That way we can make people to listen to specific ideologies before they can have the right to choose what to do with their lives, minds and bodies. The premise is they're wrong.
The premise is that ther is a responsibility that comes with being in a sexual relationship that extends beyond one's own body. The other person, and the REAL possibility of conceiving a child. And with that, the responsibility that comes with becoming a parent and that anything less than putting that child first is wrong. Every child deserves to be first in the lives of its parents. And that is the issue.
I have to agree. Everybody's doing ti doesn't make it. But having the right to decide about my life does.
You certainly do. But sex is not only about the individual, it affects your partner(s) and any children that you might conceive while being involved with a sexual relationship.
People's basic freedom to choose can't go against good of society in general.
So it's ok for me to drink and drive, and whoever I kill is just SOL? I can commit hate crimes and that's ok, because I have the right to do what I want? I can take things from other people and it's ok b/c hey, it's my basic freedom and the good of society be damned?
Please, links.
Scientist have been wrong so many times before it's not even funny.
I don't know where you live, but if you listen to Loveline with Doctor Drew Pinsky, he touches on a lot of what I'm talking about. As far as other research goes, if you are really interested, I'll have to search them out. They are not all online sources.
I don't know. What happens?
They all become mugs? Or do drugs? Because as far as we know, that happens to all kind of people. Not specifically those conceived outside a commited relationship.
Do the parents stay together and raise the child? Does the child even know who both his parents are? FOr specific research, I'll have to defer to the general info I can recall.
Emotional issues.
Attachment issues.
Self-worth issues.
For issues outside the person themselves: Who cares for that child if they are not being raised by two parents committed to each other?
Again, what is best for the child? It's being raised by two biological parents who are committed to being together and committed to doing what is best for that child.
What is best for that child cannot happen if the parents are not committed to being with each other and committed to the child.
Then you have issues that involve teenagers who can't afford children and they become a financial burden on the government. Is it REALLY the responsibiliity of the government to care for children? It is a gov't's responsibility to care for those who cannot care for themselves, but a child is the responsibility of it's parents FIRST. The gov't steps in when the parents are unable to care for that child.
Just imagine if the number of children who were cared for by the gov't were reduced by 1/2. Imagine the reduction in financial burden, and imagine the BETTER life those kids would have being raised by 2 parents committed to each other and the best interest of the child.
Also, you have teenagers trying to care for children who don't even know what's best for themselves let alone a helpless child.
You're spreading this kind of ideology where people's lives are pre-determined by moral factors you and some other people handle better. People are not free to choose what kind of people they will be, they're predetermined by moral behaviour of their parents. Lol at that.
And what I'm advocating is parents taking the time to teach their children what sex is really about and the responsibilities that come with it.
However, I disagree that they are pre-determined to be anything. Certainly their lives are shaped by their parents and event in their lives, but every person at some point has the power to change their own life for the better. If you couldn't there wouldn't be any point in living.
How ignorant and insulting it is to say that people cannot change their lives and that they can't make decisions for themselves. What about people that grow up in bad situation and manage to get out and make their life something to be proud of. It happens.
You are influenced by your parents and events in your life, but you, the individual have the ability to change your life if you don't like where it is headed. No one makes you do anything. Ultimately, it is your decision. Whether it is to have sex or not have sex, to go to college or not go to college, to take responsibility for your own actions or blame others for your lot in life, or make children a priority in your life or allow them to suffer your own desires- it's a choice up to you.
We all have seen commited relationships that goes directly into parents that mistreat children or fathers that beat wives. It seems like every person is a single case and people's lives and behaviours can't be confined to some specific morals.
But that's no reason to say that just b/c some committed relationships are bad that children don't benefit from being raised by a couple committed to one another.
I remember a specific study that we covered in college. The finding were that a child who was raised in a home by both parents, even if the parents fought and argued, those children were happier, did better in school and it was an overall better situation than children who were raised in a divorced family or single parent family.
Parents in a commited relationship, that got married before sex and everything often leave their children and put their own lives first or their jobs first. No reductionism as your should impose a specific (personal) moral behaviour dogma as the holy solution.
Perhaps they weren't really committed then. Marriage is not necessarily the definition of a committed relationship. That committment is something personal and special between the two people. I never defined committed relationship as marriage. Look at Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russel. They were not married for years and had a number of children before they actually got married. But there's no doubt in my mind they were committed.
Defining committed relationship is a separate issue. However, I will say that committing to a relationship is a decision you make yourself, it is not a magical state of being that just happens. It is hard and takes work, but it is extrememly rewarding in many ways. (Feel free to insert love for 'committed relationship and the descriptors work for love as well. Love is more about commitment than anything else.)
Translation: Because I say so. And sounds great.
No. I am not arguing it b/c I say so. I am arguing based on the benefits to children and society as a whole. So far you haven't said anything to counter why it would not benefit society or be in the best interest of children to be rasied in a family with parents committed to each other and the children.
Sexual life is not confined to procreation.
I never said it was. However, it is the most significant consequence of a sexual life. Children conceived in a sexual relationship are the moral and ethical responsibility of the people who convceived the child.
It is a calculated risk you take everytime you enter into a sexual encounter. The moral and ethical responsibilties don't change if you actually conceive or not, just the consequences.
Every person has the right to decide how to live his life and sexual life.
But not at someone else's expense.
Now their commitment to children must come first when the procreation is a fact.
No. That commitment to children must come first b/c you can never know when you are going to conceive. People try for years and years and never conceive. Other people conceive the first time they have sex.
No contraceptive method works 100% of the time without fail. Just ask around and find out how many people you know who were conceived or became parents while a contraceptive method was in place.
Because conception is always a possibility people have to be committed to that child ahead of time, before conception, and people have to be committed to that partner so that both parents can together be committed to any potential children and give that child the best possible upbrining.
Not knowing does not absolve you of your moral and ethical responsibilities to that child. It's still your responsibility.
As soon as he knew, he was there with him and I'm sure he won't leave him alone in the future. So far, Jason is having a great mother and father with Lois and Richard. One day he'll know the truth as many adopted children has to know truth and their lives are not ruined by that.
[/quote]
Jason is not like an adopted child, though. His biological dad didn't care enough about his mom or the moral and ethical responsibilities associated with being in a sexual relationship and abandonned mom for 5 years w/o a word.
And many childrens lives are damaged greatly when they find out the person they thougth was their natural father for their whole life turns out not to be and some other person, perfectly capable of being a parent just didn't care enough to do the right thing.
That is Superman's case.
