Ethics of Child Care

[Stephen Speicher 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).

I'm having difficulty following your point. After all, once the child is born the mother cannot just give the child up for adoption without the father's consent. They each have moral and legal responsibility for the child. Right?

[B. Royce 0]

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.

Regarding this last paragraph, since they both know that protection is not foolproof, if she gets pregnant then he _should_ support her decision to have a child. He _is_ responsible for the outcome of his actions. Unless she has signed a written document that he is not responsible for the child (or if she has signed a statement that she will get an abortion if pregnant) the law is, and should be (as I see it), on her side. As I see it (from a psychological view), he should know enough about women (from life, books or movies) that he knows it is perfectly possible for a woman, when she finds she is pregnant, to suddenly think that it is wonderful, and to not want to get an abortion. Today, I think that is fairly common knowledge.

[RationalBiker 0]

I'm having difficulty following your point. After all, once the child is born the mother cannot just give the child up for adoption without the father's consent.

Assuming, as I have been throughout my argument, that the man does not want the child, why would he not consent to allow the child to be adopted? In other words, how is this an issue?

[RationalBiker 0]

He _is_ responsible for the outcome of his actions.

Rather than repeating again where we disagree on this, I'll just refer you to my previous posts.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I'm having difficulty following your point. After all, once the child is born the mother cannot just give the child up for adoption without the father's consent.

Assuming, as I have been throughout my argument, that the man does not want the child, why would he not consent to allow the child to be adopted? In other words, how is this an issue?

It was (and, to an extent still is) unclear to me what conditions applied to your earlier comments. You said: "... 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." You say "SHE" not "THEY (emphasis mine) so it is unclear to me what you are actually trying to say. Anyway, given your comment above, about the man's consent for adoption and how this is an issue, the very fact that both you and the man speak of consent for adoption implies that you have acknowledged legal, if not moral responsibility.

Frankly, at this point I think that your argument is not even logically coherent, and we are getting bogged down in disputing ever stranger variations on a theme. Unless you have something new to add, I think I have pretty much exhausted what I have to say.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Regarding this last paragraph, since they both know that protection is not foolproof, if she gets pregnant then he _should_ support her decision to have a child. He _is_ responsible for the outcome of his actions. Unless she has signed a written document that he is not responsible for the child (or if she has signed a statement that she will get an abortion if pregnant) the law is, and should be (as I see it), on her side. As I see it (from a psychological view), he should know enough about women (from life, books or movies) that he knows it is perfectly possible for a woman, when she finds she is pregnant, to suddenly think that it is wonderful, and to not want to get an abortion. Today, I think that is fairly common knowledge.

I disagree with this. If they were both foolish enough not to consider and plan on options in advance, then as long as abortion is a possible option, if the man opts for abortion and assumes his moral and financial responsibilities in that regard, but the woman opts to give birth, then I see no legal justification for the man to have any responsibility towards the child. The woman had the option of aborting the fetus, just as the man wanted her to do, so in choosing to give birth she assumes sole legal responsibility for the child.

[RationalBiker 0]

I disagree with this. If they were both foolish enough not to consider and plan on options in advance, then as long as abortion is a possible option, if the man opts for abortion and assumes his moral and financial responsibilities in that regard, but the woman opts to give birth, then I see no legal justification for the man to have any responsibility towards the child. The woman had the option of aborting the fetus, just as the man wanted her to do, so in choosing to give birth she assumes sole legal responsibility for the child.

In one post you call my argument "logically incoherent" (which was actually in response to a Devil's Advocate extension of my argument, not my real position) and in the next post you write what is essentially an agreement with the main body of my position. Color me confused.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

In one post you call my argument "logically incoherent" (which was actually in response to a Devil's Advocate extension of my argument, not my real position) and in the next post you write what is essentially an agreement with the main body of my position. Color me confused.

Perhaps you missed my words "then as long as abortion is a possible option." In the original case presented by Sophia there was a medical reason that disqualified abortion as a possibility, and this was extended to include the man's knowledge beforehand that the woman would not abort, and it applies equally well for any situation where abortion is not a possible option for the woman.

[B. Royce 0]

I disagree with this. If they were both foolish enough not to consider and plan on options in advance, then as long as abortion is a possible option, if the man opts for abortion and assumes his moral and financial responsibilities in that regard, but the woman opts to give birth, then I see no legal justification for the man to have any responsibility towards the child. The woman had the option of aborting the fetus, just as the man wanted her to do, so in choosing to give birth she assumes sole legal responsibility for the child.

Yes. I see.

[RationalBiker 0]

Perhaps you missed my words "then as long as abortion is a possible option." In the original case presented by Sophia there was a medical reason that disqualified abortion as a possibility, and this was extended to include the man's knowledge beforehand that the woman would not abort, and it applies equally well for any situation where abortion is not a possible option for the woman.

Actually I missed her words to that effect from the beginning (which I have to admit is a pretty big miss). However, I thought that it was evident that the argument had also included the case in which the abortion was a possible option. Starting with Maarten's post in which he referred to "ordinary circumstances", you responded;

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.

This response led me to believe that under "ordinary circumstances" (which under further review of the thread suggests to me that you mean where abortion is still an option) where there is no pre-planned agreement you would hold the man legally and morally responsible.

So to clarify, what do you mean by "ordinary circumstances"? And can I take it as read that any further disagreement we may have is likely centered around instances where for whatever reason abortion is not an option?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Perhaps you missed my words "then as long as abortion is a possible option." In the original case presented by Sophia there was a medical reason that disqualified abortion as a possibility, and this was extended to include the man's knowledge beforehand that the woman would not abort, and it applies equally well for any situation where abortion is not a possible option for the woman.

Actually I missed her words to that effect from the beginning (which I have to admit is a pretty big miss). However, I thought that it was evident that the argument had also included the case in which the abortion was a possible option. Starting with Maarten's post in which he referred to "ordinary circumstances", you responded;

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.

The context of my remarks were set by Maarten's next line, namely "I am not sure why this changes with the situation Sophia outlines." All of my remarks were made in a similar context, as I outlined above.

Look, at this point I have little inclination to further explicate my views, much less have a discussion about discussions. I think my position is quite clearly stated, and I will leave it at that. If you think that your own view needs clarification, feel free to do so.

[RationalBiker 0]

Look, at this point I have little inclination to further explicate my views, much less have a discussion about discussions. I think my position is quite clearly stated, and I will leave it at that. If you think that your own view needs clarification, feel free to do so.

Nope, I can leave my argument as is.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

If there is an agreement between the man and the woman beforehand as to who is responsible if various things happen, then there is no problem. The agreement should be followed. A problem arises when there is no provable agreement.

This can be solved the same way we solve the problem of what happens to a man's property if he dies without a will. We pass a law that spells out, objectively, who is responsible for paying for an abortion, raising the child, putting it up for adoption, etc. if there is no prior agreement to the contrary.

Then everyone knows where they stand and what they can expect. If they don't like the statutory defaults, they can make their own contracts.

[Maarten 0]

I would like to add that I in no way approve of people being irresponsible about this. I think it's very stupid not to make any agreements about something like this because there is a lot at stake.

I apologize about not being clear enough about what I was talking about in some of my earlier posts. I will have to give some more thought to the situations where abortion is not an option, but I think we are essentially in agreement about the situations where it is an option and I am willing to let it rest