***INTERESTING PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION***

[Arkana]

No one reads my threads, so I figured to get this one some attention (because I really want opinions) that I would capitalize this one.

In my bioethics class, I just figured out that my prof is a conservative Catholic anti-choicer (or something of the like, because he fawned over John Roberts for about ten minutes.) Anyway, we're studying the moral and legal status of abortion, and we had to read the Francis Beckwith article "Shifting the Focus in the Abortion Debate." (For those of you who don't know Beckwith, he's an evangelical Protestant philosopher. Oxymoronic, much?)

This was one of the cases where he tried to prove that moral obligations (such as the mother to carry a pregnancy to term) were imperative:

A couple has protected sex. They use all sorts of protection--she's on the pill, he's using a condom, etc. The protection fails, she gets pregnant anyway. He declares that he wants absolutely nothing to do with the child, since he never signed on to be a father. She carries the fetus to term and has the baby without his knowledge.

What does the child have a "right" to? Is it just child support every month from the father? Or does the child have a right to emotional and moral support from that same father?

Please, please, give me your opinions.
EDIT: I guess I should phrase the question a bit differently...

[Shell Beau]

1. He has moral obligations for sure.

Whether he wanted the child or not, he did the deed knowing there is still a chance that she could get pregnant. He had as much to do with the child being conceived as she did. Legally, I think he is obligated as well. JMO! It is very important that people realize no protection is 100% effective. And if you are still taking the chance, then you need to take whatever responsibility.

[Arkana]

5. What moral obligations does he have? Does the child have

a "right" to emotional support from his/her father? Or is the father's ONLY obligation to pay child support?

[Shell Beau]

6. The child is 50% part of the father. Why

should the woman have to do it alone? She didn't create the child alone. I certainly think that the child has the "right" of emotional support from his father. He didn't ask to be brought into this world. And he certainly had no control over it.

[charlie and algernon]

2. he has both moral and legal obligations

"never signed on"? that's BS. if he really wanted to eliminate any chance of getting her pregnant, he doesn't have sex with her. even if you have protected sex, you're still taking that risk and you have to take the consequences. he needs to be both that father figure to the child and provide the monetary aid to the mother for the caring of that child.

[RevCheesehead]

3. It is an interesting question.

I'm no legal expert, but I'd venture a guess that he IS legally responsible for the child. A DNA test would prove paternity.

Morally - well, he had sex, right? It's not like he was forced. This unwanted pregnancy is one of the potential consequences. If he didn't want children, then he has nobody to blame but himself.

Disclaimer: I don't necessarily believe that, but it would probably score you brownie points with your prof. Good luck.

[kick-ass-bob]

4. both - definitely legal.

Using protection is not 100% effective :scared: and is well documented. If he didn't want to sign on to be a father, he should have taken extreme measures to make sure that COULD not happen.

He knew the risks and took the chance anyways, that makes him legally responsible.

[Arkana]

7. OK, right. But does it make him MORALLY responsible?

Is he required to provide emotional support for this child? Sure, he's legally responsible--he's got to pay child support and all, otherwise he's a deadbeat dad--but are his other obligations voluntary or involuntary?

[Shell Beau]

8. Is the mother morally responsible? If so, then the father is too.

[charlie and algernon]

9. how about being that father figure

[Arkana]

10. Huh?

The point I brought up in class is that to be minimally decent, the father has to fulfill his legal responsibilities--i.e. child support. His moral responsibilities, while he "ought" to provide emotional support to his kid, and it would be absolutely great if he did, the kid does not have the "right" to that emotional support. There's a disconnect between "right to" and "ought to."

[charlie and algernon]

11. why shouldn't a child have that right?

sure, there are plenty of cases where children raised by single mothers grow up to be great people, but i'm sure that there are just as many cases where children grew up with lots of problems because of a lack of a father and whatever emotional support he can provide. I'm also sure that even in the good cases, those children still found some male adult who took over, at least partially, the role a father would have.

[Arkana]

15. Why SHOULD the child have that right?

Anyone know someone who grew up with two lesbian parents? I'm sure they turned out just fine. What can the father give them that they have an absolute "right" to (other than child support)?

[Shell Beau]

16. He has that right b/c he is very much a part of his father.

He shares his DNA. This isn't to say that he won't turn out fine w/o his father's support. But he deserves it and I believe he has a right to it. Now whether or not he gets his father's support is a different story.

[Arkana]

18. EXACTLY. You hit on my point.

There is no moral law that compels the father to give anything other than money to the child. It's fantastic if he's there for the kid while the kid grows up--absolutely marvelous. But to be a "Minimally Decent" Samaritan, all the father has to do is do what is absolutely required of him.

The term for this is ethical voluntarism.

[Shell Beau]

22. Well we already know that though! Kids are being

raised by single moms all over (and single dads for that matter). But it doesn't mean that the kid doesn't have a right to that support.

[kick-ass-bob]

13. yes he has the moral responsibility as well.

he created the kid, he should be responsible. I don't see a disconnect at all. "Ought to" means that is a moral responsibility. There are no "moral laws" - they are things that people should do.

If he doesn't provide that support, then he is shirking his moral obligations.

[Arkana]

17. What about this analogy:

There are two brothers. The older one gets two pieces of candy from his parents. To be a jerk, he eats them in front of his younger brother. Did the older brother do anything wrong? If so, and if he wronged his younger brother morally, does the younger brother have an imperative moral right to one of the pieces of candy?

Edit for clarity.

[kick-ass-bob]

19. I'm not sure what that has to do with having a child, but...

who gave the older kid 2 pieces of candy?
Did he buy them? Then they are his. Did his parents give them to him? Why did they do that? Was he told to give the other to his brother?

Again, I don't see what that has to do with spawning a child.

[Arkana]

21. It's built on the same principle--is the "ought to" voluntary

or involuntary?

[kick-ass-bob]

23. built on the same principle, maybe, but the results are trivial.

whereas the life of a human is not.

[Arkana]

24. I've moved away from that--the point I'm making

is that all special relationships are consensual--the mother agrees to have the baby, the father agrees to support/be there for it, etc.

This is really a question of ethical voluntarism--Beckwith used the original example (the one I posted in the OP) to prove that ethical voluntarism doesn't exist.

[kick-ass-bob]

27. I am disagreeing with the implication that there are "Moral Laws"

with some sort of consequences outside of the person.

Basically, I see it as a code of ethics, you can choose to follow it or not. In my book of ethics, abandoning the child emotionally is morally wrong. I would not do it.
Does he get punished? Maybe, maybe not, but not by anything outside of himself - if he goes against HIS code of ethics, then he punishes himself (unconciously, probably).

I'm not sure how that fits with the made up label of "ethical voluntarism" but that is what I think.


Does that make sense? Or do I need some ginko? :P

[Arkana]

29. No, you sound just like me, only from a different angle.

Ethical voluntarism is just that--volunteering to follow the set code of ethics. It's not mandatory--you don't absolutely have to, but most people choose to.

EDIT: In my mind, I would also think that abandoning the kid is a terrible thing to do, but I also realize that there is a disconnect. "Right to" is not equal to "ought to," and there is no moral imperative (as hard as it might be for some to believe it).

[Shell Beau]

20. That analogy would maybe work if we weren't discussing life.

Candy and life just can't compare. But if the older brother bought the candy, then no the younger brother doesn't have a right. But if they bought it together, (man and woman having sex) then yes the younger one is owed a piece.

[Splatter Phoenix]

36. The little brother ought to get back at his ass.

...No, seriously, it's relative. I'd laugh if the little brother kicked the crap out of the big one.

[cassandra uprising]

12. If every parent gave emotional and moral support

to their children planned or otherwise this world would be a different place. My point being is that how can you judge men who don't want children on the same same moral standard of how much emotional support they give their children as a man who does and the effects it has on child rearing.

It seems like the way the professor has framed the debate in such a way that men who want sex and not kids as bad verses men who want kids as good regardless of the effect is has on the kids.

Note: I haven't had coffee yet.

[Shell Beau]

14. Morals are different for everyone.

I think the child has the right to his fathers emotional support b/c he needs it and he didn't ask to be brought into this world. By having sex, it was a chance the dad was willing to take.

[anarch]

25. I don't know...

I think maybe that is the whole question...whether there are objective standards of morality to which we all should be held. Instinctively, I think we would all see it as "more morally correct" for the father to provide as much support as possible--emotional, financial, or otherwise. But in the hypothetical example, he would have no idea that the child was his, or that there was even a child...or am I reading it wrong?

How much choice does the father have regarding the whole course of things? If both parents had originally been in agreement that they were not going to procreate, and then the pregnancy happened by accident, does he have a right to argue for terminating it? I personally know of a situation where there was an unplanned pregnancy, and the woman had an abortion against the wishes of the guy...he was really torn up about it, but in that case the woman's reproductive rights (not to mention her own physical existence...I mean, it was her body undergoing the pregnancy, not his) seem to trump his. If it's the other way around, and the choice to have the child is purely the woman's, how can we really hold the guy to equal accountability?

I dunno, it's a tough question.

[Shell Beau]

26. Well I do feel that a woman who is pregnant should

take into consideration the father's wishes as far as termination goes. But to me this is a question about morals. We know that legally the father doesn't have to be an emotional support system for the child. But morally, he should. And whether or not the father wanted the child, it is here and the child shouldn't suffer for mistakes made by the parents. I certainly understand your points and they are good points. But I still believe with all of my heart that the child should have a right to his father's love and support. I know that is not the case a lot of the time.

[Arkana]

30. The point is that he has no INVOLUNTARY moral obligations.

Ethical voluntarism is the center of the pro-choice argument, IMHO.

[Shell Beau]

31. Okay

[MissMillie]

28. EVERY child has a "right" to emotional and moral support of the father

but the father also has the right to walk away, emotionally speaking. The bottom line is that you can't force someone to do what they don't want to do--and is it really in the kid's best interest to have a dad around if that dad doesn't want to be there?

[serryjw]

32. You guys are all agreeing ..let me stir the pot

First I need a definition of 'couple'. Married, LTR...or just in a 'friends with benefits' relationship??
I ask for the obvious reasons. Now,they both agreed by outward actions that they didn't want to make a baby. Is this a 'contract'? Can he make her have an abortion? Can he make her give the baby up for adoption? Lets turn the tables. Can he MAKE her have the baby IF she doesn't want it?
Everyone here is so willing to make the male support this child for 18 years when he obviously had no intention of making one. The woman has options that she is NOT electing to use.WHY should the male be on the hook for financial and emotional support......???

BTW...NO flame..I'm a middle age woman. IF woman want to be liberated they can't trap men into an untenable situation.

You're Prof is approaching this from a fundie standpoint. I'm trying to weigh both partners rights

[Shell Beau]

33. I can agree with most everything you say. Those

are good questions. But when you say "he obviously had no intention of making one", that is somewhat false. He had no intentions, but knew the possible consequences. If you have sex, pregnancy is ALWAYS a possibility.

[serryjw]

49. You can say the same for her.....

did she try and trap him? My other question must be answered. Waht if he INSISTED she have the baby...what then?

[Shell Beau]

50. That is one of the key issues with abortion I think.

But ultimately it is the woman's body and she has to go through the pregnancy. From the way is sounds though, neither one wanted to get pregnant. Accidents do happen. Legally you can't force the guy to be there emotionally for the baby, but I still the every baby has the right to know their parents.

[Splatter Phoenix]

34. Neh.

"morality" is relative.

I mean really, really relative. This kind of class shouldn't have a "right" or "wrong" position, nor should it have a clearly biased teacher, but...

There are plenty of fuckheaded people out there. I think it's enough if he pays, and hope the kid finds a teacher or coach or something to latch onto as a father figure.

[Nikia]

35. Morally, he ought to give the child emotional support

In my opinion if he does not be a father emotionally as well, he has done something wrong. On the otherhand, no one can force him to be a father emotionally. Even children who are allegedly wanted by both parents, sometimes have a parent or parents who are emotionally neglectful. Some are even abusive. Yes, we have laws against abuse, but I don't think that we can legislate being there emotionally. I suppose that some kind of forced viistation or joint custody could be legislative, but that might lead to more cases of neglect or abuse.
Incidently, my cousin fathered a child with the mother agreeing to give the baby up for adoption. A few days before giving birth, she changed her mind with the support of her parents. He was legally obligated to support. His parents encouraged him to be emotionally there even though he didn't want to be at first and they were as grandparents.

[serryjw]

51. If this not the same argument we give to ROE

IF A WOMAN is not emotionally ready to have a child she can elect an abortion..I know it's the woman's body but HE IS NOT emotionally ready either. THEY AGREED to not make a baby. IF she wants it she is on her own UNLESS he changes his mind. I think most states (??) will award 15%++ of gross income for child support..........FOR 18 years!

[Nikia]

52. I thought Roe was about

The right to do with one's body what one chooses. In the original post, one can hope that one will not conceive all they want and take possible precautions but ultimately if there is conception, it is a biological act and something willed by either party. To say that one agrees not become pregnant when one has sex short of a very good sterilization surgery is like saying one agrees not to get the flu.
The woman must make a decision with her body in a condition that is already present. If the man disappeared after the act the and no one could reach him, he wouldn't know at all wither way. A woman knows that she is pregnant and is forced to deal with the consequences. She might have a compelling reason why she would not choose abortion, which is a procedure done to her body. After going through the duration of pregnancy, she may go through emotional changes that compell to keep the baby. For example, some women become attatched to the being that is growing inside of them which is why some women change their minds at the last minute. As I said, all during this if the man is absent and not contacted, he knows nothing of this and does not have to deal with it.
The baby is born and the mother decides to keep it. That child has a right to a father if he is living as much as any other child. The only thing that the state can order is child support, but not emotional support. If he acts ethically, he will support the child emotionally as well. He can choose not to act ethically too. People act unethically all the time.
As far as being ready emotionally, a woman must always be prepared to deal with the consequences of pregnancy. Why shouldn't the man?

[serryjw]

53. No one answered my original question

about what kinda relationship this is..marriage, LTR or 'friends with benefits'? If it is one of the first 2 I would grand you they need to decide together. IF they agreed to have sex, she gets pregnant The baby is her responsibility if she choices to have it. IF the courts can find him he may be required to pay support (which I don't agree) but he is never required to give emotional support if it is not what he wants.

WE can't have it BOTH ways. Either we are liberated or NOT. Trapping a man in to 18 years of support if just NOT acceptable.IMHO

[Nikia]

54. Shouldn't a man take responsibility for his actions?

A woman always has to deal with the consequences of pregnancy. A man does not have to deal with the consequences of pregnancy unless he takes the responsibility voluntarily or is forced. A possible consequence of having sex is pregnancy. Women know this. A man should know this too.
Do you really think that giving up a baby that you carried to term or having an abortion is not a consequence and something that makes an emotional impact on most women that have experienced that?

[serryjw]

56. Of course carry a baby to term

and giving it up or aborting it has consequences...BUT not as much as raising a child for 18 years when you are not ready

[Shell Beau]

55. Who said he was trapped?

They both did the deed. Neither one of them wanted to create a child but by doing what they did, it happened. He needs to step up. The child is the one who potentially suffers if the dad doesn't support him. He didn't ask to be born.

[Rabrrrrrr]

37. Since it's obvious he's out of the picture...

She had the baby in secret, which tells me that they are not a couple. Not in the sense of being married, nor living together.

So clearly, the woman and man have no relationship.

AND since the woman had the pregnancy and birth in secret, it's clear she did not want the man involved.

I don't think the child has a "right" to emotional support from the father - how is that even going to happen? And more than likely, the guy isn't give it anyway. You can't FORCE emotional support from anyone.

It's really up to the mother - if SHE wants the father involved, she will try to do so, whether it be financial support or emotional support.

The man in this case has no moral or ethical obligation WHATSOEVER to the child or to the mother, until such time that he is told that he has a child and ONLY if the mother wants some kind of support from him.

[Kenneth ken]

38. no

the child does not have a right to emotional and moral support from the father.

I don't think it is possible to demand that a person feel affection for another person, so how can it be possible for a child to have a "right" to emotional support - that implies that the father actually has positive feelings for the child, when, in your example, the father clearly does not.

[StellaBlue]

41. does that mean the mother isn't obligated, either?

after birth? (not talking about abortion here)

[Kenneth ken]

43. isn't that one reason

women put their children up for adoption?

Actually, while trying to figure out what to put in my earlier post, I included commentary on adoption, but then deleted it because I didn't like the phrasing.

Should a child given up for adoption have a "right" to emotional and moral support from either of its birth parents?

Do I have a "right" to emotional and moral support from the girl I had a crush on in junior high?

It's all the same thing; how can one be required to feel what one doesn't feel?

[StellaBlue]

45. Ultimately

Sex leads to pregnancy.

Women, due to 'intelligent design' (hahahahahahahahahahahaha) not only bear the totality of the physical burden of pregnancy and birth, but the majority of the emotional burden, as well, whether the pregnancy leads to abortion (never an easy decision for any woman), adoption (often even more frought than abortion), or having and raising the child.

Men and women contribute equally to the conception; since we are trying to create a world of justice and peace, our goal should be to liberate men, women, and children. The father and mother are fully equally responsible.

I also think that women have an obligation to take into SERIOUS account the father's feelings regarding any possible abortion. However, if the father washes his hands of the whole thing, as previously discussed, then she is no longer obligated to consider him. That's my personal opinion. Obviously a rapist has no rights to be considered and should be permanently quarantined apart from the rest of society.

$0.04

[Kenneth ken]

46. we agree here:

" I also think that women have an obligation to take into SERIOUS account the father's feelings regarding any possible abortion. "

Additionaly, I think that men have an obligation to take into SERIOUS account the woman's feelings regarding any possible abortion as well.

But that veers away from the original topic of what rights a child may or may not have to emotional and moral support from a father who didn't want to be a father. I still believe that a child (or any other person) can not have a right to something which it may not be possible to give.

[flvegan]

39. The child has a right to scream in the grocery store.

Had to be said. I love dragging other flamefests around.

[StellaBlue]

40. "does the child have a right to emotional and moral support?"

Yes, both.

Ultimately, men MUST realize, as women have since the before the dawn of time, that sex leads to pregnancy. I am tired of women bearing all the responsibility.

I can't imagine being so stupid, if I were a man, to have sex with someone who I wasn't *very* committed to, on the off-chance that the woman might get pregnant, either by accident or on purpose, or that I might find out 18 years later that I have a child. That is a nightmarish situation to contemplate, and I am astounded by the number of men who are willing to take that chance every single chance they get.

$0.02

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. child support

you cannot force emotional and moral support...i categorically do not want kids...since this is my body i can control that...i think if a man feels strongly that he doesnt want a keep the responsibility of its emotional growth is completely mine...however monetarily we are both responsible because no protection is 100% and its a risk you have to take if you want sex(phew!)

[LaurenG]

44. Do the correct "thing" is the answer

The correct thing would be different depending on cultural upbringing. I just can't stand these questions because you must generalize for the entire population. If these two didn't want kids then adoption would be the next choice. Why would a kid need or want a dad who thought that little of him. It should be up to the two people to decide what was best and go from there. If mom wants the child she should raise him alone. The guy would need to decide for himself what to do, after all she NEVER told him about the pregnancy and gave him no choice in the outcome. If h's so wrapped up in himself that he didn't want any part of his child so be it. Why force him to raise a child he doesn't want. The child will sense it and figure there is something wrong with him, (the child). Good luck with this. arrgh.

[Tikki]

47. It's all about quality of life...all it will ever be....

...a care-giver is going to perceive what the child's 'quality of life' should be and work to meet that perception and then the dependent decides how much and how long they will keep buying into that...

A half-way decent care-giver will try to meet health, safety and emotional needs...

Legally...always, hire a lawyer for custody, support and parentage issues...


Tikki

[chknltl]

48. These moral rights are a product of culture, culture IS dynamic.

I believe that morals and rights are products of culture. Each culture sets these up. What you or I "feel" are proper morals and ethics are products of our culture. In the example above our culture would tend to make us "feel" that the mother and the father have moral obligations and that the child has a similar moral right. Because culture is dynamic, some will "feel" otherwise.
Jump for a moment into a hypothetical future culture, one where only test tube babies are allowed. The children here are raised by the state. It is not so hard to vision such a culture, even though our own cultural bias will paint that vision as flawed, it "feels" wrong. Members of that culture would be fully "acculturated", they too would likely find our morals and ethics to be flawed. In this culture the majority would answer this question of rights of the child to the parent with; "No, of course not". The overall point I am attempting to make here is that ethics and morals are a part of culture, they are subject to change as that culture changes. This is growth, it is perfectly natural, the opposite is stagnation, or cultural stagnation, this imo is a state which can only last through repression. Your professor unwittingly is subscribing to stagnating our culture because of his beliefs. Eventually culture will move on in spite of his philosophies, history shows us this. Here, science, (natural human curiosity), constantly reveal the flaws in the arguments of those who would hold human culture in check. Your teacher is allowing his religious bias to influence his teachings here. This is his choice of course but I question his ethics in doing so.