I realize this is a rather atavistic point of view, and I happen to disagree, but I wanted your opinion. Why or why not?
2007-01-08 03:59:58 · 27 answers · asked by mutterhalls 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Not any more than men have a moral obligation to be "breadwinners" The only "role" that I see having a moral obligation attached to it would be the role of "moral being"
2007-01-08 04:03:57 · answer #1 · answered by Crozzlow 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, they do. When a woman has a child, she has choices. She can give the baby away or care for it. If she does not want to care for it, then giving the baby away to a loving home where it will be cared for is the best choice. If she chooses to keep the baby, then she is definately morally obligated to provide the best care for that child. This does not necessarily mean that she needs to be a stay at home mom etc. Having a career or what ever is the choice of a lot of women. As long as she finds adequate care for her child while she is away. I am sorry, but how can you disagree that a mother is not morally obligated? Being a mother is the most important thing that you will ever do, if you choose to have a child. No other success can compensate for failure in the home.
2007-01-08 04:20:52 · answer #2 · answered by cclleeoo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I do believe that a woman has a moral obligation to be the primary caretaker of her children, and my wife would say the same thing. Dad's are important too, but there are things a Mom can do for her children that Dads just can't, especially when they're young (like between birth and teenage years).
That being said, if for some reason my wife had to work outside the house full-time, I think the next best thing would be for me to be a "stay-at-home Dad" - I definitely think one parent should be at home with the full-time focus of raising the kids - but I know I couldn't do it as well as my wife does.
2007-01-08 04:15:54 · answer #3 · answered by DGS 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think technology has made that answer a big NO, because mothers can put their milk into bottles now. Before that was possible I believe that mothers had a moral obligation to be accessible for feeding the infants, which would most likely make them the primary caretakers. (I don't think one should feed formula to an infant by choice. Its different when its necessary.)
However once the child is weaned I don't see how the woman has a moral obligation to be the primary caretaker anymore.
2007-01-08 04:09:11 · answer #4 · answered by ÜFÖ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are talking about morality, which is a personal issue. There is no such thing as 'universal morality.' We all decide, based on our upbringing, beliefs, and environment what is 'moral' and what is not.
So based on this, there is no 'moral obligation' of anyone to take care of anyone. This is a very slippery slope you're treading.
So the basic answer is no. Now mind you, women have a lot more tools and abilities as far as raising children then men do. That's just a primary fact. This doesn't mean that a man can't learn the techniques that a woman knows to raise children, it's just not as natural for men (for obvious reasons).
FP
2007-01-08 04:07:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. I think that there tends to be a stronger bond to a mother because of her role in a child's life and historically women were the primary caretakers of children. So when a woman decides that she wants to work...or even leaves her family to only see her children on weekends and gives child support...it seems really shocking. It's not fair because women were, in some ways, forced into that role. But it's not something we see very often. And it even shocks me when a woman walks away from her family...I have to stop and ask myself, "why would it be OK if the male did it?"
2007-01-08 04:05:05 · answer #6 · answered by shannonscorpio 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
c'mon people! if women want to have kids then YES they have the moral obligation to be the primary caretaker! Why do you want kids if you want to hand them off to someone else to care for? Not a popular viewpoint, I realize, but a valid one. Why do women feel the need to "have a career and be fulfilled" during the first formative years of their kids lives? It is such a short time and goes by so fast. I'm speaking mainly to married women whose husbands work, of course. Kids need their moms the first five years more than any other person. If a mom wants to go back to her career after they start school, IMO that's ok. But when they're babies, please. Yes, it is possible to survive on one income.
2007-01-08 04:09:45 · answer #7 · answered by 4 Shades of Blue 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Our society proves that children need fathers just as much as they need mothers. Women do not have a moral obligation to be the primary caretakers.
BB
2007-01-08 04:03:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
People should have a moral obligation to be caretakers of anything that needs our help. Children, the elderly, sickly, even animals and nature. Everybody.
2007-01-08 04:07:09 · answer #9 · answered by INDRAG? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes i belive so
and i believe that because as a father of three little girls all under the age of 3. I have learned that the woman have more of a natural connection with them from day one. I dont know if its really a moral obligation or not. Parenting seems to come more easily to woman than for men.
I help out as much as i can, but there is sometimes that i dont whut to do to get them to go to sleep, or stop crying.
and then here comes momma and its all good their content.
there you go
2007-01-08 04:07:32 · answer #10 · answered by skitz 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋