Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What are the obligations of a biological father?

Rate this topic


KevinD

Recommended Posts

It is ridiculous to assume that simply because the act of becoming pregnant requires the effort of both a man and a woman, that both are responsible.

A man is responsible for all his actions including the action of sex.

The act of sex implies different things for a woman or a man.

For a woman it first implies the possibility of pregnancy. She does then have a choice of what she will do with this state of her body. That choice is her choice to make as this is HER body. She can not be made to have an abortion same way she can not be prevented from having one. Ether of those would be a violation of her rights. Ether way she will have to live with the consequences of having sex with his man. She has to keep that in mind.

Because a woman has all the control over the fetus' fate should she become pregnant - for a man the act of sex implies the possibility of a child. That is a part of the identity of the sex act for him. He has to keep that in mind.

The way you guys are describing this situation is that a man bares no responsibility for the sexual act.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a man the act of sex implies the possibility of a child. That is a part of the identity of the sex act for him.

He has to keep that in mind.

This is where you go wrong. A child is NOT the natural consequence of sex for a man. Sexually transmitted diseases might be a natural consequence, but the possibility a child is not. It is not part of his identity, nor the identity of the sex act for him. If the woman bears the sole choice in the outcome of the potential child (to abort or not to abort), she bears the sole responsibiilty should she choose to keep it.

You correctly identify that it its the woman's body, but you do not take that to it's logical conclusion in that she bears the full responsibility on how she chooses to use her body NO MATTER who else may be involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you say that a possibility of pregnancy is not a part of identity of sexual act? It absolutely is. There are ways of preventing that outcome but it is a possibility.

One of the MAJOR consequences of sexual act between a man and a woman is the possibility of pregnancy of the woman (a state which she could not have achived by herself - a man's sperm is needed). That IS part of it's identity for both of them . For her it is a physical state - for him it is not. His actions produced an altered state of her body. Both are responsible for creating it. Since a man does not have a control over the outcome of this possible pregnancy - for him it does imply the possibility of a child.

Again you argue that a man bares no responsibility for the creation of pregnancy since it is not his body.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

~Sophia~,

I would say that in the lion's share of cases, it would be immoral for a man to abandon a woman he has impregnated, or a child that he has fathered - but not for the reason you seem to think it is. Instead of viewing it as a fulfillment of one's responsibility - which I think has already been adequately explained as a false concept - I view it as one of value comparison.

Since a rational man would not wish to sleep with, much less impregnate, a woman who even the idea of spending the rest of his life with her makes him shudder, it would be in his own best interest to do everything he could to promote the well being of this woman. If this means that, in her particular circumstance, an abortion would be appropriate, then he should choose to help her get one. If her particular situation dictates that carrying the pregnancy through to birth would make her happiest, then he should help her raise the child.

However, once the state becomes involved by pronouncing a moral doctrine that men are morally obligated to deal with the results of their sperm, then the decision to be a good husband and father ceases to be a decision. And just as it's immoral for a man to knowingly sacrifice a greater value (a healthy, happy family) for the sake of lesser value (a cowardly moment of relief from a emotional situation), it is immoral for a government to sacrifice to greater value of individual choice and freedom (as well as responsibility!) for the sake of the lesser, hypothetical value of government mandated two-parent homes - otherwise known as social engineering or fascism.

- Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(a state which she could not have achived by herself - a man's sperm is needed).

Unless she is raped, the only way the man put his sperm in her is by her choice, something she is choosing to do with her body, hopefully fully aware of the consequences that her choice may have on her body. Assuming no STD's, there will be no consequence to the man's body which would otherwise by his problem.

Again, the obligation that you are trying to place on the man does NOT have anything to do with the possibility of the pregnancy. Rather, everything hinges on her choice to continue or terminate the pregnancy. Since she has the right to the ultimate decision to continue or terminate the pregnancy, she bears the ultimate responsibility of her choice, not him. If he has NO choice, he has no responsibility in the matter. If you insist that he bears any obligation in the pregnancy, you MUST allow him the option to have the child aborted as a means to resolve his responsibility in the same manner that you would allow the woman the choice to have an abortion if she doesn't want the child. You can't have it both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes a woman made a choice to have sex, knowing that she may get pregnant but so did a man made a choice to put that sperm inside her knowing that it may result in her becoming pregnant. Both are responsible for that state.

If he has NO choice, he has no responsibility in the matter.

This is not a case of a man being stripped from choices or options.

A man always has a choice to act or not to act. As with any action, if you are not prepared to handle the possible consequences of your action you should not be engaging in it. That goes for everyone - both men and women.

If you are engaging in the act of sex responsibly and treat it objectively, with someone who reflects your values, a person you deeply care about, someone cam trust - if you both make sure to take the necessary steps to prevent pregnancy - these days you will never run to such a problem. Also, in such situation it is discussed what will happen in case of an unwanted pregnancy - and I stated that such an agreement should always be upheld.

If you being irresponsible about it - that is a CHOICE that you are making - a choice with consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As with any action, if you are not prepared to handle the possible consequences of your action you should not be engaging in it. That goes for everyone - both men and women.

To take your position to it's logical conclusion, you must then agree that if the man wants the woman to have an abortion, she must have it. You are saying he retains a choice in this matter if she becomes pregnant and that is his choice if he doesn't want to be a father. Or in reverse, if the man wants the child even though the woman doesn't, she must bear it out for him and assume the consequences or her choice to have sex including raising the child. If she can own a piece of his life because they had sex together, then it's equally appropriate for him to own a piece of her life for the same reason.

The other problem with your position is that you are creating a package deal. You are saying that the choice to have sex automatically includes the choice to be a parent (well at least for the man, not for the woman). These are two separate choices for each of the individuals involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The act of sex has consequences, yes. This is what happens, a fertilized egg turns into a zygote which turns into a fetus. The woman now has a choice, bring the fetus to term, or abort the pregnancy. This is her choice and her choice alone. If she decides to abort she gets an abortion, if she decides to bring it to term she has another choice, to raise the child herself or give it up to someone else who is WILLING to raise it, there is no one who has any obligation to raise any child, unless they have stated that they will. The biological father is not involved in this at all, unless he is the one who wants to raise the child.

The other problem with your position is that you are creating a package deal. You are saying that the choice to have sex automatically includes the choice to be a parent (well at least for the man, not for the woman). These are two separate choices for each of the individuals involved.

That says it even better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To take your position to it's logical conclusion, you must then agree that if the man wants the woman to have an abortion, she must have it. You are saying he retains a choice in this matter if she becomes pregnant and that is his choice if he doesn't want to be a father.

I have already explained my logic. He does not have a choice after she is already pregnant. He DOES have a choice about with whom and under what conditions he engages in the act of sex. If he picks the right woman (a rational one) and right conditions (those of responsibility) he will never put himself in a situation of being responsible for something he did not want.

If she can own a piece of his life because they had sex together, then it's equally appropriate for him to own a piece of her life for the same reason.

I do not know what you mean by owning a piece of his life but I already gave you the answer to how he can easily prevent himself from having unwanted obligations as a result of having sex. By acting responsibly.

What exactly would prevent a rational man from engaging in sex responsibly and as a part of that discussing the consequences of such act with that woman before hand?

You are saying that the choice to have sex automatically includes the choice to be a parent (well at least for the man, not for the woman).

In essence - yes it does. I would say: A choice to have sex for a man if he engages in it irresponsibly includes the possibility of becoming a parent. A man might become a parent - because a man does not have a control over what a woman will do with her body. That is a reality for a man. Now in light of that fact - man can not treat sex irresponsibly (I am not saying that a woman can !!!)

What you are saying is that a man is not responsible for his irresponsible actions when it comes to sex but a woman is. That is a double standard when it comes to the morality of sex. I am saying both are responsible for their irresponsible actions. It may have negative consequences for both of them.

When both people act responsibly - the problem does not exist.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not know what you mean by owning a piece of his life but I already gave you the answer to how he can easily prevent himself from having unwanted obligations as a result of having sex.

I assume rationalbiker means that if she has the child she can be awarded child support payments for 18+years.

Do I understand properly that you believe that once a man chooses to have sex with a woman his fate, financially at least is(and ought to be) in her hands? Because if so, I disagree. When choosing to have sex, he is not necessarily choosing to be a father. In fact, usually he's not. When A woman becomes pregnent she then has the ability to make a concious decision to actually have and keep the child. I fail to see how that same concious choice ought not be afforded to men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He does not have a choice after she is already pregnant.

And this is precisely the problem. His obligation rests on her choice, not the fact that she's pregnant. That's what I mean by her owning a piece of his life. According to your position, she holds a substantial portion of his life in her hands based on her decision. You may not see or understand it that way, but that's exactly the way it is.

What you are saying is that a man is not responsible for his irresponsible actions when it comes to sex but a woman is.

No, what I said was a woman is ultimately responsible for what she does with her body because she ultimately has the choice to have the baby or not. When she chooses to go forward with the pregnancy against the man's wishes, it's entirely her responsibility. If she doesn't want that responsibility knowing that the man does not want to support her or will not support her, she should abort the child or have it and offer it for adoption. The double standard exists in that you would put the fate of the man's life in the woman's hands, but you will not reciprocate that option for the man. If both were equally responsible, and both have equal choice in the matter, either of them should be able to abort the pregnancy if they don't want to be a parent or either of them should be able to choose to accept the sole responsibility for raising the child. If it's the woman's ultimate choice because it's the woman's body, then she solely bears the responsibility for saying no if she doesn't want to be pregnant.

And just to be clear, not all acts of sex that result in unintended pregnancies are acts of irresponsible sex. Both parties are obviously implying that they don't want to have children when they use protection even if it happens to fail. The use of protection is a responsible act for those who wish to engage in sex but don't want children. The fact that the protection may fail does not make the man or the woman irresponsible. The fact that the woman may change her mind after the "accident" does not place an unchosen obligation on the man.

I'm satisfied with the position I've laid out and that it's consistent with Objectivism so I'm going to leave it at that.

Aequalsa notes properly what I mean about the man's life, financially speaking.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that you guys are choosing not to answer this question:

What exactly would prevent a rational man from engaging in sex responsibly and as a part of that discussing the consequences of such act with that woman before hand?

An act of sex does not automatically mean the possibility of unchoosen obligation if there is an agreement about it before hand. It means that, in my opinion, if there is not one.

What would make a rational man not want to have such an agreement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that you guys are choosing not to answer this question:

What exactly would prevent a rational man from engaging in sex responsibly and as a part of that discussing the consequences of such act with that woman before hand?

An act of sex does not automatically mean the possibility of unchoosen obligation if there is an agreement about it before hand. It means that, in my opinion, if there is not one.

What would make a rational man not want to have such an agreement?

Nothing prevents it. And I agree that it would be a wise choice. It would also be wise for the women to have that conversation ahead of time. If a contract existed(say a marriage contract which includes that possibility) then there could be an obligation.

What you advocate, is that in the absence of a prior agreement, the man is by default, financially responsible for whatever choice the woman makes. It requires action on the man's part without his consent since consent to have sex is not the same as consent to have a child. The question isn't what what ought to do in any particualr circumstance, but one can morally be required to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In essence - yes it does. I would say: A choice to have sex for a man if he engages in it irresponsibly includes the possibility of becoming a parent. A man might become a parent - because a man does not have a control over what a woman will do with her body.

This is what I meant when I said that this whole argument rests on an equivocation. There is nothing about being a "biological parent" that makes it an obligation for one to become a "financial parent" or chil raiser. This is the point that you have to prove, that contributing DNA to a baby makes you responsilbe for the upbringing of that child against your will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be a good summary to say: you can't have the authority to decide something without the accompanying responsibility, and vice versa?

If you are responsible for something without being able to decide what happens, that is similar to the state of the economy under fascism. The authority to decide without the responsibility is something that reminds me of some politicians these days. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I meant when I said that this whole argument rests on an equivocation. There is nothing about being a "biological parent" that makes it an obligation for one to become a "financial parent" or chil raiser. This is the point that you have to prove, that contributing DNA to a baby makes you responsilbe for the upbringing of that child against your will.

We are all agree that a man is responsible for his actions. We also agree that a man can not demand an abortion from a woman. She may choose to have one but that is her choice. A woman does not have a responsibility to abort a pregnancy - it is a choice.

Knowing those two facts it is irresponsible for a man to treat sex casually.

If a man does not make sure to find out what this woman's views are on having an abortion in case of 'an accident' (I am assuming both people are being honest in trying to avoid it) then he is making a decision of having sex with this woman blindly. Because for example he may find out that she can not get one for health reasons (it is possible). In light of such finding, knowing that in case of 'an accident' there will be a child born - a man may choose not to take that risk - but if he does not ask - if he acts blindly - this does not relieve him from taking responsibility for what he has created as a result of his actions.

He may not have indended to have a child - but his actions have a possibility of this outcome. Not having an intension of a certain outcome from your action does not relieve you from being responsible for that outcome if it happens (that is also true for other actions and sex is no different).

This is not a case of contributing DNA to a baby like a sperm donor does. In this case a man should not be held financially (or otherwise) responsible for the upbringing of a child. It is a different situation.

But if you have created life through your actions - even if you did not intended to do so - you are responsible for it, same way you are responsible for all other outcomes of your actions even if you did not intended them to happen. That child did not ask to be born - it was the action of those two people who created it - and both are responsible for it.

That is why a dialog and treating sex responsibly is the key. It is unwise not to. Note that if you do - you will never run to such a problem. It is very easy to avoid it. Again this is not a case of a man not having options.

Wishing the reality to be different does not change the reality in fact.

To say that it is only a woman's responsibility is equal to say: A man is not responsible for the outcome of his actions when it comes to sex but she is. A man could give her a disease or make her pregnant - and it is not his responsibility since she choose to have sex with him volunarily and it is her body. That is not a moral stand.

You may ask: why don't she have an abortion then? She might yes but it is not a man's right to demand it. She is not required, nor obligated to have one. It is not a procedure of teeth cleaning and there are many cirumstances in which a rational woman may not want one, or could not have one. A man has to find that out before he has sex with her.

Personally, I would not have a child in that situation but I can not impose that choice on other women. It is not my right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you have created life through your actions - even if you did not intended to do so - you are responsible for it, same way you are responsible for all other outcomes of your actions even if you did not intended them to happen. That child did not ask to be born - it was the action of those two people who created it - and both are responsible for it.

It does not follow that if you create life, you are responsible for maintainign it. That is the part you have to prove.

You keep saying that a man is responsible for the outcome of his actions and you are right, but you take it too far and misapply it, thus the equivocation. What it means "to be responsible" in that sense it stricly "to be the causer". When I ask: "Who is responsible for this mess?" I am asking: "who is the causer of this mess," OR "who is supposed to clean this up". They are two separate questions, potentially asked to two different people.

There are no obligations except for willful ones or ones involving repense of damage. I do not think one could argue that getting a girl pregnant constitutes damage, or that creating someone could be damage against them. The willful act was the sex, and the girl is responsible for her own body. If she makes the choice to keep the pregnancy it is her responsiblity to bring it to term. If she chooses to raise the child after birth, again it is her resposibility, a chosen responsibility.

I know you see this as unfair, but its metaphysically given, and you must accept it.

Edited by JMeganSnow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does not follow that if you create life, you are responsible for maintainign it.

This is one of the most immoral statements I have herd.

Think for a second if this was true what it would imply and I don't think (or hope) that is what you mean. What you mean (I think) is only a mother is responsible for maintaining life but not a father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Who is responsible for this mess?" I am asking: "who is the causer of this mess," OR "who is supposed to clean this up".

Both people are causer and responsible for this "mess". Second, your second statement assumes that an abortion aka "cleaning it up" is always an option and a requirement. It is no such thing.

I have said that there are reasons why a rational woman even if she could undergo abortion may not want to have one. I think I should elaborate because it may shed some light on the crusial aspect of the choice she maybe facing. One of the reasons but not the only one is the fact that she may never be able to have children again. This is a possiblity same way getting pregnant is a possibility but not a given. This is one of the reasons but not the only one - why abortion or "cleaning it up" can not be a requirement.

Not disucssing with a woman what will happen in case of "an accident" is irresponsible and keeping your head in the sand does not relieve you from taking responsibility for the possible outcome of your action. If you ask - you have a choice of not going through with it. If you don't ask - it is your choice to engage in an action that can have unwanted consequences for you, blindly.

No, you are correct about your assumption. I mean that even the mother is not responsible for maintaing the life of another. Nobody is.

Then we can not debate any longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am tenatively re-opening this thread, as I have seen a number of folks still reading it since it closure.

It seems that topics like this (related to sex, abortion, etc.) seem to generate a lot of heat amongst the debaters. I closed it earlier because I anticipated (perhaps prematurely) seeing this thread degenerate into attacks on members and not attacks on arguments. If it does degenerate, it may be closed again.

Please be mindful that this topic, like any other, should be able to be rationally discussed even if the participants cannot reach agreement. I'm guessing there may be other members out there who would like to weigh in their thoughts, so since it is a relatively young (at least in terms of pages anyway), I thought I'd give others a chance by reopening it.

However;

** Stick to arguing your position, and do not attack your opponent. **

Naturally, other forum rules apply as well.

Thanks.

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...