"Shotgun" weddings? Do they end in more divorces/unhappy marriages?

[Murphy101]

That's very interesting, Jean. We've always used it only to mean that the bride was pregnant when she got married, not that she was forced to get married. I guess we play fast and loose with our terminology! :D

 

I guess we do here too. Coercion I suppose is in the eye of the beholder. Strongly encouraging what is felt to be the right thing to do and refusing to encourage what is felt to be the wrong thing to do is something parents usually do. And I think most of the time no physical violence is intimidated.

[GWOB]

 

 

I guess we do here too. Coercion I suppose is in the eye of the beholder. Strongly encouraging what is felt to be the right thing to do and refusing to encourage what is felt to be the wrong thing to do is something parents usually do. And I think most of the time no physical violence is intimidated.

 

I just want to address this, because I do think you have valid points.

 

Are babies generally better off in two-parent homes? I think so.

 

Are single moms capable of raising healthy children? Absolutely.

 

Is it "more" wrong to be a single parent or get married, only to end in divorce, just because there is a kid on the way? THAT is the million dollar question.

 

In my case, dh and I already knew we were stuck with each other for life. The pregnancy just expedited the wedding. In my sisters' cases (because one is pregnant and one has an 11mo, neither married) I pray to God they do not get married to their kids' fathers. The fathers are stupid, idiotic, toxic, and borderline abusive. As a Christian, I do not want them to follow up one tiny sin with a huge colossal mistake. Their kids will not be better off with their stupid fathers who will likely leave them.

 

Now, a MAN who understands his responsibility to his baby momma and kid and marries her with enthusiasm? That man is golden in my book. If it's more of a "Oh crap! I knocked you up so I guess I'm now stuck with you" kind of thing, or even if the woman feels the same way, you're just asking for a world of hurt.

[lea_lpz]

 

 

Yes, that's what I mean. This couple had a one WEEK engagement (when she is very into fashion and would be the type who would take months to find the perfect dress) and a baby on the way whose due date is "too soon." I have no contact with her, so I'm not trying to get involved in any way. I'm just wondering about their chances of long-term happiness. DH and I are inclined to think that their chances of divorce (or a miserable marriage, since this cultish group considers divorce a horrible sin) are high.

 

I think it depends on if they were dating a while and serious / in love, then if a baby pushed things a long a bit, but they chose to marry and wanted to have the baby, I do not see it impacting the chances for divorce. If they were say not serious or dating long, or perhaps approaching a break up, then got pressured into keeping the child and marrying than yeah, I could see that being a lot of reasons to increase the odds of divorce.

 

I married at 21, got pregnant 6 months later, and we had a baby a about 15 months after we'd been married. I was just shy of 22. I don't think getting married young or starting a family young is necessarily bad.

 

Hopefully they were already planning to marry and the baby just speed things along.

 

I know some couples who got pregnant you g and got married either while the bride was pregnant or shortly after the baby came. For those who chose as a couple to keep the baby and were already in love and wanted a baby it worked fine. The couples I knew (2) that felt pressured to get married by conservative Christian parents ended up divorcing within 2 years. I don't know if they felt pressured to keep the pregnancy and had not really wanted to keep the child or not (one or both), but that would likely impact the relationship.

 

I think for my dh and I having already dated a year and half before getting married, married and both chose to keep the surprise pregnancy togther without any outside pressure.

[Laura Corin]

Our 'shotgun' was the US immigration service. We are now 25 years together, 21 years married.

 

Laura

[Guest inoubliable]

 

Wait, are you telling me I should have given my oldest child up for adoption?

 

She, and all my children, have been the greatest blessing in my life. I could die tomorrow a happy woman, having lived a life that I find incredibly meaningful and amazing- because of each one of my children, and my husband. Pain and rough patches are just part of life.

 

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

Nope. Not you personally. I'd never tell someone else what to do.

I simply pointed out that there are more options than you listed for someone who was in your shoes.

I was in your shoes. I kept mine, too. I didn't marry the guy. Peace.

[Melissa in Australia]

I didn't think shotgun marriages existed any more. Hardly anyone gets married. they just live together.

 

 

 

My parents had a shotgun marriage. my mum was 16, my dad was 17. I lasted 3 years. my dad died when I was 3 leaving my mother a widow at 20 with 3 children.

[Ipsey]

I guess we do here too. Coercion I suppose is in the eye of the beholder. Strongly encouraging what is felt to be the right thing to do and refusing to encourage what is felt to be the wrong thing to do is something parents usually do. And I think most of the time no physical violence is intimidated.

 

 

I think the clincher here is your use of the word "right."

 

You seem to be intimating that it is only, and always, "right" for two people to marry if they've created a child.

 

I would disagree.

 

I think "right" is creating the safest and healthiest environment for a child to be reared in. Sometimes, that's exactly the opposite of what the child would have if the couple were to marry.

 

Just because two people are married, doesn't mean they're creating a safe, healthy environment for a child.

 

Sometimes a loving mother or father alone is better (though both would be wonderful, together with an extended family as well) than being married to a bad spouse and parent. Marriage is not magic, and it doesn't automatically make a non-parent a parent. Neither does having a baby, for that matter.

[Danestress]

 

 

The merry go round continues with they didn't have the free will to not have sex so of course they can't be expected to accept the consequences.

 

 

 

 

Marriage isn't really a consequence, legally or physically, of getting pregnant. A BABY is the consequence of getting pregnant. Marriage is just a way to try to regain social and familial approval, provide a more stable life for the little consequence, etc.

 

I am sure there are good reasons to get married when pregnant and I know people who did so and prospered. But in situations where it appears to be a bad idea, I think the 18 year obligation to support the child if the mother chooses to raise it is a typical consequence for the boy. The obligation to bear the child is a consequence for the girl. Hopefully, whether they marry or not, the child comes with great blessing on each of them too, if they choose to love and nurture the child and not look upon him or her as, "the consequence."

 

 

[Murphy101]

No. I don't think it is always right. That's why I repeatedly used the term "usually" and have the proviso that the other person be a decent human.

 

I also stated that they can choose to view it from a martyr perspective and let that add misery or not.

 

Consequences aren't good or bad. They are just what loving responsible people live with every day. I don't think that is just about saving face in the community. Especially these days when most don't marry.

 

But yes. I do think that *usually* right thing to do for two mostly decent people in this situation is to marry. *Most* of the time it will be better for them and their child in many ways.

 

If anything it's become a stigma to marry in that situation. Very few do these days and there's plenty of related negatives to that IMO.

[Murphy101]

And the consequence I was referring to in what you quoted was the baby, not marriage, since Albeto suggested being fine with aborting.

[*********]

No. The highest rate is couples who married between ages 20 - 24.

 

Seriously?! I'm gonna have to google that!

 

I was 23 and dh was 24 when we married, LOL.

[I.Dup.]

 

Nope. Not you personally. I'd never tell someone else what to do.

I simply pointed out that there are more options than you listed for someone who was in your shoes.

I was in your shoes. I kept mine, too. I didn't marry the guy. Peace.

 

 

Thanks for clarifying. Peace to you as well.

[MBM]

A lot of girls in my high school were pregnant by 16. One of my friends had her first child when she was 13. She majorly neglected her children and wound up in prison by age 18 and is still there today. Her kids have been in and out of prison as well. (This was a small reservation town in Montana.) Of the dozen or so I knew who were pregnant in high school, none of them are still together.

 

All of my aunt's six children had *shotgun* weddings (no shotguns involved) and of them, two are still together.

 

I don't know what the actual statistics are nationwide.

[albeto]

The whole merry go round logic that they have free will unless it's not because they felt pressure to make a decision that is beyond their own selfish whims.

 

The merry go round continues with they didn't have the free will to not have sex so of course they can't be expected to accept the consequences.

 

I have no patience for that nonsense tonight.

 

My point is that not all couples do have the option to simply say no to marriage. If they did, we would have seen the FLDS women walk out before watching their 13 year old daughters become the umpteenth wife of a middle aged man arranged, conveniently, by the middle aged man. We would see women walk out of abusive marriages rather than stay in due to pressure the encouragement of their church or family. We would see adults avoiding and leaving all kinds of abusive situations, but we don't, because human behavior is more complex than simply making a logical choice between one cause and one effect.

 

As the the bold, marriage is one consequence to an unexpected pregnancy (whether happily embraced, or emotionally, financially, and socially coerced, or somewhere in between). Living together and raising the child as a team is another, increasingly popular consequence. Raising the child alone is a popular consequence. Offering another family the opportunity to adopt one's baby is another consequence. Terminating the pregnancy is another popular consequence. There are objectively many consequences from which to choose, which makes marriage *one* consequence, not *the* consequence.

[albeto]

 

Consequences aren't good or bad. They are just what loving responsible people live with every day. I don't think that is just about saving face in the community. Especially these days when most don't marry.

 

And the consequence I was referring to in what you quoted was the baby, not marriage, since Albeto suggested being fine with aborting.

 

Terminating a pregnancy is often what loving, responsible people do. When compared to women who were denied abortions, those who did terminate an unwanted pregnancy were reportedly healthier, more economically independent, and far happier with the consequences.

 

Annalee Newitz of io9

spoke with the researchers

about

their study

(which is still ongoing). They found that a year after the event, the women who were turned away from an abortion were more likely to rely on government assistance, more likely to be living beneath the poverty line, and less likely to have a full-time job than the women in the study who had obtained abortions. They also registered more anxiety a week after they were denied an abortion and reported more stress a year out. They were no more or less likely to be depressed. And women who gave birth suffered from more serious health complications—from hemorrhaging to a fractured pelvis—than the women who aborted, even later in their pregnancies.

Happy home lives also failed to materialize. The women who were turned away were more than twice as likely to be a victim of domestic violence as those who were able to abort. The researchers found that “a year after being denied an abortion, 7 percent reported an incident of domestic violence in the last six months,†compared to 3 percent of the women who received abortions. The researchers concluded that this “wasn't because the turnaways were more likely to get into abusive relationships,†but that “getting abortions allowed women to get out of such relationships more easily.†Carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term helped abusive men stay in these women’s lives, but it didn’t encourage delinquent new dads to stick around: The researchers found that “men were no more likely to live with a turnaway who'd borne their children than they were to live with a woman who had an abortion.â€

 

The abortion debate often focuses on a woman’s health during those first nine months. This study shows that an unwanted pregnancy can have long-lasting effects on a woman’s body and well-being far after she carries it to term.

"

What Happens to Women Who Are Denied Abortions?

"

[toawh]

 

Uh, should I take this to mean that you expect this to be a controversial thread? I'm not trying to start trouble. It's a serious question.

 

I know "shotgun weddings" are something that is extremely rare these days, but this women is from my former cultish church. Parents are encouraged to heavily meddle in their young adult kids lives. It's like another universe compared to how I grew up.

 

Sort of had one; we did like each other though. Happily married eight years and three kids later. There were rough patches. We are very young, by average standards, but we're determined to make our marriage work and it does. I don't think the circumstances enveloping the wedding itself is a likely determination of the outcome. There are tons of marriages that follow the normal traditions and don't work out. Is the man from the group too? Are they still in the group? These are strong determiners. In my experience, if they share that background and move away from it together they will last. If one is devoted and the other unsure or they have different backgrounds it'll probably end. That's what I've seen from where I came from anyway.

[Murphy101]

Terminating a pregnancy is often what loving, responsible people do.

 

Wow. I think that is total BS. And that's about the best I can say to that.

[Catwoman]

 

Seriously?! I'm gonna have to google that!

 

I was 23 and dh was 24 when we married, LOL.

 

You should probably start dividing up the china and the silverware, because apparently you guys are toast. :D

[Jennifer3141]

Wow. I think that is total BS. And that's about the best I can say to that.

 

That's your opinion. Thankfully, the law is not your opinion. And please be mindful of anyone here who may have made that decision in their past.

[Catwoman]

Wow. I think that is total BS. And that's about the best I can say to that.

 

:iagree:

 

I'm not even anti-abortion, and I don't buy into the whole "loving and responsible" thing. You could argue that it's the most convenient option or even the most practical, but LOVING? :confused: Sorry, the "loving" option would be to have the child and give it up for adoption to a "loving" family.

 

And again, I say this as a person who isn't anti-abortion. But that "loving" terminology really bugs me.

[Catwoman]

 

That's your opinion. Thankfully, the law is not your opinion. And please be mindful of anyone here who may have made that decision in their past.

 

I know Martha and I are on opposite ends of the abortion debate, but I have a feeling that what may have bothered her most about the article quoted was the idea that abortion is the loving thing to do. Even I can't justify that terminology. Just because abortion may be the best decision for a woman at a particular time of her life, doesn't mean she's doing the loving thing by terminating the pregnancy. I guess one could argue that she's doing a loving thing for herself, but I don't think most women would view it that way, either. It's not exactly a positive experience, and I would assume that the majority of women who make that decision don't do it lightly, and feel more regretful and sad, than they do "responsible and loving," even when they truly believe they had no other option.

[albeto]

:iagree:

 

I'm not even anti-abortion, and I don't buy into the whole "loving and responsible" thing. You could argue that it's the most convenient option or even the most practical, but LOVING? :confused: Sorry, the "loving" option would be to have the child and give it up for adoption to a "loving" family.

 

And again, I say this as a person who isn't anti-abortion. But that "loving" terminology really bugs me.

 

 

It's loving to help a woman avoid an avoidable and unnecessary increase in the chances of living in poverty, abusive relationships, detrimental drug use, and anxiety. It's loving to support a person to make an informed decision they genuinely desire rather than emotionally coerce one to feel guilt for not taking on unnecessary martyrdom. It's loving to allow and encourage (and protect the ability for) a young adult to be autonomous in those choices that will determine what she does with her life. Perhaps you are not familiar with people who have chosen to terminate an unwanted pregnancy who were not conditioned and encouraged to feel remorse or guilt, so perhaps you would have trouble imagining how that can be a loving, responsible choice.

 

 

Edited to add: I think another loving thing to do is teach teens the value and proper use of contraception. People have sex, even unmarried people, even deeply religious unmarried people. Contraception can avoid this whole situation, and giving the young adult the means to avoid this situation is also, in my opinion, a loving thing to do.

[I.Dup.]

It's loving to help a woman avoid an avoidable and unnecessary increase in the chances of living in poverty, abusive relationships, detrimental drug use, and anxiety. It's loving to support a person to make an informed decision they genuinely desire rather than emotionally coerce one to feel guilt for not taking on unnecessary martyrdom. It's loving to allow and encourage (and protect the ability for) a young adult to be autonomous in those choices that will determine what she does with her life. Perhaps you are not familiar with people who have chosen to terminate an unwanted pregnancy who were not conditioned and encouraged to feel remorse or guilt, so perhaps you would have trouble imagining how that can be a loving, responsible choice.

 

 

You must not be familiar with the mechanism of abortion.

 

Or the stats on the women who are post-abortion and the side effects they deal with - physical and emotional.

 

I certainly would never call it loving.

[*********]

Perhaps you are not familiar with people who have chosen to terminate an unwanted pregnancy who were not conditioned and encouraged to feel remorse or guilt, so perhaps you would have trouble imagining how that can be a loving, responsible choice.

 

 

I really don't think that women are "conditioned" and "encouraged" to feel remorse and guilt for terminating a pregnancy. Women feel that way because it's NATURAL to feel so.

[albeto]

Or the stats on the women who are post-abortion and the side effects they deal with - physical and emotional.

 

The links in my previous thread show data that does not support this commonly promoted belief.

 

I certainly would never call it loving.

 

Making a difficult choice isn't easy, but making it harder purposefully, to satiate the emotional needs of a person or community who is very much not pregnant is, arguably, cruel and horrifying. To support a person in making a difficult choice without imposing unnecessary guilt is loving, even when that choice is one of the worst ones she'll ever have to make. Granted, we all have our own idea of what it means to be "loving," so pursuing that particular angle will undoubtedly be difficult. Suffice it to say, this is my opinion about what it is to love another - to give one the means to increase her well-being, not decrease it.

[albeto]

 

I really don't think that women are "conditioned" and "encouraged" to feel remorse and guilt for terminating a pregnancy. Women feel that way because it's NATURAL to feel so.

 

It's no more "natural" to feel remorse when terminating a pregnancy than it is "natural" to feel exposed and vulnerable knowing your legs are visible to the public. Not all women want children, not all women want to be pregnant, not all women want to be pregnant when they find themselves pregnant. Stopping one biological process is as "natural" as stopping another. It's simply when a value is assigned to one biological process that elevates it over another in terms of importance, which inspires a particular emotional response.

[*********]

 

It's no more "natural" to feel remorse when terminating a pregnancy than it is "natural" to feel exposed and vulnerable knowing your legs are visible to the public. Not all women want children, not all women want to be pregnant, not all women want to be pregnant when they find themselves pregnant. Stopping one biological process is as "natural" as stopping another. It's simply when a value is assigned to one biological process that elevates it over another in terms of importance, which inspires a particular emotional response.

 

Your response makes no sense.

[Murphy101]

You must not be familiar with the mechanism of abortion.

 

Or the stats on the women who are post-abortion and the side effects they deal with - physical and emotional.

 

I certainly would never call it loving.

 

She's familiar with it.

 

It's not loving. None of it is.

 

It is a sad pathetic statement of society that anyone can believe that is a loving way to treat any woman and actually find agreement with them. There are dozens or more ways most women can have the baby and not suffer any of those awful outcomes and the loving thing to do is help them find one of those other ways.

 

Contraception fails every day for someone. And people too young to make wise decisions about who they sleep with aren't exactly well known for habitual contraception use. Nearly all the girls that got pregnant in my high school did have birth control. They forgot to take it or didn't think to bring it with them or or. The problem of young unwed pregnancy has nothing to do with birth control on my state. They have had ready easy free access to it since at least I was in middle school over 25 years ago and the pregnancy rates don't seem any better for it.

[Murphy101]

 

 

Your response makes no sense.

 

 

Sure it does. She is basicy saying that pregnancy has absolutely no moral value than any other biological function. Thus the decision to abort is nothing more than whether a person wants to continue that biological function or not. Thus a woman only feels bad about it bc society has conditioned her with some level of conciousness about it that should not exist. And that's just cruel. Because its just another biological function. Soo abortion to Albeto is no different than what? Taking an enema to stop constipation? Taking allergy meds to avoid miserable sniffles?

 

It makes sense. I follow her logic.

 

I just know it's wrong, not true and not right. :)

[aggieamy]

Sorry, the "loving" option would be to have the child and give it up for adoption to a "loving" family.

 

 

 

YES! It breaks my heart that abortion is considered a valid choice before adoption is even considered. Check out the statistics for children raised by adoptive parents and you'll see an accurate description of "loving".

[MBM]

It's simply when a value is assigned to one biological process that elevates it over another in terms of importance, which inspires a particular emotional response.

 

 

How can you not assign a value, though? Getting my wisdom teeth pulled is not the equivalent of terminating a pregnancy. My teeth could not some day lead a life of their own whereas a future child could.

 

I also don't agree that an unplanned pregnancy will condemn a woman to a life of poverty, drugs, abuse... I would further argue that many women will experience those problems whether they get unexpectedly pregnant or not, especially if they've experienced early traumas. The pregnancy might add to the burden but is not necessarily the cause in all cases.

[albeto]

It is a sad pathetic statement of society that anyone can believe that is a loving way to treat any woman and actually find agreement with them.

 

And I would argue it's a sad, pathetic statement of society that anyone would manipulate their children into correlating sex with guilt, and further pressure them to get married if an unexpected pregnancy occurs.

 

There are dozens or more ways most women can have the baby and not suffer any of those awful outcomes and the loving thing to do is help them find one of those other ways.

 

The reality, however, is that regardless of how many ways these situations could conceivably be avoided, they're more often not.

 

Contraception fails every day for someone.

 

Irrelevant. They work far better for avoiding unwanted pregnancies and STDs than abstinence training.

 

And people too young to make wise decisions about who they sleep with aren't exactly well known for habitual contraception use. Nearly all the girls that got pregnant in my high school did have birth control. They forgot to take it or didn't think to bring it with them or or. The problem of young unwed pregnancy has nothing to do with birth control on my state. They have had ready easy free access to it since at least I was in middle school over 25 years ago and the pregnancy rates don't seem any better for it.

 

 

Your personal experience notwithstanding, data shows access to contraception reduces unwanted pregnancies.

[*********]

Sure it does. She is basicy saying that pregnancy has absolutely no moral value than any other biological function. Thus the decision to abort is nothing more than whether a person wants to continue that biological function or not. Thus a woman only feels bad about it bc society has conditioned her with some level of conciousness about it that should not exist. And that's just cruel. Because its just another biological function. Soo abortion to Albeto is no different than what? Taking an enema to stop constipation? Taking allergy meds to avoid miserable sniffles?

 

It makes sense. I follow her logic.

 

I just know it's wrong, not true and not right. :)

 

 

 

I guess I'm not as bright as you Martha, because I literally could not follow her logic. i get it now that you've explained it.

[albeto]

How can you not assign a value, though?

 

I do assign it a value, but my assignment is subjectively determined, just like yours. Not everyone values the same things equally. That's simply human nature.

 

Getting my wisdom teeth pulled is not the equivalent of terminating a pregnancy. My teeth could not some day lead a life of their own whereas a future child could.

 

So too could an unfertilized egg or sperm. My child could potentially be a doctor, but I don't live my life in such a way as to make this potentiality a reality.

 

I also don't agree that an unplanned pregnancy will condemn a woman to a life of poverty, drugs, abuse...

 

Condemn, no. That argument has not been made. Increase the likelihood significantly, yes. This is a fact.

 

I would further argue that many women will experience those problems whether they get unexpectedly pregnant or not, especially if they've experienced early traumas. The pregnancy might add to the burden but is not necessarily the cause in all cases.

 

 

Agreed. However, if the goal is to increase one's well-being and decrease suffering (this is what I understand "loving" to look like), then removing known variables that are more likely to create suffering is beneficial to the goal.

[albeto]

Sure it does. She is basicy saying that pregnancy has absolutely no moral value than any other biological function.

 

No, I'm saying the moral value is subjectively determined. Naturally, this subjective value will determine one's intent and experience (ie, "loving").

[Jennifer3141]

And I would argue it's a sad, pathetic statement of society that anyone would manipulate their children into correlating sex with guilt, and further pressure them to get married if an unexpected pregnancy occurs.

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

 

THANK YOU!

 

I'm also outright laughing over here that the OP's question devolved into the abortion straw man argument.

 

I was raised without a context of sex as a sinful attritbute. So were all my friends. My youngest friend became sexually active around 16. I waited until I was almost 18 but NONE of my circle got pregnant. Not one of us. We all knew where Planned Parenthood was. We all knew where condoms, etc. were. And we knew how to use them.

 

But the Catholic and the Baptist girls?? There were several pregnancies, several abortions, and a couple of teen marriages. We had a pregnant Baptist girl in 6th grade. Granted her boyfriend was in 8th grade but ewwwwww...

 

My parents did the best thing ever for alcohol and sex. They made them no big deal. I think they talked to me every darn week about them. And I had a glass of wine or beer (BLECH) if I ever wanted it so sneaking it out of the house would have been stupid. (Plus the cork thingie was in the kitchen. And I knew how to sneak lichor out of the cabinet but someone wa sALWAYS in the kitchen. :laugh: )

 

And they made sure I saw drunk, stupid, obnoxious people. And no, I didn't really want to throw up until I passed out in a pool of my own vomit, thankyoubverymuch.

 

Actually, my parents raised a prude. What fun is sex when your Dad says to you, "Oh yeah. Sex is awesome! Your Mom and I did it last night!?" Geez Dad. Way to make it cool for me.

 

My parents laugh that I never really rebelled because they took all the best stuff and claimed it for themslves.

 

But there was no sin assigned to it. And even in high school, I got that the girl bore the, "sin" label and the boys were just considered cool or manly, even by their parents.

[Catwoman]

 

Actually, my parents raised a prude. What fun is sex when your Dad says to you, "Oh yeah. Sex is awesome! Your Mom and I did it last night!?" Geez Dad. Way to make it cool for me.

 

:D :D :D :D

 

I'm pretty sure that would have done it for me, too. :ack2:

[Catwoman]

Maybe we should all think about getting back to Hoppy's original topic.

 

This thread is going down a bad road and now that we're into the Big Morality Discussion, it's not going to end well.

 

If everyone is bored with the shotgun wedding topic, maybe we could move on to kilts and cupcakes. :)

[MBM]

[/color]I do assign it a value, but my assignment is subjectively determined, just like yours. Not everyone values the same things equally. That's simply human nature.

 

Biochemistry helps us to bond with a child and not our teeth, so it's not exclusively subjective.

 

Condemn, no. That argument has not been made. Increase the likelihood significantly, yes. This is a fact.

 

It might be a fact in some cases, but not all. It is early trauma especially that leads to chaotic lives. Paul Tough's book How Children Succeed does a good job explaining this. Discover magazine also discusses it in an article about the heritability of epigenetics in this month's issue (May). Anyway, a woman who is pregnant can opt to give her baby up for adoption.

 

Agreed. However, if the goal is to increase one's well-being and decrease suffering (this is what I understand "loving" to look like), then removing known variables that are more likely to create suffering is beneficial to the goal.

 

 

Okay, but if a person is caring for a disabled child and finding it emotionally, physically and financially draining -- decreasing the caretaker's well-being -- what according to your definition of loving is the right thing to do?

[Murphy101]

To note. I didn't bring up abortion. Albeto did.

 

I wasn't raised by religious people.

 

And I never said anything about sin or guilt. That's all BS Albeto has insinuated.

 

Truth is I could completely remove the God equation and still know abortion is wrong and that kids usually do better with their mom and dad married.

[Catwoman]

It's loving to help a woman avoid an avoidable and unnecessary increase in the chances of living in poverty, abusive relationships, detrimental drug use, and anxiety. It's loving to support a person to make an informed decision they genuinely desire rather than emotionally coerce one to feel guilt for not taking on unnecessary martyrdom. It's loving to allow and encourage (and protect the ability for) a young adult to be autonomous in those choices that will determine what she does with her life. Perhaps you are not familiar with people who have chosen to terminate an unwanted pregnancy who were not conditioned and encouraged to feel remorse or guilt, so perhaps you would have trouble imagining how that can be a loving, responsible choice.

 

 

Edited to add: I think another loving thing to do is teach teens the value and proper use of contraception. People have sex, even unmarried people, even deeply religious unmarried people. Contraception can avoid this whole situation, and giving the young adult the means to avoid this situation is also, in my opinion, a loving thing to do.

 

 

 

But that isn't what you said.

 

You said this:

 

 

Terminating a pregnancy is often what loving, responsible people do.

 

 

Not a single person here has said that a woman shouldn't be treated with love and care, no matter what choice she makes regarding her pregnancy.

 

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your statement, but it sounded like you were saying that abortion was loving and responsible, and that was the statement to which I was responding.

 

Treating a woman with love and respect as she makes her decision, and afterward, is an entirely different matter.

 

 

[albeto]

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your statement, but it sounded like you were saying that abortion was loving and responsible, and that was the statement to which I was responding.

 

I think it can be. I've tried to explain my reasons for that opinion.

 

Treating a woman with love and respect as she makes her decision, and afterward, is an entirely different matter.

 

In my opinion, part of being respectful is not imposing unnecessary, and sometimes detrimental correlations. I wouldn't consider it respectful to raise a child to believe that abortion is a "sin," and then when faced with that option most unexpectedly say, "make whatever choice you want, as long as you know one is "sinful" and the other is "right."

[Audrey]

maybe we could move on to kilts and cupcakes. :)

 

Please. No. :ack2:

[albeto]

Biochemistry helps us to bond with a child and not our teeth, so it's not exclusively subjective.

 

Agreed, but the intensity of this bonding is subjective. Some women experience a natural miscarriage as a traumatic event, while others terminate a pregnancy and subsequently interpret that as the "right" thing to have done.

 

It might be a fact in some cases, but not all. It is early trauma especially that leads to chaotic lives. Paul Tough's book How Children Succeed does a good job explaining this. Discover magazine also discusses it in an article about the heritability of epigenetics in this month's issue (May). Anyway, a woman who is pregnant can opt to give her baby up for adoption.

 

 

It might be interesting to look into why women choose to terminate a pregnancy rather than continuing gestation to completion (live birth) to know why that choice is more common. I don't know myself, I've never looked into it.

 

Okay, but if a person is caring for a disabled child and finding it emotionally, physically and financially draining -- decreasing the caretaker's well-being -- what according to your definition of loving is the right thing to do?

 

 

Depends on the context. I live in a state that has relatively decent support (or it did, back when I needed it) for families with children with disabilities. I think that kind of solution is advantageous for many reasons, including the emotional well-being of all members of the family and community. Some families feel forced to relinquish their rights to the State in hopes the State can offer the services the family cannot afford. I can't imagine a more heart-wrenching choice to make, but when putting the needs of the individual with greater needs first, sometimes we have to make heart-wrenching, horrifying, even traumatic decisions. I don't know if that answers your question. It's a tough question to ask, and I don't think there are any "right" or "wrong" answers. I do think there are "better" and "worse" options, though.

[albeto]

To note. I didn't bring up abortion. Albeto did.

 

Yep, that's my bad (post 100, maybe?). It seems logical to me when discussing those variables that make for a difficult marriage culminating in divorce, avoiding variables that can be avoided is a pertinent idea.

 

Truth is I could completely remove the God equation and still know abortion is wrong and that kids usually do better with their mom and dad married.

 

 

Sure kids do, but not all moms and dads stay together, or are good together, not even when we really, really want it that way.

 

I'd be curious as to how abortion is considered "wrong" without God in the equation.

[Joker]

 

I'd be curious as to how abortion is considered "wrong" without God in the equation.

 

 

My dh is an atheist and feels it is wrong. He's also not the only non-religious person I know who feels that way.

[JumpyTheFrog]

OP here. If you want to debate abortion, would you please do it in a new thread? I don't want this one to get locked or deleted.

[Joanne]

It seems to me that a "shotgun" marriage is subject to the dynamic, culture, and context that created the pregnancy. I imagine that would be a higher percentage of families who believe sex before marriage is wrong (therefore the "shotgun" component". A higher percentage of families who value a married couple over single parenting. A higher percentage of individuals who can't delay gratification (leading to the lack of contraception or mis-use of it). A higher percentage of overall immaturity (again, which leads to the pregnancy). All of those will factor into the success of a marriage.

 

A marriage with *additional* concerns - on top of normal stresssors and challenges - are going to reflect the added stress in the numbers of "successful" marriages.

 

If the couple was gifted with healthy support, encouragement, life and relationship skills counseling, good parenting classes - the would have a better chance. Unfortunately, the chances of that happening in the context of "shotgun wedding" are not very high.

 

On the other issue, I am a strong feminist, very pro-choice, and feel the "loving, responsible" phrasing is awkward and icky.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Hoppy, I'm curious as to how you define "shotgun wedding" - do you define it as including coercian? or simply as a quick marriage after pregnancy was discovered?

[Murphy101]

I'd be curious as to how abortion is considered "wrong" without God in the equation.

 

 

Oh bull. You know exactly how it is possible.

 

Unless you are posing that only those who believe in God are capable of developing a moral conscious?

 

Non God believing people think lots of things are just as wrong as Christians do. Most people regardless of proclaimed religious belief or lack of have more in common than not about what they consider to be immoral and wrong.