The Moral Aspects of Bastardy

DGS49

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2012
15,800
13,285
2,415
Pittsburgh
Bastardy, if it is a "problem" at all, has reached pandemic proportions. In certain demographic groups more than half of live births are to unmarried women, who are often poor, unemployed, and otherwise incapable of providing what most would consider an acceptable upbringing for a child in our society.

At the same time, the political Left holds an overriding "moral" principle that tends to perpetuate this pandemic. The cultural principle in play here is that The Greatest "Sin" of all is to be JUDGMENTAL. On the Left, one may not judge the conduct or culture of any other person or group. If you do so, it is proof of bigotry, meanness, and evil intent. Therefore, it is culturally unacceptable to condemn bastardy. And they refuse to do it.

[For a contrary view, consider the lyrics of the old Supremes' hit, "Love Child"( Lyrics of the song, "love child" - Google Search)

But what about the morality of Bastardy? What can we say?

First of all, it is immoral to engage in sexual congress when not married. This is not only true for religious believers but for any ethicist worth her salt. Assuming the risk of an "unwanted" pregnancy is the same as any other reckless behavior...driving while drunk, or playing with a loaded gun, for example.

Second, if you are engaging in reproductive behavior while unmarried, it is irresponsible and immoral to fail to take adequate precautions to prevent pregnancy. Obviously.

Third, for the sperm donor, it is fantastically irresponsible to risk impregnating a girl/woman if you have neither the intention nor the means to assume the role of fatherhood, should a child result from the coupling.

Fourth - and as a Pro-Life person, I hate bringing this up - if you "find yourself pregnant" and lack the resources to nurture a child, then you could be deemed to have an obligation to terminate the pregnancy, rather than burden yourself, the child, and society with the product of your irresponsibility.

One used to hear the expression, "Middle-Class Values" bandied about, as an Ideal for behavior. One of those values would be to plan your life in such a way that it is most likely to be "successful." Indeed, Middle Class American women - even married women - DO NOT have children that they lack the resources to raise. It is economically foolish, as well as being morally reprehensible.

And yet the Left considers Bastardy to be just another lifestyle choice, neither "better" nor "worse" than any other choice. Where is the appropriate condemnation? You don't have to be a religious person to see the moral and ethical principles in play.
 
Bastardy, if it is a "problem" at all, has reached pandemic proportions. In certain demographic groups more than half of live births are to unmarried women, who are often poor, unemployed, and otherwise incapable of providing what most would consider an acceptable upbringing for a child in our society.

At the same time, the political Left holds an overriding "moral" principle that tends to perpetuate this pandemic. The cultural principle in play here is that The Greatest "Sin" of all is to be JUDGMENTAL. On the Left, one may not judge the conduct or culture of any other person or group. If you do so, it is proof of bigotry, meanness, and evil intent. Therefore, it is culturally unacceptable to condemn bastardy. And they refuse to do it.

[For a contrary view, consider the lyrics of the old Supremes' hit, "Love Child"( Lyrics of the song, "love child" - Google Search)

But what about the morality of Bastardy? What can we say?

First of all, it is immoral to engage in sexual congress when not married. This is not only true for religious believers but for any ethicist worth her salt. Assuming the risk of an "unwanted" pregnancy is the same as any other reckless behavior...driving while drunk, or playing with a loaded gun, for example.

Second, if you are engaging in reproductive behavior while unmarried, it is irresponsible and immoral to fail to take adequate precautions to prevent pregnancy. Obviously.

Third, for the sperm donor, it is fantastically irresponsible to risk impregnating a girl/woman if you have neither the intention nor the means to assume the role of fatherhood, should a child result from the coupling.

Fourth - and as a Pro-Life person, I hate bringing this up - if you "find yourself pregnant" and lack the resources to nurture a child, then you could be deemed to have an obligation to terminate the pregnancy, rather than burden yourself, the child, and society with the product of your irresponsibility.

One used to hear the expression, "Middle-Class Values" bandied about, as an Ideal for behavior. One of those values would be to plan your life in such a way that it is most likely to be "successful." Indeed, Middle Class American women - even married women - DO NOT have children that they lack the resources to raise. It is economically foolish, as well as being morally reprehensible.

And yet the Left considers Bastardy to be just another lifestyle choice, neither "better" nor "worse" than any other choice. Where is the appropriate condemnation? You don't have to be a religious person to see the moral and ethical principles in play.

Here's the problem. Do you think that the right people will be listening?

I am not "the left". I am a liberal. The rest of society deals with the fallout regularly. We aren't winning so much as treading water.

Your "Fourth" is why I am pro-choice.
 

Forum List

Back
Top