View Full Version : Marriage after conception

21st September 2008, 5:57 PM
(You really donít have to read the next four or five paragraphs, if you donít feel like it. They mostly just introduct the topic and give a brief history of that topic. Just FYI)
Youíre probably living in some sort of political bomb shelter if you havenít heard the news: Bristol Palin is pregnant.

Now, this debate isnít about the fact that young people are getting pregnant, or that Sarah Palinís daughter is pregnant. We know that. This debate is more about what may happen after conception.

Mrs. Palin has pointed out that Bristol is getting married to the father. That is what this debate is all about; marriage after impregnation. (Is that even a word? Oh well.)

Marriage after procreation isnít really a new thing. Itís been around since medieval times, in fact. Back then, you could publicly make it known that you had slept with someone you hadnít married (even more scandalous back then), or just marry the (wo)man. William Shakespeare chose the latter, and many historians do not believe that his marriage was a happy one; many point the a line in one of his poems: Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks. Plus, in his will he gave her (and I quote): Item, I gyve unto my wief my second best bed with the furniture, (now, wives in medieval times werenít exactly given huge amounts of stuff anyways, so *passes around salt shaker*)

As http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm shows, marriage isnít exactly easy under the age of 18 (usually, higher or lower in some places) It often requires parental permission. However, it is stated that special cases are made for couples with children or expecting a child.

The question this debate poses is this: If woman becomes pregnant before marriage, should the couple marry afterward? I really donít think so.

The most telling thing for me, anyway, is that the couple may not stay together for very long, at least, if they are adolescents. Iíll let my sources do the talking.
Couples who tie the knot early are much more likely to get divorced. Studies show that nearly half the people who marry under age 18 will have failed marriages, and 40 percent of those who marry under age 20 will end up divorced. In contrast, only 24 percent of people who marry after age 25 will get divorced. Half of all marriages in which the bride is under age 18 will end in divorce within ten years.
Premarital pregnancy by itself does not significantly increase the likelihood of divorce. But if the pregnant women is an adolescent, drops out of high school, and faces economic problems following marriage, the divorce rate increases dramatically. If a women gives birth prior to marriage, the likelihood for divorce in subsequent marriages increases, especially in the early years. This negative effect on marriage is stronger for whites than for African Americans (White, 1991).
Overall, what Iím trying to say is, these children are too young to be making a life-long contract.
Also, parents may pressure children into these marriages, perhaps to show that the couple really does love each other very much, and to help salvage their parental pride (of course, I am making a fairly big assumption, and I am sorry if I sound rude.)

Let the debate begin!

23rd September 2008, 1:52 AM
Exactly. Unless you want to ruin the point of being married( Sweetie, just marry him so the news won't bother us, then when the child is born and the media saw it, leave him. Don't want to look like a ****) you don't immediatly get married when the woman get's pregnant.

Sometimes the couple are mad at each other after it's found out the girl is pregnant. You don't want to put them together in the same room, nevertheless marry them.

It can be suggested if their relationship is still strong and they really love and care for each other, can live together independantly and show responsibility.

And all three have to fit. Not one or two.

If that's the case, marriage can be SUGGESTED.

Not forced, pressured, or any of that good stuff.

As long as the child is healthy and has a nice home to come to from school, I don't care.

30th September 2008, 4:04 AM
This might be a one-liner, but this totally sums up my view on this issue in the most succinct way possible:

That's what abortions are for :)

30th September 2008, 10:18 AM
May I ask, is this a debate on whether it should happen (i.e., whether it is good to happen) or whether it should be stopped?

30th September 2008, 11:03 AM
Conception over Marriage is really viewed heavily, because in most cases, the parents abandon the child, so I really think it should be stopped. On the other hand, most people already does this (like my cousin), meaning it is nearly impossible to control, so I guess there is no other choice but to let it be.

1st October 2008, 12:56 AM
If this is indeed a thread on whether the government should intervene in such cases, what gives the government the power to decide which marriages will be a success, which marriages will fail and which groups should not be allowed to marry? I find this interference in the lives of ordinary people totally unacceptable: marriage is a personal issue between two people and a government should neither force nor prevent marriage regardless of somebody's judgement on it. And also, the issue of abandoning/mistreating the child has been raised by itsme: may I ask this question though, what in marriage makes the parents more likely to neglect the child? From a logical point of view, marriage might keep the couple together for a few years enough to get the child through infancy even if the marriage does fail. By contrast, not marrying seems logically like something that would make it easier for the couple to split apart and thus leave a single mother to care for the child. And even if this doesn't happen as I just stated, what's the point of banning marriage for those expecting a child anyway? Marriage either does or does not have an effect on a relationship (i.e., either binding or symbolic). In the former case, I demand that those who do not share my view explain why marriage will make it more likely to neglect the child, and in the latter, if marriage is only symbolic then why should we stop it for expecting parents because it will have no effect! THe arguments being proposed don't add up logically. And if we are going to do this, why stop? Why don't we just ban premarital sex altogether and give people some sort of sterilisation patch at fourteen and take it off at marriage? There's no reason not to do that as it's logically intuitive that people at sixteen having a child, not marrying and then leaving the child with a single inexperienced mother is worse than when the couple decides to try stay together. But doing these extreme measures is a blatant denial of the right to bodily autonomy, the right upon which all medical ethics are built upon, not to mention it's government further extending its power over the populace; and so is the proposal to ban marriage for those expecting a child.

1st October 2008, 1:11 AM
This debate was intended to be about if marriage after conception is the right choice, Panda. The marriage laws (which I assume threw you off) were meant to show that it's not easy, legally, anyways, to get married at a young age. It will many times require parental agreement, which I guess I took to show the possibility that parents may be pressuring children into this. Although, now that I think about it, that's not very stable reasoning on my part.
EDIT: I'm going to respond to something The_Panda pointed out.

From a logical point of view, marriage might keep the couple together for a few years enough to get the child through infancy even if the marriage does fail. By contrast, not marrying seems logically like something that would make it easier for the couple to split apart and thus leave a single mother to care for the child. That's true. However, I question the negative effects a messy break-up might have on the child. If we take it that 50% of couples teenage married after conception divorce in about 10 years, won't the child have to go through that at age 10? Although living with only you mother might be tough, I'd think remembering your parents break-up would be even more depressing.

1st October 2008, 11:06 AM
Umm...depends. Marriage IMO should only be between people who really love each other; if you suddenly have a growing fetus with someone you don't love, then it wouldn't be right to marry him/her. If you do love someone and you accidentally have a baby with him/her, then marriage would probably be alright. Kids these days....

7th October 2008, 4:56 AM
I agree with profpeanut but with this addition. Some people don't need a piece of paper, an expensive ceremony with party, to have a happy family and a great partnership for life. The way things are today it's almost too expensive to be married and not be taxed to death and support a family on two to three incomes. :P

7th October 2008, 5:11 AM
It depends upon the situation. If the people involved really don't care about each other or aren't willing to make a commitment, then no. A marriage like that won't work out because there's too much conflict. Even when people do get along and are determined to make it work, it's hard and you have to make sacrifices. The couple tends to argue a lot, which is hard on the kid, and the kid could end up feeling responsible for the whole mess.

However, if the two people are mature and really do care about each other, it can work. I think it used to be more like this in the past. If a guy got a girl pregnant, it was his responsibility to take care of them. The couples weren't always in love, but they tended to at least have a good partnership. That can turn into something over time. It wasn't good that people had to do it this way, because some were really unhappy, but for the most part, I think this arrangement was best for the children involved.

But if the couple doesn't get married, the father should still have to take some kind of responsibility, at least through child support. I think this should be better enforced. There's abortion, too, but a lot of women don't feel right about that, even aside from moral issues. Attachment to the child can start pretty early.

Willow's Tara
7th October 2008, 5:23 AM
Interesting this thread should pop up, my cousin who is almost 21 (Will not be named for her and her boyfriend) found out she was pregnant around a week ago or so, the two aren't planning on getting married thought and I think that's a good idea.

If you aren't ready for marriage, or in love (Not in this case thought) then there's no point in getting married, just as long as you can look after your child and be in love.

Although in my personal opinion, I think the two deserve to get married only because they are really in love, my cousin even says he's her soulmate.

Yellow Torterra
8th October 2008, 3:23 AM
conception after marriage is by the convenience that it may boost marriage and maybe assure it will last.
Being mexican and catholic I understand tsome of the problem of pre-matrimonial conception, I have seen many cases in wich the pregnant couple doesnt succeed in marriage and they separate, generally the mother is under-aged and still in school, so she has to stop her studies.
There are many people that abandon the child in an orphanage, but the problem with them is because the adopting parents only want very small children to raise them thinking they are his(her) bio-parents, so children that dont get picked stay in the orphanage, sometimes rotting their souls with hate of the world, in some cases they grow to be criminals.

I didnt mention abortion because im anti-abortion, please dont ask about that subject.

14th October 2008, 4:50 AM
I would say it's probably better to get married before conception. If you get married after, you are probably getting married to this person for all the wrong reasons. You are just getting married because you know that your baby needs a father. Well whatever you do it's all up to you.