Ethics of Child Care

[stellavision 0]

Yes, and of equal importance, why/why not.

If the element of choice means having alternative actions, then the samaritan also has the element of choice. If that's not the proper meaning, what element of choice does the mother possess that the samaritan does not?

←

The choice to cause the child's existence. Note I didn't say the fetus' existence. A woman who is raped certainly has no choice in that matter -- but she has the choice to either abort the fetus while it is still a collection of cells that has no claim on her, or to carry it to term, at which point it becomes a human being, whose claim on her derives from her choice to bring the child to that point.

The "samaritan" has no choice about whether or not the "helpless person" he encounters exists or not. That's why no obligation is implied. The man is free to help if he chooses, but has no moral obligation to do so.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

A child has the right to life, but is not able to fully exercise that right on his own. Being deprived, then, of a custodian to exercise that right for his benefit, the child will die. The parent, by definition, is that custodian -- a consequence of the parent's actions -- so to abandon an infant or a child is to initiate force, to violate that child's right to life.

←

I agree that the parent is responsible - if they are the custodian. But to me, there seems to be similar situations that would improperly make a person a custodian.

E.g. A good samaritan might shoot a bear that is attacking a stranger. If this stranger is unable to independently survive, would this and the fact that the samaritan chose to help, mean that the samaritan should be legally obligated to assume responsibility/custodianship?

←

The context of the good samaritan scenario is an emergency situation, and assistance is provided in response to a direct or implied request (implied meaning that which a rational man who values life would request, if he could). There is no implication in the request for assistance, nor in the act of granting such assistance, that this consensual relationship would or should last beyond the extent of the emergency.

(Note, however, that if the good samaritan did choose to act and offer assistance, then, depending on the circumstances, such action may very well obligate him, not only morally but legally as well, at least during the course of the emergency. For instance, if you, among others present at the scene of an accident, decide to save a man by driving him to a hospital, you would be morally and legally responsible if, half-way to the hospital you realized you would be late for your dentist appointment, and you decide instead to dump the man on a vacant lot while you are off to make your appointment. Your initial choice to help obligated you to the extent that failure to follow through obviated any chance of help from others who may have done so at the scene of the accident.)

None of the above represents the situation with a child. A child is not a responsible adult caught in an emergency situation, but rather a living being whose very nature requires the ongoing assistance of a guardian in order to survive and prosper. With that understanding, the act of bringing a child into the world obligates one to provide what the nature of the child requires. As I stated earlier, a simple consequence of being responsible for one's actions.

[Paul's Here 0]

Yes, and of equal importance, why/why not.

---------------

←

I agree 110% with Stephen's answer above. I couldn't have stated it any better myself.

[stellavision 0]

I agree 110% with Stephen's answer above.  I couldn't have stated it any better myself. 

←

Ditto to that!

[Gilliatt 0]

A child is not a responsible adult caught in an emergency situation, but rather a living being whose very nature requires the ongoing assistance of a guardian in order to survive and prosper. With that understanding, the act of bringing a child into the world obligates one to provide what the nature of the child requires. As I stated earlier, a simple consequence of being responsible for one's actions.

←

Hmm. I specifically don't see how it is proper to apply this to a rape victim. Are you saying that the rape victim has the responsibility to either have an abortion (with its physical risks) or to provide for the child (a sacrifice if she doesn't desire this?) Is this in her self-interest? Is she obligated here to make a sacrifice?

[RayK 0]

Gilliat,

What I think you might be missing is the act of volition even in a bad situation. Even if the lady was raped, which was not in her control, she still is left with a choice. A person does not and will not always have two good choices or one good and one bad. They can both be bad choices, but still one must be chosen.

Obviously the woman did not choose to be in the situation at all, but she is. She cannot evade the situation, it must be dealt with. Once it is dealt with she is responsible for her decision and actions. If she decides not to have an abortion she is responsible for the baby/child or she can give it up for adoption.

We as humans do not always have to like the situation or our choices, but life requires that we make a choice.

[stellavision 0]

Gilliat,

What I think you might be missing is the act of volition even in a bad situation.  Even if the lady was raped, which was not in her control, she still is left with a choice.  A person does not and will not always have two good choices or one good and one bad.  They can both be bad choices, but still one must be chosen. 

Obviously the woman did not choose to be in the situation at all, but she is.  She cannot evade the situation, it must be dealt with.  Once it is dealt with she is responsible for her decision and actions.  If she decides not to have an abortion she is responsible for the baby/child or she can give it up for adoption.

We as humans do not always have to like the situation or our choices, but life requires that we make a choice.

←

Thank you for putting into words what I was having such difficulty saying.

[Paul's Here 0]

Hmm. I specifically don't see how it is proper to apply this to a rape victim. Are you saying that the rape victim has the responsibility to either have an abortion (with its physical risks) or to provide for the child (a sacrifice if she doesn't desire this?) Is this in her self-interest? Is she obligated here to make a sacrifice?

←

How is "providing for the child" a sacrifice? You haven't demonstrated that. Being in the position of having to make a choice does not demonstrate that one choice is a sacrifice. The fact that she "doesn't desire" the choice is irrelevant to her responsibility to make the choice. She could "provide for the child" by giving it up for adoption.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

A child is not a responsible adult caught in an emergency situation, but rather a living being whose very nature requires the ongoing assistance of a guardian in order to survive and prosper. With that understanding, the act of bringing a child into the world obligates one to provide what the nature of the child requires. As I stated earlier, a simple consequence of being responsible for one's actions.

←

Hmm. I specifically don't see how it is proper to apply this to a rape victim. Are you saying that the rape victim has the responsibility to either have an abortion (with its physical risks) or to provide for the child (a sacrifice if she doesn't desire this?) Is this in her self-interest? Is she obligated here to make a sacrifice?

←

Judging an action to be a sacrifice is not a matter of "desire," but rather a matter of objectively evaluating the facts. The fact of the matter is that the woman was raped, and the rapist is both morally and legally responsible for the consequences of his act. However, none of this obviates the fact that the embryo exists within the mother and if she chooses not to abort, her (in)action is the cause in fact of the birth.

Facing facts is not a sacrifice; it is a very selfish thing to do. The woman can choose to abort and then the issue of child responsibility is a moot issue. If she chooses to deliver she can also put the child up for adoption. The choice she makes is based on the facts and her judgment of the consequences that ensue, and such choice can and should be made from the perspective of her rational self-interest. Rationality, however, does consist of acting on "desire," but on properly judging objective fact. One cannot shake a stick at the world and wish the facts to be other than they are. Or, at least, one doesn't make moral judgments based on something other than the facts.

[RayK 0]

Thank you for putting into words what I was having such difficulty saying.

←

You are welcome.

[Gilliatt 0]

I took some time to think about what was said, but some things still aren't clear to me. Specifically:

The parent, by definition, is that custodian -- a consequence of the parent's actions -- so to abandon an infant or a child is to initiate force, to violate that child's right to life.

←

What are the consequences of firing an employee, or of lying to a stranger? To say that there are consequences is not to necessarily say that there are/should be legal consequences.

If bearing a child is not an initiation of force, and legal consequences exist only for initiations of force, then why should there be legal consequences for bearing a child?

[piz 0]

If bearing a child is not an initiation of force, and legal consequences exist only for initiations of force, then why should there be legal consequences for bearing a child?

←

Beraing a child is not an initiation of force, but it does entail taking on responsibility, a "contract" of sorts. It's violating that "contract" that is the initiation of force, just as with any other voluntarily established obligation.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

What are the consequences of firing an employee, or of lying to a stranger?

Lying to a stranger most certainly could have legal consequences.

To say that there are consequences is not to necessarily say that there are/should be legal consequences.

True, but continuing to focus on the irrelevant is not productive, and it seems to result in you continuing to miss the point.

If bearing a child is not an initiation of force, and legal consequences exist only for initiations of force, then why should there be legal consequences for bearing a child?

←

Why a parent is morally and legally responsible for a child has been explained in this thread several times, by more than one poster. As moderator, at this point I would ask that you not simply ask the question yet again, without directly addressing the actual arguments already made.

[Currence 0]

I am trying to understand the situation by understanding the principles at each point in the process (of sex/pregnancy/birth/child), so I will draw a sketch of what I understand the pro-obligations argument to be saying and then I will ask some questions to clarify some things I do not understand.

Stephen writes:

Stephen Speicher: "As to the child's right to life, when he is born he is born with every right due a human being, but because he cannot exercise his rights his parents act as guardians, as custodians of the child's rights."

and later

Stephen Speicher: "A child has the right to life, but is not able to fully exercise that right on his own. Being deprived, then, of a custodian to exercise that right for his benefit, the child will die. The parent, by definition, is that custodian -- a consequence of the parent's actions -- so to abandon an infant or a child is to initiate force, to violate that child's right to life."

and Michael writes:

piz: "Beraing a child is not an initiation of force, but it does entail taking on responsibility, a "contract" of sorts. It's violating that "contract" that is the initiation of force, just as with any other voluntarily established obligation."

So, the reason why the parents have an obligation is because their creation is a human being with rights, but it cannot exercise its rights, so the parents have said obligation to act as custodians-of-rights until the child is able to exercise its rights.

That said, I have some questions, some on the principle, and some on specific examples in which I'm not entirely clear how the principle would be applied.

1. If it is indeed a "contract", with whom is the contract made, rather, between which parties, and at what time is the contract (even if it is implicit) made? Certainly a contract cannot exist before the child is born, because there is just a mother and father (and they don't make a contract with themselves), but do they make an agreement with the baby? Is this a contract that either party can refuse, or change the terms of? How is it sensible to consider adults making a contract with a child who is unable to exercise its own rights?

2. Because the mother and father both created the child, the obligations apply equally to the mother and father, correct?

3. The run-down on possible abortion and rape cases:

a. A woman is raped and abortion is illegal. Is it true that the woman does NOT have guardianship obligations, because she did not choose to have sex?

I don't see how this follows, because she certainly has the choice to drink alcohol, or use chemicals, or other barbaric means to get rid of the fetus. Certainly these will take a toll on her body, but abortion also would take a toll, if it were legal. I don't see how the current conception of abortion (as the medical procedure) is any different from any of the extra-medical means of abortion, with respect to whether or not the woman has a choice to get rid of the fetus before it is a child.

b. A woman is raped and abortion is legal. Is it true that she does have the guardianship obligations? This seems true, as Stephen said (in post #12), "not aborting is a choice."

c. Other non-rape cases, abortion as either legal or illegal. Both parents have obligations, as before. This is the trivial case.

d. If I am correct, and parents have responsibility regardless of rape or abortion-legality, then consider the case where a woman steals a man's sperm (perhaps from a sperm bank or something) and uses it to fertilize an egg. Is the man responsible for the child? This seems to be the closest we can get to woman-raping-man, and shouldn't the same principles apply?

e. Another interesting thing to consider is what happens to the rapist. Usually a rapist is punished for the crime of rape, but if the rapist also creates a child (say in case 'a', where abortion is illegal, or even in case 'b' where the woman decides to keep the baby) then is he not responsible for that child's well-being as well? Should there not be some monetary punishment as well as criminal punishment? Seeing as how raping is not only assault, but virtually enslaving another human for 18 years (assuming abortion and adoption are not available), rape looks a whole lot worse than it originally did (and it looked pretty darn bad to begin with!).

4. Certainly, the age at which each child/young adult is able to fully exercise his/her rights is wholly dependent on the specific child/young adult -- that is, certain young adults will be "fully ready" for adulthood at some age, say 15, while others may not be ready until later, say 18. Assuming a proper government has established a "normal adulthood age" (say 18), would both parents and their children be able to appeal to some court, or some governmental agency, with the intention of proving the child is ready to fully exercise its rights, either before or after the "normal adulthood age"?

This is particularly relevant because if for some reason (perhaps a woman was raped, abortion was illegal, and no willing adoptee-parents could be found, or perhaps not) the parent(s) believes the child is ready to fully exercise its rights - and if it is true - then to require the parent to continue to care for the "child" would really be to force the parent to care for what should be recognized as an adult, given the person's capabilities.

5. What about the developmentally disabled/retarded/whatever? These people are never able to independently and fully exercise their rights, so do parents of these children ever lose their obligations of guardianship? If so, what is the reasoning, and at what age would this apply, and why?

6. How does this principle hold up for "test tube" babies? Yes, it is a hypothetical case, but I think it can serve as a valid thought experiment (creating life at this point is leaps-and-bounds closer to reality than those unfounded fantasies of artificial intelligence). If scientists create human embryos and allow them to grow into fetuses, are they responsible for the children once they are "born"?

Is who-creates-the-embryo or who-gives-"birth"-to-the-child more important, in terms of who has guardianship obligations? The "creator-of-embryos" vs. "birth-giver" distinction is not immediately apparent in the standard, natural account of conception/birth, because the two are the same (the parents... well, roughly, the man doesn't exactly give birth to the baby), but it is a distinction worth considering, given our scientific prowess and possibilities. Given the case of invitro fertilization, where couples can take embryos from other people and use them and give birth and have guardianship obligations, it would seem (at least in the current system, I don't know if this is proper or not) that the "birth-giver" situation is more important.

Now consider the invitro case a bit more. Say a woman gets invitro without her husband's knowledge, is he responsible as a father, just in virtue of his marriage to her? What if a woman got invitro and she only had a boyfriend... does the obligation depend on marriage at all?

Currence.

[piz 0]

So, the reason why the parents have an obligation is because their creation is a human being with rights, but it cannot exercise its rights, so the parents have said obligation to act as custodians-of-rights until the child is able to exercise its rights.

←

Coupled with the fact that the child did not have (in fact could not possibly have had) any choice in the matter, yes.

1.  If it is indeed a "contract", with whom is the contract made, rather, between which parties, and at what time is the contract (even if it is implicit) made?  Certainly a contract cannot exist before the child is born, because there is just a mother and father (and they don't make a contract with themselves), but do they make an agreement with the baby?  Is this a contract that either party can refuse, or change the terms of?  How is it sensible to consider adults making a contract with a child who is unable to exercise its own rights?

←

Note that I said it's a contract "of sorts." It's not a formal contract, but the obligation is similar to a contractual one.

2.  Because the mother and father both created the child, the obligations apply equally to the mother and father, correct?

←

Yes, if they both voluntarily participated (see below for clarification of "voluntarily" in different situations.).

a.  A woman is raped and abortion is illegal.  Is it true that the woman does NOT have guardianship obligations, because she did not choose to have sex?

I don't see how this follows, because she certainly has the choice to drink alcohol, or use chemicals, or other barbaric means to get rid of the fetus.  Certainly these will take a toll on her body, but abortion also would take a toll, if it were legal.  I don't see how the current conception of abortion (as the medical procedure) is any different from any of the extra-medical means of abortion, with respect to whether or not the woman has a choice to get rid of the fetus before it is a child.

←

The outlawing of abortion is an initiation of force against the woman, negating her choice in the matter. That means that, if she doesn't want the child, her participation is no longer voluntary. The state, by taking away her ability to make a choice in the matter, is as fully responsible for the consequences of its initiation of force as a robber (or a rapist, see below), meaning that morally the state is now responsible for raising the child. (Not that this would ever happen - when does any state ever take responsibility for what it forces on its citizens?)

b.  A woman is raped and abortion is legal.  Is it true that she does have the guardianship obligations?  This seems true, as Stephen said (in post #12), "not aborting is a choice."

←

Here she does have guardianship obligations, because she chose to follow through with the pregnancy. She had the option not to, and though she was forced to become pregnant, no one forced her to remain pregnant. (BTW, I think the rapist should pay for all expenses that result from the rape, including but not limited to all legal and medical expsenses and the cost of her abortion if she chooses to have one.)

c.  Other non-rape cases, abortion as either legal or illegal.  Both parents have obligations, as before.  This is the trivial case.

←

Not necessarily. There could be fraud, such as one party lying about using birth control. And the legality of abortion makes a difference concerning who has the moral obligation to raise the child, as stated above. When abortion is illegal and the state does not take on unwanted children, that amounts to a form of enslavement of the parents.

d.  If I am correct, and parents have responsibility regardless of rape or abortion-legality,

←

I'm not sure what you mean here, because rape and abortion legality change who has responsibility, and that's further complicated by who's willing to take responsibility (as when the state doesn't). The variables make for a number of different combinations with just as many moral/legal outcomes (all clear when viewed by a proper morality, but still many different ones).

then consider the case where a woman steals a man's sperm (perhaps from a sperm bank or something) and uses it to fertilize an egg.  Is the man responsible for the child?  This seems to be the closest we can get to woman-raping-man, and shouldn't the same principles apply?

←

I would say the man is not responsible because he didn't give consent. Now, if the sperm is used in accordance with an agreement he entered into, then he has given consent and is responsible. (Note that it's just as clear in a supposedly borderline case, such as where he's agreed to use the sperm but, say, she doesn't want to wait any longer and steals the sperm to use before the time he's agreed to. Again I think he has no responsibility, though he would be free to change his mind about that and might very well want to if he was going to let the sperm be used at some point anyway. But it's his call.)

To be continued in another post (because there are too many included quotes for the board software to display this correctly if I include them all)...

[piz 0]

...continued from previous reply. ←

e.  Another interesting thing to consider is what happens to the rapist.  Usually a rapist is punished for the crime of rape, but if the rapist also creates a child (say in case 'a', where abortion is illegal, or even in case 'b' where the woman decides to keep the baby) then is he not responsible for that child's well-being as well?  Should there not be some monetary punishment as well as criminal punishment?  Seeing as how raping is not only assault, but virtually enslaving another human for 18 years (assuming abortion and adoption are not available), rape looks a whole lot worse than it originally did (and it looked pretty darn bad to begin with!).

←

The rapist is morally responsible for the child if the woman brings it to term (whether because she chooses to or because the state forces her to by having outlawed abortion). Whether he is legally responsible depends on the laws (though just laws would hold him responsible). The woman's responsibility in this case is the same as in case a or b above.)

4.  Certainly, the age at which each child/young adult is able to fully exercise his/her rights is wholly dependent on the specific child/young adult -- that is, certain young adults will be "fully ready" for adulthood at some age, say 15, while others may not be ready until later, say 18.  Assuming a proper government has established a "normal adulthood age" (say 18), would both parents and their children be able to appeal to some court, or some governmental agency, with the intention of proving the child is ready to fully exercise its rights, either before or after the "normal adulthood age"?

This is particularly relevant because if for some reason (perhaps a woman was raped, abortion was illegal, and no willing adoptee-parents could be found, or perhaps not) the parent(s) believes the child is ready to fully exercise its rights - and if it is true - then to require the parent to continue to care for the "child" would really be to force the parent to care for what should be recognized as an adult, given the person's capabilities.

←

There are cases like this, though the one's I've heard of involve the child suing to be declared legally "emancipated" (I think that's the proper legal term). If the parents chose to have the child, they ought to abide by the law and wait until the legally established age (except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances, and I believe the law allows for that). Now, "after the 'normal adulthood age'" is a different case, because the parents would be suing to say that the child should not be given legal adulthood status. I'd expect that this would generally only occur in cases like your #5 below, and absent some problem like that the parents wouldn't succeed in such a suit.

Note that it doesn't matter that the parent "believes the child is ready to fully exercise its rights." That would be a matter for objective judgment, which is the proper function of a court. I wouldn't expect many objective judges to rule in favor of the parents absent extremely extraordinary circumstances.

5.  What about the developmentally disabled/retarded/whatever?  These people are never able to independently and fully exercise their rights, so do parents of these children ever lose their obligations of guardianship?  If so, what is the reasoning, and at what age would this apply, and why?

←

I don't want to seem like I'm dodging this, but I'll have to think about this a lot more. I don't have a ready answer.

6.  How does this principle hold up for "test tube" babies?  Yes, it is a hypothetical case, but I think it can serve as a valid thought experiment (creating life at this point is leaps-and-bounds closer to reality than those unfounded fantasies of artificial intelligence).  If scientists create human embryos and allow them to grow into fetuses, are they responsible for the children once they are "born"?

←

If the scientists themselves bring the fetuses to term, rather than doing so on someone else's behalf, then yes, they are responsible.

Is who-creates-the-embryo or who-gives-"birth"-to-the-child more important, in terms of who has guardianship obligations?  The "creator-of-embryos" vs. "birth-giver" distinction is not immediately apparent in the standard, natural account of conception/birth, because the two are the same (the parents... well, roughly, the man doesn't exactly give birth to the baby), but it is a distinction worth considering, given our scientific prowess and possibilities.  Given the case of invitro fertilization, where couples can take embryos from other people and use them and give birth and have guardianship obligations, it would seem (at least in the current system, I don't know if this is proper or not) that the "birth-giver" situation is more important.

←

It's more about choice and consent. In the previous example, if a lab creates an embryo to implant in a woman's womb because she wants to have a child and she's contracted with the lab to do this procedure, then the lab has no responsibility beyond what's stipulated in the contract. And it's not the "birth-giver," either: consider surrogate parenthood. In all cases, though, it's relatively straightforward to determine who is responsible for the child, because it's easy to mark where specific choices are made by specific parties. Who winds up caring for the child may be made morally bad if there are, for example, bad laws, but things are still pretty clear in all cases.

Now consider the invitro case a bit more.  Say a woman gets invitro without her husband's knowledge, is he responsible as a father, just in virtue of his marriage to her?

←

I would say no - this is fraud.

What if a woman got invitro and she only had a boyfriend... does the obligation depend on marriage at all?

←

With his consent, he's responsible. Without it, he's not. Marriage doesn't enter into it any more than it does with the rape cases.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

If it is indeed a "contract", with whom is the contract made, rather, between which parties, and at what time is the contract (even if it is implicit) made?  Certainly a contract cannot exist before the child is born, because there is just a mother and father (and they don't make a contract with themselves), but do they make an agreement with the baby?  Is this a contract that either party can refuse, or change the terms of?  How is it sensible to consider adults making a contract with a child who is unable to exercise its own rights?

It is a "contract" only in the sense of being an agreement with the metaphysical facts of reality -- creating a human being whose nature it is that he cannot yet survive independently -- with the state holding the parents legally responsible for their actions and doing so in the name of the child who cannot himself exercise his rights. The "contract" is made when the parents decide to have the child and the contract comes into effect the instant the child is born. Under ordinary circumstances the respective obligations between parents and child remain in effect until the child reaches adulthood.

Because the mother and father both created the child, the obligations apply equally to the mother and father, correct?

Yes, under ordinary circumstances. But note that unless otherwise legally bound, if the man does not want the child and asks that the woman abort, but she decides to bring the child to term, then the man is no longer legally responsible for the child.

What about the developmentally disabled/retarded/whatever?  These people are never able to independently and fully exercise their rights, so do parents of these children ever lose their obligations of guardianship?

If by nature the child cannot become an adult capable of independent existence, then the parent's responsibility for him remains. Which is just further justification for the morality of prenatal genetic testing.

[Joss Delage 0]

OK, I have another what-if. What if a couple agree to have a child. The mother gets pregnant, but then change her mind and decides to abort, against the wish of the father. What kind of recourse does the father have? Could he morally "force" the woman to bring her child to term, in which case he would assume full responsibility for raising the child? Or just some kind of monetary compensation? Or an egg + enough money to hire a host mother?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

OK, I have another what-if.  What if a couple agree to have a child.  The mother gets pregnant, but then change her mind and decides to abort, against the wish of the father.    What kind of recourse does the father have?  Could he morally "force" the woman to bring her child to term, in which case he would assume full responsibility for raising the child?  Or just some kind of monetary compensation?  Or an egg + enough money to hire a host mother?

←

The woman has a right to her own body and cannot be forced to birth a child that she does not want. Whether any compensation would be in order would be a matter for a civil suit, and I'd guess that result would depend upon the nature of their agreement and the harm that is done.

[Currence 0]

(I'd like to preface my reply with thanks to piz and StephenSpeicher for responding in detail to my questions. I looked back on my post and quickly saw that it could have been interpreted as a "barrage of concrete examples", possibly in an attempt to skirt the principles at hand, or some such reason. This was markedly not my intention, as I quickly noted in my first post, and I am very delighted with the respect with which my reply was treated... this is just a general congratulations to the intellectual atmosphere of the AynRandFans Forum!)

@piz:

on 2a:

I'll put my question another way. Right now there exist two broad types of abortion: A-abortion, the medically sanctioned kinds, and B-abortion, the "coat-hanger"/substance abuse kinds. Assumedly, there are sub-types in both A and B, so A1, A2, A3, etc. If the government outlaws A- and B-types, then I see how your argument is true: the woman has no choice. If the government merely outlaws A-types, however, the woman still has recourse (however unseemly they are) to the B-type abortions, and therefore still has a choice. We can see this is true on reflection: if the government outlawed A1, the woman could still choose A2, A3, etc. (or the B-types), and thus she retains choice.

Or so it would seem. I'm conflicted between saying "the government has not banned all methods, therefore there is a choice" and "the government has banned at least one method, therefore there is not full choice". I'm leaning towards the latter, because it seems more consistent with more general principles, and moreover, what is "choice" if not full choice: it is not a "choice" to be given set options by a man with a gun (aka, the government).

So, if the government has laws against any form of abortion, the woman's choice has been annihilated, and she no longer retains guardianship obligation.

[upon final inspection, I think this last point was practically unnecessary, because no government would say "No A-type abortions, but go ahead, use a coat-hanger." Bans on abortion are general bans on killing fetuses, we would normally only see a "No A-type, or B-type abortions" law, which would in effect completely annihilate choice. But I do think the last point was helpful, in terms of fleshing out the principle.]

on 2c:

Yes, I hadn't thought of the case of fraud with respect to parental responsibilities. Very good point.

on 2d:

My 2d point depended on the soundness of 2a-c, and obviously a is questionable at best, and c wasn't conclusive (didn't include fraud), so yeah, this falls.

on 4:

Yes, I would also suspect that in an ideal political system and a culture that is generally more reason-based than is our own there would be more cases of successful emancipations... more rational and "ahead-of-the-game" teenagers wishing to take advantage of the liberties available to them, or some such, in contrast to the seemingly "stay-home-as-long-as-you-can" of much of today's youth.

on 5:

Fair enough. It's not complicated to solve according to the principle (and I believe Stephen's response is correct: parents would be responsible for the child, indefinitely), but it is quite interesting to note the difference between what one might normally expect (given today's system) and what an ideal system would require.

on the fraud issue again, and the significance of marriage:

Consent is extremely important, that makes sense given the quasi-contractual nature of the guardianship agreement.

@StephenSpeicher:

I think I'm beginning to understand the contractual-metaphor more clearly. Would it not be similar to this: if someone creates a bomb that is ticking down (or something equivalent, basically if left alone it will cause harm to others), then it is his/her responsibility to take care of the bomb (e.g. disarm it!). It is no defense to just do something and walk away, as if one did not do the thing in the first place.

So in creating a person, the parents have created a rights-having thing (namely, a human being) whose rights must be exercised, but the particular thing (= baby) cannot exercise its own rights, therefore, until it can, the parents must exercise them on behalf of the baby.

If you create a bomb, you have created something that must be disarmed (if you are to act morally, and not violate others' rights), and therefore you must disarm it (or take whatever precautions necessary to stop it from harming others); similarly, if you create a person, you have created something whose rights must be defended, and it just so happens that humans are not born "ready-made" (so to speak), but incur a transitional period, and therefore you are responsible for exercising its rights until it can, properly, on its own.

[verbose, perhaps, but I think stating the problem/solution in a few different ways helps for philosophical clarity]

on your second response:

I think this is a very important issue. I think that there could also be some kind of pre-pregnancy agreement (similar to prenuptials) where the man would agree to share guardianship and thereby null his ability to request the woman to have an abortion. Otherwise, sans pre-pregnancy agreement, there would have to be some set date (I'm not sure how this would be objectively chosen; it would probably have to take into account the increasing danger of late-term abortions) past which the man could not "default" on his agreement; it would be pretty slimy to allow men to play the proverbial game of "Not it!" and decline 10 minutes before the actual birth.

on your third response:

Yes, I suspected this was the proper consequence of the principle, and I agree, this definitely highlights the importance of numerous forms of genetic testing.

Currence.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

So in creating a person, the parents have created a rights-having thing (namely, a human being) whose rights must be exercised, but the particular thing (= baby) cannot exercise its own rights, therefore, until it can, the parents must exercise them on behalf of the baby. 

[...]

If you create a bomb, you have created something that must be disarmed (if you are to act morally, and not violate others' rights), and therefore you must disarm it (or take whatever precautions necessary to stop it from harming others); similarly, if you create a person, you have created something whose rights must be defended, and it just so happens that humans are not born "ready-made" (so to speak), but incur a transitional period, and therefore you are responsible for exercising its rights until it can, properly, on its own.

I'm not too fond of the bomb" analogy, but the rest seems to capture the overall sense.

p.s. In your signature line you list your current courses:

"Spring quarter courses: MATH16300 Honors Calc, PHYS14300 Honors Physics, HUMA11700 Philosophical Perspectives on the Humanities, SOSC24002 Colonizations-2."

I understand the first three, but what exactly is "Colonizations-2?"

[Joss Delage 0]

What do you think are the responsibilities of a sperm donor, if any? I.e., given a situation where he would have no legal / contractual responsibility, would he still have a moral responsibility to help raise the child (in a situation where it's understood between the parents and the donor initially that he should have no responsibility, but where circumstances suddenly make it impossible for the parents to do as much as they initially thought)?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

What do you think are the responsibilities of a sperm donor, if any? I.e., given a situation where he would have no legal / contractual responsibility, would he still have a moral responsibility to help raise the child (in a situation where it's understood between the parents and the donor initially that he should have no responsibility, but where circumstances suddenly make it impossible for the parents to do as much as they initially thought)?

I do not think that the donor has any moral responsibility here, but it might give him pause about doing it again.

[~Sophia~ 0]

Yes, under ordinary circumstances. But note that unless otherwise legally bound, if the man does not want the child and asks that the woman abort, but she decides to bring the child to term, then the man is no longer legally responsible for the child.

I also have a what if question. Let's assume both people did not want to have a child and took steps to prevent the pregnancy but the birth control methods were not effective and the woman became pregnant. In case when she is not able to get an abortion for medical reasons, is the man morally and legally responsible for helping her to care for the child?

My view is that he is.

The counter argument that I have herd was that he is not because it is not man's business what happens to women's body as a result of consentual sex.

I would like to hear your point of view.

[~Sophia~ 0]

I also have a what if question. Let's assume both people did not want to have a child and took steps to prevent the pregnancy but the birth control methods were not effective and the woman became pregnant. In case when she is not able to get an abortion for medical reasons, is the man morally and legally responsible for helping her to care for the child?

My view is that he is.

The counter argument that I have herd was that he is not because it is not man's business what happens to women's body as a result of consentual sex.

I would like to hear your point of view.

I forgot to add that I am assuming that this woman did not know about her medical condition until after she became pregnant.