Ethics of Child Care

[Stephen Speicher 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.

In the case you have outlined, unless there was a prior agreement to the contrary, I too would hold the man morally and legally responsible. Lack of omniscience does not absolve us of responsibility for our actions. The counter argument that you mention is almost a non sequitor, since the man is just as much a cause of the pregnancy as is the woman.

Under ordinary circumstances (not the circumstances you describe) the woman can choose to abort against the wishes of the man, and that is a reflection of the woman's right to her body. But, in the circumstances that you outlined, to claim that "it is not man's business what happens to women's body as a result of consentual [sic] sex," is to ignore the causal effect of the man's actions.

[Maarten 0]

I think that in ordinary circumstances if a man and a woman have sex and the birth-control methods fail and afterwards the woman decides to keep the child that the man is resolved of responsibility. I think the agreement to use birth control is enough of an indication that both people involved did not want the child, and if the woman later goes back on her decision it is wrong to hold the man morally and legally responsible for a choice only the woman can make.

I am not sure why this changes with the situation Sophia outlines.

If I have a rare disease that could cause a stroke when I engage in sexual activity, yet I do not know anything about that until it happens, then I do not think you can hold the woman who has sex with me responsible for my later disablement just because she was a necessary component in the act. It wouldn't be right to make her responsible for my care just because she was unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The rare disease that prevents abortions is just as much an unknown factor as my rare disease that causes a stroke as far as I can tell, and I think neither situations make the other person involved responsible for the outcome; it's an accident pure and simple.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I think that in ordinary circumstances if a man and a woman have sex and the birth-control methods fail and afterwards the woman decides to keep the child that the man is resolved of responsibility. I think the agreement to use birth control is enough of an indication that both people involved did not want the child, and if the woman later goes back on her decision it is wrong to hold the man morally and legally responsible for a choice only the woman can make.

It is a fact of reality that birth control is not 100% effective, and a responsible man must account for that fact in advance. As long as the possibility of creating a child is real, then it is his responsibility, as well as the responsibility of the woman, to plan ahead for the possibility of pregnancy. I would say that unless the man and woman explictly agree beforehand on whether or not abortion is an option, the default position should remain holding the man responsible, both morally and legally.

[Maarten 0]

It is a fact of reality that birth control is not 100% effective, and a responsible man must account for that fact in advance. As long as the possibility of creating a child is real, then it is his responsibility, as well as the responsibility of the woman, to plan ahead for the possibility of pregnancy. I would say that unless the man and woman explictly agree beforehand on whether or not abortion is an option, the default position should remain holding the man responsible, both morally and legally.

But let's say I give you a cat for your birthday and you accept it. Owning a cat has certain consequences attached to it for you and if the cat later on wrecks your furniture then you cannot blame me for that. You agreed when you chose to accept my cat that from then on it was yours to care for, unless I explicitly state that I would like to take care of the cat together with you and let it remain partly my responsibility.

I think this gift situation is very much the same as a woman getting pregnant. It's her body that has a capacity for pregnancy, so if she consents to having sex with a man it's her responsibility to take care of any consequences if they may come up, unless he explicitly stated that he wants to raise it together with her.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

It is a fact of reality that birth control is not 100% effective, and a responsible man must account for that fact in advance. As long as the possibility of creating a child is real, then it is his responsibility, as well as the responsibility of the woman, to plan ahead for the possibility of pregnancy. I would say that unless the man and woman explictly agree beforehand on whether or not abortion is an option, the default position should remain holding the man responsible, both morally and legally.

But let's say I give you a cat for your birthday and you accept it. Owning a cat has certain consequences attached to it for you and if the cat later on wrecks your furniture then you cannot blame me for that. You agreed when you chose to accept my cat that from then on it was yours to care for, unless I explicitly state that I would like to take care of the cat together with you and let it remain partly my responsibility.

I think this gift situation is very much the same as a woman getting pregnant. It's her body that has a capacity for pregnancy, so if she consents to having sex with a man it's her responsibility to take care of any consequences if they may come up, unless he explicitly stated that he wants to raise it together with her.

Hmm. So the modern man's approach to sex is to first purr, ask the woman to get naked, and then tell her he has a gift for her?

Seriously, though, a gift is the volitional transfer of property from the giver to the receiver, and it is very difficult for me to grasp sperm as a gift under ordinary circumstances. In fact, under the ordinary circumstances you previously described, birth control was being used precisely so that the sperm gift would not be transferred and thereby create another being. I simply find no basis in fact that absolves the man of responsibility for his actions.

[Maarten 0]

Hmm. So the modern man's approach to sex is to first purr, ask the woman to get naked, and then tell her he has a gift for her?

Seriously, though, a gift is the volitional transfer of property from the giver to the receiver, and it is very difficult for me to grasp sperm as a gift under ordinary circumstances. In fact, under the ordinary circumstances you previously described, birth control was being used precisely so that the sperm gift would not be transferred and thereby create another being. I simply find no basis in fact that absolves the man of responsibility for his actions.

I see what you mean. But in response to your earlier post, doesn't the ability of the woman to make the ultimate choice override the man's responsibility to be held to the consequences of his choice?

The way I see it the woman can decide before and after getting pregnant if she wants a baby, yet the man can only decide it before the act (I think everyone agrees that the choice to abort or not is hers and hers alone). As far as I can tell the woman makes the final call here, and the choice of the man isn't very relevant anymore.

If both actors are equally responsible for supporting the child, then why shouldn't they get equal choice in the matter? It seems like a double standard no matter how you say it.

I think my position is opposite to yours. I would say that because becoming pregnant happens to the woman and not to the man she should look after her own body. If something happens in an accidental manner to her body then she alone has a choice as to what happens, and she alone is responsible for it. Unless there is an agreement that the people involved want to raise the child together I don't think you can hold the father morally and legally responsible for the child.

I believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason she may think of, but I do not feel comfortable in allowing her possibly whimsical decisions to have such influence over the life of the man involved in the situation.

I would say that unless there is an agreement to the contrary the woman deals with the pregnancy on her own, which includes both the good parts and the not-so-nice parts of this condition.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

But in response to your earlier post, doesn't the ability of the woman to make the ultimate choice override the man's responsibility to be held to the consequences of his choice?

The way I see it the woman can decide before and after getting pregnant if she wants a baby, yet the man can only decide it before the act (I think everyone agrees that the choice to abort or not is hers and hers alone). As far as I can tell the woman makes the final call here, and the choice of the man isn't very relevant anymore.

I have lost track of which particular concrete situation you refer to here.

If both actors are equally responsible for supporting the child, then why shouldn't they get equal choice in the matter? It seems like a double standard no matter how you say it.

Isn't this like shaking a stick at Nature because there is no perfect symmetry between man and woman in pregnancy? If you and I start a business and assume equal financial responsibility, can we not still agree that my vote on decisions carries more weight than yours? Is that a "double standard?" Not all relationships are symmetrical, whether determined by nature or man.

I've already addressed the remaining issues that you mention in the rest of your post, so I see no point in repetition.

[~Sophia~ 0]

But, in the circumstances that you outlined, to claim that "it is not man's business what happens to women's body as a result of consentual [sic] sex," is to ignore the causal effect of the man's actions.

On this issue, I am in complete agreement with you, Mr. Speicher.

Thank you for your responses.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Thank you for your responses.

You're welcome, Sophia. Glad we agree.

[RationalBiker 0]

Under ordinary circumstances (not the circumstances you describe) the woman can choose to abort against the wishes of the man, and that is a reflection of the woman's right to her body. But, in the circumstances that you outlined, to claim that "it is not man's business what happens to women's body as a result of consentual [sic] sex," is to ignore the causal effect of the man's actions.

There's more to that counter-argument than has been presented.

First, is one assumption as Maarten said, that if both parties are using birth control there is an implied agreement that neither wants a child. Second, while we all seem to agree that while the man is equally responsible for the woman's pregnant state, we do not agree that he is not equally responsible for choosing to further that pregnant state to the birth of a child. In that respect, the woman bears the only vote.

I personally can understand and accept the argument that the man could be responsible for half or even all of the cost of an abortion, but what the woman chooses to do aside from that she takes upon herself. My position is that no agreement beforehand means no agreement, not some tacit agreement from the man that he'll go along with whatever the woman chooses to do.

Past that, the specific morality of the entire situation depends on more context, not the least of which is what is the whole relationship between two people involved.

[Maarten 0]

I have lost track of which particular concrete situation you refer to here.

Ah, sorry about that. I am talking about a normal situation right now where both people involved are using birth control to (try to) prevent conception from happening. I should have been more clear about that.

[B. Royce 0]

It seems pretty clear to me that both are responsible. If she wants a child, but he doesn't, he uses birth control, but he knows that birth control doesn't always work; so if she gets pregnant he is half the cause. What he wanted is irrelevant. If birth control was 100% foolproof, but he forgot to take it, he is the whole cause, and he would have to pay full costs of abortion. If he wants a child, but she doesn't, she uses birth control, but knowing it doesn't always work, if she gets pregnant she is half the cause. Since birth control doesn't always work, the only way to ensure non-pregnancy is to not have sex.

However, once she is pregnant, though both he and she desired the pregnancy, she does not have a responsibility to follow through. She is still free to change her mind. And from this fact, I think, rises the problem for some people. Why can't he change his mind? Why can't he say, "Well, I've thought it over and I don't really want the expense of a child right now; my career is taking a different, less remunerative direction, and it would be a self-sacrificial hardship. So, you're on your own." My answer would be: just as they knew that birth control doesn't always work, so they both knew that financial situations can change (and that is why the vow--for better or worse---is so important). Also, while she can change her mind in a way (not giving birth) that relieves him of responsibility, she can't (as some kind of mind over matter act) choose to be pregnant and load him with an unwanted responsibility. She can't harm him with a choice to end her pregnancy.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

There's more to that counter-argument than has been presented.

First, is one assumption as Maarten said, that if both parties are using birth control there is an implied agreement that neither wants a child.

The facts of reality trump wants and intentions. Part of using birth control is the recognition that it is not 100% effective, and a responsible person should not blank out that fact. One cannot claim implied agreement allows one to look at reality only so far, but no further. Since it is possible that birth control may not work, and since it is possible that a woman may not want an abortion, then it is incumbent on the man to face those facts beforehand. A man cannot put blinders over his eyes and say, in effect, that he is not responsible for his actions because he chose not to look at the facts.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I have lost track of which particular concrete situation you refer to here.

Ah, sorry about that. I am talking about a normal situation right now where both people involved are using birth control to (try to) prevent conception from happening. I should have been more clear about that.

Okay. In that context, your point, then, was the following:

But in response to your earlier post, doesn't the ability of the woman to make the ultimate choice override the man's responsibility to be held to the consequences of his choice?

The way I see it the woman can decide before and after getting pregnant if she wants a baby, yet the man can only decide it before the act (I think everyone agrees that the choice to abort or not is hers and hers alone). As far as I can tell the woman makes the final call here, and the choice of the man isn't very relevant anymore.

The fact that the decision on abortion ultimately rests on the woman does not absolve the man from being responsible for his actions. He should be aware of the woman's view on abortion before he takes action. If he knows in advance that the woman will not abort, and if he knows that contraception is not 100% effective, then he is responsible not just for a pregnancy but also for the birth of a child. He cannot claim ignorance and say in effect that he does not want to know in advance if the woman will abort, as if that ignorance somehow absolves him of responsibility for his actions.

[RationalBiker 0]

Since it is possible that birth control may not work, and since it is possible that a woman may not want an abortion, then it is incumbent on the man to face those facts beforehand. A man cannot put blinders over his eyes and say, in effect, that he is not responsible for his actions because he chose not to look at the facts.

Since the woman is the one truly taking the risk here, as it is her body and her decision ultimately, and since it is possible that the man may not want a baby if she gets pregnant (despite both of their conscious efforts to avoid such state), it is incumbent on the woman to face those facts beforehand and decide whether or not to take that risk with her body.

My view does not require a man to put on "blinders" to reality, nor does it require him to avoid that part of their interaction for which he does share responsibility. My view does not absolve the man of the responsibility of his actions, but rather requires the man to accept only that level of responsibility in which he had a choice, the pregnant state, but not the child birth. My view recognizes the facts of reality that there are different levels of culpability between "getting pregnant" and "having a child", the ultimate culpability being on the person(s) who decides to carry out the pregnancy rather than end it.

But as I alluded to at the end of my previous post, the moral judgement comes into play moreso when evaluating the whole of their relationship. For instance, I think there is a difference between a situation where two people meet in a bar one night and decide to have a quickie versus two people who are involved in a long term relationship who decide to make sweet love.

[RayK 0]

Reality requires that man make choices. Man does not get to choose every situation where he has to make a choice, but a choice must be made.

Not every single one of man's choices can be thought out before hand because, just like this situation, it can be unexpected. But, no matter if it was thought out or not, man is still responsible for his actions and reactions.

I did not choose to get hit by an UPS truck. But, I am now responsible for making sure that my car is properly taken care of before I leave the situation. Reality brings situations that are not always thought out nor foreseen. When the unknown changes the context of the situation so might one's choice, because different circumstances now apply and one's responsibiltiy might grow or shrink.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Since it is possible that birth control may not work, and since it is possible that a woman may not want an abortion, then it is incumbent on the man to face those facts beforehand. A man cannot put blinders over his eyes and say, in effect, that he is not responsible for his actions because he chose not to look at the facts.

Since the woman is the one truly taking the risk here, as it is her body and her decision ultimately, and since it is possible that the man may not want a baby if she gets pregnant (despite both of their conscious efforts to avoid such state), it is incumbent on the woman to face those facts beforehand and decide whether or not to take that risk with her body.

Well, of course the woman should face those facts beforehand. I only discussed the man because it was his responsibility that was being questioned. The man and the woman are equally responsible, and both need to address the facts, individually and as a responsible couple.

Incidentally, I disagree with your characterization that "the woman is the one truly taking the risk." The responsibility for bringing a child into the world is shared equally between the man and the woman.

My view does not require a man to put on "blinders" to reality, nor does it require him to avoid that part of their interaction for which he does share responsibility. My view does not absolve the man of the responsibility of his actions, but rather requires the man to accept only that level of responsibility in which he had a choice, the pregnant state, but not the child birth. My view recognizes the facts of reality that there are different levels of culpability between "getting pregnant" and "having a child", the ultimate culpability being on the person(s) who decides to carry out the pregnancy rather than end it.

If you plant an acorn you should not be surprised if it grows into an oak tree. If a man knows beforehand that a woman will not abort, or if he chooses not to face that fact and feigns ignorance of the matter, then he is just as responsible for the child as he was for the pregnancy. The consequences of a choice does not neccessarily end at the first stage of a causal effect. It is not as if reality occurs in disconnected pieces with no causal connection linking through a chain of actions and events.

I repeat my previous words because they quite succinctly capture the essence: Since it is possible that birth control may not work, and since it is possible that a woman may not want an abortion, then it is incumbent on the man to face those facts beforehand. A man cannot put blinders over his eyes and say, in effect, that he is not responsible for his actions because he chose not to look at the facts.

[RationalBiker 0]

But, no matter if it was thought out or not, man is still responsible for his actions and reactions.

On this we agree. Where we disagree is the degree to which he is culpable in this particular context, and at which particular stages of the context he bears responsibility. It's neither fair nor accurate to suggest or represent that my position entirely devoids the man of his responsibility in the matter as I have stated where I think his responsibiilty starts and ends. That is that nature of our disagreement. Some folks see sex, pregnancy and child birth as a package deal for the man (but not the woman) and I do not. It would be fair to characterize my position by saying I think the woman bears a far greater share of the responsibility as it is her body, her risk and her ultimate decision to carry out the child birth.

I've presented my views on the matter simply because I didn't think the opposing position originally here presented enough detail. Pending anything that compels me to change that view, I probably won't post on it anymore as I already went round and round on this enough elsewhere. The same argument here is no more convincing to me than it was there.

That aside, I appreciate the sharing of the opposing viewpoints.

[RationalBiker 0]

Incidentally, I disagree with your characterization that "the woman is the one truly taking the risk." The responsibility for bringing a child into the world is shared equally between the man and the woman.

Yes, I recognize this to be at the heart of our disagreement.

If you plant an acorn you should not be surprised if it grows into an oak tree.

If I plant an achorn, the moment it looks like it looks like it's going to turn into an oak tree I'm digging it up. Surprise has naught to do with it. The question is, why am I planting achorns in rubber containers?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Incidentally, I disagree with your characterization that "the woman is the one truly taking the risk." The responsibility for bringing a child into the world is shared equally between the man and the woman.

Yes, I recognize this to be at the heart of our disagreement.

I said "cidentally" because I considered this a secondary issue, not "at the heart of our disagreement." But your comment makes me wonder if your view is even more radical than I had thought. If a man knows in advance that a woman will not abort, and if she gets pregnant by him in spite of him using protection, is it your view that the man is only responsible for the pregnancy, but not for the child?

[RationalBiker 0]

If a man knows in advance that a woman will not abort, and if she gets pregnant by him in spite of him using protection, is it your view that the man is only responsible for the pregnancy, but not for the child?

No. I consider that to be an entirely different situation.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

If a man knows in advance that a woman will not abort, and if she gets pregnant by him in spite of him using protection, is it your view that the man is only responsible for the pregnancy, but not for the child?

No. I consider that to be an entirely different situation.

Okay, I am glad of that. However, I would be remiss not to point out that the essential difference in the two situations is that here the man has knowledge which in the other situation he did not bother to gain. Especially considering that a human life is at stake, I consider that failure to gain necessary knowledge to be utterly irresponsible, and totally reprehensible,

[B. Royce 0]

People are responsible for all their actions. If a man and a woman decide that they want a child and they act to get her pregnant, they are both responsible for the ensuing child. However, once the woman is pregnant, the action of abortion is still open, but only to her. This is fair; that is, it is fair that she have the right to take the actions which are open to her. Her choice to abort does not involve using force against the man. Whereas, his using a law to keep her from aborting (or being penalized if she does) is initiating force against her. And that is not fair.

Those who cry "Not fair" might at least be consistent. Is it fair that while a pregnant woman curtails her weekend tennis and her ballroom dancing, and suffers bouts of morning sickness, not to say losing a great amount of productiveness at work, that her husband finds a new tennis partner, improves his putting, and sells an article on expectant fatherhood? Or that, on the great day at the hospital, while she lies writhing in pain, he's out in the cafeteria sipping coffee and reading letters-to-the-editor?

[RationalBiker 0]

I'd like to add one other thing. I will say up front that I'm playing Devil's Advocate now to some degree. (Yes Stephen, I remember so long ago when you pointed out to me to very clear about that up front )

If I were to carry further the idea that the man is equally responsible for the woman's pregnant condition, I can see that a potential argument could be made that he be responsible to help support her throughout the pregnancy up until the point of child birth AT WHICH TIME she can now give the child up for adoption and avoid the risks associated with an abortion procedure (or that potential that she could not have an abortion but didn't find out until after the fact). Again, the choice is in her court as to whether to continue caring for the child absent the father or to give the child to a couple that can better provide for the child. This solution also removes the concern for "a human life is at stake". Here I'm assuming that when you refer to "human life", you are referring to the baby once it is born as opposed to an unborn fetus. If we were talking about a human life being at stake when we are talking about a fetus, then a human life is at stake when a woman chooses to have an abortion. I'm fairly certain we both agree that she has the moral right to choose an abortion so we must not be talking about "a human life" at that point. (In fact, if you remember, you were fairly instrumental in helping me change my position on abortion sometime back if I recall correctly.)

Or, are you talking about the woman's life when you reference "a human life being at stake"?

Let me clarify what I mean by "risk" as well. When I say the woman is the one who truly bears the risk druing sex, I mean that the man can walk away from sex 100% of the time without becoming pregnant (though of course he may risk STD's etc.) The woman cannot. The only way that her pregnancy becomes his risk is to create an "artificial" risk through the force of law. Of course there is also the castigation and condenmation he may face from her, his or her family, friends, etc. I'm open to entertain what other risks you may be referring to Stephen.

[RationalBiker 0]

If a man and a woman decide that they want a child and they act to get her pregnant, they are both responsible for the ensuing child. However, once the woman is pregnant, the action of abortion is still open, but only to her. This is fair; that is, it is fair that she have the right to take the actions which are open to her. Her choice to abort does not involve using force against the man. Whereas, his using a law to keep her from aborting (or being penalized if she does) is initiating force against her. And that is not fair.

If they both want a child, then yes, they both are responsible for raising it should she have the child. If she chooses to have an abortion, no law should prevent her. I am in complete agreement with your above quoted statement.

I'm against either party from being able to use the force of law on the other in the case where no agreement was decided before hand, and moreso when there was an implied agreement against having children by means of the use of protection. (I suspect this may be another area of contention, whether using protection amounts to an implied agreement) If they had consensual sex, he has not initiated force on her if she becomes pregnant, and thus she should not be able to initiate the force of law on him to make him support her decision.