Is giving birth to children one is unable to feed, raise and handle immoral?

Discussion in 'Opinions, Beliefs, & Points of View' started by Prinnctopher's Belt, Jun 1, 2012.


Immoral for ill-fit parents to have children?

  1. Yes

    21 vote(s)
  2. No

    4 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    Is it immoral for people who are in abject poverty, with mental disorders, in violent and ignorant environments lacking adequate resources, to raise a child? Why or why not?
  2. TheLoneWolf

    TheLoneWolf Well-Known Member

    I can't really answer this with a strict yes or no. In the case of mental disabilities, I don't think some of them even know that they're disabled. It would seem to me to be a violation of human rights to tell somebody that they can't have children because they're disabled. However, in the case of poverty... if somebody knows they can't afford to raise a child, yet they knowingly and intentionally have them anyway, this I do think is immoral - unless they intend to give the children up for adoption. A person who is mentally disabled might not be aware that they would make bad parents, but somebody who is fully aware of their situation should know better. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to have sex; that's ridiculous. But as far as I know, there are organizations out there that offer free birth control to those who can't afford it. Intentionally bringing a child into this world when you KNOW that you are unable to care for it is irresponsible at best.
  3. SmolderingIce

    SmolderingIce Well-Known Member

    People have so much love to give. They want to have children; they want to continue their legacy.
    There are already so many poverty-stricken people in the world. I do not think it is "immoral' for them to have children, but that child has a good chance of being depressed and poor. I believe they should rethink their decisions for children until they are older and better established. Stable.
  4. FrainBart

    FrainBart Staff Alumni

    I will not vote on this one, because I believe that there are worse examples.
    Yes it is not fair on the child to be raised into a life of poverty, but there are examples that a country where abortion is illegal, and doctors can lie to the patients about the health of a unborn child, can dictate that someone should raise a child, even when precautions were taking (contraception that failed).

    My bigger concern is that of women who have had children taken away from them due to abuse, going on to have another, and another.... etc
  5. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    Specifics really need to come into this, really on the basis of who the person(s) are, and what they believe in and are willing to strive for. Or something like that.. I can't remember. I just know that you can not place a fine line stamp saying yes or no on this topic like this, when people who are in poverty, who suffer from a "mental disorder", who are surrounded by ignorance/violence and in essence will struggle to look after their child can give their family the best in those situations.

    Where are you coming from? The fine line if it is even possible for someone to give their child a loving caring "happy" life through all that shit? Or if it's acceptable to bring a child up in those conditions?
    Well.. those conditions are the ones most people are either born into, or have been forced into. Rarely will you find anyone chosing to position themselves by choice into those situations. People/life will continue on regardless of the environments/social/mental/ whatever issues there are infront of them. They'll strive to create life and family, love and care in the most dire and horrible of times and situations. It's what we do.. in my opinon. We strive to bring some light into life, our lives, no matter how dark of the places we are in. Granted, it doesn't always work out..... alot of the time it doesnt. Unfortunatly..
    But even if all the failings that come into play from these situations, it's not 100%.. it's not per say the peoples fault who start off something with the best of intentions. I mean disregard the abusive person wanting a child in those situations.. It's a person wanting a child for the best reasons in those situations. They just are handicapped because of their enivonrment per say, in all reflections. You can't tell them no, we have no right to tell someone no. There is a difference between problems in the environment vs problems with the individual having the child. Problems such as coping. If the problems are environmental, tackle the environmental problems, and inspire the person with options that they can realistically strive towards to improve their lives, and the lives of their children, their future. The bonding of environmental and individual problems is even worse.. but you still have to inspire, you cannot dictate and hope to inspire at the sametime. Showing, the problem and a better way is more powerful then dictating wether it is "acceptable" from our ivory towers :(. Actually... trying to appease the true problems is more usefull.. i think.
    If you see a problem, giving people with very little, atleast some hope, and direction that can free them per say of that shit in their life... goes along way to diffusing the anger and dillusional justifications that spawn all this hate and ignorance.

    I still think the question needs more refinement.. I think answering to that is actually quite dangerous. But maybe that's the acceptable folly of "what we've got at the moment to work with".

    It's easy to see "immoral" acts from outside of the situation. I couldn't really give you my honest answer to something like that.. I know how malluable it is in application from such a general view point. I think ..

    well there's alot that comes into it. Who'se viewing? society? "humanity"? morality? ect... the perspective changes alot of things. The reasons for the glance at these peoples lives is another thing. Who is viewing, why are they concerned. Are their larger governing factors that are coming into play that will influence the delicate free nature of expressing and the freedom to live your life. ect...

    Who are we talking about. And better yet... whose taking the high horse to state morality to other people?

    Personally, I know people who have had children and make the best with aboslutely "nothing". in the eyes of some. That constitues immoral choices, but from theirs it is the most morally sane ones to give themselves and their family the best possible free life at that time. Jumping in and attacking people who really are trying, is horrible, and a betrayal of what any "governing" body stands for. You don't attack or define people trying in harsh situations. You challenge the harshness of the situations, without attacking those people who are actually trying under those conditions. Make life easier for them.. if you live in such a opinoniated position, you should be able to do something about it. IF you can take the time to define and subject other peoples lives to "your" moral network, you have time to see their life through their eyes, and see the real problems that are outisde of these people, that they endure, and still progress through. OR are haulted by ect...
    idk.. i gotta shut up. .. doesnt feel right. But its not ocming out right either..

    Basically comes down to the freedom of a human being to exist regardless of where they are. To be what they want to be... the responsibility we apply to those incharge, ect. the ability to survive... to work together... to resist.. the aspire to their dreams, to care and give something free to their children.. to not have them trapped and defined.. oh idk.. Fuck this
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 2, 2012
  6. TheLoneWolf

    TheLoneWolf Well-Known Member

    You make some excellent points, SBlake... I didn't mean to suggest that poor people shouldn't be allowed to have kids. But raising children is a huge responsibility, and some people who have kids know for a fact that they are not equipped to handle that responsibility. When I was young, immature, irresponsible and jobless, I was in no position to raise a child, nor would I have attempted to unless I absolutely had to. It is not something I would have chosen to do because I know it wouldn't have been fair to the child, as I would have been completely unable to provide for them their most basic needs. It's true that some people get buy with nothing, but if they're sharing nothing with their children, their children will have less than nothing. If they can still find a way to clothe and feed them, put a roof over their heads, and otherwise protect and provide for them in the ways that they need, then of course, people will make do with what they have and that is their right. However, if you are KNOWINGLY unable to provide for your offspring and you expect the rest of society to feed, raise, and care for your child for you, then you are irresponsible. One person's rights end where another person's begin.
  7. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    Well, there's personal ignorance and factual abuse that comes into that. I agree with you, that's not right per say. Again, it all depends on specifics, general stating that is again dangerous.

    I was more refering to capable people able to give a measure of positive life to their children in hostile situations. Not the other aspect of abuse before the birth of a child. That's a completely different catastrophy. There's alot of avenues that lead to that same general block, but all are very different with different ways of "healing" them in a collective way without draining the life from society or the individuals concerned.

    That's kinda what I mean, I guess it's a general question, but it's easier to deal with the people who can and will give their best for their children, in the toughest of situations. vS those who will abuse having a child and the resources in society, or if we had an example, those who want to have children, but are completely incapable of that level of commitment to their offspring, and themselves. There's help, but help is supposed to inspire and help you find the way to take the reigns yourself, and the weight of responsibility that comes naturally with creating and protecting, and liberating the awareness of your children. Or something like that... Just gets finicky when we start dealing with abusive, ignorant, selfish people wanting children for the sake of something I consider materialistic in one fashion, and life saving in another. Money and "security", at the hands of the caring.
  8. Issaccs

    Issaccs Well-Known Member

    Define poverty.
    My mother seeing a video of a starving Somali baby in refugee camp asked me, or rather declared, if they cant feed there kids why do they keep having more. Now the display of ignorance on the place of women in certain parts of the world aside, I think its pretty damn hard to say "Its only right or moral to have kids under x circumstance" when circumstances vary so much.
  9. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    I'm sorry for the triple posts, I can't edit them. But wouldn't the morality be seen from the reasons they decide to get pregnant. Then from there if they have taken into consideration the capabilities of themselves in said environment(s). Also, what sort of reliancy can they expect from the standards the country they live in set. It's sorta the same if someone gets unexpectidly pregnant, except then you have another set of moral issues, depending on the way they became pregnant(religion, abortion, ect). Also things change in 9 months time.

    I just mean, you can be 100% capable and prepared when you make that choice and are pregnant. But what happens when you have a child, and all of a sudden you've lost maturnity pay, you've lost your job somehow, rents overdue, foods down to the penny, you've gotten depressed, your outlook on life is deminished. Your neighbours been shot, the children at the local school are spouting hate and ignorance at age 6. Drug addicts liter the street, police sirens are sounding, ect.

    That whole situation can change with the injection of family, friends, history.. your own passions. Ect. Relocation ect.... The situation they started from matters no matter how hard they fall. So even if they are in aject poverty, with mental disorders, in violent and ignorant environments while lacking adequate resources to raise the child at that given time doesn't mean it's immoral. The immorality would be to let those aspects take charge over yourself and your child.

    And when the worst parts take charge and catch the best in people off guard and sucks them in.. isn't in more immoral that these things have so much influence to do that to someone who morally wanted a child for the best of intentions. But crashed or was bested over by the worst aspects of ourselves and society?

    Not too sure what direction you want to go, but it's, intriuging. When it's about the best in people. When it's about people who abuse having a child? I'm a bit niave that purely because no child is a means to gain through societary standards. Only through life. From my limited point of view, a child is supposed to express and "bless" life with more life. Or something like that. So if you're using a child for gain that's wrong. That's.. they need some help, because if they can only get by in life by abusing a system then that's wrong and they're missing out on something that they need in their life to survive on their own. Children make you stronger, because you have to be strong to have a child and..something to that degree. And.. just because you get knocked down by the most horrible parts of society if you have a child, it doesn't mean you're not strong.

    Just an odd generic question prin. What made you think about this? Was there a specific case of someone wanting a child for improper means? Like someone who needs support and still wanting to have a child in that support?
  10. darcy1

    darcy1 Well-Known Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 2, 2012
  11. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    There is no specific circumstance stated here other than simply not being able to raise a child with the factors in the question, poverty, mental problems, irresponsibility, lack of adequate resources; the simple concept of "if you can't feed your baby then don't have one". I can't define morality for you. The question is asking is it immoral or not, in each respondent's opinion according to whatever you believe morality is and how it applies to having children.
  12. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    fair enough
  13. mulberrypie

    mulberrypie Well-Known Member

    <font face="ABLib BT">...</font
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 3, 2012
  14. Kharma

    Kharma Well-Known Member

    It is immoral for ANYONE to give birth.

    We can't feed the 8 billion already here. And if you are one to dismiss other peoples kids because "I can feed mine," then you don't understand the unquestionable unfairness of the capitalist system. The other kids are starving (Africa, etc.) BECAUSE you are feeding yours.

    All of us in "The West" are complicit in murder.

    If we can feed everyone on the planet adequately then - and only perhaps then - we could consider having more. Even if this point was reached, however, I still think mandatory testing for mental fitness and genetic pre-dispositions for other things should be done before you have the right to have kids.

    My parents, for example, should have been sterilized at birth.

    From my point of view, having kids is selfish. *YOU* want someone to love (in the hopes that they will love you back.) *YOU* want your family name carried on. *YOU* want to leave a legacy. Having kids is a sick thing to do.

    I wouldn't wish life on any sentient being - and I'm a cynical, cold-hearted bastard who thinks all of humanity should be run through a gas-chamber.

    To FORCE existance on your offspring, without the chance to ask 'em if they even want it, knowing that even if they do decide they hate it, evolution or god or nature or whatever will prevent them from ending it?????

    Parents are sick, sick, twisted individuals, IMNSHO.
  15. poisonedresistance

    poisonedresistance Well-Known Member

    As there are no given specifics,,this question is open to debate.
    there are cultures where money has no concept yet family and nature are what that child will be raised with.
    mental illness here is delt with in different ways.
    mental illness in itself is such a generic concept. This gives rise to many more questions.
    are we talking clinical depression, mental retardation, inability to make correct concious choices on given information?
    this can be overcome by a loving family and a supportive system,
    or are you bringing in the forrest gump scenario?

    would it be immoral to force a poor or mentally ill person to have an abortion? accidents happen, things happen and all mannor of problems can occur. - How can we judge if this child will be loved?
    would you sacrifice this life from a fetal stage because you judge its possible existance miserable or quality of life to be less than what YOU expect???

    i wouldnt want to judge any situation to be honest. speculation is a dangerous pass time.
  16. Kharma

    Kharma Well-Known Member

    Love alone isn't enough.

    I'm relatively sure my parents love me. Couldn't care less. They should have kept their clothes on that night.

    Just 'cause mommy loves you, doesn't mean mommy is a good parent.
  17. poisonedresistance

    poisonedresistance Well-Known Member

    love and parents definitly dont come hand in hand in 100% of cases, there are exceptions, When love does come into though,,, Children dont come with handling manuels and 'people' dont always come with fixed veiws or strong moral standings,some are still asking their own life questions,, and some people just dont think deep enough about situations before they act. Parents can only try their best, they do the best with what they know and understand from their point of veiw.
    parents make mistakes.
  18. Kharma

    Kharma Well-Known Member

    If we are to be forgiving of our parents mistakes (or anyone, even our own) then why not do away with licensing and testing for ANYTHING?

    As an earlier poster noted, K. Reeves said it best in "Parenthood."

    We test and license drivers, fishermen, teachers, and doctors but the most important job of all - raising children - any butt-reamer can do with no repercussions at all.

    Since when does "I can if I want to," translate into "I have a right to?" In everything except popping kids out society has determined that just because you can, doesn't mean it should be allowed. I can kill someone. Doesn't mean I have a right to. I can steal from people. Doesn't mean I have a right to. I can f_ck like a bunny - doesn't give me the (moral) right to pop out kids.

    In almost every area of life society (or the government) has taken it apon themselves to legislate morality.... except when it comes to giving birth. That is hypocritical, immoral in its own right, and very, very sick.
  19. poisonedresistance

    poisonedresistance Well-Known Member

    - applying parental rights to governments... hummmm, well considering their choices of late alone, that wouldnt be a good idea.
    Just because en-mass people think in one way, doesnt mean the world must 'conform'

    morality changes from one person to the next.- hence debate/negotiations,perspectives and factors

    Morality is defined by the freedoms we express,,

    As a society we have defined morality to a certain extent, but i should hope we are moving towards respecting personal freedom, not moving backwards.
  20. Kharma

    Kharma Well-Known Member


    So personal freedom includes letting crack-head bank robbers pop out kids?

    The father who has been convicted of molesting his children - though he'd lose contact with that/those kids - is entitled to the personal freedom of birthing another victim?

    If personal freedom is so important, then why the hell ain't I free to fish when I bloody-well please?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.