tronvillain

snatchbalance:
I am not convinced that the overwhelming majority of women would decide to support the "enforced paternal responsibility" side. I think people would see the hypocrisy involved, as jfbiii points out:

Anyone who wants women to have choice while denying men a comparable choice is simply being unfair. Besides, I think there's a chance some of the reforms could be achieved through the courts rather than by more direct political means.

snatchbalance

Tron, jfbiii:

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

No argument here. But I don't think the politicl climate is right for any change.

If you think otherwise, how would you go about effecting such change.

SB

Jamie_L

Topic drifting...

It's near impossible to generate reproductive ethical parity between men and women because the biological burdens are so different. That isn't to say the current state of affairs is best, but trying to give men and women an equally fair shake just ain't never gonna happen - not until men and women can flip a coin to decide who will carry the baby to term - or until you can do it with an incubator in your basement.

I think all the stuff I said earier still stands, so I won't waste anyone's time repeating it.

Jamie

tronvillain

I think my solution takes that difference into account. After all, it doesn't give fathers the choice to force women to give birth.

scigirl

I think I agree with this too. I mean, let's say I have a one-night stand, and I lied about being on the pill, and I get pregnant and want to have the baby. Should this guy be financially responsible for 18 years for this child? I don't think he should. Yes he chose to have sex. But. . . the "punishment" should fit the crime I guess.

I don't think the man has the right to tell me to have an abortion though. But let's say I wanted one, should he be able to force me to have the child then give it up to him for custody? I don't know. Biologically I say an emphatic NO, since the risk of me dying from pregnancy is still fairly high. But, what if he really wanted the child? That's a tough one I guess.

This whole conversation makes me so so so glad that there are fairly reliable (albeit they aren't perfect) birth control methods.

scigirl

Jamie_L

I do sympathize with the notion that the man shouldn't get roped into a serious obligation that he never wanted and had reasonable expectations not to have.

If we were talking about a simple financial obligation to a piece of property, I'd have no problem. Since there is a third party (the child) involved, however, it seems to me like the child's interests ought to come first, since even moreso than the father, he had no say in any of it.

And I just come back to the idea that creating a child begats obligation - otherwise a lot of things we consider immoral can be argued to be perfectly acceptible.

Jamie

snatchbalance

Jamie,


I tend to agree that people have an obligation to thier progeny. What moral/immoral issues are connected to this obligation?

SB

brighid

An adult couple(hetero) agrees to engage in intercourse.
Niether wants children.
They discuss birth control methods and agree on a course of action. Niether party wants to be sterilized. No method is 100% effective, but sterilization comes the closest.
They agree that in the unlikely event that the woman becomes pregnant, she will abort the zygot.
So..., the relationship results in pregnancy, and the woman decides that she does not want an abortion.
What are the man's responsibilities to the woman and the child?

Snatch,

I do not think there is any easy answer. I would want to know what forms of birth control were used. If this was indeed a pivotal issue I think both the man and the woman should protect themselves against the possibility of getting pregnant. Perhaps she took the pill, but did he also wear a condom? Having chemically or otherwise suppressed pregnancy for 9 years, while engaging in a healthy and active sex life I find it hard to believe that accidents happen. My uterus is like Fort Knox and there have been men that I cared about and felt a strong attraction to who I wanted to have sex with but there was no way on this Earth I would want to have their child. At times I used the Birth Control Pill, insisted all partners wear condoms and used additional spermicide if I was in doubt. Now that the morning after pill is available (check out your local Planned Parenthood) I find little excuse for unplanned pregnancy.

I think it was wrong for her to break her agreement with you, but not immoral. Often times women feel they would be able to get an abortion if they were in a crisis situation, but often times reality is much different.

Have these two people discussed what the woman expects from the man, and what expectation the man know has once the child is born?

I think it is impossible to force a man to be a father and often times it only ends up hurting the mother and child more. I know! In this specific circumstance I believe the woman has an obligation to be honest with the man and she does have the right to change her mind. This is a monumental experience that is both life altering and life threatening, BUT she has an ethical obligation to honor the man’s wishes as previously discussed in their relationship. She can ethically change her mind, as long as she doesn’t impose her will upon the man. In this scenario she should say to him that she has changed her mind, but she did it with the full knowledge that he wanted to terminate the pregnancy and therefore she will raise the child without any obligation to him.

The question is now, how should the man handle the fact that he knows he has fathered a child and someday this child will come looking for him? How does he ethically handle this situation? Does he allow this child to grow up without knowing him? How will he feel about this situation 6 months, a year or 10 years from now? What does he want for his child now that this is a reality and from this point forward what is the most ethical response to an unfair situation? He is the one who will have to live with the decision. He can choose to tell her that he will not support her in any way and that he wants nothing to do with this child. He can choose to be involved with the child voluntarily and come to very set and legal terms as to his actual involvement with the child and be aware that your feelings toward this child will likely change over time, and therefore your desires and potential future obligations. Or he can be forced by the court to financially support the child even if he doesn’t have actual contact with it. The later may not be fair, but it is reality and in an ethical quandary such as this it must be considered. How does he want the foreseeable future to play out? Lengthy court battles destroy more then your pocket book and in my opinion they are horribly unethical because of the damage it does to all parties, all of which is preventable. Does she expect this mans involvement?

Unfortunately sex carries many penalties for both parties that engage in intercourse. It was foreseeable that she could get pregnant and that she may change her mind, or even that you might change your mind. These things should have been discussed in the event circumstances and feelings changed. However, the should of, could of and would of’s don’t change reality.

In this particular case I don’t believe the man has an obligation or responsibility to this woman, but he has a responsibility to maintain his own sense of integrity and decency and he does have an obligation to the child he is half responsible for creating. His future will be forever altered and I doubt he will be able to get on with a truly happy life (if have any moral fiber) knowing a he fathered a child and abandoned it – regardless of the promises made between the parents. Over the next few months she may change her mind and if it’s not too late she may choose an abortion. She can always choose adoption and she can choose to keep the child and raise it on her own.

He needs to be honest with her about what he does and does not want for the future and vice versa. He should be respectful of her choice, while maintaining his own integrity.

Brighid

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

He has no moral obligation to raise the child that he explicitly stated he did not want. In fact, for him to raise a child that is unwanted is immoral and burdensome for the child. Can you imagine what that poor kid would have to put up with from an unloving father? Think of the psychological bills that it would entail, years of therapy, and that's just assuming this poor kid figures out that he needs help down the road.

It's like making a raped woman care for a child caused by pregnancy even though she didn't want to have it.

The Other Michael

Hi scigirl,

Don't overlook the fact that the fellow has other options if he REALLY wants a kid. He can go and have sex with some other willing person, or possibly (if he has the bucks) hire a "surrogate" to have the child. Adoption is also a possibility (though hard for a single individual).

The woman shouldn't be forced to bear a child (except possibly in the case of a contracted surrogate mother, and then I suppose she could renege, abort, and then deal with civil penalties for breach of contract). But the father shouldn't be forced to bear the burden of an explicitly unwanted child if the mother has the desire to keep the child.

And should both parents decide that they didn't want a child that they'd tried to prevent, but have some ethical reason for not aborting, then there are any number of fine Christian/Republican pro-lifers who would be glad to take that baby off their hands and give it a loving home.

Well, maybe not on the last one.

cheers,
Michael