Troop Leader and Out -of-Wedlock Child

[DanKroh]

Beaver asked:

 

"Let me play devil's advocate. What possible scenario would make it OK and a proper moral example for a young, single, unmarried female in the SM role to get pregnant?"

 

I can think of two scenarios, but you would probably only see one of them as being "morally correct". Scenario one, the young woman was a victim of rape. (Hopefully not the case, but there it is.)

 

Scenario two (and this is the one we would disagree about), she made a conscious decision to have a child (possibly involving artifical insemination) that she is physically, emotionally, financially, and in all other ways, able to support.

 

The reason I find the second scenario "morally correct" is that the potential bad example I see here is irresponsibility. I have no problem (but I suspect others do) with a woman making a decision to have a child on her own, when she is ready (the being ready part is also key). It is the implication that it was an "oops" resulting from irresponsible sexual behavior that I would not like to see emulated for other young people.

 

Just my 2 bits.

[Eagledad]

>>The reason I find the second scenario "morally correct" is that the potential bad example I see here is irresponsibility.

[GernBlansten]

What would Mary Cheney do?

[FScouter]

"Scenario two (and this is the one we would disagree about), she made a conscious decision to have a child (possibly involving artifical insemination) that she is physically, emotionally, financially, and in all other ways, able to support."

 

It is selfish, self-centered, and morally reprehensible to intentionally bring a child into the world with no father.

 

AND ... the right thing to do for a baby conceived and born against a woman's choice is to give it up for adoption to a family with BOTH a mother and a father. There is no honor in raising a child with only one parent.

[Trevorum]

"There is no honor in raising a child with only one parent. "

 

 

wow.

 

I rather suspect that millions of single parents would beg to differ with you. However, you are certainly welcome to hold that rather harsh and unforgiving righteous opinion.

[Eagledad]

righteous? I believe that comes under name calling. We all have our bad days, but one of the ways I worked with the PLC was teaching them to not react instantly to their emotions. Name calling is a sure sign of inmaturity or uncontrolled emotions, or both. Instead they should create some kind of time out until they can instead respond in a mature manner where they talk about the behavior and not attack the person or take words out of context. That does require some degree of patience, maturity, grit and courage, but it draws respect instead of anger or disdain. It also requires practice.

 

We all fall now and then, which then lead us to act with humility to gain back the respect we just lost. Getting up is hard, but we must to have a civil world.

 

Barry

[Lisabob]

FScouter, I would respectfully suggest to you that your second comment, if followed, has a strong potential to further victimize the victims - the mother, by taking away from her a child she may not have consented to having in the first place, but whom she may decide she truly wants to bear, raise, love, and mother. The child, by taking him or her away from his biological mother and her whole family just because the biological father did something reprehensible. A policy such as yours suggests that women who are raped, and the children they may bear as a result, have a stigma that follows them through their lifetimes. I hope that's something you would reconsider.

[ScoutNut]

"It is selfish, self-centered, and morally reprehensible to intentionally bring a child into the world with no father."

 

 

So, FScouter, consider this - A young couple gets married, the young man gets sent to Iraq, 1 month later he is killed by a bomb, 1 month after that the young women finds out she is pregnent, the young women has her child & raises it as a single parent.

 

This to you would be "selfish, self-centered, and morally reprehensible"?

[Trevorum]

Barry, I disagree. I chose my words carefully and with deliberation. I accurately described the opinion expressed as "righteous", not the individual. Moreover, I explicitly acknowledged the right to hold that opinion, as repugnant as I find it.

[evmori]

It is selfish, self-centered, and morally reprehensible to intentionally bring a child into the world with no father.

 

You've got to be kidding me! You actually believe this? What do you base this opinion on, FScouter?

 

And you are a Scouter & moderator on this forum. That's scary.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[LongHaul]

>>I guess there might be a few situations in which one would still hesitate to remove this woman from her post, though--maybe if she is engaged to the father, who is currently deployed to Iraq.>If a wedding is in the picture and the situation made MORALLY correct, then I think there is a possibility for a discussion on "MORALLY STRAIGHT" for the lads, if the person is willing to be involved and help with the discussion.>She could rectify the situation by marrying the father, but the odds are that marriage won't last.>I'm just saying, we seem to be focused on what this young woman did, and how she might "fix" it, without much regard for the fact that any "fix" requires, at the least, the active consent of the other adult party in this deal.

[evmori]

An IMMORAL act can be made MORAL by performing some post infraction ritual?

 

No.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[BrentAllen]

Again I must ask An IMMORAL act can be made MORAL by performing some post infraction ritual?

 

I think only God can answer that one. An individual can seek to atone for mistakes, to make the best of a bad situation. Hence, marrying the father would allow the child to grow up with both a father and a mother.

[FScouter]

A child needs BOTH a mother and a father. A child is not a womans possession. Having a child is not a womans personal biological right. Having a child is taking on a huge responsibility to the child. It is selfish for a woman to get pregnant because she simply wants to have a baby, or to feel whole, or to satisfy her personal wants. Having a baby is a responsibility to bring the child to adulthood in the best manner possible. Intentionally attempting to do so without a father causes a whole slew of difficulties throughout the childs life.

 

There should be no stigma for a rape victim to give up the child for adoption. Biology does not a parent make. The parents are the ones that love, nourish, train, and raise a child. A DNA connection doesnt have anything to do with this. Unless a rape victim can provide a father for the child too, the honorable thing to do is to give up the baby for adoption.

 

Things happen to break up families sometimes, including the father being killed in war. The mother carries on. That is not the same thing as starting a babys life from the start with no father. Its not the best way to raise a child.

 

It matters not to the baby whether its conception resulted from a woman choosing to get herself pregnant without a father, an accidental pregnancy where the male has no intention of sticking around, or from an act of rape. The end result is the same: a child with no father. The honorable thing to do is give the child a chance to grow up in a loving family with a mother AND a father.

 

Satisfying ones personal desires at the expense of the child has no honor. There is much honor in giving up a child for adoption to provide the child the opportunity for the best family environment.

[evmori]

A child needs BOTH a mother and a father. A child is not a womans possession. Having a child is not a womans personal biological right. Having a child is taking on a huge responsibility to the child. It is selfish for a woman to get pregnant because she simply wants to have a baby, or to feel whole, or to satisfy her personal wants. Having a baby is a responsibility to bring the child to adulthood in the best manner possible. Intentionally attempting to do so without a father causes a whole slew of difficulties throughout the childs life.

 

There should be no stigma for a rape victim to give up the child for adoption. Biology does not a parent make. The parents are the ones that love, nourish, train, and raise a child. A DNA connection doesnt have anything to do with this. Unless a rape victim can provide a father for the child too, the honorable thing to do is to give up the baby for adoption.

 

Things happen to break up families sometimes, including the father being killed in war. The mother carries on. That is not the same thing as starting a babys life from the start with no father. Its not the best way to raise a child.

 

It matters not to the baby whether its conception resulted from a woman choosing to get herself pregnant without a father, an accidental pregnancy where the male has no intention of sticking around, or from an act of rape. The end result is the same: a child with no father. The honorable thing to do is give the child a chance to grow up in a loving family with a mother AND a father.

 

Satisfying ones personal desires at the expense of the child has no honor. There is much honor in giving up a child for adoption to provide the child the opportunity for the best family environment.

 

This is even scarier! Reminds me of the way the Nazi's did things.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10