• I think that it's immoral, but I'm not against anyone that has had a baby without marriage. +4
  • It can be moral or immoral; that is between the person and their god or their belief system.
  • Neither. It just is. What if you want to raise a kid and don't want to be married? It happens and I'm sure that doesn't make up the majority of unwed mothers. For the me the problem is not preparing yourself to have a child. Being married won't necessarily change this. I've seen two parent homes where the adults are clueless. And a woman pregnant told this at the time, well it's useless posturing. Don't comment on the burden unless you're going to help pick it up.
  • neither, its just a fact of life. Premarital sex is here and isnt going anywhere. fact of the matter is, 50% of men who help create a baby out of wedlock, will refuse marriage. 34% of them will abandon the child. This cant be put 100% on the mother who loves her child.
  • Not at all.
  • it is moral to have a baby Mary had Jesus and she wasn't married
  • I think its immoral. Thats all im gonna say.
  • l think that is a immoral ...because of guys..they may give up all of his life with baby and responsibilities..dont trust and think about chlid's mood from 9 to 15
  • I think that is a personal choice. I think a lot of the older generation find it to be a moral issue. Personally I wouldn’t worry about it if I was to have a baby while I was living with someone and didn’t want to get married. As long as we are both there for the child.
  • Morality is subjective to the individual and therefore for me personally it is moral, for someone else it may not be.
  • It is neither moral not immoral. "Morality" comes into the picture only if any person is hurt at any stage. I don't think marital status determines the morality of the issue being discussed. The decision to start a family entails a huge responsibility on both the partners. We are "creating" a life; and that should not be taken lightly. Remember it takes nine and a half months between the day the seed is planted and sapling emerges. Both partners must be there for each other throughout that period. If the man walks away leaving the girl alone to carry and bear the child, it would be very immoral on his part to have put the girl through the trauma. If the girl dumps her man it would be immoral on her part, because the man is just as human, has just as much love for the unborn baby, and being deprived of subsequent contact can cause him grievous hurt. It is a mistaken notion that fathers are less attached to their children (including the unborn ones) than mothers. Once the chid is born, the onus is on both partners to see that she is properly nourished, both physically and emotionally, till at least the time she reaches a certain level of maturity. Breaking up of the partnership is grossly unfair to the partner who is left "holding the baby" so to speak, and to the baby herself. Both are hurt very badly, because both are deprived of the very vital emotional support from the third person (the one who walks away). Yes, that would be immoral too. This is not to say that these things are averted if the partners are first married. Far from it. The same things may happen. But the chances of walking away from the relationship are less as legal considerations come into play. It's just a question of whether marriage makes the relationship more stable. Ultimately morality boils down to our own sense of right and wrong. If we feel even a twinge of remorse for putting someone to hardship or hurt, then we've committed an immoral act. Whether we ignore or suppress that remorse, or are sensitive enough not to let things come to such a sad pass is entirely up to us.
  • I think its wrong, and i really dont want to get into details as to why so thats all im going to say.
  • I think it is immoral to have sex outside of marriage. If a pregnancy results, I think it would be far worse to have an abortion instead of birthing the baby and keeping it or giving it up for adoption.
  • How 'bout we just ignore the morality part of it and focus in the practical aspect and the shear stupidity factor of having children outside the bonds of a STABLE FAMILY UNIT?
  • Which ever one means I don't give a sh*t.
  • i think its wrong, and thats all im gonna say to avoid getting in an argument with moral relativists.
  • I wouldnt personally. But my mums sisters not married, her and her partner of 30 something years have had 3 kids, and honestly they're so happy together. More than my parents who're married i'd say. So i guess marriage means different things to different people.
  • 1) Without further information. I don't see a reason to consider it immoral. However, I would not say either that it would have generally a high moral value. It is just neutral. It could be considered courageous to be a single parent. But some will consider it egoistic. As a rule, only the person who does it really knows. 2) "On the other hand, marriage is not a prerequisite for having children and many married couples do not want or cannot have produce offspring of their own. In the United States, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that in 1992, 30.1 percent of births were to unmarried women. In 2006, that number had risen to 38.5 percent. Until recently, children born outside of marriage were termed illegitimate and suffered legal disadvantages and social stigma. In recent years the legal relevance of illegitimacy has declined and social acceptance increased, especially in western countries. In the United States, the highest judicial body ruled in the case Griswold v. Connecticut that procreation in marriage could be abridge by artificial contraception. In another case, Loving v Virginia, struck down state race-based restrictions. Many of the world's major religions look with disfavor on sexual relations outside of marriage." Source and further information: "- The Stigmatized: The stigmatized are ostracized, devalued, rejected, scorned and shunned. They experience discrimination, insults, attacks and are even murdered. Those who perceive themselves to be members of a stigmatized group, whether it is obvious to those around them or not, often experience psychological distress and many view themselves contemptuously (Heatherton, et al., 2000). Although the experience of being stigmatized may take a toll on self-esteem, academic achievement, and other outcomes, many people with stigmatized attributes have high self-esteem, perform at high levels, are happy and appear to be quite resilient to their negative experiences (Heatherton, et al., 2000). There are also "positive stigma": you may indeed be too thin, too rich, or too smart. This is noted by Goffman (1963:141) in his discussion of leaders who are subsequently given licence to deviate from some behavioral norms because they have contributed far above the expectations of the group. - The Stigmatizer: From the perspective of the stigmatizer, stigmatization involves dehumanization, threat, aversion and sometimes the depersonalization of others into stereotypic caricatures. Stigmatizing others can serve several functions for an individual, including self-esteem enhancement, control enhancement, and anxiety buffering, through downward-comparison- comparing oneself to less fortunate others can increase one's own subjective sense of well-being and therefore boost one's self-esteem. (Heatherton, et al., 2000). Twenty-first century social psychologists consider stigmatizing and stereotyping to be a normal (if undesirable) consequence of people's cognitive abilities and limitations, and of the social information and experiences to which they are exposed (Heatherton, et al., 2000)." Source and further information: 3) "No one is willing to have a baby without marriage, especially to a mother. There must have been an unutterably predicament that forced her to do so. A single mother has to bear so many hardships and difficulties to raise her child, so what she needs is help. Moreover, Illegitimacy is not against the one-child policy . It’s so ruthless to make their life more miserable." Source and further information:"have+a+baby+without+marriage"&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk
  • I don't know if morality really has anything to do with it. Why does someone have to be in the institution of marriage to have a baby. There are too many instances of babies being born without marriage. Marriage is only an old ceramony to prove "ownership" by a man of a woman. Aren't we to modern now than to have to prove ownership of another human being. Are women today submitting to the fact they are slaves of a man?
  • neither, just very, very stupid and self centered. What about the child???
  • Immoral, I feel like having a baby is what makes people married rather than a wedding and court papers.
  • You have to determine first, do I believe in a Creator God who has the right to determine what is best for each of the human beings He created... If you do believe in God, then it is clear He has expectations based on how He created you...these create a need for standards of behavior that allow for the greatest possible success in any human's life. A baby is wholly dependent upon the parent humans to do the right thing for them. Even simple research in human sociological studies shows that a child does best with a Mom and a Dad in a family where both are committed to the child's well-being. Christian principles declare that is best accomplished in a family of a married man and the child grows up in the best possible environment of whole commitment of the parents to one another and then the child they bring into the world.
  • Neither moral nor immoral. The moral bible thumpers would argue that it takes a commitment and all that fun stuff like a child needs a mother and father. Well, the truth is, marriage doesn't assure that child growing up with both parents either. People divorce and they either choose to stay in the childs life or just duck and run. Marriage doesn't stop that from happening. A child in or out of wedlock is a personal decision only you can make.
  • I don't think it is either. It is a bit impractical since it nearly always takes a two parent household to afford a baby these days.
  • well it seems like a trend these days. i wonder what the average % of children with divorced parents or born into a broken family would be. i don't think its right, but some things just don't work out or weren't meant to be.
  • I think the real issue is people having babies that have no way of supporting them and/or not caring for them the way they should. I was a single mom for 10 years before I met my husband. I worked and supported us just fine. It was hard, but I did it. If I would have married his father, that would have been nothing short of a disaster. I know plenty of single parents that are excellent parents. I also know of some parents that are married that have no business raising kids (i.e. drug use, abuse, etc.) Granted, being a single parent is not the ideal situation, but if society would work more towards giving these women (and some men) a hand up so they can get to a point where they can support their child, it would be a benefit to society. On the other hand, I would like to see major reforms in the welfare system so people that are able to work and are just sitting on their butts not even looking for a job or going to school can't get away with it.
  • I don't think it's immoral. Marriage is just a piece of paper & there are plenty of single parents who are far better for their children than dysfunctional couples with kids. I have seen couples with kids who aren't married, but are more committed to each other than other married peeps... I guess, I'm trying to say that there are a lot of factors.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy