Do you think a couple should get married when faced with an unexpected pregnancy?
 

I don't think I'd like it for myself. While the part where the father is part of the child's life is fantastic, is it worth my life potentially being one of regret? I'd much rather allow the relationship between him & I to continue to develop until we are ready to marry. Ideally that would be my choice.

However, a couple close to my boyfriend & I got married after a pregnancy, and things are going just fine so far. I know he's told me he's happy with her. So it can work the other way too.

Starting three threads in two minutes? I'm impressed. :)

I don't think anybody should ever rush into marriage. If it's not right, it will come undone later on and people will get burned emotionally and financially. Gets much more complicated when you have a kid, but I really think people should take more responsibility than that - unwanted pregnancies should simply not happen. Either don't have sex or take the right precautions. Don't screw a kid over because bareback feels better.

I don't think so. A child should be brought into as positive an environment as possible.. if the relationship was going well to begin with, why mess with the timeline? If it was going poorly anyway, it's probably best for everyone involved for the couple NOT to get married. Unhappy marriage = unhappy child = bad situation.

I agree. I think that an unhappy marriage is a lot worse for a child than parents not living together, especially if the parents are mature about it. Not meaning to threadjack here, but as a child of divorce (I was 17), after the initial disruption, it was much less stressful for my brother and I after my parents split up. Now I can say I have four great parents instead of two and they actually all hang out together.

You can almost always make another.

My parents had a shotgun wedding (they got pregnant a few weeks after they met). The baby was stillborn but they went on to have me and my two little brothers.

My dad admits that he is not happy and doesn't want to be married to my mother any more, and even told me on the eve of my wedding that he wouldn't have married her if she wasn't pregnant. My mom is in complete denial. They don't even sleep in the same bed (and haven't for as long as I can remember). They're just roommates who share a mortgage and three children. It's bizarre.

Get married if you want to, not because you "have" to. I don't personally know of any shotgun marriages that have worked. Kids would rather have happy, separated parents than two that can't stand each other.

People shouldn't have unprotected sex unless they're ready for children. Assuming they follow my sage-like advice, I'm sure a wedding would be fine. Assuming they don't, it's a shame more people aren't responsible.

I have a mate who has a daughter from a previous relationship. They lived together for a while after the birth, but both realised that their relationship was souring and they split up. They were adult enough to realise that being happy and apart was far better than together and unhappy. He is still heavily in the child's upbringing, provides support cash and they share custody without ever going near a court/judge to get it organised. It was far better for the child that they are not living together.

As long as theres a solid Pre-Nup....why the hell not.

My parents got married because they "had to". They were miserable their entire marriage and that misery was passed on to me and my siblings. I'm vehemently against getting married just because of a pregnancy.

Usually it doesn't work out, but then again, most don't anyway....my cousin-in-law and his wife have been married for 19 years and she was 7 months along when they got married and had known each other less than 3 months.

I don't believe in pre-nups. I think they're terribly unromantic pretty much dooming the marriage from the start. But that's just me! I won't have one when I get married, I absolutely refuse.

As for getting married if you're pregnant. If you don't want the kid, what's wrong with the abortion option? I know...all of you people are going to scream NO! You monster...however it is an option that hasn't been mentioned as an alternative to forced marriage.

I don't believe in getting married due to pregnancy. Although so many situations are different, for me I wouldn't allow anyone to put pressure on me to do so.

Peer pressure says yes, but I would definantly say no. I'm in no hurry to get married, and if some kid is gonna come along, that idea wont change. I have no problem and I would actually like to be part of the kid's life, but as for marriage, I would say no. I'm going to get married to my g/f in due time anyway, a kid will not speed things up. If anything, it'll slow it down.

No.

Probably the single WORST reason to get married.

But if there are other reasons at the same time....

It might work, it might not. It depends on the couple. If Paris Hilton gets knocked up and decides to spawn, and whatever poor asshole who was unlucky enough to catch whatever she's giving decides to marry her, I think that we can all agree that it won't last.

And pre-nups are only to protect sizable assets. For most young couples, they aren't really necessary, unless one is on good career track.

At the bare minimum, both parents should make a commitment to support the kid. This should be the case regardless of whether or not the parents want to get married or not. That's only if they want to make a commitment to each other.

No, I think they should abort.

I think a couple should marry when they are in love and look toward the future with some thought. If an unexpected pregnancy pushes them in that direction, then it does. If one isn't ready for marriage however, I believe they should research the various methods of birth control available to them before getting into this pickle.

I'd be interested in a poll where the users could remain anonymous that would indicate

A.) pro-choice and against compelled marriage.
B.) pro-life and against compelled marriage.
C.) pro-choice and in favor of compelled marriage.
D.) pro-life and in favor of compelled marriage.

While I realize that this thread isn't necessarily about compelled marriage, I still think it would be interesting.

For the record, I'm pro-choice and against compelled marriage.

In answer to the OP; absolutely NOT! They should in MHO wait till the child is well into his/her second year (assuming abortion was not chosen) then if they still are together and still want to they should get married.

Seriously... is that your knee-jerk response to pregnancy? You're obviously not "pro-life", but sometimes I wonder if you're even "pro-choice"... perhaps "pro-death"!

You don't need to have unprotected sex to have an unwanted pregnancy. Contraceptives are not 100% foolproof. 99% effective still leaves room for quite a few "accidents." It happens all the time.

Getting married for the sake of a baby is not really a Great Idea, Get married because you are totaly in love and you know he feels the same way. You want to make sure you are getting married for the right reasons. It's not 1950 men and women move in together everyday. Unwed women have babies with and without a man in thier lives if you have a boyfriend that is willing to be there threw out your pregnancy. And help you raise your little one that is absultly wonderfull , but if not women are strong and they can bring home the bacon and still fry it up in a pan.
But if you truley want to marry the father of your baby then get married.Just remember this if you are unhappy it reflect on the baby no matter how old the little one is and if your Happy it reflect on your little one.
take this advice frome someone that really knows
There is benifits if you are a single mom. You can file for head of house hold on your taxes. Married filing jointly not so good!
Good luck on your dicision I hope this helped

When you say unexpected, that could be in several different contexts.

It could be that you're a couple in a committed relationship but weren't planning to have a baby just yet.

If that is the case, if things are stable, Id say have the baby. Marriage...I don't think that should be the reason for getting married. As an afterthought and because you actually want to, why not.

If it's a couple who have only just got together, or worst-case scenario, a one night thing, then no, they shouldn't get married. Having the baby...well that just depends for me.

As a little thread hi-jack, I think pre-nups aren't romantic, but they sure are practical. I personally live in the real world and would want one. You never know where life will take you. That way, both of you are sure that you're only in it for each other, and nothing else.

I think it all depends upon the status of the relationship at the time of conception. If the relation were new or on rocky ground, definitely not. If this was an established couple who had discussed marriage at some point already then it would be reasonable to consider it. Bottom line though, don't put something in anywhere you don't want something to come out.

Certainly not. I value humans above all else on this world, and I try to avoid death at all costs. That said, I do not place any intrinsic value on a clump of cells / zygote / fetus until the moment of birth. I believe that human life is the most important, followed by domesticated animals, followed by the rest of the animal kingdoms, followed by parasites (tape worms, fetuses, etc).

I see no reason why people should make such a drastic decision which has a high potential to dramatically DECREASE their quality of life as well as the quality of life for their potential child when it's so easy to abort.

The decision "should we get married" should be a decision based on feelings for one another, not out of social obligation because of the potential for a child. It's not like there's a shortage of sperm, eggs, or children out there already. Why forcefully change their lives when they can dramatically simplify the question by removing a useless set of cells which contributes less to the world at large than a pet cat or dog, until the moment of birth?

So Jinn who is this new girl friend that turned you into a radical?

I'm going to be extremely callous.

FUCK NO!

A baby is not justification to ruin two people's lives who normally would not be together. If they are able to build a strong relationship out of the situation and get married down the road great, but pregnancy is absolutely not a reason to get married.

If the father agrees marriage is not an option, and a relationship is not going to work out. The mother needs to realize she is a single mother, and needs to plan likewise (not relying on the father for everything). If the single mother can't handle being a single mom she needs to consider adoption, or alternatives to that solution.

My 5 cents.

I've felt this way about abortion since I was old enough to fuck. I haven't even posting on TFP that long, so I doubt you'll find a discrepancy in how I feel about abortion in any of my posts.

Feminism, sure, but abortion, no. Abort abort abort I always say.

I still say this makes you the direct opposite of the pro-life movement. For want of a better term: "pro-death".

That's as useless as me saying that you're the direct opposite of the pro-choice movement so you must be "anti-choice."

It really doesn't say much, does it? Perhaps because the label is arbitrary, capricious, and (like all labels) does not handle exceptions? You can call me whatever you want, but it doesn't change the fact that I see no reason to dramatically alter lives, lifestyles, and quality of life for 2-3 people because a set of cells have coagulated in a place they weren't previously. I don't think that makes me "pro-death," because I believe that many normal, conscious human beings should be protected above all else, and sometimes even warrant changing our lives and lifestyles to accompany them.

Do you really feel there is a shortage of sperm, eggs, fetuses or children such that we should say "Well, we'd better get married now. We'll never have THIS opportunity again?!"

Somehow I think if you're really in love and you're having sex to procreate, there will be plenty more "blessed children" to raise after you're lawfully and agreeably married. And in the event that you're not in love, not having sex to procreate, or not willing to be married, I'm sure that you'll STILL have plenty more PLANNED chances with willing partners.

EVEN if I believed (as Ustwo purports) that an unwanted child can somehow be raised in a functional household by two strangers forced into wedlock by it's arrival, I don't see why we should encourage people to gamble on such an arrangement when it's very easy to remove the forced decision and wait for a child to be delivered when a household has ALREADY been established for their eventual well- being.

If there ever becomes a shortage of such reproductive materials, I'll readily recant my statements and encourage people to save a scarce resource. Until then, we're talking at worst ruining lives and at best bringing a child into an unstable home because of a very dramatized lie about the "sanctity" and "scarcity" of a VERY abundant non-human resource.

I swear to Jeff (God of Biscuits) I've been saying this over and over again.

I'm also going with the abortion option. If the possibility of pregnancy isn't planned for, chances are that the parents aren't in a position to raise a kid and are better off not having one.

a·dopt /əˈdɒpt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-dopt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to choose or take as one's own; make one's own by selection or assent: to adopt a nickname.
2. to take and rear (the child of other parents) as one's own child, specifically by a formal legal act.
3. to take or receive into any kind of new relationship: to adopt a person as a protégé.
4. to select as a basic or required textbook or series of textbooks in a course.
5. to vote to accept: The House adopted the report.
6. to accept or act in accordance with (a plan, principle, etc.).
—Verb phrase
7. adopt out, to place (a child) for adoption: The institution may keep a child or adopt it out.

Just saying for those who don't think that a fetus is the same as jacking off to Henti.

excess

ex·cess /n. ɪkˈsɛs, ˈɛksɛs; adj., v. ˈɛksɛs, ɪkˈsɛs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n. ik-ses, ek-ses; adj., v. ek-ses, ik-ses] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the fact of exceeding something else in amount or degree: His strength is in excess of yours.
2. the amount or degree by which one thing exceeds another: The bill showed an excess of several hundred dollars over the estimate.
3. an extreme or excessive amount or degree; superabundance: to have an excess of energy.
4. a going beyond what is regarded as customary or proper: to talk to excess.
5. immoderate indulgence; intemperance in eating, drinking, etc.
–adjective
6. more than or above what is necessary, usual, or specified; extra: a charge for excess baggage; excess profits.
–verb (used with object)
7. to dismiss, demote, transfer, or furlough (an employee), esp. as part of a mass layoff.

...

unwanted

adjective
1. not wanted; not needed; "tried to give away unwanted kittens" [ant: wanted]
2. not wanted; "undesirable impurities in steel"; "legislation excluding undesirable aliens";"removed the unwanted vegetation" [syn: undesirable] [ant: desirable]

...

overpopulation

overpopulation (ō'vər-pŏp'yə-lā'shən) Pronunciation Key
The population of an environment by a particular species in excess of the environment's carrying capacity. The effects of overpopulation can include the depletion of resources, environmental deterioration, and the prevalence of famine and disease.

...

WHEEE!

Oh the overpopulation myth.

Doesn't apply to whitey, though ironicly its the most common excuse for the decline of the speicies Americanis Liberalis.

As for unwanted, there is a waiting list for adoption, plenty of 'wanted' out there.

eh, they should get married if their moral values dictate that they should.

as for me, I'm not interested in have any offspring. Childfree for me please.

As witty as it is to reply to an entire post of mine with the definition of a word, I think I'd be stating the obvious if I said that you directly avoided responding to my points, either for lack of time or want, or because you actually agree with them. It's particularly disingenous, though, because it doesn't address the question of the OP at all (i.e. threadjack).

But to humor your premise that somehow adoption is the answer for a couple recently pregnant and deciding on marriage, let's take a look at what "adoption" would actually cost the mother:

Physical costs:

Nausea and vomiting
Fatigue and sickness
Missed work and/or school
Frequent urination
Mood swings and stress
Sleep deprivation
Tender, swollen breasts
Slight bleeding or cramping
Headaches
Constipation
Faintness or dizziness
Death (potentially)

Financial cost:

Additionally, women who take maternity leave typically lose 25%-50% of the income. I think at my work its 75% of salary during the leave.

So you're suggesting that because YOU believe she should bring the child to term, she should choose option b below:

(a) Abort the child, with little medical cost, no lost wages or physical pain, with the ability to make a decision about marrying her boyfriend based on her actual feelings for him rather than being forced into the decision by an unexpected coagulation of cells.

OR

(b) Keep the child, experiencing nausea, vomiting, fatigue and sickness, mood swings, sleep deprivation, bleeding and cramping, headaches and constipation, faintness and dizzines, thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars in medical bills, the possibility of DYING before or during childbirth, dozens of doctor's visits, missed work and school - so that the child can be adopted?

Why, again, do you believe that option B should be selected? Even in the IDEAL case that this clump of cells actually survives to birth, is born succesfully and is adopted into a loving, functional household; I fail to see how justifies a woman sacrificing her life, body and money for 9 months when a much simpler, cost-effective and safer option is available. This point is driven even further by my points above; it's not like she CAN'T have a child at a later point. It's not as if a man's sperm is somehow in limited production, or that a woman doesn't release one egg every month. There are hundreds of opportunities for a woman to become pregnant during her ages of fertility, so why choose the most inopportune time to conceive one? Why not wait until financial, emotional and physical stability are actually PRESENT and the child is actually DESIRED before forcing them into a situation because "well, it's here now, so we'd better bring it to life!"

As a man, I find it very difficult to believe that I'd suffer even a few of the physical costs (not to mention, financial costs) above just because someone thought I should. How can you believe that women would behave any differently?