+- Grimm Forum (https://grimmforum.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Grimm Universe (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Grimm-Universe)
+--- Forum: Grimm Discussions (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Grimm-Discussions)
+--- Thread: Morals/ethics question (/Thread-Morals-ethics-question)
Pages:
1
2
Morals/ethics question - izzy - 12-03-2016
So the Nick-Adlind = baby thing got me to thinking. So much that I broached this topic with family and friends and was surprised a the breadth of the responses.
So here is the question, assuming it is possible for a woman to trick or force a man into having sex with her so the man is not a willing participant in conception what if anything does that man ethically or morally owe to a child conceived in such a fashion?
In your answer do not discuss if it rape or not, or if it is actually possible, or any of the legal aspects, just assume it can happen. Keep your response at the level of what does the man owe in terms of morals or ethics to his biological child (note the emphasized text above) ?
For example, doe she owe child support?
Does he have an obligation to support the mother?
Should he pay for college?
Should he be a part, as a father figure, i that child's life?
Should he petition for custody?
etc, etc.
Note, this does not have anything to do with Nick and Adalind, it is a generic question, so please do not reply with what Adalind did to Nick or motivational factors etc. For this question forget about the series Grimm and stick to a generic example.
I created a binary survey for this, but I am really looking for explanation, not just a binary answer.
Regards...
RE: Morals/ethics question - syscrash - 12-03-2016
IMO no matter how the child was conceived both parents are obligated to care for the child. The problem comes when either parent uses the child for leverage. As in your statement "Does he have an obligation to support the mother?". My answer would be no. Except that creates a situation of the mother without means of support finds it difficult to care for the child. The quick answer would be the one most capable should be the one who has custody. The problem with that is it favors the rich and punishes the poor.
We now have many examples of kids raised by parents that are separated. The ones that can work together, they kids turn out better. Then kids raised in home with both parents that constantly fight.
The problem is together or separated if the parents put there own issue before the child's there is no legal, moral, or ethical solution. It has been shown raised by a single parent is far better then two parent that don't get along.
But I think your question is more geared toward. Women who have kids with plans to live off the child support of the rich father. IMO for that situation there is no good answer. ON the other side children who are the product of rape and the father insist on being involved in the child life. IMO that also does not have a good answer. I both cases it is usually the desire to cause pain on the other party that is the motivation and not the interest of the child. But to deny the other party is to deny the child.
All that being said I think obligation should be judged on intent. If the father is having sex with out consideration of a possible pregnancy then financial obligation should be mandatory. If the mothers intentions are deliberate obligation should be voluntary. Emotional obligation should always be voluntary. IMO your poll can not be a binary answer.
RE: Morals/ethics question - jsgrimm45 - 12-05-2016
Wouldn't we have to only look to poor neighborhoods to see that it takes both parents. Both parents need to be involved in the child for a good outcome case in point Diana has been move around that why she looking of Adalind and Sean to become those parents. Now could she change and look for the same thing from Nick and Adalind if we had KellY?
RE: Morals/ethics question - syscrash - 12-05-2016
Quote:Wouldn't we have to only look to poor neighborhoods to see that it takes both parents. Both parents need to be involved in the child for a good outcome case in point Diana has been move around that why she looking of Adalind and Sean to become those parents. Now could she change and look for the same thing from Nick and Adalind if we had KellY?Being a poor single mother does not mean your child will be disadvantage. In fact a lot of these children are better adjusted then kids raised in a sheltered two parent house hold. Single parent kids that I know seem to be more self reliant then the kids who are raised by helicopter parents. As for Diana how she was raised is not being reflected in her actions. She response to situations the same as she did when she was born. She sees a problem she does something about it. There is nothing about Diana that is a child except her size.
RE: Morals/ethics question - Purity - 12-05-2016
(12-05-2016, 08:49 AM)syscrash Wrote:Quote:Wouldn't we have to only look to poor neighborhoods to see that it takes both parents. Both parents need to be involved in the child for a good outcome case in point Diana has been move around that why she looking of Adalind and Sean to become those parents. Now could she change and look for the same thing from Nick and Adalind if we had KellY?Being a poor single mother does not mean your child will be disadvantage. In fact a lot of these children are better adjusted then kids raised in a sheltered two parent house hold. Single parent kids that I know seem to be more self reliant then the kids who are raised by helicopter parents. As for Diana how she was raised is not being reflected in her actions. She response to situations the same as she did when she was born. She sees a problem she does something about it. There is nothing about Diana that is a child except her size.
Hmm, I see alot of child in Diana, her actions show it. One thing I know Diana does not have is parent figure and it has taken a toll to why she is the way she is, is that, the people around her were simply asked to watch over her as care takers. She does yearn to have a Mum and Dad. She has a lot to learn and certainly had no parents to teach her. I also believe that she wants this.
RE: Morals/ethics question - Adriano Neres Rodrigues - 12-05-2016
(12-03-2016, 06:25 PM)izzy Wrote: So the Nick-Adlind = baby thing got me to thinking. So much that I broached this topic with family and friends and was surprised a the breadth of the responses.
So here is the question, assuming it is possible for a woman to trick or force a man into having sex with her so the man is not a willing participant in conception what if anything does that man ethically or morally owe to a child conceived in such a fashion?
In your answer do not discuss if it rape or not, or if it is actually possible, or any of the legal aspects, just assume it can happen. Keep your response at the level of what does the man owe in terms of morals or ethics to his biological child (note the emphasized text above) ?
For example, doe she owe child support?
Does he have an obligation to support the mother?
Should he pay for college?
Should he be a part, as a father figure, i that child's life?
Should he petition for custody?
etc, etc.
Note, this does not have anything to do with Nick and Adalind, it is a generic question, so please do not reply with what Adalind did to Nick or motivational factors etc. For this question forget about the series Grimm and stick to a generic example.
I created a binary survey for this, but I am really looking for explanation, not just a binary answer.
Regards...
Personally I think the child is innocent and the child is totally dependent of the adults. This way I think the child’s necessities comes first. In simply words, yes both mommy and daddy have obligations with the child.
Of course I am pretty aware that life is not so simple and decisions will involve emotions and situations and a bunch other variables so this answer is not a simple yes or no.
In other others: Adults have obligations with the children. The real question is what is best course of action to address those necessities in each situation?
Do mommy and dad have emotional conditions to take care of the child? Are they mature enough to raise a child?
Do they have enough support to take care of the child? What I mean with this question is this: It happens in Brazil, for example, that a very young couple to have a child and many people to criticize them. But it happens sometimes that their parents (the grandmothers and grandfathers of the littler baby) to give all support for the couple and everything goes ok.
I know I pushed the debate far away than the original talk but I think it involves more variables than a simple yes or no.
Let’s take grimm as example. Nick and Adelaind are (apparently) having support from Nick’s friends to take care of little Kelly (Monroe and Rosalle). Who would help Adelaind if nick abandon her? I am not talking just about money but about being with the baby time to time, I am talking about educating the baby when it became necessary (this is not shown in the series but I think that is a variable to be considered). Adelaind has lost her mommy and as far as we know she has no friends and no other relatives (as far as the series showed us).
So I think all of those variables should be considered in the equation and in how all of this will affect little Kelly and Diana.
RE: Morals/ethics question - izzy - 12-05-2016
Sidetracking my own thread...with two points:
The people I know who were raised by a single parent almost universally tried to raise their own children in a married two parent household, often with a stay-at-home mommy (or in a couple of cases daddy).
I do not know a single pre-school, kindergarten, first grade, second grade or third grade teacher who strived to do anything other than raise their children in a two parent household and I would estimate most went for a stay-at-home mommy for at least the first 6 years.
That aside...to the point of my own thread I do not know. Forcing a man to support or whatever a child he had no proactive part in making seems as wrong to me as forcing a victim of rape to carry a baby to term. Yet, the child is obviously innocent and I truly am undecided on this which is why I asked for input.
RE: Morals/ethics question - Robyn - 12-05-2016
Hmmm…. It’s certainly easier to pass judgment when it’s someone else bearing the ethical/moral burden.
If this happened to my son, as a mother I think my instinctive protection would go to my grandchild, a totally dependent innocent who is at the mercy of the adults in his/her life. But. I take that approach knowing my son has parents who can offer financial as well an emotional support. That’s not always the case, and for a young man not yet set in his career, an unexpected child can cause a difficult financial strain on top of the negative emotions of how the child came to be.
Taking a moral stance, I think the how & why of the child is irrelevant, and would want the man to step up regardless of the how and why. But. I think before becoming an active participant in the child’s life, he should be as certain as possible that’s he prepared to stay for the long haul.
As for the one parent vs. two parent household. I do think it’s better to have a one parent household that’s calm & happy, even if financially strained than a two parent household where the parents are constantly bickering because they’re unhappy.
I was fortunate to stay home without worrying about finances. Many don’t get to make an easy choice or one that doesn’t come with tradeoff. Many of my friends went back to work within months, some within weeks, some for financial reasons, others because they wanted to keep their careers on track, and honestly, I don’t think my children are better adjusted or have succeeded beyond theirs simply because I opted to stay home. For years!
RE: Morals/ethics question - syscrash - 12-05-2016
Quote:Sidetracking my own thread...with two points:
The people I know who were raised by a single parent almost universally tried to raise their own children in a married two parent household, often with a stay-at-home mommy (or in a couple of cases daddy).
I do not know a single pre-school, kindergarten, first grade, second grade or third grade teacher who strived to do anything other than raise their children in a two parent household and I would estimate most went for a stay-at-home mommy for at least the first 6 years.
To say they prefer a stay at home parent. Shows you are not talking about the average house hold. With the price of rent and mortgages it take two incomes. That begs the question are two parent homes more economic then for the benefit of the child.
RE: Morals/ethics question - irukandji - 12-05-2016
(12-05-2016, 07:15 PM)Robyn Wrote: I do think it’s better to have a one parent household that’s calm & happy, even if financially strained than a two parent household where the parents are constantly bickering because they’re unhappy.
I hear you! Dad worked two jobs Mom was a stay at home mom. They fought constantly. We always thought she should have worked a fulltime job and Dad should have only worked one job. Even though we had one parent at home all of the time, it seemed to me the whole parental thing was completely out of whack.
(12-05-2016, 07:15 PM)Robyn Wrote: I was fortunate to stay home without worrying about finances. Many don’t get to make an easy choice or one that doesn’t come with tradeoff. Many of my friends went back to work within months, some within weeks, some for financial reasons, others because they wanted to keep their careers on track, and honestly, I don’t think my children are better adjusted or have succeeded beyond theirs simply because I opted to stay home. For years!
It's nice to read this. I work and continue to do so because I have to. Finances wouldn't permit it otherwise. I've known a few stay at home moms and they had one thing in common; an arrogance about themselves. They viewed themselves as being above the big bad working moms because they made the ultimate sacrifice to stay home with their kids.
(12-05-2016, 05:36 PM)izzy Wrote: That aside...to the point of my own thread I do not know. Forcing a man to support or whatever a child he had no proactive part in making seems as wrong to me as forcing a victim of rape to carry a baby to term. Yet, the child is obviously innocent and I truly am undecided on this which is why I asked for input.
I am undecided on it as well, other than feeling an overwhelming sympathy for rape victims and their innocent babies. I can understand abortion in those cases as well as the decision to carry the child to term. My sister and I have debated about it, and she feels victims of rape should opt to put their babies up for adoption rather than abort them.
Speaking of adoption, I am curious on what you all feel the father's stance in adoption situations. For instance, should the father have the right to halt the adoption if he wants to assume custody? If he gets custody should he have the right to sue the mother for child support?