It's definitely not a good thing to have a child out of wedlock, but I don't think you can make a law against it - at least not a civil law. We know it's against God's law.
That's why I believe so much in the abstinence movement. Pushing birth control and "safe sex" are only encouraging kids to be more sexually active which is resulting in more unwanted babies so it's actually made the problem worse.
2007-04-16 16:54:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by Veritas 7
·
2⤊
8⤋
The woman did not impregnate herself. So do you propose she have an abortion, everytime? What about the children in fostercare or who are waiting to be adopted? Most of those children are not allowed to be placed with a male. So are they to sit and wait for a married couple? We both know, the couple will most likely choose a baby. What about the other ones? I don't disagree that father is any less important than the mother, But you didn't say that. You said a father figure. What if the husband dies. Should the mom have to get an abortion or place the children she has up for adoption? What if the husband leaves her, should she trail him in the mini van full of kids and try to convince him with a bull horn, that
he is the only person who can guide them to understanding, the challenges of life in the 21st century? What about the single fathers? What about same sex parents? You can't single out the mom for giving birth. Mary wasn't married to joseph and she had Jesus! Somebody has to take care of the kids!
2007-04-16 17:32:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
It's tough to raise a child in a one parent household, I agree. However, things happen and our current system of abstinence only sex education isn't working and more women are becoming single mothers.
Single women should be allowed the right to make that decision on their own. After all, aren't they the ones going to have to raise the child?
Case in point: My younger sister is pregnant by her long term boyfriend. Once he found out she was pregnant, he left and will not have anything to do with her or the unborn child (short of court ordered child support). Kind of sad, isn't it? In a case like this, would you advocate an abortion (which goes against my sister's beliefs) or allow her to raise the child herself, in which she understands the difficulties, but will do it regardless of the father situation?
This kind of situation CANNOT be legislated. Who would be the one to tell someone that they can't have a child just because they're not married? Would they initiate a mandatory abortion or adoption? Our conservative government is strongly anti-abortion, and with a lot of kids that cannot be adopted, what will happen to the child? Would you force the woman and man to get married even if it isn't in the best interests of the child? (think abusers, molesters, all the scum that are single for a reason. . .)
What about single fathers? Isn't a mother's role just as important as a father's role? Are single fathers automatically exempt from the "two parent" household rule?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Sometimes a mistake is a mistake. Sometimes that mistake might not have the best chances, but sometimes that "mistake" might be born to a single parent who loves that child very much. Most children in single parent households turn out to be decent citizens that are competent in understanding the challenges of life in the 21st century.
I am one of them.
2007-04-16 17:12:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by mayhemmistress 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
Yes, a woman should be "allowed" to do whatever she wanted with her life. I am 4 months pregnant and am with my boyfriend of 5 years and we are not planning on getting married. We don't see why we have to get married because "everyone does it" and are perfectly content with the way things are right now. I know that he will stay with me throughout our child's life, and anyway just because a couple is married before they have children does not necessarily mean they will stay together after the children are born. The divorce rate in the united states is so high right now that the odds of a child having 2 married parents in a household aren't very good anyway.
Also, why is a woman considered "single" if she has a long-term boyfriend, but is not married?
2007-04-16 17:03:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by ada bia 2
·
4⤊
0⤋
Just because a woman is not married doesn't mean she shouldn't be allowed to have children. Sometimes it's easier to be a single mother than be married with children. I'm a single mother (not by choice, as the father of my child took off never to be seen or heard from again mid-way through my pregnancy), and ulthough it can be tough at times I have had no problems raising my child.
After seeing what a friend of mine has gone through with her partner and father of their child I would much prefer to go it alone than put up with the sh*t that she does. He doesn't do anything, he refuses to feed the baby, won't change nappies, doesn't bath the child and basically won't go near him unless he's asleep, also every decision she makes regarding looking after the baby, he fights her on it and makes her out to be a bad mother.
I also believe that child don't nesisarily need to have a father figure, my father left my mother when I was just a baby and I have turned out fine without a father figure and looking back I don't think I particularly needed one.
2007-04-16 17:47:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by Amanda B 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
I totally disagree. I believe women can and should have children whether they are married or single. Lots of women never want to marry but want children. Nothing wrong with it at all. Sorry to say but a lot of people go their entire life without a father and they do just fine. I am married 17 years this week and have a 15 year old and a 13 year old and that is what is right for me, but its not right for several women I know. If you are a strong independent woman with good morals your kids will do just fine without a father, same goes for emotionally strong single dads. Just because one parent is absent from the picture doesn't mean the kids will grow up dysfunctional. Trust me I know a lot of dysfunctional people who had both parents in their lives. I know many who had one or the other and are very stable.
2007-04-16 17:01:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by Lisa M 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think, in this day and age, it doesn't matter. When a woman is married she could easily end up a single mother by being widdowed or divorced, and the father, though there, may not even be a good father.
And what, if the woman isn't married and becomes pregnant, do you propose is done about it? Force an abortion on someone who doesn't believe in it? Force her to give up her child, much like in the fifties? ANd what if this woman is financially able to care for the child? And what if, the woman and man can't stand eachother, but he is in that child's life from day one, and is the best father any kid could have?
There are things to consider.
2007-04-16 16:57:07
·
answer #7
·
answered by seraphim12002 3
·
7⤊
0⤋
Yes. I think anyone who can love and care for a child should be allowed to have one. Single, married, gay, straight.
Sure, being a single mother is tough. However, as a preschool teacher I have seen all kinds of families. I've seen single mothers and fathers and gay couples and lesbian couples and married couples. I've seen good single parents and bad married parents, so I don't think that marriage status is the best indicator of worthiness or effectiveness as parents.
Sure, it's nice for a child to have more than one person helping out with his/her care, but that could be a grandparent or uncle or someone else, not necessarily a second parent.
I wouldn't feel right dictating to others what they should do (assuming they are not abusing their children, of course), as I would hope people would allow me to make my own decisions.
2007-04-16 17:01:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by Meredith44 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
children don't need a father figure to understand the challenges of life in the 21st century!! women could teach their kids that stuff just fine.
also, a single woman can take care of a kid just fine by herself! it's about taking care of your resposibilities and being strong. there is a lot of help out there too. now i do think that it is always best to have a father figure in a childs life but many children grow up just fine without it. you just need to set values, morals, and be a part of your child life as much as you can.
and anyway who are you or anyone else to say who shouldn't and should have a child. get a grip!
2007-04-16 17:28:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
The best thing for a child is what God intended. A mother and a father who love each other and love the child.
If a woman becomes pregnant and is not married to the father, then that baby has a right to live. It will be much harder for the mother than if she were married to someone who loves her.
Who would have the authority not to allow someone to have a child?
2007-04-16 17:08:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by 4HIM- Christians love 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
Of course they should be allowed. I would have preferred if this question was "Do you believe that ANYBODY should be allowed to have children if they're not married?" Because men are just as responsible for making babies as women are - they need to stop being excluded because that does nothing but teach them that it's alright to sleep around and not take any real responsibility for their actions. "Sowing one's wild oats" should no longer be considered a cool thing to do.
As for the whole marriage thing - most people tend to end up divorced anyway, so I don't think it's a realistic thing to expect in this day and age at all. People just need to get smarter - sexual and reproductive health education needs to be more available in schools from an early age (to children from all religions). And contraceptives should be cheaper and more easy for people to access.
If a couple wish to have a child then they should have every right to have one. And if a woman gets pregnant accidentally - then she should have that choice to keep it if she wants. A lot of children are being raised very happily and successfully in single parent homes. Ultimately we are all responsible for our own bodies and what we do to them. :-)
2007-04-16 18:07:27
·
answer #11
·
answered by Butterscotch 7
·
2⤊
0⤋