Debate Contest: What Would You Do? (DM-REMIX) - Page 4

If I had to choose between the two lifestyles, I would pick being born to an unwed mother in small town India. Despite the taboo associated with premarital sex and unwed mothers, I think I would be able to live a better life in India as opposed to the US. Although the US has greater opportunities and may be able to provide a better lifestyle, there are kids born in India everyday to middle class families, who lead decent lives.

Society may not be accepting of my mother's marital status, but there are many kids in the nation that grow up without a paternal figure in their lives day in and day out. I would be one of them, and I'd have my mother to support me, raise me, and comfort me. Because at the end of the day, I think the bigger stigma should be given to my father, who left my mother without marrying her.

I do not deny that the challenges I will face due to the difficulties of being a fatherless child will be fierce, however, I do think I'll have a much easier life as compared to a child who grows up with a lesbian couple. In society, I will only have to explain only my father's absence as opposed to the American child who will not only have to explain the absence of a father, but also a presence of a second mother.

Despite America's more accepting nature, same sex couples were, and in many places still are, looked down upon. The child who is raised in this family would go out and see his friends' parents as mom and dad, and come home to mom and mom. How do you expect a child to not only accept that, but also understand that? Is the absence of a father not enough that now the child is held responsible for dealing with society's view of what is considered moral and what is not?

Granted American society has evolved, but even today, you do not go to school and hear a child tell you about his lesbian or gay parents. Society may have accepted same sex couples, but to no degree have they accepted families with same-sex parents.

Therefore, I think that a child born to an unwed mother in India will be able to overcome the stigma society has set upon him far easier than the child in America will.

I think that everyone who is officially participating should clearly state their views in a single post and then move on in refuting/agreeing with the other person's argument. It is much easier to refute and counter someone's argument, then it is to present your own case and evidence needed to support that case.

Originally posted by: PhoeniXof_Hades

Just one point, Cuckoo. I will be back to your whole post later, if I can. : )

It could be, as you said it very well, done through the use of artificial insemination. Now, irrespective of whether the process is natural or not, a mother's love for her child[ren] is always natural - it isn't forced or artificially produced; it is something that just comes from within. So it doesn't matter what method had been used to bring the child into the world. In your scenario, the single unwed mother could very well get pregnant through rape (a scenario extremely common in India) - which isn't an exactly natural, or at least, right way of getting pregnant, but that doesn't undermine the love of the mother for the mother.

That said, the intention of the mother - i.e. whether the mother actually wanted to bring the child into the world, or did she end up having the child just because terminating the pregnancy was unavoidable - should be taken into account. Many a times, mothers often end up holding grudges against their offspring simply because they (the children) happen[s] to be the "nishana" of  "that single moment" which literally ripped apart the mother's life, made the mother an outcast, and what not. This is especially seen amongst women who had to deal with rape or similar scenarios. That doesn't mean that the mothers do not love their children though. However, for the child, who has to grow up knowing that  is the symbol of a rape or a "one night mistake" - it would be excruciatingly hard for her part to have a healthy upbringing. She (the child) may end up hating herself for the condition of her mother, have extremely low self-esteem, and self-hate and self-loathing are never the best qualities that should be shoved down upon ones throats, and much less during ones childhood years.

The same cannot be said for a lesbian mother - at least not in most cases. Statistically speaking, most lesbian women have children through the use of artificial insemination, and by their own will, and not because they are compelled to do so. This is a stark contrast to a single unwed mothers, who (most of the time) ends up being pregnant *accidentally*, way unlike a lesbian woman, who gets pregnant (most of the time) through her *own wish*. This is one of the many reason(s?) why a single unwed mother may end up holding grudges against their offspring (one that they might have wanted to abort) than a lesbian mother.

Labib, this is an irrelevant discussion. No where does it say that the Indian mother was raped. For all we know, she took this step of her own free will and gave birth to this child.

Originally posted by: karandel_2008

@cuckoo: I know that till now I just replied to the possibilities offered by you.

Regarding the points that I can try to defend, here is one (I may not be the first to bring it up):

If we compare 2 cases then in the case of unwed mother, she is alone. Whereas, in the case of lesbian couple they are a couple.

Unwed mother will also need some care and love herself - this factor will also affect the kid. Sometimes she will need some adult to speak her heart out, fend off the social pressure and discuss things with an adult about some important decisions for the kid. However, she will be alone and rather she will have to fend off sexual advances of some men towards her who would try to be "friends" with that lonely woman.

There is a possibility that her parents will join her, but its just a possibility and not a given as per se in the topic. But, feel free to discuss it and I will reply as I am open to some possibilities.

However, in the topic its a given that the lesbian couple will be a couple. "Two plus a child" are better than "a lonely person plus a child", when it comes to fending off social pressure that results from things that are considered a taboo in the society, Its also better because they can consult each other for somethings regarding the kid.

For the lesbian couples, there are other numerous advantages of being a couple. For example, one person can go earn a living and other can take care of the infant, etc.

Karan, more people don't automatically signify a stronger family. Don't you think having a second mother will create more problems for the child? He'll have to grow up in a society that is not too keen on the presence of same-sex couples. Imagine him being in school and writing stories about his two moms when everyone is telling the class about their mom and dad. How can you expect a young child to cope with that scenario?

We all need companionship in our lives, yes, but that does not always mean a significant other. The unwed mother will have family that may support her, she may go out and make friends that will listen to her vent, not everyone needs a significant other to lead their lives.

As far as sexual advances go, just because a woman is single does not automatically entail that men will make sexual advances on her. In fact, the fact that it is a small town where presumably everyone knows each other, I doubt such situations will arise due to fear of public humiliation, etc.

And lastly, earning a living --- there are families all across India and in the US that survive on one parent's income. The child is not an "infant", but a teenager who I'm sure is very well able to take care of him/herself. As far as financial support goes, as I said before, just because the woman is an unwed mother does not automatically mean she is alone. And in that case, I'm sure she can work and support herself and her child or receive financial support from her family.

Originally posted by: karandel_2008

You may assume anything, but the "fact" is that it is written in the debate topic description "born to lesbian couple". Born is not equal to adopted!  here you are assuming what you interpret is right.. If lesbianism is not recognized that statement doesnt make sense.. and you interpret as one biological mother involved in this kind of relation is something not close to being trie in that time...

How it was done? --there are many possibilities, just like in the case of the unwed mother.there is only one way for an unwed mother to be existing and there is no ambiguity...

Otherwise I can show you a long list of assumptions -- The language being used here is not English, Unwed mother in India was also lesbian please tell me how this happens.. i am curious..., Unwed mother also adopted the kid, unwed mother abandoned the kid as soon as kid was born, unwed mother flew to USA as soon as kid was born, unwed mother actually had a secret husband who was hiding with her...etc. How do they sound? to your last question - far fetched.... unwed mothers have been socially possible phenomena.. unlike lesbianism.. just so that this debate doesnt get hijacked assume it has to be secret adoption since neither lesbiansim not their rights to adoption are recognized...

Originally posted by: *Woh Ajnabee*

I think that everyone who is officially participating should clearly state their views in a single post and then move on in refuting/agreeing with the other person's argument. It is much easier to refute and counter someone's argument, then it is to present your own case and evidence needed to support that case.

I think the period should be reconciled... if lesbianism was not recognized how cuold they either adopt or legally live with kids.....

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

I think the period should be reconciled... if lesbianism was not recognized how cuold they either adopt or legally live with kids.....

 

 

But that would eliminate to a very high extent the social taboos associated with both these cases. I think the topic is fine, we just have to stick to it. :)

Originally posted by: *Woh Ajnabee*

Labib, this is an irrelevant discussion. No where does it say that the Indian mother was raped. For all we know, she took this step of her own free will and gave birth to this child.

thats not true.. single mom is a social issue in india unlike lesbianism which is a life-style.. illness.. and she (single mom)  didnt take teh step.. she landed into that situation.. again unlike the lesbo's who walk into such situations.. all i am saying in this is comparing apples to oranges...

Originally posted by: *Woh Ajnabee*

But that would eliminate to a very high extent the social taboos associated with both these cases. I think the topic is fine, we just have to stick to it. :)

I dont question the topic.. just the time frame...its  like asking what apps would Einstein have on his iPhone!! :)

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

thats not true.. single mom is a social issue in india unlike lesbianism which is a life-style.. illness.. and she (single mom)  didnt take teh step.. she landed into that situation.. again unlike the lesbo's who walk into such situations.. all i am saying in this is comparing apples to oranges...

I agree, the unwed mother is a social issue. However, the unwed mother just in itself is the issue. Where does rape come into play?