seebs

I've been trying to figure out why I don't agree with this, because my reasoning normally goes the same way.

I think the issue is that, while the father may not owe the *mother* anything, he owes the *kid* something. Allowing people to spawn without accepting responsibility is a bad thing, so I feel he ends up with a responsibility anyway, except in a case where they agree that she's *trying* to get pregnant and not have a kid.

Yeah, it's a bit unfair for the dad - but that's one of the risks of sex.

tronvillain

I think his responsibilities towards the woman and the child should be zero - the father deserves as much choice as the mother. While he shouldn't be able to force her to have an abortion, he should have to contribute or be involved if he chooses not to. I would extend this to virtually all cases, not merelyl the isolated hypothetical you suggest.

Jamie_L

Here's the real issue:

Do parents have an implicit moral/ethical obligation to children they create? Does that obligation only exist if you intended to create the child, or does it exist if you did not intend to?

I'll assume that parents have an obligation to children the create in some circumstances. Otherwise, this whole issue is moot: there is no obligation.

Now, is the obligation created by the existence of the child or by the circumstances leading to its creation?

If you argue that the agreement leaves the father with no obligation, then clearly the existence of the child does not determine obligation. It is the conditions leading to creation.

The agreement itself merely codifies the initial intent: both parents intend not to create a child.

Suppose the agreement were altered: suppose both parties still did not intend to create a child. Suppose they agree that if pregnancy occurs, they will carry the child to term, and then leave the infant in the woods to die of exposure. Is this acceptable? Well, if we stick to the initial assumption, that the agreement is what counts, we've already established that the existence of the child does not imply obligation. This illustrates what is really implied if we say that the agreement matters: we're saying intent to create a child is all that matters.

But, if intent is all that matters, then not only is the above scenario valid, but its also vaild for a father to shirk all responsibility to a child so long as he never intended to create that child. An agreement is not necessary. Thus, a man can sleep around all he wants - as long as he does not intend to father children, he has no obligation to any children he creates.

To me, this is all unacceptable. It is not intent that creates the obligation, it IS the existence of the child. Taking part in an action which may create a child assigns you an obligation if that child is created - regardless of your intent, and regardless of how explicit you make that intent by means of agreements.

Jamie

seebs

I don't think the right of choice is nearly that strong - the only reasons I'm pro-choice are that:

1. The mother is a lot more *affected* by pregnancy than the father. (Once the baby is born, it can theoretically be given up for adoption, though.)

2. Even though I personally believe it's morally wrong to abort potentially-viable fetuses, I don't believe society should dictate morality in remotely questionable cases.

So... I tend to think that the kid's rights, and the social necessity of responsible parenting, trump the dad's rights. Note that social necessity *is* a thing I think laws can and should reflect, too.

tronvillain

A child has no right to being raised by two parents, so I am at a loss as to what right you think would prevent a father from rejecting responsibility. As for social necessity, I see no evidence that society is better off for depriving men of the ability to choose. Of course, I am pro-choice for different reasons than you.

seebs

A child has no inherent "right" to be raised by any parents at all.

Society benefits greatly if children are raised by two children - or at least, so the current evidence appears to suggest. We can't easily sort it out without control groups.

Basically, I think biology dictates that men get a bit less of a choice that women do, once a fetus is started. For social justice reasons, I think we're stuck with this outcome; the alternatives strike me as worse.

The Other Michael

Hi Seebs,

But the reluctant father WAS responsible. He and the prospective mother took precautions and AGREED to abort if said precautions failed.

The mother has violated the contract (and oral contracts are viable instruments in many states) and the father to be should be off the hook.

However, I think in a situation like this a written contract would be a VERY good thing to have in advance, just because situations like this do happen.

If the mother's right to control her body and not have the abortion they agreed on is going to trump the father's right to enforce the abortion, then you've got a very one-sided situation, and it would seem proper that the mother bear the burden of raising the kid.

Vasectomies really do a good job of eliminating a lot of these kinds of problems!

cheers,
Michael

seebs

Hmm. I'm not sure the agreement is binding. If I agree to kill someone under certain conditions, and then choose not to... that's clearly not binding.

I see it as the inevitable meta-risk, and at some point, I say "yeah, the chances are low - but if it happens, you're stuck with it."

Yes, it's one-sided; biology is one-sided. In the interests of fairness, I think that, as a society, we should balance the one-sided qualities of biology by making sure both parents are always stuck with the kid, in the absence of a clear explanation of who *is* stuck with the kid.

Indeed.

A friend of mine has a couple of daughters; one day, he sat them down and told each of them what kind of birth control was being used when she was conceived. They've been very, very, careful kids.

The Other Michael

Hi Seebs,

I think that's an incorrect analogy. Abortion is neither murder under the law, nor is it killing "someone".

cheers,
Michael

seebs

I'm not sure about the latter point; I haven't been able to convince myself that the arguments on either side are unambiguous.

My point is that, ethically, it is possible to argue that an agreement to do something is not binding if there's an overriding ethical reason not to do that thing. If the mother-to-be believes that such an ethical reason exists, I'm inclined to back her.

I will freely admit that this is not a circumstance where I'd particularly support draconian measures to enforce this "law"; I merely think that, ethically, the guy took a risk, and I think failing to accept the consequences would, in this case, harm other people. It's a tough case, and I can easily make the argument for the other side; it's a good argument.

On the other hand, when unsure, I tend to favor the answer that provides a more stable society.