Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What are the obligations of a biological father?

Rate this topic


KevinD

Recommended Posts

Do you think that it is a coincidence that "Fred Kinnen" is one of the moochers in Atlas Shrugged?

Paraphrased:

Fred Kinnen: Men with starving families to feed need jobs. Thus, they'll need a 1/3 increase to pay.

James Taggart: But, where does the $ come from?

Fred Kinnen: Well, need is above all.

James Taggart: (establishes understanding of a mystic sort) Well, I do understand the plight of working men... if the frieght rates could be doubled...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, there is no question that the mother has an obligation to care for the child, because of her decision to give birth to the child. The father has no such obligation, since he does not decide to give birth to the child.Your reasoning would equally apply to the oligation of the car-maker or liquor-maker to compensate the victim of drunk driving, since they too "helped create" the accident.

RB points out an important distinction that you haven't acknowledged. The man has a responsibility for the creation of a fetus, but a fetus is not a child. The proper thing for the man to do (again, barring misrepresentation by the woman) is to share the cost of termination. Responsibility for the creation of a fetus does not translate into responsibility for the creation of a child, anymore than responsibility for the creation of a car does not translate into responsibility for what someone does with the car.

There is no law of biology whereby a child is an unavoidable consequence of sex, any more than there is a physical law that a car-crash is an unavoidable consequence of car manufacturing. If you claim that the mere possibility of a child is what creates the responsibility for the child, they you must claim likewise that the mere possibility of a car crash creates a responsibility on the part of car manufacturers. Each is a possible natural consequence of a prior act -- sex, or car-making. In fact, the grandfather should also be held responsible, because his decision to create a child who later grows up and impregnates another woman is yet another natural possibility. By having sex, a man must recognise the possibility that he will become a grandfather. Surely you will recognise the absurdity of the conclusion, yet you cannot avoid it if you attribute responsibility to any "playing a contributory role".

Well I wouldn't see an accident as an act of creation so much as destruction. As I said before I think the people who make cars are responsible for the cars they make. Why wouldn't they be? Once you sell a car well its someone else's responsibility but a sale and an act of creation are not the same thing.

If an accident occurs at a car manufacturing plant, or on the way to the dealership the people who made the car and transported it would be responsible. Their also responsible for the cars sitting on the lot (or the dealer is). I would think this kind of responsibility is part of the law and the contracts under which car manufacturers operate. Once a car is sold well its the buyers responsibility baring any contracts otherwise thats a responsibility he agrees to take after buying the car.

Suppose two people get together and build a car, whose responsible for it ? Suppose two people build a fire, whose responsible for it ? Or say a bunch of people get together and open a brewery, who would be responsible ?

So if two people make a baby why are both not responsible?

Is it just because a women gets to make the last choice in the creation of new life ? Is the last guy to stoke the flames, the one who finally gets it going, the only one responsible for the fire? Is the guy who finishes up the car completely responsible for it. Is the guy who gives the brewery the trial run the only one responsible for it ? In most cases of building or creation someone will make a final choice, an individual. I don't see how this equates to that person being the only one responsible.

So in these cases you would probably respond that the guy didn't know he was setting out to make a baby. As you (and others ) keep pointing out sex doesn't necessarily lead to child birth. I agree with that. But if a man chooses to have sex with a women without knowing what her views are then he risks helping her create a child. He might be helping her to make a baby. He might be showing her a good time. He might be helping her escape. He might not care about her at all or her end of it. The guy isn't sure what he's doing. Here I'm assuming an irrational man who has no idea whether a women wants a child or not. But that he's dissociated himself from reality doesn't alleviate him of his responsibilities. Why would it ? If a man is behaving irrationally he might get into all kind of trouble. Can he say because he didn't agree to it that he's not responsible?

I think there are two points on which we disagree, one is the final choice issue.

The other seems to be the issue of a man risking becoming a father, I'm not sure where you stand on that. Do you suppose that a man sleeping around is not risking becoming a father ? Or simply that if he does its not his concern?

Sorry if the post is a bit wordy just trying to find the principle on which we disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I wouldn't see an accident as an act of creation so much as destruction.
But there's no reason to have different principle regarding the concept of "responsibility" as applied to destruction versus creation. The act of creating a car can lead to the destruction of a life; the act of having sex can lead to the creation of a child. Why should one causal connection be subject to a responsibility principle, and not the other? Responsibility isn't exclusively about creation.
As I said before I think the people who make cars are responsible for the cars they make. Why wouldn't they be? Once you sell a car well its someone else's responsibility but a sale and an act of creation are not the same thing.
Then similarly, once you have done the deed, the further creation of a child is someone else's responsibility. The car-buyer adds something that is beyond the control of the car-maker, namely the decision to drive drunk, and that is what eliminates any supposed responsibility of the car-maker. The woman adds something, namely the decision to change the fetus into a child -- this is a choice that the man cannot control, and that added action by the woman means that she has taken full responsibility for her action.
Once a car is sold well its the buyers responsibility baring any contracts otherwise thats a responsibility he agrees to take after buying the car.
Once the man has delivered, the woman who agreed to take delivery similarly has responsibility for further developments.
So if two people make a baby why are both not responsible?
That would be applicable if sex immediately resulted in a baby, which it does not.
Is it just because a women gets to make the last choice in the creation of new life ?
Yes. Now you've got it.

The currently popular notion of distributed responsibility is philosophically indefensible, since it essentially nullifies the concept of responsibility. It is an actual fact that manufacturers are sometimes held legally liable for the misdeeds of customers, and this is a trend that is growing at an alarming rate.

I think there are two points on which we disagree, one is the final choice issue.

The other seems to be the issue of a man risking becoming a father, I'm not sure where you stand on that. Do you suppose that a man sleeping around is not risking becoming a father ? Or simply that if he does its not his concern?

Yes, it's clear that we disagree on this distributed-responsibility issue. As for the "man's risk" question, first, I disapprove of sleeping around with random whores. As you'll note from the start of the thread, the question has different answers when the man actually values the woman (or the would-be child). The man is entitled to the presumption that the woman will take care of the problem if she accidentally gets pregnant, and the woman should make her opposition to abortion known in advance. If that does happen, then I would agree that the man has a responsibility to help raise the child -- because it's known that the child can't be avoided. If the woman does not have an irrational (or medical) opposition to abortion, then the man does not in fact risk becoming a father, since the pregnancy can be ended.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question:

Let's say the baby is born, and both the mother and father are taking care of it. Regardless of whatever agreements did or did not exist at the time of sex, they are now both co-parenting in the same household. A few years later, say when the child is 3, the father decides he's had enough and he wants his life back, and he doesn't like being a father and he doesn't value his child or the mother, so he leaves. Would this be morally acceptable behavior? SHOULD (and I mean in a society built on ideal law) this be legally acceptable behavior?

I get the feeling that if the answers to the above questions are "no" and "no", a lot of people would relax their objections to the claim that a man has no responsibility simply because a pregnancy has occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the feeling that if the answers to the above questions are "no" and "no", a lot of people would relax their objections to the claim that a man has no responsibility simply because a pregnancy has occurred.
If the two of them have decided (even if implicitly) to co-parent, then one of them cannot back out unilaterally, without some type of compensation. Even if the two have not been co-parenting, if the biological father is somehow implicitly agreeing that the pregnancy should be taken all the way to birth, we have the same situation.

Basically, the co-parenting situation is an example of asking: what type of action can be construed as an implicit agreement? Non-verbal agreements can be legitimate in certain situations. Whether a particular situation lives up to the right standard of being an non-verbal agreement is tough to say without much more detail, and without the right standards in place; however, in principle, assuming certain types of non-verbal agreements is fine.

I don't think this would change the objections in this thread though. I think the objections come from not focusing on the nine months of pregnancy, and -- instead -- thinking of them as a rapid jump from "I'm pregnant" to "child exists": treating it as a jump with little further human decision-making.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years later, say when the child is 3, the father decides he's had enough and he wants his life back, and he doesn't like being a father and he doesn't value his child or the mother, so he leaves.
So they get a divorce (de jure or de facto, depending on whether they had a legal arrangement).
Would this be morally acceptable behavior? SHOULD (and I mean in a society built on ideal law) this be legally acceptable behavior?
In the "cut and run" sense, no. And in fact I don't believe that it is. As SN says, this is really the question "what agreement exists?". Not all agreements (contracts) have to be drawn up by lawyers and signed. If, for example, you were to drop your race-horse off at the horse-kennel and then come back a year later, you will discover that you have an enforceable contractual obligation to pay the bill.

If the man has implicitly offered something (money and child-rearing) in exchange for the woman giving something that he wants (her giving birth to the child and not flushing it), we have a contract, and a contract can be enforced. You must consider the evidence, so an act of casual sex is not automatic evidence of an offer (for anything more than a roll in the hay).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they get a divorce (de jure or de facto, depending on whether they had a legal arrangement).In the "cut and run" sense, no. And in fact I don't believe that it is. As SN says, this is really the question "what agreement exists?". Not all agreements (contracts) have to be drawn up by lawyers and signed. If, for example, you were to drop your race-horse off at the horse-kennel and then come back a year later, you will discover that you have an enforceable contractual obligation to pay the bill.

If the man has implicitly offered something (money and child-rearing) in exchange for the woman giving something that he wants (her giving birth to the child and not flushing it), we have a contract, and a contract can be enforced. You must consider the evidence, so an act of casual sex is not automatic evidence of an offer (for anything more than a roll in the hay).

Right. What I was trying to get at is the difference between a man literally walking out on his partner and children and a man not wanting to be responsible for a child that he did not, but more importantly could not, choose to bring into the world. I think that it's equally wrong for the father or the mother to walk out on an existing family - the reason, I believe, that we tend to focus on the father's "walking away" is that historically it has been much easier for him to do so, usually because of economic opportunity and lack of social restrictions. For the majority of human history, and even to a certain extent now, women seem to be more materially tied to their children than men (obviously not always).

To me, forming a household (whether or not it gets the state's rubber-stamp of "marriage") and co-parenting signifies implicit agreement to a parenting role on the part of both parties, and should one parent abandon the situation, they should have to compensate the other parent as well as the children. But this is a different situation of the question of what to do, and how to assign responsibility, before the child is actually born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I realize that this implicates much of the same chain of reasoning as has been discussed throughout this thread, but I write (my first post, incidentally) both to invite anyone to point out flaws in my reasoning that I may have missed and to clarify my thoughts more fully in my head.

I'm going to preface this by stating that I am, indeed, the person in the following situation and that I fully appreciate the treason that I committed against myself in the first place (this will be explained more fully below).

Last year, I slept with a woman (who we'll call "Jamie", well... because that's her name - I don't think that there is any danger of specific identification of either of us through this forum). Jamie and I had been acquaintances since 2006. I knew (or should have known) when we met that Jamie was not a heroine in any sense of the word. I explicitly told her before we had sex that I had no interest in being in a relationship with her. I won't make any attempt to defend my actions save to say that I understand now what I should have understood then - that my decision to debase myself by sleeping with her reflected my own self-loathing and my having sex with her constituted a treason against my self and against every value that I hold.

When we had sex, our primary protection (condom) failed, and I drove immediately to the ATM to withdraw money so that she could pick up the morning after pill from the pharmacy in the morning. Two weeks after that, I received a phone call from Jamie telling me that she was pregnant. I strongly suspect that she never took the morning after pill at all (for several reasons - including the lack of the physical symptoms that I understand usually result from taking the pill and the fact that she took a pregnancy test exactly two weeks following conception leads me to suspect that she was hoping to become pregnant). The next day, we drove to the doctor to have a more accurate test performed, which confirmed the pregnancy.

I made an appointment with her for options counseling at Planned Parenthood. In the meantime, I researched the various options on my own - including looking at all of the gruesome photos that the anti-abortionists like to throw out there so as not to deceive myself from any implications of any option. After options counseling and my own research, I told Jamie that I thought that the pregnancy should be terminated (either through the vacuum-aspiration/surgical method or the 'abortion pill'. either of which were options at the time since it was so early in the pregnancy). She told me, essentially, that she did not want an abortion no matter what. I then told her that, if she didn't want to have an abortion, adoption was the next best option in my opinion, given that both of us were in school and no matter what I did not want to be in a relationship with her. She told me that she was willing to go to see the adoption counselor but that it would be futile as she knew that she "wouldn't be able to give up [her] child". (Incidentally, both she and her parents are quite religious and her parents also encouraged her to keep and raise the child.)

I have since entered into a relationship with a true heroine, who now cannot fully trust me (and rightfully so) since the values that I have long purported to hold (those of rationality, productivity, etc.) do not match up with my actions (debasing myself by granting that ultimate physical act of mutual celebration to one that warranted no such celebration). Jamie has indicated through several actions that she wants to exercise control over me (i.e. wanting me to tell her before I started dating anyone, wanting me to call or text her regularly about things unrelated to the child - who is not yet born, etc.). Ultimately, (I promise I am coming to a point soon) my conflict now centers around the comparative morality between the following two options: (1) Maintaining visitation rights to the child and trying to be a part of the child's life both financially and emotionally, while trying to sidestep Jamie's attempts to exert control over me through my ties to the child or (2) Voluntarily terminating my paternity rights and simply providing financial support while being open to a relationship with the child when it is older if he (the child) wants one when he is old enough to choose. Note that I do not dispute my financial duty to support the child, either legally or morally, only any 'duty' to be there for the child other than one voluntary taken on.

As I see it, the morals are essentially balanced for either decision - making either decision an appropriate moral choice. The most immoral choice would be to compound my initial treason and try to force myself to be in a relationship with Jamie, thus sacrificing my own happiness and the child's by making him constantly question why his parents resent each other and teaching him that happiness is not achievable in life. The choice to maintain visitation rights and try to raise the child as a separate family when he is with me is moral so long as I value the child and the personal satisfaction derived from teaching a new being how to think on his own and the necessary life-death dichotomy implicit in every moral decision (as evidenced by the implications of my own decision to betray my values). The decision to terminate my parental rights and provide only financial support is moral to the extent that the value of my missed opportunities and the happiness I would be sacrificing to dealing with Jamie for the next 18+ years is more valuable to me than what currently remains a potentiality, and even upon being born, has no moral claim on my life simply by virtue of sharing my DNA and having been the product of my death-choice.

Feel free to comment and identify any flaws in my reasoning. As I said, I recognize that my ultimate failure was in having sex with Jamie at all (whether or not it had resulted in a pregnancy). I am re-learning my own value and the vital important of my mind, happiness, and self-esteem (hence the display name), and it is a hard lesson to learn at times. However, the moral decision I am facing now is whether to maintain visitation or to terminate my parental rights. I thank you in advance for your thoughts (and the time taken in reading this rather lengthy post) and it is my aim to live up to those virtues and re-earn those values that I have betrayed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that I do not dispute my financial duty to support the child, either legally or morally, only any 'duty' to be there for the child other than one voluntary taken on.

Since you made it very clear from the beginning that you don't want a child, you don't have a moral duty to support this child. You will be forced to support it though, legally. (that law is wrong, but it is a law, and ignoring it would eventually land you in jail)

Also, I advise you to contact a good lawyer right away, and once you made up your mind on that choice you mentioned, inform him of your wishes, and follow his advice to the letter when it comes to all arrangements.

As for any comments you make online, keep in mind that they can be used against you in court, if found out. Be very careful, because many courts are unlikely to be as objective and rational as we'd like, they could very easily hold your perfectly rational statements against you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my conflict now centers around the comparative morality between the following two options: (1) Maintaining visitation rights to the child and trying to be a part of the child's life both financially and emotionally, while trying to sidestep Jamie's attempts to exert control over me through my ties to the child or (2) Voluntarily terminating my paternity rights and simply providing financial support while being open to a relationship with the child when it is older if he (the child) wants one when he is old enough to choose.
This set of options puzzles me: you left out the obvious one of having nothing to do with either of them. Why is that not a choice that you considered? In other words, a propos this:
...so long as I value the child and the personal satisfaction derived from teaching a new being how to think on his own...
Why do you value a biologically connected stranger. Have you thought of adopting a child (eliminating the need to deal with Jamie) or, of course, venting that urge with the right woman? It seems to me that you are valuing a biological connection, in a way that I can't make any sense of. The cost of having such a connection, in this case, is really prohibitive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... you left out the obvious one of having nothing to do with either of them. Why is that not a choice that you considered?
Morally, that sounds be the sensible thing. Having some stranger being brought up on one's dollar, with no say in the upbringing would be a pain. Given the other things mentioned about Jamie turning on pressure, it will likely be worse. It sounds likely that Jamie will continue to bother him expecting something emotional. However, legally, he may not have that option if the woman wants him to provide support. Only a lawyer will be able to advise on howe to keep the payments for this stranger's upbringing to the minimum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, legally, he may not have that option if the woman wants him to provide support. Only a lawyer will be able to advise on howe to keep the payments for this stranger's upbringing to the minimum.
Yes, unfortunately the law does, at least in states like Ohio and Florida, impose a support option on a biological father equal to that in a case with marriage, and at least in Ohio there are no corresponding paternal rights equal to that of a married couple. Only a lawyer can help, since common sense and objective concepts of rights are not applicable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, can the father sue for custody? In this particular case that would likely turn into a massive, expensive, miserable legal battle-to-the-death, but I'm just curious if that's actually a legal option that may be reasonable in some circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, can the father sue for custody? In this particular case that would likely turn into a massive, expensive, miserable legal battle-to-the-death, but I'm just curious if that's actually a legal option that may be reasonable in some circumstances.

From my limited understanding from growing up with parents who were lawyers frequently engaged in divorce/custody cases, he could TRY to sue for custody but basically he would have to prove that Jamie was grossly incapable of being a competent mother in order to take the child, and the standard of evidence for that is extremely high, especially considered that most divorce courts are already strongly biased in favor of the woman having the children. It sounds like a losing proposition to me.

I think she basically entrapped him (the original poster) into this. I wish there was some way that had weight in court, because he shouldn't be obligated to pay on the basis of her obvious intent to bait him into having a kid. Honestly, if SHE was a responsible mother she'd love her child enough to give him away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, can the father sue for custody? In this particular case that would likely turn into a massive, expensive, miserable legal battle-to-the-death, but I'm just curious if that's actually a legal option that may be reasonable in some circumstances.
There's probably a rule that you can always sue, but not always win. I don't know: I would think that if there is a reasonable case that the mother is unfit, then yes. The rules are fairly socially determined and flexible, so the question would be "These days, what are the courts inclined to do". I believe (and don't rely on my opinion) that there is an asymmetry of assumptions regarding custodial rights in our fair state, that unmarried fathers are at a greater legal disadvantage in a custody case, as contrasted to a married father. With a (formerly) married couple, there is a presumption of equality of rights so that if a particular custody arrangement isn't working, the father may successfully gain control of the child. (Although, I think totally extinguishing the woman's rights would be hard to do unless you could prove crack-whoredom).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I recognize that my ultimate failure was in having sex with Jamie at all (whether or not it had resulted in a pregnancy).
You used a condom. So, from a "getting pregnant" point of view, I hardly think this was some huge failure. As for a "sleeping with the wrong woman" point of view, it is hardly an "ultimate failure"...more like a mistake.

Anyhow, more to the point. I wonder if you somehow gave this woman the impression that you would be there for her or her kid in some way. Once she insisted on having the child that you did not want, it would have been appropriate to point out to her that it was her decision, and she would have to do whatever she wanted on her own... which would imply things like not calling you, only expecting the bare minimum that the courts force you to pay her, and so on. People can sometimes hold on to odd hopes, like "once the kids around, he'll come around too...and we can make it work... somehow". It may not be the case here, but if at all there is still time for a change of decision -- if "last year" was really late last year -- you should make the situation very clear, in as blunt and stark a way as possible.

Even if she is past the point where she can change her mind easily and legally, it would be appropriate for you to set her expectations. In other words, it would be appropriate to tell her that you are not going to "be there for her". Make it concrete about the things she ought not expect from you. You need to move on with your life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct in saying that it is excruciatingly difficult to prove unfit parenting under the laws as they stand, which are stacked greatly in favor of he mother. As the child has not yet been born, this would be essentially impossible to prove right now (unless she was drinking, smoking, injecting heroin, etc. while pregnant). Unfortunately, a demonstrated intent to destroy the child's ability to think for himself isn't considered child abuse--though it should be.

As far as the legal support obligations, these are prescribed in the Florida Statutes and there is really no way either she nor I could go outside of them. The statutes (Fla. Stat. § 61.30) are essentially designed to estimate the cost per month of raising the child, and assign the expected contribution of each parent based upon their comparative incomes (inherently unjust, in my opinion-even though as I am situated right now, it would benefit me), and the number of overnight stays with the non-custodial parent. This isn't quite as draconian as the automatic percentage of income that (as I understand it) has been used in other states in the past (and possibly now - I am largely unfamiliar with family law and especially family law outside of Florida).

I have already retained a very good family law attorney and she and I will discuss the legal implications of each decision further.

As far as I can tell from the extent of the comments I've read so far (and I thank you all for your insight), it appears that the decision to terminate parental rights and simply pay the child support each month is a moral choice here (as I thought in the beginning). What about the morality of the alternate choice--namely to maintain visitation and avoid the 'drama' the best that I can? As I see it, it depends upon my rational valuation of (a) whatever personal benefit I receive from knowing that I am raising the child as a rational being to the best of my ability (however that may be hampered by her parenting) compared against (B) the costs to me of dealing with her for 18+ years and the opportunity costs of maintaining that visitation and remaining in the child's life.

Edited by RebirthOfReason
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyhow, more to the point. I wonder if you somehow gave this woman the impression that you would be there for her or her kid in some way. Once she insisted on having the child that you did not want, it would have been appropriate to point out to her that it was her decision, and she would have to do whatever she wanted on her own... which would imply things like not calling you, only expecting the bare minimum that the courts force you to pay her, and so on. People can sometimes hold on to odd hopes, like "once the kids around, he'll come around too...and we can make it work... somehow". It may not be the case here, but if at all there is still time for a change of decision -- if "last year" was really late last year -- you should make the situation very clear, in as blunt and stark a way as possible.

I told her outright when I found out about the pregnancy that I wanted the pregnancy terminated and, failing that, that I thought the child should be put up for adoption. When she determined that she wanted to keep the child, I initially thought that I would try to maintain visitation (as in the second option). It was more recently that I actually bothered to question the assumption that there was a moral duty to "be there" for the child. I should have (and will be in the future) more blunt about my intentions and opinions about the situation, emphasizing the fact that her choice to keep the child and raise it herself imposes an obligation on her to be here for the child - not an obligation on me (other than the legal obligation for financial support).

To clarify, the child has not yet been born - it is due in the beginning of July.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I see it, it depends upon my rational valuation of (a) whatever personal benefit I receive from knowing that I am raising the child as a rational being to the best lf my ability (however that may be hampered by her parenting) compared against ( B) the costs to me of dealing with her for 18+ years and the opportunity costs of maintaining that visitation and remaining in the child's life.

This is entirely the wrong alternative to be considering. Whether this kid ultimately becomes a rational person or not is UP TO THE KID. You should be saying "how much do I value having a kid to hang out with/take care of" versus "how much of a pain in the ass is the mother going to be". If you have any respect whatsoever for what REALLY goes into parenting, that's the alternative you should be concerned with, not some weird abstract valuation of molding a "rational creature" from some bizarre conception you have of the kid as unformed human clay. That is not how parenting works and the fact that you don't KNOW this already certainly indicates to me that you have no real interest in or qualifications for parenting.

I decided that I'm not going to have kids because while I enjoy spending time with kids (and I'm not much bothered by the inevitable cleaning-up-of-poops), I have way too many other interests that are more important to me to make a career out of it, and there's really no other way to raise kids except by making a career out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the morality of the alternate choice--namely to maintain visitation and avoid the 'drama' the best that I can? As I see it, it depends upon my rational valuation of (a) whatever personal benefit I receive from knowing that I am raising the child as a rational being to the best of my ability (however that may be hampered by her parenting) compared against (B) the costs to me of dealing with her for 18+ years and the opportunity costs of maintaining that visitation and remaining in the child's life.

This is entirely the wrong alternative to be considering.

... ..., and there's really no other way to raise kids except by making a career out of it.

I absolutely agree with Jenni. If something like a death, divorce etc. puts one in the situation of part-time parenthood, then one has to deal with it as best one can. However, this is not a situation one should seek out as a value. Once you vest your intellectual energy into this child, as "your" project, it is likely that you will end up constantly being in a situation where you think something is right for the kid and you're powerless to do it. It is likely that you will snatch time that you ought to be spending on other things and spend it on this kid. What if you want to move to another city? What about a potential wife sometime down the line? What if she does not want to inherit this situation?

One way to make this concrete is to look for examples around you. Think of couples who have divorced and have had an extremely strained post-divorce relationship. Remember the aunt who had to beg her ex to switch pick-up days with her for a few weeks so she could attend the out-of-town company training? Remember how he was insulting to her and so was his new wife, but she bit her lip and avoided reacting dramatically, because he would be less cooperative. That is the kind of life you don't want to opt for.

Opt for the drama... this is too serious a life-decision to let the fear of some dramatics intrude. Indeed, maybe you should precipitate some drama yourself. Trade a bit of dramatics now for many years of episodes.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

There's an interesting case in Kansas where the state is suing a sperm-donor for child-support. The facts are: he donated sperm to a lesbian couple. No physician was used, but there was no sex. The sperm was inserted via a catheter. The man drew up an agreement saying he was not responsible for the child. After the couple split, the state went after the man for child support.

 

(Under current law, this is probably not about the personal agreement, but about collection of welfare. It is routine that when a state provides assistance to children, they establish paternity and will go after the dad to reimburse their welfare-payments. The state does not care what understanding existed between the biological father and the biological mother.)

 

Sperm donors are the exception to such prosecution. The state claims that since a doctor did not supervise this, this is pretty close to sex. In other words -- if he'd just used his penis directly, instead of a catheter, the state would be able to collect. So, the state is arguing that a bit of plastic tubing shouldn't stand in the way of the principle. Hopefully, the judge will draw the line, and take this guy off the hook. 

 

Though the guy should not be liable, under proper laws it would not be based on catheter vs. penis. The crucial factor is: the understanding and agreement of the parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can be no involuntary responsibility; that would be a "duty".

So the guiding principle should be that ACCOUNTABILITY is derived exclusively from CHOICE; every choice.

Our hypothetical situation seems to be that two people have voluntarily had sex (force and fraud automatically negate any right to subsequently make ANY relevant decisions) and have accidentally gotten pregnant.

Now, right off the bat, they should discuss the issue and come to some voluntary arrangement together- but we'll assume they have not or cannot, since rational actions make the law superfluous.

---

So now we have a situation in which a decision will be made, between abortion or parenthood; each possibility with its own distinct requirements and consequences.

The problem thus far seems to have been that while a father must bear SOME responsibility, he necessarily lacks the right to make that final decision [it's metaphysically given]. So how may his obligations be attributed in accordance with our guiding principle, since he has made the first decision (sex) but cannot make the last?

---

I think the solution is to hold him accountable for the least expensive and invasive alternative (abortion), IF the mother chooses that, and perhaps accountable for comparable time, effort and money towards the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a parent is no small decision, and one which shouldn't be forced onto anybody, ever.

So I think a father can and should be held financially responsible for at least half of an abortion, but not for full-fledged fatherhood.

And that way, not only can a man know in advance what necessary risk he may be taking prior to sex, but so can a woman. Clearly definable and objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...