs of the family.

But, I'm just saying this, I know that morality is up to each person individually. There is no right and wrong beyond what you make of it. We evolved from the Chimpanzee so their is no point to life.
we evolved from the Chimpanzee? I seriously want my parent's tax money back.......that is SO not what I was told about evolution.

Then its not morality, its just personal sentiment and who care about that, if I happen to disagree, you have no means to compel me. If Sminkee is only expressing a personal sentiment, I’d like to know why he holds that belief, it seems queer, provided that a marriage is just a legal institution and not some natural thing.
Well, Smunkee would have to answer for herself, but I'm more interested in the idea of binding morality, because frankly, I don't believe it exists. I could be convinced, I suppose, but for now I'm a believer in the idea that morality is flexible depending on culture and individual belief systems, and that compelling another to abide by your moral code (as opposed to a legal code) is appalling and violates the integrity of the individual.

Kill every "child" born out of wedlock and every parent of that abomination.
:fluffle: :sniper:

All those silly Europeans want to do what ever they want but they won't if they die.:fluffle: :mp5:

Kill every "child" born out of wedlock and every parent of that abomination.
:fluffle: :sniper:
Why not try that again, but this time say what you want in an intellegent and reasonable manner?

Is it immoral to have a child out of wedlock and decide to raise that child? Does the answer to this question depend on age, sex, income, net worth, or other factors?

Not necessarily "immoral". Illogical and possibly a very bad move, yes. Age is a huge factor. If two teens have a kid, then it will very likely be a VERY bad move, but if it's two adults with jobs, then it's just illogical, and may not be as bad a move. Assuming the parents are both adults with decent incomes, then it would be a matter of how the child was raised.

Not necessarily "immoral". Illogical and possibly a very bad move, yes. Age is a huge factor. If two teens have a kid, then it will very likely be a VERY bad move, but if it's two adults with jobs, then it's just illogical, and may not be as bad a move. Assuming the parents are both adults with decent incomes, then it would be a matter of how the child was raised.

Why is it illogical if it is two adults with jobs? I don't see the obviousness of this statement.

maybe yes, maybe no - the circumstances make all of the difference. It certainly is a more responsible decision than abortion.

All those silly Europeans want to do what ever they want but they won't if they die.:fluffle: :mp5:

And for those of us who don't hold to mass genocide?

Yes ... or no. It depends upon a number of things, not the least of which is whose definition of "morality" you're using. Since, in our society, "moral" is almost universally taken to mean in adherance with Christian principles, then I'd have to say "yes". On the other hand, that particular flavor of morality is irrelevant to me so I'd have to say that the over-riding principle of "Keep It Simple, Stupid" is that the whole question of morality and marriage is totally irrelevant to issue, and not just to my preception of the issue.

There's some sort of misconception going around among right-wingers in this country (USA) that marriage somehow bestows upon a couple the right to have children and that nothing else does. My parents were married. My dad up and left, without warning or ever getting back in touch, which was OK by me because that meant the nightly beatings and being locked in the closet finally ended. My mom died in a drunken stupor -- 'nuff said. Were they fit to raise kids? Or was my uncle (who was, of course, married to my aunt) who got custody of me after I was nabbed off the streets by authorities -- and proceeded to abuse me (along with his pack of sons) until I ran away again?

Single parents can raise children. It's not an ideal situation, and not one I approve of. I think kids need more than one parent, if for no other reason than it almost takes two parents to make ends meet and raise children at the same time, today. Nor do I restrict it to two parents. If there are children in my family they will have twelve parents -- all of which will love and care for them equally. Needless to say, we're not "married" in the Church-inspired sense of the term. I think children need both female and male role-models, and that the earliest such role-models should be their parents. I think children need parents who can (and will) see not only to their basic needs, but also the many things that we would consider to be "merely" wants -- the things that make kids thrive, rather than just survive. If two (or more people) can meet those requirements then they are worthy parents -- married or not.

No. Or, well, it's immoral to have sex outside marriage, but if have have the kid, you'd darn well better take care of him. Or her.

Perhaps the child ought to be first in the minds of all parents. (snip arrogant and wrong comment) your perspective will change once you have your own child, preferably after you're married.

I disagree. If the couple is in a long term relationship (married or not), their primary responsibility is to each other and then the child. This doesn't say to neglect the child, but if you and your partner are on shaky terms with each other, the child will suffer.

I disagree. If the couple is in a long term relationship (married or not), their primary responsibility is to each other and then the child. This doesn't say to neglect the child, but if you and your partner are on shaky terms with each other, the child will suffer.
exactly.

I wouldn't say immoral, but maybe a little irresponsible. You have a responsiblity to the kid, and not being married to the other parent makes keeping your responsiblities that much harder.

Why not try that again, but this time say what you want in an intellegent and reasonable manner?
Is it actually possible to say "Kill 'em all" in an intelligent and reasonable manner? I ask merely out of curiosity...

It all depends on your belief system. Personally I would say yes, and not only that, it's almost always irresponsible.

1) I am FEMALE (but I will let it slide since you are new)

2) it's Smunkee, Smunk, or Smunkeville, no other variations are acceptable*

3) I have a very clear view of what is moral and what is not, and I don't believe it is moral to legislate morality.

*this rule does not apply to a select few

1) I'm not new, I've been around from the start, I guess i overlooked when you declared your sex.

2) K.

3) Again... If an act is wrong no matter what, and theres a moral obligation to stop that act, how is legislating it immoral. You've got an obligation after all.

3) Again... If an act is wrong no matter what, and theres a moral obligation to stop that act, how is legislating it immoral. You've got an obligation after all.
how do you figure there is a moral obligation to police everyone?

Children function better in a bad marriage (assuming there is no abuse) then when their mother (or father) is dating or even if they are raising the child alone. It is we (older people) that put our own self-interest first (and pretend it's the child's) that is the error.

Maybe if the parents are good oscar calibar actors they can make it work. Otherwise the child will see that the two biggest influences on his life are always unhappy together and might have a hard time being happy with another person later on in his/her life.

It might've been, fifty years ago.

Unless you were raised a whackjob.

Then, maybe.

how do you figure there is a moral obligation to police everyone?

What kind of ethical system allows their proponents to withdraw from their obligations to uphold moral standards when they please? A useless moral system.

If something is wrong, its wrong in every instance, you cannot escape that. When you make ethical proscriptions and entangle yourself with their obligations, you cannot escape them. If you proscribe that something ought not arise, and you maintain that you ought to uphold that principle (which is necessary to objectivity), you cannot consistently ignore it when it arises. If your obligate to a moral principle that apples to everyone, your still obligated to it wherever it arises. Morality applies to everyone, and you have an obligation to maintain its principles. It does not matter that your not doing the immoral act, its still immoral and you‘ve still got obligations.

What kind of ethical system allows their proponents to withdraw from their obligations to uphold moral standards when they please? A useless moral system.

If something is wrong, its wrong in every instance, you cannot escape that. When you make ethical proscriptions and entangle yourself with their obligations, you cannot escape them. If you proscribe that something ought not arise, and you maintain that you ought to uphold that principle (which is necessary to objectivity), you cannot consistently ignore it when it arises. If your obligate to a moral principle that apples to everyone, your still obligated to it wherever it arises. Morality applies to everyone, and you have an obligation to maintain its principles. It does not matter that your not doing the immoral act, its still immoral and you‘ve still got obligations.

Isn't reality itself relative? *goes off to read things on Wiki*

What kind of ethical system allows their proponents to withdraw from their obligations to uphold moral standards when they please? A useless moral system.

If something is wrong, its wrong in every instance, you cannot escape that. When you make ethical proscriptions and entangle yourself with their obligations, you cannot escape them. If you proscribe that something ought not arise, and you maintain that you ought to uphold that principle (which is necessary to objectivity), you cannot consistently ignore it when it arises. If your obligate to a moral principle that apples to everyone, your still obligated to it wherever it arises. Morality applies to everyone, and you have an obligation to maintain its principles. It does not matter that your not doing the immoral act, its still immoral and you‘ve still got obligations.
what happens when all actions meant to deter or punish said act, are also immoral?

If something is wrong, its wrong in every instance, you cannot escape that.

Sure you can.

If Betty is drunk and passed out, having sex with Betty is WRONG. However, there are plenty of instances in which having sex with Betty would be totally fine and good.

If you have no money, no job, and you are 15 years old, having a baby is a BAD CHOICE. However, if you get a job, work for a few years, save up a bit, and get some experience under your belt, then having a baby can be a good choice.

Plenty of things are wrong in one instance and right in another. Such is life.


Morality applies to everyone, and you have an obligation to maintain its principles.

Your morality does not apply to everyone. There is a "shared morality" that we all are expected to participate in, as members of our society, but there are plenty of areas of morality where we do not agree (and do not need to). It is both a waste of your time and tremendously arrogant to think that your morality applies to all people, or that you can impose it upon them.

It might've been, fifty years ago.

Unless you were raised a whackjob.

Then, maybe.

I don't know how things are in Britain and Germany nowadays, but I find it hard to believe that your society looks highly on this behavior.

I guess this is what progressives mean when they say "we're progressing."

What kind of ethical system allows their proponents to withdraw from their obligations to uphold moral standards when they please? A useless moral system.

If something is wrong, its wrong in every instance, you cannot escape that. When you make ethical proscriptions and entangle yourself with their obligations, you cannot escape them. If you proscribe that something ought not arise, and you maintain that you ought to uphold that principle (which is necessary to objectivity), you cannot consistently ignore it when it arises. If your obligate to a moral principle that apples to everyone, your still obligated to it wherever it arises. Morality applies to everyone, and you have an obligation to maintain its principles. It does not matter that your not doing the immoral act, its still immoral and you‘ve still got obligations.

Dude, so far you are the only one who has said that having a moral sense of (fill in the blank) automatically adds a moral responsibility to uphold that belief. We're just calling you out for adding information to the argument, then passing it off as if it was there the whole time.

Sure you can.

If Betty is drunk and passed out, having sex with Betty is WRONG. However, there are plenty of instances in which having sex with Betty would be totally fine and good.

If you have no money, no job, and you are 15 years old, having a baby is a BAD CHOICE. However, if you get a job, work for a few years, save up a bit, and get some experience under your belt, then having a baby can be a good choice.

Plenty of things are wrong in one instance and right in another. Such is life.


Your morality does not apply to everyone. There is a "shared morality" that we all are expected to participate in, as members of our society, but there are plenty of areas of morality where we do not agree (and do not need to). It is both a waste of your time and tremendously arrogant to think that your morality applies to all people, or that you can impose it upon them.

It's funny how this "shared morality" includes providing free abortions for all, but when a Christian, or even someone with a respect for life, objects to this, people respond "the government can't legislate morality."

It's funny how this "shared morality" includes providing free abortions for all, but when a Christian, or even someone with a respect for life, objects to this, people respond "the government can't legislate morality."
Wait, free abortions for all? When the fuck did that happen? I want my free abortion, dammit!

Also, providing free abortions to whoever wants one does not constitute "legislating morality." If the government passed a law requiring all people to get abortions, that would be a different story. But providing access to a given medical treatment for those who wish to seek it does not force anybody to receive that treatment if they don't want.

On the other hand, when people push to have abortion criminalized, they are attempting to force other people to adopt their personal moral code. See the difference?

Let's try using a similar example: right now, you are free to be Christian if you so desire, but there is no law requiring anybody to be Christian if they don't want to be. Now, what if the government passed a law forbidding anybody to be Christian? Can you see how that would be different than saying that people get to choose whether or not to be Christian?

Same with abortion, in this context. Saying that each individual gets to choose for themselves whether or not they want an abortion is quite different from passing a law that requires people to only choose one option.

It's funny how this "shared morality" includes providing free abortions for all, but when a Christian, or even someone with a respect for life, objects to this, people respond "the government can't legislate morality."

If their morality allows for an abortion, they can have one. If it doesn't, they can go without.

Your essentially saying that their are inescapable moral obligations, but you've got not obligation to uphold them, that is incoherent.

If something’s wrong, and you’re bound to uphold moral principles, you cannot escape upholding them, and that includes when evil arises around you. Your thinking that there is something stoping you obligations at yourself, but guess what, morality extends beyond you! And where morality goes, so does it subsequent obligations.

It's funny how this "shared morality" includes providing free abortions for all, but when a Christian, or even someone with a respect for life, objects to this, people respond "the government can't legislate morality."
the values of society as a whole and the values of Christians differ greatly, and most times are in conflict, which is what makes it so hard to be a Christian in America today.

It's funny how this "shared morality" includes providing free abortions for all, but when a Christian, or even someone with a respect for life, objects to this, people respond "the government can't legislate morality."

Of course the government *can* legislate morality. It *shouldn't* legislate morality. Shared morality doesn't say free abortions for all, it says that we're not going to deny her access to a procedure solely on the basis of your personal beliefs and convictions.

Your essentially saying that their are inescapable moral obligations, but you've got not obligation to uphold them, that is incoherent.
I have moral obligations, I don't push them off on other people, it's like asking other people to pay my mortgage, I signed the paper, why won't you pay?!
it's crazy.

If something’s wrong, and you’re bound to uphold moral principles, you cannot escape upholding them, and that includes when evil arises around you.
I am responsible for myself and my own contribution to society, I am not called to condemn anyone in fact, I have been told not to. God gave us free will, who am I to take it away?

There are consequences to having a child out of wedlock, both for the parents and for the child. It is not my place nor do I wish it to be, to have anything to do with "stopping" it from happening, any senario in which I could think of a way to stop it ends in actions I consider immoral.



Your thinking that there is something stoping you obligations at yourself, but guess what, morality extends beyond you! And where morality goes, so does it subsequent obligations.
morality isn't cut and dry, I seriously doubt that anyone on NSG would or even could live by the moral code with which I have burdened myself, and I think it would be immoral for me to try to force them to.

Your essentially saying that their are inescapable moral obligations, but you've got not obligation to uphold them, that is incoherent.

If something’s wrong, and you’re bound to uphold moral principles, you cannot escape upholding them, and that includes when evil arises around you. Your thinking that there is something stoping you obligations at yourself, but guess what, morality extends beyond you! And where morality goes, so does it subsequent obligations.

I think you need to look up the word "moral." The dictionary I've got right here doesn't mention obligations.

Of course the government *can* legislate morality. It *shouldn't* legislate morality. Shared morality doesn't say free abortions for all, it says that we're not going to deny her access to a procedure solely on the basis of your personal beliefs and convictions.

Actually, the government *does* legislate morality: it's unavoidable. If the government says that killing another person gets you life imprisonment, the government has just says it recognizes murder as wrong/detrimental to society (as far as government is concerned, the two are the same). Ditto for laws against robbery, slander, etc.

The thing is, humans automatically look to "somebody in authority" to back up their moral claims. So if the government happens to agree that the majority's morality is good for society, the majority is going to start thinking the government makes it right. So whatever the government does is right. The stupidity of the human race is kind of appalling.

Sure you can.

If Betty is drunk and passed out, having sex with Betty is WRONG. However, there are plenty of instances in which having sex with Betty would be totally fine and good.

If you have no money, no job, and you are 15 years old, having a baby is a BAD CHOICE. However, if you get a job, work for a few years, save up a bit, and get some experience under your belt, then having a baby can be a good choice.

Plenty of things are wrong in one instance and right in another. Such is life.


Your morality does not apply to everyone. There is a "shared morality" that we all are expected to participate in, as members of our society, but there are plenty of areas of morality where we do not agree (and do not need to). It is both a waste of your time and tremendously arrogant to think that your morality applies to all people, or that you can impose it upon them.


1) Of course, the circumstance in the former instance says its wrong, and in the other DIFFERENT circumstance its not, objective morality may say "fucking drunk passed out girls is wrong and ought not be done" but when betties not passes out, fuck away without worrying about violating that law. So your not really raising any problem.

2) The use of “bad” in this instance is amoral, its merely evaluative judgment based on a subjective standard of good parenting.

3) You did not read my early posts, I’m a moral subjectivist, I’m just challenging someone.

I think you need to look up the word "moral." The dictionary I've got right here doesn't mention obligations.

I'm talking about objective morality namely, what it takes for someone to accept an objective moral principle.

I have moral obligations, I don't push them off on other people, it's like asking other people to pay my mortgage, I signed the paper, why won't you pay?!
it's crazy.

Its not pushing it on them when it already applies to them, their in the mortgage to! lol Objective morality applies to them as much as it does to you, their just violating the principles, their enemies of goodness, and its your inescapable obligation to act!

Simply: no.

1) Of course, the circumstance in the former instance says its wrong, and in the other DIFFERENT circumstance its not, objective morality may say "fucking drunk passed out girls is wrong and ought not be done" but when betties not passes out, fuck away without worrying about violating that law. So your not really raising any problem.

At that point you are just quibbling about semantics, then. My point was that there are plenty of things which are wrong in one situation and not wrong in another, though there are also things which are pretty much wrong no matter when you do them.


3) You did not read my early posts, I’m a moral subjectivist, I’m just challenging someone.
Hey, I just responded to the post I quoted. If I wanted to respond to other posts, I would have. :)

At that point you are just quibbling about semantics, then. My point was that there are plenty of things which are wrong in one situation and not wrong in another, though there are also things which are pretty much wrong no matter when you do them.


Hey, I just responded to the post I quoted. If I wanted to respond to other posts, I would have. :)


But their not the same act, one involves drunkenness and beings passed out, non-consent; the other presumable involves consent, conciseness, etc; they have different moral and descriptive qualities.

There are consequences to having a child out of wedlock, both for the parents and for the child.

Like what?

Of course the government *can* legislate morality. It *shouldn't* legislate morality. Shared morality doesn't say free abortions for all, it says that we're not going to deny her access to a procedure solely on the basis of your personal beliefs and convictions.

It's sounds like your version of shared morality is simply your personal morality, but with a twist that you want to bind it on everyone. Many people think the right to life is unalienable, and would disagree with your version of "shared" morality.

The same exists for socialist programs in education, healthcare, pensions, childcare, and housing. Some may support it, but not all, or in many cases, not even a majority.

I think you need to look up the word "moral." The dictionary I've got right here doesn't mention obligations.

Since most people don't find pleasure in abiding by morality on individual occasions...(Although in the end, there is much reward, in terms of a higher quality of life, and in the simple fact of living in accordance with the higher law)...Anyhow, since they don't find pleasure in it, most morality is an obligation.

Since most people don't find pleasure in abiding by morality on individual occasions...(Although in the end, there is much reward, in terms of a higher quality of life, and in the simple fact of living in accordance with the higher law)...Anyhow, since they don't find pleasure in it, most morality is an obligation.

If morality is to have any clout, it must be obligatory.

Is it immoral to have a child out of wedlock and decide to raise that child? Does the answer to this question depend on age, sex, income, net worth, or other factors?


The question does not have as crystal clear an answer as some would think. Its immoral to have a child out of wedlock, premarital sex is a sin. But it doesnt mean you cant raise it. If you make the mistake, hey it happens im not stupid, then take responsiblity and raise it. Guys you get the girl pregnant, stick around and be the father. If the parents are married and have a truly loving relationship, the child is in his ideal situation, One of the best things a father can do for their children is love their mother. If you don't love the women you got pregnant you really shouldn't marry her, marriage is about love. However marriage between parents teaches the child many things. Point is, the situation is a tough one to do the right thing because you made the first mistake so now your stuck with consequences that dont have a perfect answer. My advice, save sex waht it was for.


If you have the child raise it and do what you can to ensure that childs health and happiness, and above all, brign that child to God, it is your solemn responsiblity as a parent.

I don't know how things are in Britain and Germany nowadays, but I find it hard to believe that your society looks highly on this behavior.

I guess this is what progressives mean when they say "we're progressing."
I'm not from either of those places. But who gives a crap what my society has to say about it, anyway? The question asked was, 'is it immoral?' and my response is no, not unless you're fifty years out of step. No-one asked me whether 'my society' finds having children out of wedlock to be immoral.

It's not my problem if there's judgemental fatheads running around out there, looking down their noses at people they don't know.

Is it immoral to have a child out of wedlock and decide to raise that child? Does the answer to this question depend on age, sex, income, net worth, or other factors?

It's tough for a single parent to raise a child.

Unfortunately, it happens way too often. Lots of boys nowadays are raised without a GOOD male role model in their life (IE, their FATHER). It's pathetic and sad. I thank God I had two parents to raise me, and even more I had someone to emulate growing up.

I do know some single parents in my church, only one girl had a child out of wedlock. She regrets it every day, because the father was a real douche and he doesn't do squat in the kids life.

I do know for certain, if I DID get a girl pregnant....I would do the right thing. I was raised better.

Read up on the early days of Christ's parents.

the unpopular opinion is yes. It cheats the child out of many things that can only be provided in a household with two parents.

I should point out that there are a lot of things that I find immoral that are none of my business, and this would be one of them.
Both my girls were born out of wedlock, and they have two fine parents.

I wouldn't say immoral, but maybe a little irresponsible. You have a responsiblity to the kid, and not being married to the other parent makes keeping your responsiblities that much harder.
:rolleyes:

I've been living with my 'spouse' for ten years. Marriage would not change our relationship one iota, and I refuse to do it just so that certain people will feel that our relationship is now 'moral' or 'legitimate'.

:rolleyes:

I've been living with my 'spouse' for ten years. Marriage would not change our relationship one iota, and I refuse to do it just so that certain people will feel that our relationship is now 'moral' or 'legitimate'.
Quite. The question is whether it's immoral to have children out of wedlock, not whether some other group of people consider it thus.

Most of the kids I know were so born. Hasn't hurt a one of them.

Is it immoral to have a child out of wedlock and decide to raise that child? Does the answer to this question depend on age, sex, income, net worth, or other factors?

Immoral? No. Very difficult? Yes.

Immoral? No. Very difficult? Yes.
Again, I think the issue has been confused.

Out of wedlock: the parents aren't married to one another

That doesn't mean one is a single parent.

the values of society as a whole and the values of Christians differ greatly, and most times are in conflict, which is what makes it so hard to be a Christian in America today.

I'm a Christian, and this issue doesn't conflict with my values at all. Being a Christian shouldn't be about subscribing to dogma, but about listening to your heart. God won't lead you astray, and Jesus' message of love and acceptance should be the most important guide for all Christians.

That said, I'm surprised that this thread hasn't touched on different cultures very much. I once read a book where the author postulated that each human group has found its own unique ways of solving ten basic problems, including food, shelter, government, and family organization, which covers this issue. Cultural morals are shaped by each group's responses to these problems.

Keeping that in mind, there is a tribe in Africa (or maybe several, I don't remember,) whose members have found a very unique solution to the problem of family and social organization. In this tribe (possibly "these tribes,") the institution of marriage doesn't exist, and when a woman wishes to have a child, the group chooses a mate for her, they have sex, and the woman gives birth to the baby alone. The entire village then raises the child collectively.

Do you find this practice immoral? Why or why not? Does our western system of values even apply to them? Actually, we could even debate what a moral IS, using this example.

well no. (the following is based soley off the mother raising the child)

but the child should have some sort of father figure in their life. refrence the waterboy herethe point is that the child shoud be taught by two people so they have the choise of what is right for them.

It's sounds like your version of shared morality is simply your personal morality, but with a twist that you want to bind it on everyone. Many people think the right to life is unalienable, and would disagree with your version of "shared" morality.

The same exists for socialist programs in education, healthcare, pensions, childcare, and housing. Some may support it, but not all, or in many cases, not even a majority.

On the contrary, I find the concept of abortion repugnant. But I understand that my feelings on the subject have no place in the legislative world, and I'd never support a public ban on them. I think legislative incursions into public morality should be limited to causing the least amount of harm to come to the fewest number of people.

Again, I think the issue has been confused.

Out of wedlock: the parents aren't married to one another

That doesn't mean one is a single parent.
Hell, there are plenty of married people who are pretty much single parents. That's the model that the traditionalists push: ONE parent cares for the children, attends to them, spends time with them, and acts as a real parent. The other "parent" exists to provide child support.

Personally, I think any child would be better off having two unmarried parents who are equally committed to being INVOLVED in the child's life, than with a set of married parents who follow the "traditional" model where Mommy is a real parent and Daddy is a pay check.

No. Next!

I find it laughable that the moralists in this thread believe that non-married parents are engaging in an immoral activity. Marriage is just a peace of paper, a legal contract that exists insofar as a state recognizes it, there absolutely nothing special about that. There’s no marriage in nature, and marriage vanishes with societies, so how could a entirely perishable institution maintain objective moral significance?

I’ve got a question to the proponents of “no children before marriage” position: If you and your partner found yourself in a position where there was no state or church to ordain your marriage, would you ignore that fact and have a child (assuming you wanted one)?

I find it laughable that the moralists in this thread believe that non-married parents are engaging in an immoral activity. Marriage is just a peace of paper, a legal contract that exists insofar as a state recognizes it, there absolutely nothing special about that. There’s no marriage in nature, and marriage vanishes with societies, so how could a entirely perishable institution maintain objective moral significance?

Keep in mind that these are people who believe in an omnipotent patriarch who invented marriage to keep His Chosen Creations in line.

Is it immoral to have a child out of wedlock and decide to raise that child? Does the answer to this question depend on age, sex, income, net worth, or other factors?

Not per se.
People may have perfectly honourable reasons not to get married - and yet still form a permanent couple to have a child ( or more. )

I’ve got a question to the proponents of “no children before marriage” position: If you and your partner found yourself in a position where there was no state or church to ordain your marriage, would you ignore that fact and have a child (assuming you wanted one)?
I've got another question:

Let's say that a closetted lesbian and a closetted gay man get together and have sex. Oops, the lesbian ends up pregnant. But the two of them have each come to realize that they are gay (I guess the sex really was just that awful) in the mean time. Should they enter into a marriage knowing full well that they are not in love with each other, and never will be?

I guess my question is really, should gay people get married for the sake of the children? :P

Having a child out of wedlock, or having a child out of commitment?
Marriage has nothing to do with the situation... it's how committed the mother/father are...
if they weren't planning on have a relationship in the first place and, irresponsibly, found her pregnant, it is immoral in that it is foolish and disgusting.

Both my girls were born out of wedlock, and they have two fine parents.
I know they have at least one LOL, I am sure you are right though. I think you missed the part where it's none of my business. I was raised by a single mother, born out of wedlock, never met my father. I can't really blame all my problems on that, but I think it probably helped me along with a few of them. I can't say that every single child that is born out of wedlock (whether having one parent or two) will end up screwed up, or even that the majority of them will. I said it is immoral in my eyes, and yet that I don't intend to do anything about it, in fact unless directly asked, I usually don't say anything about it.

I'm a Christian, and this issue doesn't conflict with my values at all. Being a Christian shouldn't be about subscribing to dogma, but about listening to your heart. God won't lead you astray, and Jesus' message of love and acceptance should be the most important guide for all Christians.
I don't subscribe to any "dogma" (in the normal sense of the word), I read my Bible, I pray, I study my Bible, I pray some more. I don't ever try to push my boundries on someone else, they are mine, it is between me and God, it's not anyone else's business. I am very careful to make sure it is God leading me and not the world, it's not acceptable to think that anything is immoral now, the fact that I have a list of things that I find immoral makes me look intolerant.

That said, I'm surprised that this thread hasn't touched on different cultures very much. I once read a book where the author postulated that each human group has found its own unique ways of solving ten basic problems, including food, shelter, government, and family organization, which covers this issue. Cultural morals are shaped by each group's responses to these problems.

Keeping that in mind, there is a tribe in Africa (or maybe several, I don't remember,) whose members have found a very unique solution to the problem of family and social organization. In this tribe (possibly "these tribes,") the institution of marriage doesn't exist, and when a woman wishes to have a child, the group chooses a mate for her, they have sex, and the woman gives birth to the baby alone. The entire village then raises the child collectively.

Do you find this practice immoral? Why or why not? Does our western system of values even apply to them? Actually, we could even debate what a moral IS, using this example.
I personally find it immoral. (and again it's not any of my business)

Of course not.

Why would you want to have a child who's already married?

Of course not.

Why would you want to have a child who's already married?
Big dowry?

Big dowry?

Size queen.

I don't subscribe to any "dogma" (in the normal sense of the word), I read my Bible, I pray, I study my Bible, I pray some more. I don't ever try to push my boundries on someone else, they are mine, it is between me and God, it's not anyone else's business. I am very careful to make sure it is God leading me and not the world, it's not acceptable to think that anything is immoral now, the fact that I have a list of things that I find immoral makes me look intolerant.


I personally find it immoral. (and again it's not any of my business)

You cant deem something "personally immoral" because its either immoral/moral or not at all. If God deems the tribes actions wrong, then its absolutely wrong (or not, see the problem of divine command), and not a matter of personal sentiment. If your want your morality to have any clout, its gotta be obligatory.

The language of morality is that of absolutes, when someone's a moral realist (objectivist) they report morally as though they were talking about impersonal facts about the world. If you don’t report moral statements as though their natural fact, your essentially saying their only subjective personal sentiments.

You say "X is wrong!" not “I personally (only applies to me) find that wrong." The “personally” in that statement undermines its moral clout, if only you if it immoral, why should anyone care? Your saying it’s a personal thing, and not a matter of shared, moral imperatives.

if its immoral to have a child out of wedlock than my whole family is fucked. thats how most of my siblings and cousins were born.

Is it immoral to have a child out of wedlock and decide to raise that child? Does the answer to this question depend on age, sex, income, net worth, or other factors?
No but it may not be a very smart thing either

Why would it be immoral?

No but it may not be a very smart thing either


how so?

You cant deem something "personally immoral" because its either immoral/moral or not at all. If God deems the tribes actions wrong, then its absolutely wrong (or not, see the problem of divine command), and not a matter of personal sentiment. If your want your morality to have any clout, its gotta be obligatory.

The language of morality is that of absolutes, when someone's a moral realist (objectivist) they report morally as though they were talking about impersonal facts about the world. If you don’t report moral statements as though their natural fact, your essentially saying their only subjective personal sentiments.

You say "X is wrong!" not “I personally (only applies to me) find that wrong." The “personally” in that statement undermines its moral clout, if only you if it immoral, why should anyone care? Your saying it’s a personal thing, and not a matter of shared, moral imperatives.


fine, whatever. it's immoral. I am not in a position to do anything about it though. hows that?

Your saying it’s a personal thing, and not a matter of shared, moral imperatives.

And that's right.

fine, whatever. it's immoral. I am not in a position to do anything about it though. hows that?

I find that position acceptable. Beside not believing in objective morality myself, hehe, but that's for another date.

I personally find it immoral. (and again it's not any of my business)

Why do you find it immoral?

Is it immoral to have a child out of wedlock and decide to raise that child? Does the answer to this question depend on age, sex, income, net worth, or other factors?
Having the child isn't immoral the act to get the child was immoral. It's not immoral to raise the child but it is not what is best for the child. All research indicates that a two parent traditional family is best for the child. Of course the older and richer a person is the more options you can offer the child but it still comes down to having the balance between the two sexes of parents that is the ultimate deciding factor.

No I'm not saying that every child raised by a single parent will end up on the junk pile. Any parent is better than no parent. That's why I support adoption (especially of older children that won't be adopted otherwise) by singles and homosexuals. But if there is a choice the balance should tip to the two parent family.

People are assuming that 'out of wedlock' means single parent.... I don’t believe it was mentioned that the child would be raised with one parent.

In my opinion you can live together as a couple without being married and the child will still receive all the love and affection (one would hope) it deserves. Marriage is becoming increasingly irrelevant these days, a ring and a piece of paper - big whoop - in most cases the intention and commitment is there anyway.

Immorality has nothing to do with it. Is it irresponsible, you mean? Depends if you have the time, love, resources, and skills to do so.

I certainly have nothing against it, but I often feel sorry for my clients who got knocked up and didn't have the heart to give the baby up, and now they're stressed as hell raising a child by themselves. It's not a fate I'd wish on many people. (Maybe evil Molly Sunderdick, who bullied me 12 years ago.)

People are assuming that 'out of wedlock' means single parent.... I don’t believe it was mentioned that the child would be raised with one parent.

In my opinion you can live together as a couple without being married and the child will still receive all the love and affection (one would hope) it deserves. Marriage is becoming increasingly irrelevant these days, a ring and a piece of paper - big whoop - in most cases the intention and commitment is there anyway.

Hear, hear!

short answer, no.What is immoral is people ostracising and judging those who do.oh, and murder.

I don't think it's the smartest thing to do, but it can turn out just fine

I was impressed by how many people responded to "my first post" some of the arguments so far have been very intelligent on both sides of the issue. It is not fair for me to stay out of the argument so I guess I should chime in.

The first thing that comes to mind is that I am confused by the recurring premise that something can be not imorral but irresponsible or illogical. Perhaps this is due to my bias. I am a Reformed Jew living in America. My view of morality is that we all have a duty to reason out what is right and wrong in a given situation. I know this might be a typical reformed jewish approach to ethical thought but I feel reasonably confident that my sense of what morality is is not too outside of the norms of Enlightenment thinking that seems to be the basis for modern morality.

Given that we need to use our reason to determine what is moral, it seems to me that it would follow that purposefully acting irresponsibly or unintelligently would be immoral.

I am sincerely interested in the counterargument that morality is not related to reason. The only thing that comes to mind is dogma based morality which I understand is important to many people but I do not like that approach too much because it seems to abdicate what I see to be our moral responsibility to make up our own minds on questions of right and wrong.

I also think it is immoral for a person to choose to put a burden on someone else. For that reason I believe that people should not bring children into the world if they cannot support them. It is immoral for someone to have a child and then expect someone else to support that child such as welfare, charities, or even the other parent if that parent would rather have the child adopted or aborted. I do not necessarily agree that people agree to become fathers merely by agreeing to have sex with a woman they are not married to (and I guess even a woman they are married to).

Please do not misunderstand me. I understand that misfortune strikes in our lives and people become ill or disabled and may have these unplanned emergencies that make them unable to provide for their children and someone should step in and offer financial support of some kind.

I also think it is is moally wrong to hurt others unless there is a good reason to do so. It seems to me that people having children out of wedlock can harm the children especially if this is a situation involving poor single parents. I think that if you are going to bring someone into this world you should only do so when you are absolutely ready to do the best job at it you possibly can. It seems that two parents are better than one and that this should be a permanent arrangement so that there is a stable family relationship.

I understand that marriage means different things to different people. One person commented that marriage is a ring and some paper. Others believed someone was not married even if they lived together for 10 years and intended to continue to do so forever. Not that it matters much, but in my background people are married merely by agreeing to be married. Regardless of how you describe it I think the permanent marriage relationship is pretty important.

Without marriage we typically see children living with their mother and probably thinking that their father did not love them or their mother enough to stick around. I have no problem with sex outside of marriage but I do have a problem with illegitimate children being raised outside of marriage (although I am all for adoption). I do not see what the problem is with permanent and stable families.

The gray area seems to be the cases of the relatively wealthy women who are approaching the end of their ability to safely deliver healthy babies but are unmarried and want to become pregnant and use a sperm donor. Obviously the kid needs a good male role model who loves them and lives with him but their is none. However, we do not have a kid who is going to rely on welfare and all the shame and embarrasment and observation of a parent/role-model who thinks it is ok to be parasites. However, the woman is being as responsible as a woman can be who just hasn't been fortunate enough to find a man to lover her forever.

Immoral is defined as: Contrary to established moral principles.

The first thing that comes to mind is that I am confused by the recurring premise that something can be not imorral but irresponsible or illogical.

People would not think it immoral if it was not part of their established principles, but could see it as irresponsible at a behavioural level.

Perhaps this is due to my bias. D’ya think?

I am sincerely interested in the counterargument that morality is not related to reason.

Of course morality is linked to reason, but it’s not exclusively linked to it. You can have reason without morals, and you can have morals without reason (I’ve heard many people use the term ‘just because’ and NOT give reason for their belief that something is immoral) - but morality is different for different people, and the reason behind it would differ as a result. It’s an individual choice / belief, not a ‘one size fits all’ poncho.

The only thing that comes to mind is dogma based morality which I understand is important to many people but I do not like that approach too much because it seems to abdicate what I see to be our moral responsibility to make up our own minds on questions of right and wrong.

to question right and wrong you must have learnt the idea of a certain thing being right and wrong from somewhere, presumably your faith, or in inherited set of values from you family, which in effect would be a dogma of sorts, just not necessarily a religious one.

Dogma:

A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.

A principle or belief or a group of them.


From what I know from friends, the Jewish faith is big on family and a united front and all that kind of thing (obviously it's about much more than that but i'm not religious in the slightest, just making a point) which is admirable, however, my best friend had an affair with a married Jewish man with 4 children for 6 years, and he thought it was immoral to leave his family for my friend because he'd be ostracised by his community, but not immoral to have the affair. That’s a whole other argument, but you can see what I mean about morals and reason differing for different people.

I also think it is immoral for a person to choose to put a burden on someone else. For that reason I believe that people should not bring children into the world if they cannot support them So does that mean you support abortion?

I do not necessarily agree that people agree to become fathers merely by agreeing to have sex with a woman they are not married to (and I guess even a woman they are married to).

they don’t agree to be a parent, but surely they understand the consequences of their actions and should be man enough to support that child, even if the relationship doesn’t work.

It seems that two parents are better than one and that this should be a permanent arrangement so that there is a stable family relationship.

Unless of course one parent is abusive, or an alcoholic – or a workaholic – or emotionally defunct – or the parents don’t really love each other and they’re only together for the child – kids pick up on stuff like that, they’re emotional sponges – and all the money in the world doesn’t make a stable environment.

I understand that marriage means different things to different people. One person commented that marriage is a ring and some paper. Others believed someone was not married even if they lived together for 10 years and intended to continue to do so forever. Not that it matters much, but in my background people are married merely by agreeing to be married. Regardless of how you describe it I think the permanent marriage relationship is pretty important.

Totally agree with you – for the sake of your initial argument I was merely pointing out that at it’s most basic level, marriage is a ring and piece of paper and not necessarily imperative in a couples ability to support and provide for their child.

I have no problem with sex outside of marriage but I do have a problem with illegitimate children being raised outside of marriage (although I am all for adoption) hypocrite.


Given that you repeatedly refer to wealth and financial stability, it appears that your issue isn’t actually 100% to do with children out of wedlock, it seems to be parents who struggle to financially support their child and may occasionally rely on your tax [insert relevant currency here] to help them out.

No it fucking well isn't.

No it fucking well isn't.

well said

well said
Well, I'm a bastard.

I don't think for one second what my parents did was 'immoral'. That's bullshit.

Well, I'm a bastard.

I don't think for one second what my parents did was 'immoral'. That's bullshit.

I dont think there's anything wrong with it - if the kid is emotionally supported and loved anyway sometimes it's the best thing in a given situation

I dont think there's anything wrong with it - if the kid is emotionally supported and loved anyway sometimes it's the best thing in a given situation
Well, I think I've turned out great :D

Well, I think I've turned out great :D

I'm sure you did

Thank you for the detailed response to my last post, Mstreeted.

One thing that I failed to mention in that last post was a recurring theme that out of wedlock birth was bad 50 years ago but somehow it is ok now. It seems to me that if something was bad 50 years ago it would still be bad today.

In Mstreeted's response she indicated that it is hypocritical to have no problem with sex outside of marriage but still have reservations about the propriety of raising children outside of marriage. Basically, theyre is no excuse to raise an unplanned and unwanted child. There are many forms of birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy and there is adoption and abortion if birth control fails or was not used. I bet that unplanned and unwanted children are more likely to become screwed up than those raised in loving families. To purposefully place your own child at greater risk of anything bad with little to no benefit is immoral.

I guess I already indicated that I support abortion.

I still think that it is immoral to act irresponsibly or unthinkingly on important matters. "Just because" is a pretty bad excuse for deciding to have a child out of wedlock. "Just because" is ok for unimportant things like what color shirt you will wear today or what you feel like having for lunch but it is not an ok excuse for bringing another person into the world whom you will be responsible for.

I do not think that anybody should be forced to be a parent. If a woman wants to have a baby over the father's objection he should not be responsible for it in any way. She does not have to have the kid it could be aborted or adopted.

As far as money is concerned, I have spoken to several young teenage mothers who believed it was none of my business if young teenage mothers get welfare money to support their kids as it does not affect me. That seems pretty dumb because I am a taxpayer and I do not think that it is good for a child to see their family supported by welfare because then they will think it is ok to live like that. Many of the welfare families in my town go back generations and nobody has worked for decades. That I am sure we can all agree is disgusting and immoral right?

I also agree with you that one nice parent is better than one nice parent and one abusive or neglectful parent. I do not think that a workaholic parent is necessarily a bad parent if that is the only quirk. However, a lot of workaholics also tend to be jerks.

There is a recurring theme that morality varies from person to person. I think this is part right. I think it is moral to seriously think about whether something is right or wrong before you do it and that as long as you do that your decision will be morally ok. Are we saying the same thing in different words?

Nope. Egg and sperm meet each other and then voila you have baby. Nothing wrong with that. Its just the raising of the child that'll be the issue.

I think it’s hypocritical of you say you don’t agree with children being raised out of wedlock but it’s ok to adopt out of wedlock, which is how your last post read. If you meant for that child to be adopted out, as apposed to single parents adopting a child, then I’ve misinterpreted your meaning.

I have no problem with children raised out of wedlock, so no,I don’t believe we’re saying the same thing in different words.

Oh, I meant putting the kid up for adoption.

I don't see what the big deal is at all, I'm a bastard my parents have never married and I like to think they did a good job.

If you have two people who love each and want to have a child why should it matter whether they are married or not? Just because your born out of wedlock does not mean you are unwanted or unplanned.