- This topic has 8 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I wanted to ask a moral question, and seeing as i think morality and politics go hand in hand im putting it here.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100430/tod-granny-72-having-a-baby-with-her-gra-870a197.html
What do you guys think personally, and then what do you feel is a good moral argument for why or why not they should be allowed to carry on.
It’s tough. definitely brings up a lot of questions. Not neccessarily about grandma/grandson relationships (that instinctively seems extremely wrong), but it brings up more of a question of “what is a right or wrong relationship?” I’m a heterosexual, but i don’t think homosexuals are in the wrong for their relationships. Yet for some reason i can’t not say that this heterosexual relationship is wrong.
When offered the same benefits as marriage but under a different name, the *edited* rights groups almost unanimously rejected it. That controversy isn’t about rights or pride, it’s about pushing their beliefs on others. You’ll find that >90% of people have no problem with *edited* “unions” because the vast majority of people don’t give a *edited* about what you do or who you live with in private. As a true conservative, what *edited*s do in their private lives should have no bearing on how I treat/view/respect them. Only their actions in public warrant scrutiny. /rant
Seriously though, just because this is a heterosexual relationship doesn’t make it right. In almost every state they can’t even marry. It’s wrong in so many ways… legally, morally, socially, biologically, genetically (w/o a donor), the list goes on.
I mean think about it, she’ll be dead in less than 20 years, probably in 10 or so. Actually, with Obamacare prioritizing care away from the elderly, it could be a good deal less than 10. That means that not only is the child going to have a really weird family life, when he/she hits their teenage years it’s almost guaranteed they won’t have a mother.
That’s a really bad time to lose a parent.
I find it interesting that her asset value wasn’t mentioned. This could be a way for him to get a sizeable inheritance.
I am all for supporting the rights of the individual. I believe that the right to do what we want should not be overridden unless it harms another. If this couple was not going to conceive a child then I would support them. It may not be the norm, but they deserve to do what they want. The fact a child could be brought into an unstable/shortened marriage where it could hinder that child’s development makes me want to limit that relationship.
They have the right to be together, but they should not be allowed to harm a child like that.
Until they can prove to me that the relationship will not harm the development of the child they should be barred from conception.
- The forum ‘Political Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.