2006-11-27 08:20:39 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
yeah
2006-11-27 08:21:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Ideally, yes. But I see no need to pass judgment on those women who can handle a child on their own. Sometimes, it's for the best. There are some men in the world that do their children a favor by not being there. And some women want the joy of being a mother without the fear of a man dominating them. I see nothing wrong with that. Then again, I'm a woman.
The article didn't quite cover this, but marriage is not a financially sound option for many couples. There are many people who would lose their health insurance if they got marriage licenses. Having and raising a baby with no health insurance is expensive and dangerous.
One couple I know did the "right" thing and got married before having a child. The husband makes a reasonable wage, but his job does not offer medical insurance. Because he makes a reasonable wage (just enough to pay for rent, the bills, and food) he and his family do not qualify for medicaid. So when the wife got pregnant, they had a hard time finding a doctor. They actually had to pay extra to get her basic prenatal care. And the cost of the delivery?! Outrageous. They will be in debt for the next 20 years, and that's being generous. If they had not been married, the woman and her baby would have qualified for medicaid and that family would not be in debt.
Besides, even according to this article, it isn't not being married before children that causes any problems--it's lack of stability. Some women can provide more stability for their children alone. And with families that co-habitate and have children, who needs a marriage license to keep the father around? A marriage license does not guarantee that the parents are in a stable relationship and it does not prevent a man from leaving, especially if he doesn't want to stay.
2006-11-27 08:42:56 · answer #2 · answered by Avie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Marriage and monogamy are not natural. Marriage is forced by religion. The only benefit, I see, is the tax break, which I don't even know to be that great.
Having children and being married are two separate things.
Having a child should be a planned/educated decision between two people that are prepared to give a whole new person a beautiful view of life and the world.
2006-11-27 08:29:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What a stupid question! Should men be held accountable for their part in the matter at all?? Women don't get pregnant on their own! Marriage is not a guarantee for a happy house hold or child hood. Children of parents who are married but not in a health happy marriage are much more at risk then children who are born into single parent families. Marriage is only strongly correlated with children in terms of economic and annual household incomes.
2006-11-27 08:27:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO. No one is wise enough to tell someone else how to live their life.
My neice is having an enexpected pregnancy now, she is considering if she and her boyfriend will get married. I don't know if a marriage when they are so young (20 & 21) is the best thing or not. Whatever they do, they have my support. The last thing they need right now is some sort of lecture about "morality".
gee wiz - I sure wish that people thought war is "immoral"
2006-11-27 08:44:22 · answer #5 · answered by sudonym x 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Uh... "required"? How are we going to stop them? Force abortions for any unmarried woman who gets pregnant? Or force marriage on them?
It would be great if people only got pregnant when they're ready for a baby, but real life doesn't work out so nice all the time. There'd just be no practical or ethical way to enforce such a requirement.
2006-11-27 08:27:25 · answer #6 · answered by Pazu 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. I think women having children BY CHOICE without a Father present is a form a Child Abuse. Every child deserves a Male and Female parent, and regardless of wealth or intelligence, to bear a child by choice without a Male parent is selfishness of the highest level. If you wish to have a lifestyle (career or partnership) that does not include a Male and Female parent, then simply don't have children.
This does NOT apply to adoption, however, where a child may be in a even more broken-up home. Then, I think the Unselfish thing to do is to adopt and raise that child.
Now, I'm not saying every 2 parent family works out, but there's simply no question that the child's best chance for a well developed mental "well-being" is with a Male and Female parent present.
2006-11-27 08:29:23 · answer #7 · answered by Paul H 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Of course not, having children and getting married are both personal choices that people have the right to make at any time. The government can't take that freedom away from you.
Can't wait to see how the evangelicals respond to this one.
2006-11-27 08:23:09 · answer #8 · answered by David M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It used to be that way it used to be a shame to have a baby and not be married but the young people just don't see anything wrong with it these days.
2006-11-27 08:23:24 · answer #9 · answered by Pamela V 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
REQUIRED? I think not. How could you require that? Have them having mandatory birth control for unmarried women? Having them have mandatory abortions if they get pregnant? This makes no sense at all.
2006-11-27 08:22:28 · answer #10 · answered by Leah 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
What are you going to do if they are not? Bone dancing has been around a lot longer than the idea of marriage.
2006-11-27 08:24:28 · answer #11 · answered by Jabberwock 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋