Mochaloca

Legalities aside, I think at least two legal principles apply. (Also, by the question, I am assuming that you believe ethical &/or moral principles exist and could apply to this situation. I don't believe we have to reinvent the wheel here.)

The first legal principle would be forseeability. This means you understand what the consequences of having sex are, i.e., creating a baby. You have decided against sterilization & abstinence which would be the two sure ways of avoiding a pregnancy. So, the risk is there that a child will be concieved.

You seem to think that an "agreement" with the mother has foreclosed the possibility that the child will actually be carried to term. How stupid, um...I'm mean naive is the dad? How many times have you heard of people breaking their contracts? Therefore, the consequence for the act should include the possiblity that one or the other party (of course in this situation it's always going to be the mom) is going to renege on the contract should be taken into account.

Next, you consider what you know about babies. They are not born being able to take care of themselves. Someone has to feed, clothe, house & provide all other needs if the baby is to survive. We know human babies take the longest of any species to be able to acquire survival skills. Between the biological parents & every other human in the world, who is most obligated to provide for the child? (If you've already accepted the premise of morality/ethics, this should be a no- brainer).

The second legal principle that applies, IMO, is that of a third party interest in the "contract." Because, for sure the baby has an interest, in fact his/her very survival depends on it. Let's say the mother, after reneging on the agreement to abort, carries the baby to term and dies in child birth. What then? According the those who think the dad has no responsibility, the baby should just be left to die, because if bio dad has no ethical obligation, clearly neither does the rest of the world. (Remember we are leaving legalities out of it).

Even if mom were to live, however, does bio dad still have any responsiblity? Well, what if mom cannot meet all of baby's needs. Is it moral/ ethical for a biological parent to allow a child to live in poverty, or in an abusive or other deletorious enviornment without taking any action to try to alleviate it. Is that really what all of you who don't think the dad has any responsibility are saying?javascript:

Clearly, I don't agree with this point of view. As between the mom & dad, clearly the mom has the main responsibility of financially providing for the child. To the extent that she cannot meet all of the childs needs, IMO the dad has the responsiblity to ensure those needs are met. This is based on the forseeability of the consequences of having sex.

M.

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Mochaloca ]

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Mochaloca ]</p>

tronvillain

seebs:
Obviously you meant "society benefits greatly if children are raised by two parents" but it's not clear that depriving fathers of this choice results in more children being raised by two parents. Except for the pregnancy itself, there is no difference between a mother's choice forcing parental responsibility on a father and a father's choice forcing parental responsibility on a mother. Only parents that wish parental responsibility should take it up. If mothers wish to raise children without paternal involvement, that's their decision.

I am afraid you will have to show me just how biology dictates that men get a bit less of a choice than women do. We have overcome biology to the degree that women can choose whether or not to have a child once pregnancy has occurred, which is an option unavaiblable to men. Now, giving men comparable rights might result in more abortions, but I don't have a problem with that. People shouldn't have parental responsibilities forced upon them.

A thought occurs to me: if a mother wants to give a baby up for adoption, but a father wants to keep it, can the father take the child and make the mother pay? If the answer is no, the system would seem unfairly biased towards mothers.

seebs

True enough. Hmm. This is a complicated enough issue that I should probably drop it for a week or two and wait until I have a clearer idea of how I feel about it.

Jamie_L

I still think it boils down to this question:

Do parents have a moral/ethical obligation to children they create? Again, we have to assume "yes", or the OP is meaningless.

Sub-questin: do both parents have an obligation, or just one? Ay, there's the rub.

It seems to me that if the answer is just one, then assigning that obligation becomes problematic and arbitrary. It further seems to me that, in general, there is a collective obligation. If you have a hand in the creation, the obligation attaches.

The agreement made in the OP involves no discussion of the obligations if a child is carried to term and born, thus it really is irrelevant to the obligation question. If the agreement had included the clause: "if the mother chooses not to have the abortion, she accepts full responsibility and releases the father of any obligation," then maybe the father's got a case.

Jamie

tronvillain

As far as I can tell, parents don't have much of a moral or ethical obligation to children they create, since they can give them up.

Now, the way I see it, if both parents choose to have the baby, then they are both obligated to it. If the mother chooses to have the baby but the father doesn't, then only the mother is obligated to it. If the father chooses to have the baby but the mother doesn't, questions of obligation are meaningless since the baby won't be born. Of course, if abortion wasn't an option, this wouldn't be my position, but it does exist. Women have choice and men should too.

Jamie_L

Again, we're blurring ethical/moral obligations with legal ones. But setting that aside:

Parents can give their children up, but they can't abandon them. If there were truely no obligation, a mother could give birth to her baby, drop it in a trash can, and no one would care (except the baby of course). Clearly, this is not the case. Parents can transfer their obligation, but that doesn't mean they have no obligation.

Furthermore, assuming no contraception and no previous agreements, a man cannot get a woman pregnant and claim no responsibility for the child (well, he CAN, but its not moral/ethical - and he can also be held financial responsible under the law). This is in general agreement (I think).

Again, to me, this all leads back to the fact that parents do have a moral obligation towards children they create. To say they don't is to say it's morally acceptible for parent's to abandon their children.

Jamie

tronvillain

Jamie_L:
I am arguing that a man should be able to claim no responsibility for the child, at least until abortion is no longer an option (after that is a different story, at least until the question of adoption comes up). We have enough control over biology that the choice to be pregnant or not exists, and I think that the choice should be a little more equal than it is now. A woman can choose to not have the baby, why shouldn't a man be able to make a similar choice?

Now, I mentioned this earlier: If a mother wants to give a baby up for adoption, but a father wants to keep it, can the father take the child and make the mother pay? If the answer is no, the system would seem unfairly biased towards mothers.

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

snatchbalance

For whatever it's worth, in my experience, sociobiology trumps any and all ethical considerations. The man will be forced into indenture, one way or another.

Females of this species control reproduction.

SB

Jane Bovary

All that goes to show is that you can't really make agreements and contracts around human relationships.

Jamie_L

Legally, I believe that this can happen. I think it rarely does because the circumstances don't come up often, and because of prejudices of the people running the system. On paper, however, I think its legal.

Regardless of the truth of the law, from a moral standpoint I agree with this scenario. The two parents have a collective obligation to the child, not two individual obligations. It can be given up only if both agree. It's like joint ownership in a house. One owner can't just sell his part of the house without approval of the other owner, and it isn't ethical for one owner to just run off and leave all the financial burden on the other owner.

Jamie