quote:I'd [like] to see a discussion on the rights of the father over unborn children.
I'm a little uncertain how I feel about a father's rights concerning unborn children. I oppose abortion, but the reality of the situation is that, right now, the woman legally dictates IF the child will be born, and to a great extent, if the father can have anything to do with his child. It's something she determines, and he gets no input.
Abortion, adoption, or keeping the child, the man really gets no legal rights until after he's received approval from the mother. And with the court system the way it is, the father can loose many of those rights at her whim, AND be financially saddled to pay for children he isn't allowed access to. [rant] This imperfect system is buoyed by at least a century of cultural and economic forces that have pushed the man out of his children's lives, and saddled the woman with the being the main source of education, nourishment, and influence in the family's life. The 50's television dream of patriarchial authority is a sham, because it relies on the myth that fathers cannot form anything but authoritarian bonds with children. "Wait until your father gets home..." puts dad in a position of disciplinarian, rather than in his proper place as teacher and nurturer. [/rant]
Fathers should have legal rights to help determine the fate of their own unborn children. It's one way to bring the father back into his children's lives, by telling him that his decisions, as a father, are important even before the child is born.
I don't know what those rights should be. Hopefully, this discussion will hammer some ideas out.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I agree with most of your post Scott.
However, I think it is important that father's rights over (etc etc) the unborn should be drafted/considered keeping in mind the very different impact of a pregnancy on the mother than the father.
I don't think this should mean that a father has no rights. But I also think the fact that pregnancy means a woman's body is hugely and permanently changed (not to count the actual duration of pregnancy itself) means it is a very hard line to tread when discussing the rights of someone who is not immediately (physically) affected by the pregnancy.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Also, although I think it is sad, I could not ever support any system that let a father force a mother to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes (assuming abortion is legal).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I could not ever support any system that let a father force a mother to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes
I understand the sentiment. What do you think of the idea of forcing a father to support a child that he wanted aborted?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I honestly believe we should be focusing a great deal more research money on artificial wombs.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What do you think of the idea of forcing a father to support a child that he wanted aborted?
Child support is a right of the child, not the custodial parent. A preference by one parent that the child should not exist - especially if expressed prior to the existence of the child - does not diminish that child's right to support from both parents.
quote:Abortion, adoption, or keeping the child, the man really gets no legal rights until after he's received approval from the mother. And with the court system the way it is, the father can loose many of those rights at her whim, AND be financially saddled to pay for children he isn't allowed access to.
This is not really true with regards to adoption. Although a father's rights can be easily waived by inaction, they do exist. The biggest hole in the law is the lack of required notice to the father in certain cases.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen: I agree with most of your post Scott.
However, I think it is important that father's rights over (etc etc) the unborn should be drafted/considered keeping in mind the very different impact of a pregnancy on the mother than the father.
I don't think this should mean that a father has no rights. But I also think the fact that pregnancy means a woman's body is hugely and permanently changed (not to count the actual duration of pregnancy itself) means it is a very hard line to tread when discussing the rights of someone who is not immediately (physically) affected by the pregnancy.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I honestly believe we should be focusing a great deal more research money on artificial wombs.
I also agree with this.
Scott, I think that child support shouldn't be payable if a father doesn't want a child. But I think that should be done with a full waiver of any rights to, or access to that child.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
That seems like an easy way out for a guy that is not going to be a good dad anyway. We are responsible for our actions. We can't say, "Officer, I didn't mean to kill that person, I just pulled the trigger on this gun." Men do not have a choice after the "trigger is pulled".
It would be nice in the instances where the woman does not want the baby and the man does for the man to pay for every cost associated with the pregnancy and take full responsibility for the child when it is born, but that could bever happen.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
(And given the financial burden that system may place on mothers, I'd want a government support system to make sure such children would not be (too*) deprived.)
*I recognise any government system could not replace having two parents financially contributing to their child's welfare.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17:
It would be nice in the instances where the woman does not want the baby and the man does for the man to pay for every cost associated with the pregnancy and take full responsibility for the child when it is born, but that could bever happen.
It could with the artificial womb! (Seriously. I think it's a fantastic idea.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Scott, I think that child support shouldn't be payable if a father doesn't want a child. But I think that should be done with a full waiver of any rights to, or access to that child.
In my mind, this comes dangerously close to commoditizing children - as if support is really the price of admission to child access rather than a moral obligation to care for one's offspring.
A mother who deprives the father of access to his child (barring circumstances such as abuse) is depriving her child of something that child has a right to - it is a violation committed against the child.
Similarly, a father who denies support to his child is committing a violation against the child. If he denies his presence to his child, he is likewise depriving his child of something that child has a right to.
Justifying lack of support based on lack of paternal access (regardless of whether the lack of access is desired by the mother, father, or both) is justifying one wrongful deprivation with another.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think Dagonee's take on the child support issue is the correct one.
Euripides, Imogen:
To me, it seems like despite your reservations, you're advocating that the situation remain at status quo. That is, the father gets no rights at all.
Do you think that having only legal responsibilities and no (or tenuous) legal rights fosters a good culture of fatherhood?
EDIT: Ooops-- that last bit was a little leading. Rather, what effects do you think assigning responsibility to fathers without allowing them legal rights has on fatherhood?
This question is asked with the (mis?)understanding that court decisions in custody cases overwhelmingly favor mothers.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Ugh...
That last question was ALSO leading. Sorry.
What can be done to better support fatherhood, without changing the current legal system?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I do agree Dagonee.
But (unlike you, I know) I also think abortion should be legal.
So in my mindset, while I firmly believe a woman (mother) should have the ultimate right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy, I also think (and maybe offset that unilateral decision) with a man's (father's) rights to financially "opt out", so to speak.
But, as I posted in my (late) addition, I think such system would have to be supported by the government (I have no problem with this).
Reading your post, and thinking about it, I'd tweak my earlier statement to be a waiver of rights, but not access.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Regardless of a double standard, it is SO easy to NOT get a woman pregnant that I have no pity on any man that doesn't want to pay child support because he wanted an abortion.
Being opposed to abortion outside of rape/incest myself, I would support any law giving the man some say in the matter of preventing it.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Aggh, Scott, you posted!
Firstly...
quote: Do you think that having only legal responsibilities and no (or tenuous) legal rights fosters a good culture of fatherhood?
No.
Secondly, the things I said only applied to your question where a father wanted an abortion and the mother didn't agree.
I think where a father is wanting the baby (and so hasn't "opted out") I think there should probably be joint custody as norm, and if not, very, very generous access (I also think fathers should be awarded sole custody more than they are). I think fathers should have a right to say where their kids live (to a point, if they live with their mothers on non-joint access), and where they go to school.
And I agree with you, I think fathers should be brought back into their children's lives.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Dagonee: First, there may be a moral obligation to care for one's offspring, but I do not see how it follows that such support is a "right", and denial of such or access to a parent, a violation.
At least in Canada (although it differs a bit by province, I think BC has them open by default but either party can veto that, Ontario's are closed), a child can anonymously be given up for adoption at birth and the records sealed.
Thus, there does exist a system that does deprive a child of access to its parents and also deprives a child of support from both parents when both parents desire a lack of access.
Would you deem this system to also be a violation of a child's rights?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
What can be done to better support fatherhood, without changing the current legal system?
To be honest, I have no idea; and perhaps I shouldn't have jumped into the thread so readily, since this is that topic you wanted to explore. I agree with you that the presence of the father outside of disciplinary roles is being devalued, and that it should be recovered.
It's just that in the immediate term, the mother has to bear the life-altering consequences of the decision, and the future might still be up in the air. Despite laws on alimony, it still seems to be easier for the father to evade the responsibilities associated with parenthood than it is for the mother.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee: First, there may be a moral obligation to care for one's offspring, but I do not see how it follows that such support is a "right", and denial of such or access to a parent, a violation.
There are many rights that are not legally enforceable. If a moral obligation exists, then the person to whom that obligation exists has a corresponding right. Whether that right should be enforced at law is an entirely different question from whether that right exists - the latter is merely a necessary condition to even asking the former.
quote:At least in Canada (although it differs a bit by province, I think BC has them open by default but either party can veto that, Ontario's are closed), a child can anonymously be given up for adoption at birth and the records sealed.
Thus, there does exist a system that does deprive a child of access to its parents and also deprives a child of support from both parents when both parents desire a lack of access.
Without giving my thoughts on such a system in particular, the existence of such a system does not mean that either the right must not exist or that the system must violate the right. There are other alternatives.
There are many situations where competing rights result in compromises between them, especially when we move into the realm of legal enforcement of rights. This is true when the rights at issue belong to the same person or belong to different people. We typically do not call such compromises "violations." For example, there is no right to commit libel. We don't consider libel laws to be a violation of free speech, even though, strictly speaking, they limit what is allowed to be said.
Even if such a system is a violation of the child's right, the existence of a system that tries to find a suitable response to a violation of another's rights does not mean the right does not exist. It means that the right cannot be achieved perfectly in this imperfect world.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The child is still being supported, Mucus, which is what Dagonee's first point speaks to.
The child has a right to receive support, primarily from the biological parents, and barring will or ability, from society (acting through the government).
Virginia has a similar program, I believe.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Dag, what do you mean when you say "right"?
I take you as pretty much the expert on US law ( ), but I wonder when you start to talk about Canadian law. (ie - "Without giving my thoughts on such a system in particular, the existence of such a system does not mean that either the right must not exist or that the system must violate the right. There are other alternatives.") what you mean by "rights".
Do you mean rights in the US? Rights in Canada? Human rights? Natural law rights? Rights at international law?
I would respond to your argument differently depending which one you mean.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Specifically, I mean the concept embodied here: "If a moral obligation exists, then the person to whom that obligation exists has a corresponding right. Whether that right should be enforced at law is an entirely different question from whether that right exists - the latter is merely a necessary condition to even asking the former."
A moral obligation is something someone "ought" to do such that someone who fails to do it may be considered to be acting immorally. This is contrasted with acts which we consider to be moral goods but which failure to do carries no moral blame. For example, taking extreme risks to one's life to save another is generally not a moral obligation. If I refuse to charge a bear to save you from that bear, I have not committed a moral wrong (assuming I wasn't responsible for the bear and you being in contact). But I think most people would regard it as a morally good act if I did so. They simply would not assign moral blame if I did not.
If I were strictly speaking of the law, then right would have no meaning absent a means of enforcement. But I'm not - the law protects moral rights imperfectly, and sometimes not at all, and this is perfectly proper. But it does mean that the existence of a legal scheme that does not enforce the right is not evidence that the right does not exist.
At the same time, when commenting on a proposed legal construct such as a way for a father to opt out of child support if a women chooses not to abort, it is necessary to see if the construct has a negative effect on the vindication of existing moral rights.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen: Dag, what do you mean when you say "right"? .. Do you mean rights in the US? Rights in Canada? Human rights? Natural law rights? Rights at international law?
I would respond to your argument differently depending which one you mean.
*geeky law groupie fangirl squeal
I love it when you guys talk like this. Love it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: There are many situations where competing rights result in compromises between them, especially when we move into the realm of legal enforcement of rights. This is true when the rights at issue belong to the same person or belong to different people. We typically do not call such compromises "violations."
For the first point, fair enough. However, this would mean that if fathers did have rights akin to those proposed in this thread, your assertion that denial of support by a father would be a violation, would no longer be the case. It would just be another compromise. Similarly for access.
The other issue though is that closed adoption does bring up an issue of consistency. Both parents can (if they agree) give up the child for adoption with no obligation for financial support or access. It seems odd that one parent cannot give up either, but that the couple acting together can. The intuitive counter argument is that any decision affecting the child in such a fundamental manner must be made by both parties. However, in the current system, a mother can in fact make such a decision on her own with no agreement by the father, abortion. So such an argument cannot hold in such a system, individual parents can in fact make such decisions without a veto from the other parent.
Thus while I'm aware that you're not in favour of a system with abortion, it would seem that given a system with abortion, that it would be hypocritical and inconsistent to deny a father to choose what level of involvement he has with his child's life. Afterall, if a mother can deny the child to its right to life, a father giving up his obligation for support and access seems mild by comparison.
Scott R: Not relevant. When both parents give up a child for adoption, they both are not under any financial obligation to support that child, the state now steps up. One could argue that if only one parent gives up the child, the state should step up to "halfway" rather than enforcing support by the unwilling parent. The issue here is not even the child's rights. When comparing adoption and a father denying support, the child (and its rights) do not change. What changes is whether the mother wants to keep the child, the father's rights is dependent on the mother's decision. This does not seem consistent to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, this would mean that if fathers did have rights akin to those proposed in this thread, your assertion that denial of support by a father would be a violation, would no longer be the case. It would just be another compromise. Similarly for access.
This applies what I said inaccurately in two ways:
1) Denial of support by a father is not a legal compromise - it's a decision by the father to not perform a moral obligation. The legal system in these situations is acting to choose the best alternative in situations where two rights are incompatible or where a party refuses to perform a moral obligation. It is trying to find the best way to handle a situation which has either left the moral rails or in which the moral rails require a third party to pull the switch and choose which track should be used.
2) I was not speaking of just any compromise, but rather compromises between "competing rights." I don't recognize a moral right of the father to refuse to pay support, therefore the compromise is a compromise between a moral obligation and a father's wishes - not a compromise between competing rights.
quote:Thus while I'm aware that you're not in favour of a system with abortion, it would seem that given a system with abortion, that it would be hypocritical and inconsistent to deny a father to choose what level of involvement he has with his child's life. Afterall, if a mother can deny the child to its right to life, a father giving up his obligation for support and access seems mild by comparison.
So does spray-painting someone's window, but I don't think we should get rid of anti-vandalism laws until abortion is banned.
Any hypocrisy in the system exists (from my perspective) because one right is not protected sufficiently. The relative mildness of the harm done by violating the moral obligation of support is not justification for allowing that harm.
Moreover, this underscores one of the reasons why I think it is important to make abortion illegal in almost all cases - because by its very nature it devalues the moral obligations that come into existence at the moment of conception.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Dagonee:
1) I think you missed the "if" clause in my statement. "If fathers did have rights akin to those proposed..." denial of support *would* be a legal compromise. The incompatible rights in play here, is that the father wished an abortion, this would violate a woman's right to decide what goes on in her body, the pregnancy proceeds, the compromise is that the father should be able to decide his level of involvement. This is the closest compromise that preserves equal rights between the sexes. After all, the mother did have the right to decide her level of involvement all the way from non-existence to full involvement.
2) I think this follows from the first point, you missed the if clause.
3) I'm not sure how the spray-painting applies, no one is proposing a right to vandalism AFAIK, so what compromise is this?
In any case, I don't think that abortion should be banned, so as I said before both parties should have as close to equal rights as possible when it comes to the child.
I do not recognize a moral obligation to a handful of cells at the moment of conception.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
So how do you change the seemingly undermining of fatherhood by society? It seems to me that there is little positive support for fathers in general. Is fatherhood a good thing that we should be encouraging?
I can think of several children's cartoons where the fathers are stupid, bumbling dunderheads. What kind of message are we sending our sons about being fathers?
Just like any issue there isn't one cause or one fix. But anytime a man wants to step up and be a good father we should support that. If a couple screwed around and got pregnant and the man wants to be a father he should have rights to do so, even if the mother doesn't want to be a mother. Barring any heinous behavior the father should be allowed to have his child.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
The problem I see with requiring that fathers consent to abortion, much as I would like to see it, is how in the world do you prove that's his child the woman is carrying? In other words, if she doesn't want the child, but needs the father's consent to abort and knows he won't give it, there is nothing to stop her getting a buddy of hers who is NOT the father to say he is just for the purposes of obtaining an abortion. The real father may never know.
I think obtaining consent of both parents (or both participants in conception, if you will) is a fine idea in principle but impossible to carry out practically.
Now once the child is born, I do fully agree the father is responsible for some of the child's support, whether or not he wanted the child or wanted the mother to carry it to term. Then, of course, DNA testing can be done to establish paternity and if the child is biologically his, he should be responsible for support.
And I have a question, which Dag or someone may know. Does child support end at 18 in all states? I was just wondering if a father (or mother, whoever is not the primary caregiver) has a responsibility to help pay for a college education.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: And I have a question, which Dag or someone may know. Does child support end at 18 in all states? I was just wondering if a father (or mother, whoever is not the primary caregiver) has a responsibility to help pay for a college education.
Not a legal responsibility, no. As long as married parents aren't required by law to pay for college expenses, unmarried parents cannot be required to.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Thanks, maui babe, I didn't think so. I only asked because a close friend is signing her divorce papers tomorrow, and she's very stressed about continuing to pay for her son's education. I think it's sad this guy is not only walking out, but abandoning a commitment he made to help his son through college. That makes him a jerk, I guess but not one who can be compelled to hand over the money.
Though, if we don't require parents to pay for college, then financial aid apps shouldn't include parental income as a factor. Since, after all, parents don't HAVE to use their money to help their kids pay for college. Why deny a kid help based on parental income? (sorry - tangent - feel free to ignore)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I can only speak to Virginia (we learned it for the bar exam), and there is no obligation for child support after 18. However, a separation agreement with such an obligation could be enforceable against the promising parent.
There is a recent case in Maryland about a disabled adult who is seeking support from his father. Under Maryland law, parents are required to support disabled adults in some situations. In this case, the mother had such an obligation. She died, and her son sought payments from the father. But a Maryland statute of limitations made it impossible to force DNA testing. I am definitely fuzzy on details and have no idea how the case is going.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Without getting into my disagreement with dagonee on the merits of abortion, I completely agree with him that child support, and abortion, are completely seperate issues.
Abortion is about the rights of a woman to control her body, and the rights of the unborn to life.
Child support is about the parental responsibility to care for a dependent person.
THe one isn't connected to the other.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I couldn't help but think this wouldn't matter if people either didn't have premarital sex, or had responsible protected premarital sex.
I am suprised no one has mentioned that yet.
Women that don't want to have a baby: don't have unprotected sex. Or wait until you're married.
Men that want to have the baby: Get married and start a family.
There is far too many broken families and one parent families and fatherless children as it is. And that is hurting our children and destroying the family structure. If we left the child rearing to married people we wouldn't have issues like fathers rights to an unborn child.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I really don't know what I had in mind for fairness when I requested such a discussion, but right now, men really have no say in the direction a pregnancy takes and the aftermath, women have all the control, and I don't think that's fair.
When women want to abort a pregnancy and men don't, the women win.
When men want to abort a pregnancy and women don't, the women win.
And in both circumstances, men's emotional and financial well being are subject to the ultimate and total control of women. I don't necessarily know what the answer is, but at the same time, I know that men should have a say, and by have a say, I mean some sort of legal standing beyond just being able to voice their opinion and cower in fear of what the woman decides to do.
Generally I think men and women should figure this stuff out ahead of time with birth control, and then never have to deal with these problems, but we live in an imperfect world where people make mistakes all the time, and people change their minds. Right now, the only minds that can be changed are the ones with all the rights, and they are the women. Men are just along for the ride. As was said before it's not fair to kids that men are considered second when it comes to parenting. They should be integral equal partners, that includes equal say in decisions, as well as equal responsibilities in child rearing.
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
Scott R said: " AND be financially saddled to pay for children he isn't allowed access to."
This isn't true. If a parent pays child support he/she is entitled to visitation. It is part of the child support order. They cannot legally be denied visitation even if they're not paying it and they're supposed to be (now I wouldn't bring it up if I were them, but technically...). The exception lies if the mother can prove abuse, drug use, gang involvement, etc. and even then the father can usually get supervised visitiation.
If a father does not want to be "saddled" with child support for a child that he wanted to be aborted, he can waive all parental rights and not have to pay child support. Of course he also will not have any rights to the child, but if that's what he wants, he does have that option.
I'm aware that this may not true in every state. I only know paternity and child support laws in Texas, but I'm very aware of the ones here as I work with the Attorney General's office.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Coccinelle:
Thanks!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Coccinelle: Scott R said: " AND be financially saddled to pay for children he isn't allowed access to."
This isn't true. If a parent pays child support he/she is entitled to visitation. It is part of the child support order. They cannot legally be denied visitation even if they're not paying it and they're supposed to be (now I wouldn't bring it up if I were them, but technically...). The exception lies if the mother can prove abuse, drug use, gang involvement, etc. and even then the father can usually get supervised visitiation.
If a father does not want to be "saddled" with child support for a child that he wanted to be aborted, he can waive all parental rights and not have to pay child support. Of course he also will not have any rights to the child, but if that's what he wants, he does have that option.
I'm aware that this may not true in every state. I only know paternity and child support laws in Texas, but I'm very aware of the ones here as I work with the Attorney General's office.
And I know how impossible they are to enforce. Effectively, the woman almost always has the control over the child. There has been some headway in the past 10 years, but not as much as is needed.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I feel like I've heard of too many relationship horror stories to condone the father having some kind of stong say about a pregnancy. I can too easily imagine such power being used abusively. The stakes for the father prior to childbirth simply aren't as high.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
In a perfect world, couples would discuss pregnancy before they had sex and come to an understanding as to how they would proceed. Back when Chet and I were in high school, we agreed that if I got pregnant we'd get married and raise the baby together. We had a Plan B.
In the real world, not nearly enough people do this. When you factor in the manipulation that can go with pregnancies, I don't see how a legal system can possibly be expected to sort it out. If a woman claimed she was on the pill but didn't take it so she could get pregnant and trap a man, she's pretty much committed fraud. But we let that slide. How could we possiblt prove such a thing? Should he get a free out because he didn't mean to knock her up?
Then there's the women who get pregnant because they want someone to love them unconditionally. She never intended to have the father there in the first place, and he didn't intend to help raise it. But she filled out some paperwork to get aid from the state and they want someone paying them back, so the next thing he knows he's got a court date and a big debt. The State's kind of changing the implict contract the two parents had. Should he get an out because they expected the rest of us to pay for their kid?
The system is broken, but fixing it would be so dependant on motive and our holy DNA testing (which I still don't entirely trust) that I don't see how we can. I think I'd rather see it addressed during sex ed classes. I can just see the gym coach up there looking down at the boys telling them their rights pretty much end after the deed itself. I'm guessing a football analogy would be involved, at least here in the South.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The stakes for the father prior to childbirth simply aren't as high.
Part of the problem is that this is a lie. The stakes are not quite as high for a father only because he isn't pregnant himself. The problem with this lie is that it seperates the father of the child from the child before the child is even in the world. This lie is part of the culture of anti-fatherhood that exists today.
The father has an enormous stake in this, because it's his child. The attitude expressed in the quote downplays and degrades that role (unintentionally, I imagine).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think you missed the "if" clause in my statement. "If fathers did have rights akin to those proposed..." denial of support *would* be a legal compromise. The incompatible rights in play here, is that the father wished an abortion, this would violate a woman's right to decide what goes on in her body, the pregnancy proceeds, the compromise is that the father should be able to decide his level of involvement.
I didn't miss the "if" at all. Even if someone creates the legal rights being proposed by some here, the moral right would not exist. The moral right of the father to decide his level of involvement exists up until the moment the child exists. Barring some very unusual circumstances, all of which involve a gross violation of the man's bodily integrity, a man can absolutely guarantee he is not fathering an unwanted child.
quote:This is the closest compromise that preserves equal rights between the sexes. After all, the mother did have the right to decide her level of involvement all the way from non-existence to full involvement.
This is an equal "right" to morally wrong another. Which is exactly what my vandalism analogy was meant to convey. The fact that we allow one set of people to commit a wrong is not justification to allow someone else to commit another wrong.
quote:In any case, I don't think that abortion should be banned, so as I said before both parties should have as close to equal rights as possible when it comes to the child.
Even if one doesn't consider abortion to be a wrong, the fact that one parent has a chance to avoid moral obligation to the child later in the process does not mean we need to provide that same chance to the other parent. Biology has created a difference between the sexes in how children are borne and born. Even allowing the opt-out-if-no-abortion option wouldn't make things equal - the mother, to exercise either choice, must bear enormous physical consequences. The father only has to sign a paper. Why is that equal?
quote:I do not recognize a moral obligation to a handful of cells at the moment of conception.
The father would be shirking his duty to a baby outside the womb, not a handful of cells.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: If we left the child rearing to married people we wouldn't have issues like fathers rights to an unborn child.
If I recall correctly, the landmark civil cases in this area have been between married (or soon to be unmarried) persons, or the families of deceased married persons and the surviving spouse.
e.g., Davis v. Davis (frozen embryo)
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: If a woman claimed she was on the pill but didn't take it so she could get pregnant and trap a man, she's pretty much committed fraud. But we let that slide. How could we possiblt prove such a thing? Should he get a free out because he didn't mean to knock her up?
The problem I have with this is that it seems to put the onus of birth control solely on the woman. If a man *absolutely* does not want to become a father, he has options too, that have nothing to do with trusting someone else (his sex partner) to make sure that she's current on her BCP. Saying that a woman who "gets herself pregnant" (and yes, I know I'm taking liberties here... I know you didn't use that terminology) has committed fraud completely gives the man a free pass. It's as much his responsibility as it is hers.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The stakes for the father prior to childbirth simply aren't as high.
Part of the problem is that this is a lie. The stakes are not quite as high for a father only because he isn't pregnant himself."
Umm. Would you like to examine these statements for logical consistency?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If I recall correctly, the landmark civil cases in this area have been between married (or soon to be unmarried) persons, or the families of deceased married persons and the surviving spouse.
It depends on what you mean by "in this area." The most famous I can think of is the embryo custody case, which was between a divorcing couple. It's the only case I'm aware of (and my awareness is limited, so don't take that as commentary on the existence of others) in which a man's right not to be a father was recognized. It was, IIRC, a state court interpreting the federal constitution. It acknowledged that there might be cases where a woman's right to procreate might outweigh the father's right not to. For instance, if she were sterile.
(* I see you added a link to the case - glad to know my memory hasn't failed me. *)
On the adoption front and custody of yet-to-be-born children (man suing for custody or acknowledgment of paternity, etc.), the leading cases (based solely on appearance in my case book for family law, which is a decent but not infallible method) deal with unmarried parents.
It's clear, though, that marriage in and of itself is not sufficient to avoid these kinds of knife-balancing legal decisions, which I took as your larger point.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Paul:
The father has an enormous stake in this, because it's his child.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
maui babe:
But in that case the man has only a near 0% expectation of creating a child, so it isn't his fault; if she lies, how is he to know?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I agree, scott. But you called a statement a lie, and then said its true in the very next sentence.
The stakes simply aren't as high for the father as for the mother. A pregnancy can kill a woman. The father faces no such risk. And you acknowledge that, by saying that by virtue of being pregnant the father has less at stake prior to childbirth.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Paul:
In America, almost all pregnancies do not end in the death of the mother. In America, most of the risks and many of the discomforts of pregancy have been mitigated by advanced medicine and a burgeoning culture of support for pregnant mothers.
So when you talk about risk to American mothers, realize it's significantly small.
In terms of investment in the unborn child-- the stakes that this thread is about, after all-- the father has as much as the mother. Or *should* have, if our culture would allow it.
Saying that the father should get no say over the fate of his unborn child is fine-- but I need larger reasons than the boogeyman of abuse (most men are not abusive) and the ludicrous idea that the mother has more invested in the child than the father.
I recognize that pregnancy is a factor in a woman's emotional leanings toward her baby. But it does not preempt a man's rights, nor does it usurp his place as a father.
IMO.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The stakes for the father prior to birth with regard to the child are just as high as for the mother.
The mother has a physical stake not directly shared by the father caused by the affects of pregnancy itself, but this is not a stake in the child. It is a different stake.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Yes, almost all pregnancies do not end in the death of the mother. In the U.S. about 8 per 100,000 do. Thats only about 300-400 women per year. Small number, but not insigificant, either.
But 100% of pregnancies do significantly alter the health, both short term and long term, of the mother.
Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy: exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks) altered appetite and senses of taste and smell nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester) heartburn and indigestion constipation weight gain dizziness and light-headedness bloating, swelling, fluid retention hemmorhoids abdominal cramps yeast infections congested, bloody nose acne and mild skin disorders skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen) mild to severe backache and strain increased headaches difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping increased urination and incontinence bleeding gums pica breast pain and discharge swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy inability to take regular medications shortness of breath higher blood pressure hair loss tendency to anemia curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases) extreme pain on delivery hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)
Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy: stretch marks (worse in younger women) loose skin permanent weight gain or redistribution abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life) changes to breasts varicose veins scarring from episiotomy or c-section other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty) increased proclivity for hemmorhoids loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
Occasional complications and side effects: hyperemesis gravidarum temporary and permanent injury to back severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies) dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele) pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies) eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death) gestational diabetes placenta previa anemia (which can be life-threatening) thrombocytopenic purpura severe cramping embolism (blood clots) medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby) diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication) serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis) hormonal imbalance ectopic pregnancy (risk of death) broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone") hemorrhage and numerous other complications of delivery refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures) severe post-partum depression and psychosis research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease
Less common (but serious) complications: peripartum cardiomyopathy cardiopulmonary arrest magnesium toxicity severe hypoxemia/acidosis massive embolism increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer) malignant arrhythmia circulatory collapse placental abruption obstetric fistula
More permanent side effects: future infertility permanent disability death.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The stakes for the father prior to birth with regard to the child are just as high as for the mother.
The mother has a physical stake not directly shared by the father caused by the affects of pregnancy itself, but this is not a stake in the child. It is a different stake."
I agree. It is a stake in the pregnancy, and herself, and the physical processes of child-bearing, none of which stakes are shared by the father.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I agree. It is a stake in the pregnancy, and herself, and the physical processes of child-bearing, none of which stakes are shared by the father.
I doubt anyone who has a loved one at medical risk would agree that the stakes in that risk are not shared.
Clearly, the direct physical medical effects are borne by the mother alone, but both of them have stakes outside the physical effects and the existence of the child.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
It'll be interesting to see Scott argue his way around your posts, Everard.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Clearly, the direct physical medical effects are borne by the mother alone, but both of them have stakes outside the physical effects and the existence of the child."
Again, I agree. My point is that saying its a lie to say the stakes of a pregnancy are less for a father is untrue. Its the absolute truth that the stake in a pregnancy is greater for a mother then for the father, until we figure out a way for men to bear the physical processes of pregnancy.
As for how it relates to this thread, all the dangers and physical responsibilities for a pregnancy rest with the woman. While a man might be legally responsible for some of the economic costs, and emotional investment, and perhaps equally responsible, and while the father's stake in the born child is equal to the mothers, or should be, I am loathe to grant someone rights over anything that they do not have responsibilities for, which means I am loate to grant rights over the physical processes of a pregnancy to the father.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The moral right of the father to decide his level of involvement exists up until the moment the child exists. Barring some very unusual circumstances, all of which involve a gross violation of the man's bodily integrity, a man can absolutely guarantee he is not fathering an unwanted child.
Thats the key point though, is it not? This is what I emphasized in the last statement of my last post. You feel that the child exists at the moment of conception. I feel that a handful of cells exist at the moment of conception, which have the potential to develop *into* a child. Even if we accept the arguable guideline that the moral right of a father to decide his involvement exists up "the moment the child exists". AFAIK, for you the child exists and this moral right ends with conception. For me, only a handful of cells exist at conception, they only develop into a child much later, at which point the father loses that right.
The Canadian position is that there are no criminal laws in regards to abortion, but effectively, no abortion can be performed during the third trimester. This means that in Canada, for all realistic intents and purposes, a child with a right to life only comes into existence sometime between the second and third trimester.
Thus even using your guideline, in Canada, the father should be able to decide his involvement right up until this point.
As for the second point, the father can in no way guarantee that he is not fathering an unwanted child. He can guarantee that he does not have unprotected sex, but not that such protection does not fail. Not even the mother can guarantee that she does not undergo an unwanted pregnancy. In any case, the violinist thought experiment clearly shows under the "tacit consent" objection that this is not applicable whether we are talking about pregnancy or birth
quote:This is an equal "right" to morally wrong another. Which is exactly what my vandalism analogy was meant to convey. The fact that we allow one set of people to commit a wrong is not justification to allow someone else to commit another wrong.
This of course assumes that abortion is a wrong. For someone for whom abortion is not a wrong, for whom these proposed rights are not a wrong, your analogy is completely irrelevant. We're not justifying one wrong with another wrong, because we're not saying that either is wrong when we frame our justification.
quote:Even if one doesn't consider abortion to be a wrong, the fact that one parent has a chance to avoid moral obligation to the child later in the process does not mean we need to provide that same chance to the other parent. Biology has created a difference between the sexes in how children are borne and born. Even allowing the opt-out-if-no-abortion option wouldn't make things equal - the mother, to exercise either choice, must bear enormous physical consequences. The father only has to sign a paper. Why is that equal?
We cannot create equality through the law when such equality does not exist, not for legal reasons, but for biological reasons. The woman bears a greater burden when it comes to pregnancy, not because of the law, but because of biology. Thus the law cannot alleviate this inequality, barring the aforementioned artificial wombs.
However, the law does create the inequality when it comes to determining whether a parent has to support a child, this inequality has nothing to do with biology.
Biologically, the mother could toss the baby right after birth, and neither parent would have to support it. This is a stupid decision but it is entirely possible both biologically and legally. The law only creates an inequality when it comes to support of the child after birth. This is in inequality that the law should alleviate, the law should be responsible for inequalities that it itself creates.
Furthermore, while the law should guarantee equality of rights, it should in no way guarantee equal consequences when it comes to exercising those rights. For example, the law allows women to freely go bare-breasted for the sake of equality since men are allowed to do the same. However (at least in N. America), many more women than men who exercised that right would bear a heavy burden in terms of unwanted attention and embarrassment. The right of free speech allows me to insult every one I meet while it also allows me to praise everyone I meet. The consequences are also far from equal.
So going back to your last point, it is equal because both parents *have* as close rights as can be reasonably allowed. The consequences of *exercising* those rights are not equal and then even only for the length of the pregnancy, but that should not be something for the law to enforce.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I answered out of order because this first bit is, IMO, the most important. Also, remember that I am only assuming for purposes of argument that abortion does not affect another person's rights.
quote:So going back to your last point, it is equal because both parents *have* as close rights as can be reasonably allowed. The consequences of *exercising* those rights are not equal and then even only for the length of the pregnancy, but that should not be something for the law to enforce.
Yes, but, under your assumption that abortion does not abridge the child's rights, the mother's exercise of this right does not affect the child. The father's exercise of this right does affect the child's right to support, because the child will exist at the time the father's remedy is invoked.
Going back to the idea of compromise, the mother is exercising her right and not compromising anyone else's, because the child does not exist yet. When the father exercises his right by his ongoing nonpayment of support, the child exists and is having a right compromised.
It's perfectly consistent to allow person X a right that requires no compromise with another's rights, but deny the parallel right to person Y when that requires a compromise. X and Y in that situation are not being treated unequally in that scenario.
quote:Thats the key point though, is it not? This is what I emphasized in the last statement of my last post. You feel that the child exists at the moment of conception. I feel that a handful of cells exist at the moment of conception, which have the potential to develop *into* a child.
But he still has absolute control over whether conception happens.
quote:Thus even using your guideline, in Canada, the father should be able to decide his involvement right up until this point.
The father has decided his involvement at the point of having sex. You seem to want to grant him the right to force a women to have surgery, with the remedy being denying a child his or her right to support from the parents. Even if the child doesn't exist at the time the man makes his decision, he certainly exists at the time this remedy comes into play.
I don't see how you can use a law that allows a woman to choose whether to have surgery to create a right for a man to compel her to have it, on pain of an entirely different person giving up a right.
quote:As for the second point, the father can in no way guarantee that he is not fathering an unwanted child. He can guarantee that he does not have unprotected sex, but not that such protection does not fail.
But he can guarantee that he doesn't have sex, or that he only has sex in ways that cannot lead to pregnancy.
quote:In any case, the violinist thought experiment clearly shows under the "tacit consent" objection that this is not applicable whether we are talking about pregnancy or birth
The violinist thought experiment doesn't apply here, because it speaks to the physical connection, not the "right" to not support a child.
quote:This of course assumes that abortion is a wrong. For someone for whom abortion is not a wrong, for whom these proposed rights are not a wrong, your analogy is completely irrelevant. We're not justifying one wrong with another wrong, because we're not saying that either is wrong when we frame our justification.
You were attempting to demonstrate why, even though I do not favor abortion, I should recognize the system we have now as hypocritical. Regardless, I spent a decent amount of time addressing the perspective of abortion not being wrong later in the post.
quote:However, the law does create the inequality when it comes to determining whether a parent has to support a child, this inequality has nothing to do with biology.
The "inequality" is simply the mother having a later chance to avoid pregnancy. This isn't "unequal."
quote:The law only creates an inequality when it comes to support of the child after birth. This is in inequality that the law should alleviate, the law should be responsible for inequalities that it itself creates.
Which is why pre-birth opportunities to ditch responsibility are irrelevant.
quote:Furthermore, while the law should guarantee equality of rights, it should in no way guarantee equal consequences when it comes to exercising those rights.
I agree. Which is why it's strange to me that this is exactly what you're demanding. Both parties can absolutely choose not to procreate. One person can make her choice up to 6 months later than the other. But both have the same right. They just have different consequences - for the man, it means no sex. For the woman, either no sex or abortion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
steven: I'm not going to try to argue around PG's point.
His notes on the physical effects of pregnancy on women are valid as facts.
I do not cede that the physical effects of pregnancy give the mother greater stake in the life of a the unborn child than the father.
Similarly, I do not grant the idea that my in-laws have a greater stake in the life of their daughter just for the mere fact that they've known her longer than I have.
quote: I am loathe to grant someone rights over anything that they do not have responsibilities for
I've already stated that the father has responsibilities for the unborn child (by virtue of the fact of his fatherhood), and that making those responsabilities known and valued is important. So, obviously, I think you're off base on this point.
To confess, I'm a little uncertain about how to go about enforcing fatherhood's rights. I don't like the idea of women being forced at jail-point to bear children they don't want. But I think the inequality we're discussing is extremely damaging to fatherhood.
In the end, I think the only way to go about uplifting men as fathers is through social action-- men teaching boys and other men how to love marriage and love the people that they have responsabilities with. That's not being done, now-- not in on a cultural scale.
EDIT: For the sake of the kittens...
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Scott, it's hard to take the patriarchal position you seem to inhabit totally seriously. Think about it--Christians slaughtered Native Americans by the thousands, in addition to bringing disease, alcohol, and other wonderful things. Many of the native cultures gave the father no responsibility for the child at all. In particular, the Cherokee looked to the mother's brother as the main male figure in a child's life. Why is this system better? Because of what? I don't see what's so holy about unscrupulous avarice and resistance to disease.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote: Dagonee: The violinist thought experiment doesn't apply here, because it speaks to the physical connection, not the "right" to not support a child.
For the sake of the general audience, I'll quickly summarise the thought experiment. The basic premise is that while you're sleeping a famous violinist is attached to you and subsequently needs the use of your body to live. You may subsequently unplug the violinist has the right to life, it does not necessarily have the right to use another's body to support itself.
One of the objections to this argument is the tactic consent objection. The argument is that pregnancy and the violinist are not comparable since the mother has consented to a pregnancy (via sex) but you have not consented to a violinist attachment.
The insightful response is that tacit consent cannot be inferred. Contraception is essentially removing consent and failure of it cannot be interpreted as restoring consent. From the article
quote: * Tacit consent cannot be inferred where contraception was used.[16] * Engaging in a voluntary action while foreseeing a certain result does not entail that one has tacitly consented to that result.[17] * Even if the woman has tacitly consented to the fetus making demands on her body, it does not follow that she has consented to sustain it for the entire nine months of pregnancy.[18]
This point is definitely relevant here. If the mother has not given consent to a pregnancy via sex, neither has the father. If the father has not given consent to a child, he should not be held responsible for that child.
quote: Both parties can absolutely choose not to procreate. One person can make her choice up to 6 months later than the other. But both have the same right. They just have different consequences - for the man, it means no sex. For the woman, either no sex or abortion.
As the previous point notes, both parties cannot choose not to procreate while having sex. They can only choose to reduce the risk of such by using birth control, but such birth control can fail, removing that choice. Suggesting not having sex before trying to conceive is simply unrealistic in today's society.
What actually happens is that the mother chooses whether to procreate when she decides whether or not to let the fetus develop into a child. The father (rightfully) has no real choice. However, note that even the mother's choice is not due to biology, but due to abortion via human intervention. Technology and the law have given the mother a new modern right, the right to end pregnancy and avoid supporting a child. The father cannot exercise the former right without harming the mother, but there is no reason why he should not be allowed the exercise the latter.
quote: Yes, but, under your assumption that abortion does not abridge the child's rights, the mother's exercise of this right does not affect the child. The father's exercise of this right does affect the child's right to support, because the child will exist at the time the father's remedy is invoked ... When the father exercises his right by his ongoing nonpayment of support, the child exists and is having a right compromised.
This goes back to the adoption question, no? I'm not even entirely sure that a child *does* have a right to support, but I could maybe be convinced that a child has a right to support from "someone." I cannot be convinced that the child has a right to support specifically from the father or the mother.
First, people give up children for adoption all the time. I have a hard time believing that each and every child that goes through such a system has their rights violated. Second, consider the case of sperm donor fathers. In these cases, the resulting child has no right to demand support from the sperm donor.
In fact, it is entirely possible that a female same-sex couple may wish to enlist the services of a surrogate mother as a genetic mother (surrogate mothers can be genetic mothers quite often). You could argue that the mother is "one of" the surrogate mother or one of the same-sex couple. However, there is no question that the father is the sperm donor. However the resulting child has no right to support from the father.
This goes back to violinist experiment and the quote "Thus, it is not that by terminating her pregnancy a woman violates her moral obligations, but rather that a woman who carries the fetus to term is a 'Good Samaritan' who goes beyond her obligations."
Similarly, it is not that by denying support that a man violates his moral obligations, but rather that a man who supports his child is a 'Good Samaritan' who goes beyond his obligations.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott, it's hard to take the patriarchal position you seem to inhabit totally seriously. Think about it--Christians slaughtered Native Americans by the thousands, in addition to bringing disease, alcohol, and other wonderful things.
I'm not sure how you go from what I've said in this thread to Christianity.
quote: Many of the native cultures gave the father no responsibility for the child at all. In particular, the Cherokee looked to the mother's brother as the main male figure in a child's life.
The natives on Easter Island and on other south pacific islands do similarly, I believe.
quote: Why is this system better? Because of what? I don't see what's so holy about unscrupulous avarice and resistance to disease.
Nor do I. I don't understand why you seem to be correlating the philosophical underpinings and physical realities of Manifest Destiny with my views on fatherhood.
Can you explain?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As the previous point notes, both parties cannot choose not to procreate while having sex. They can only choose to reduce the risk of such by using birth control, but such birth control can fail, removing that choice. Suggesting not having sex before trying to conceive is simply unrealistic in today's society.
I'm not willing to grant that - certainly not to the extent that failure to do so justifies
Frankly, it strikes me as utterly morally bankrupt to essentially make the ability to abandon one's children a "right" because someone wants to avoid a natural consequence of sex.
quote:What actually happens is that the mother chooses whether to procreate when she decides whether or not to let the fetus develop into a child. The father (rightfully) has no real choice. However, note that even the mother's choice is not due to biology, but due to abortion via human intervention. Technology and the law have given the mother a new modern right, the right to end pregnancy and avoid supporting a child. The father cannot exercise the former right without harming the mother, but there is no reason why he should not be allowed the exercise the latter.
Why does he have to get that right simply because technology has made it available to another? This seems to be the key point - you are asserting that equality requires this, but you're not giving any reason why other than "because she can."
quote:This goes back to the adoption question, no? I'm not even entirely sure that a child *does* have a right to support, but I could maybe be convinced that a child has a right to support from "someone." I cannot be convinced that the child has a right to support specifically from the father or the mother.
Then the rest of the conversation is moot. This is the very beginning of my chain of moral reasoning, and if you don't agree, then it's very clear why our result differs.
quote:First, people give up children for adoption all the time. I have a hard time believing that each and every child that goes through such a system has their rights violated.
If one can't provide support, then one can't give it. At least, in this case, support has been arranged. The father abandoning his duty because he wanted the mother to abort is doing no such thing. Sure, the child has other support, but it's half what is due.
quote:Second, consider the case of sperm donor fathers. In these cases, the resulting child has no right to demand support from the sperm donor.
I've considered it at length. I consider it a deprivation of the child's rights, one unfortunately encoded into law.
quote:In fact, it is entirely possible that a female same-sex couple may wish to enlist the services of a surrogate mother as a genetic mother (surrogate mothers can be genetic mothers quite often). You could argue that the mother is "one of" the surrogate mother or one of the same-sex couple. However, there is no question that the father is the sperm donor. However the resulting child has no right to support from the father.
You seem to think I believe this is a moral system. I don't.
quote:This goes back to violinist experiment and the quote "Thus, it is not that by terminating her pregnancy a woman violates her moral obligations, but rather that a woman who carries the fetus to term is a 'Good Samaritan' who goes beyond her obligations."
It goes back to it, sure. I think the whole violinist example is horribly flawed.
quote:Similarly, it is not that by denying support that a man violates his moral obligations, but rather that a man who supports his child is a 'Good Samaritan' who goes beyond his obligations.
And that's equally horrible.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
If there are two pairings of a man and a woman, and both couples have sex leading to pregnancy followed by a end to their relationship, and the man in couple "A" leaves town and the man in couple "B" does not- thus learning of the pregnancy- the man who was part of couple "B" doesn't have his life changed significantly. The woman in both instances has her life changed drastically.
This is the underlying reality. And as far as I'm concerned, everything else is beneath that. Pregnancy is in no way trivial, and to compare it to the- excuse me- mere desire of the man in question to father the child doesn't seem accurate to me.
Now, I'm all for fathers to have the same rights as mothers after delivery; some fathers are better parents than mothers, and that should be recognized.
But a man's contribution to the pregnancy itself can easily be trivial. And to assume a man has rights and responsibilities because he might want them strikes me as irresponsible, and far too easily lends itself to abuse.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The responsability doesn't disappear just because the man does.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
"And to assume a man has rights and responsibilities because he might want them strikes me as irresponsible..."
I think the folks disagreeing feel that this is the real problem. Dad should be expected by society to be involved in his children's lives. Making him legally responsible might be nice but hard to enforce beyond child support if you can get that out of him.
Somewhere society decided Dad didn't matter, that Mom can do it all on her own. I think she shouldn't want to if she doesn't have to. Dad should be considered just as important a piece of the equation as Mom.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:
quote:This goes back to the adoption question, no? I'm not even entirely sure that a child *does* have a right to support, but I could maybe be convinced that a child has a right to support from "someone." I cannot be convinced that the child has a right to support specifically from the father or the mother.
Then the rest of the conversation is moot. This is the very beginning of my chain of moral reasoning, and if you don't agree, then it's very clear why our result differs.
I fully agree, so we should start from this fundamental difference. I guess there are three basic questions. First, do children have the right of support from their parents? Second, does our society act consistently when applying what *has* been established? Third, should they have such a right, what would the consequences of establishing such a right be?
For the first, I can honestly say I'm not sure. The Bill of Rights of the Canadian Charter of Rights do not seem to spell out such a right. Perhaps in the UN convention of the rights of a child? I have no idea.
For the second, society definitely does not act like such a right has been established. The more I think about it, the sperm donor system seems to be a big example. Despite you think that it is immoral, many do think it is moral, and the system is protected by law. Any logical consequences should be explored fully.
(I'm also a little uncomfortable with your implication that the system is not moral and thus should not exist. I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea of legislating morality. I recall a good post a while back equating legislating morality to enforcing morality at the point of a gun, although I do not recall in which thread...but this is a total tangent)
What is the difference between a couple having a child and a women having a child with a sperm donor? From the perspective of biology, there is none. The child still has a father, it still has a mother. Why is a child entitled to support from a father in a couple, but not a sperm donor? Probably due to some contract signed between the mother and the sperm donor (or between a middleman). However, rights cannot be signed away by a person themselves, let alone by someone else.
Thus we're faced with an uncomfortable question. Is the system in fact violating the child's right to support (and is thus immoral) or is there in fact no such right? I do not know your answer, but I suspect you would say the former, I would say the latter. I cannot see as immoral, a system creates literally creates life and families where otherwise none would exist.
This would bring us to the third question. What if a child did have a right to support from their parents? The sperm donor system would collapse, no one would donate sperm if they could be forced legally to support their children.
Ironically, this result would be particularly destructive towards families. It is a well known fact that there are an increasing number of older "career" single women that wish to start families. but are unable (or unwilling) to find a partner However, adoption in the States is limited, international adoption is increasingly limited to those that are married (see the restrictions on adoption in China). The traditional solution is in-vitro fertilization with a sperm donor. Such a right would probably end this system.
The same issues apply with same-sex couples that wish to have children, whether gay or lesbian.
It might even increase the number of abortions. For example, many parents accidentally conceive but are in a financially unviable position to have children. The traditional choice is to either abort or carry through with the pregnancy and give the child up to an orphanage. For some, the balance tips towards adoption, it is seen as a lesser evil than abortion. If a child did have a right to support from their parents, then the parents might actually be pushed towards abortion rather than being forced to support a child that in fact, not only the father, but that both may not want. Afterall, if the child had such a right, even giving up the child to an orphanage should not remove that right.
I'm not sure there is such a right, society certainly does not act like there is such a right, and the consequences of such a right would eliminate families and possibly increase abortions.
quote: If one can't provide support, then one can't give it. At least, in this case, support has been arranged. The father abandoning his duty because he wanted the mother to abort is doing no such thing. Sure, the child has other support, but it's half what is due.
People may also give up children for adoption not because they "can't" provide support, but because they do not wish to, since other priorities outweigh the priority of having children. Why can a couple deny support to a child, but not one member of the couple?
quote: It goes back to it, sure. I think the whole violinist example is horribly flawed.
Since this is a core assumption of my logic in my previous post, perhaps you could explain *why* you think the violinist example is flawed?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For the first, I can honestly say I'm not sure. The Bill of Rights of the Canadian Charter of Rights do not seem to spell out such a right. Perhaps in the UN convention of the rights of a child? I have no idea.
Again, as I've stated now at least twice, I'm not talking about legal rights, but the moral right that is the corollary of a moral obligation. What's been spelled out in various documents is something utterly irrelevant to the question.
quote:For the second, society definitely does not act like such a right has been established. The more I think about it, the sperm donor system seems to be a big example. Despite you think that it is immoral, many do think it is moral, and the system is protected by law. Any logical consequences should be explored fully.
So? Seriously, if you want to talk about how society does a terrible job of protecting the rights of children, we can. But that's not really the topic, is it?
quote:(I'm also a little uncomfortable with your implication that the system is not moral and thus should not exist. I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea of legislating morality. I recall a good post a while back equating legislating morality to enforcing morality at the point of a gun, although I do not recall in which thread...but this is a total tangent)
Murder laws legislate morality. So do vandalism laws and theft laws.
quote:What is the difference between a couple having a child and a women having a child with a sperm donor? From the perspective of biology, there is none. The child still has a father, it still has a mother. Why is a child entitled to support from a father in a couple, but not a sperm donor?
Thus we're faced with an uncomfortable question. Is the system in fact violating the child's right to support (and is thus immoral) or is there in fact no such right? I do not know your answer, but I suspect you would say the former, I would say the latter. I cannot see as immoral, a system creates literally creates life and families where otherwise none would exist.
Again, I think the child IS entitled to support from a sperm donor, and the laws that were created explicitly to make this not so are immoral.
quote:This would bring us to the third question. What if a child did have a right to support from their parents? The sperm donor system would collapse, no one would donate sperm if they could be forced legally to support their children.
First, that's not true - I know of several examples of sperm donors who are involved in their child's life, usually in an "uncle" kind of role with two lesbian mothers. But, more importantly, I don't care if irresponsible fathers-to-be are discouraged from donating.
quote:Ironically, this result would be particularly destructive towards families. It is a well known fact that there are an increasing number of older "career" single women that wish to start families. but are unable (or unwilling) to find a partner However, adoption in the States is limited, international adoption is increasingly limited to those that are married (see the restrictions on adoption in China). The traditional solution is in-vitro fertilization with a sperm donor. Such a right would probably end this system.
We almost certainly don't want to inject in-vitro into this conversation at this point, but again, ignoring the in-vitro aspect, that doesn't strike me as even close to enough justification to allowing fathers to shirk their moral obligation.
quote:The same issues apply with same-sex couples that wish to have children, whether gay or lesbian.
Same.
quote:It might even increase the number of abortions. For example, many parents accidentally conceive but are in a financially unviable position to have children. The traditional choice is to either abort or carry through with the pregnancy and give the child up to an orphanage. For some, the balance tips towards adoption, it is seen as a lesser evil than abortion. If a child did have a right to support from their parents, then the parents might actually be pushed towards abortion rather than being forced to support a child that in fact, not only the father, but that both may not want. Afterall, if the child had such a right, even giving up the child to an orphanage should not remove that right.
I've already discussed adoption in this context and why it can coexist with such a right, and you've added nothing new, so I'll just refer you to prior posts.
quote:I'm not sure there is such a right, society certainly does not act like there is such a right, and the consequences of such a right would eliminate families and possibly increase abortions.
All you've done is cite examples of where society does a poor job protecting this right, as if that should demonstrate to me that the right doesn't exist.
However, you are ignoring a couple of important things:
1) The right EXPLICITLY exists in the most common case - pregnancy resulting from consensual sex between a man and a woman. In such cases, the child is entitled to support from both parents. Sometimes the child doesn't need support from both parents - this is different than saying the child is not entitled to it. But 150 years of jurisprudence make it explicitly clear that, absent a very few exceptions, a child has a right to support from a parent. The examples are numerous: contracts regarding child support are not enforceable unless approved by a judge. There are criminal penalties for failing to support - even outside custody/child support payment settings. You're bold statement that society doesn't recognize such a right is simply factually wrong. Society does recognize a right, and has passed limited exceptions to it. The reason sperm donor laws that exempt the donor from child support exist is BECAUSE society generally recognizes the right.
quote:People may also give up children for adoption not because they "can't" provide support, but because they do not wish to, since other priorities outweigh the priority of having children. Why can a couple deny support to a child, but not one member of the couple?
Adoption has already been covered, and nothing new has been added.
quote:Since this is a core assumption of my logic in my previous post, perhaps you could explain *why* you think the violinist example is flawed?
Why? You linked an article without explaining *why* it's logic is valid. The article contains criticisms of the logic, but ultimately the problem is one of starting premises - especially as you've extended it to support after birth. We disagree on those premises.
The purpose of the violinist scenario is to attempt to demonstrate that it is acceptable to intentionally kill a human being in certain circumstances. However, it fails utterly to differentiate between the active, intentional killing involved in abortion and the simple refusal to continue to provide life support. It also has to make up a biologically impossible scenario to attempt to do this, and since the nature of the biology involved is inherent to the creation of the moral duties involved, it's flawed from the get go.
We disagree on the starting premises. We've discussed quite thoroughly that my starting premise is not fully recognized by society. I've demonstrated that they are recognized by society to a tremendous degree, albeit imperfectly, and further that lack of recognition would not change my view on that starting premise.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote: So? Seriously, if you want to talk about how society does a terrible job of protecting the rights of children, we can. But that's not really the topic, is it?
Sure, I'll call you on that discussion, thread topics often go off-track or spawn new threads. To be continued in a thread where it is on topic.
I do not quite have time to cover the violinist issue, but I will respond to that later.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Scott, I don't think you've read my posts.
And you've definetely taken my point about rights and responsibilities out of context.
If you're not going to try to argue your way around my posts, kindly don';t completely alter the meaning of what I've written.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I agree. It is a stake in the pregnancy, and herself, and the physical processes of child-bearing, none of which stakes are shared by the father.
I doubt anyone who has a loved one at medical risk would agree that the stakes in that risk are not shared.
Clearly, the direct physical medical effects are borne by the mother alone, but both of them have stakes outside the physical effects and the existence of the child.
You assume the father loves the mother; this is not necessarily true. I have even known married couples where the father of the child really doesn't want to hear about the mother's problems during or after the pregnancy because "those aren't my business." (Sadly. ) And even when the boyfriend is very committed, I often hear pregnant women state that because they don't live together he "gets it easy" in terms of her pregnancy symptoms. (i.e., he doesn't suffer as much even though he loves her because he doesn't know the full extent of what is going on.)
I am thinking that most pregnancies in which the mother may think of aborting are not committed, loving relationships where the father actually is around most of the time.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
PG, I don't see where I've done that.
Can you explain?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You assume the father loves the mother; this is not necessarily true.
No, I'm assuming that there are millions of pregnancies each year where the father loves the mother, not that all pregnancies have such love. Paul made a categorical statement using the word "none." I presented a broad class of counter-examples. Paul agreed with my clarification but reiterated his original point (a point which, when clarified as I did at the top of page 2, I agree with, although I still disagree with many of the related conclusions Paul draws from that point).
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
You said
"His notes on the physical effects of pregnancy on women are valid as facts.
I do not cede that the physical effects of pregnancy give the mother greater stake in the life of a the unborn child than the father."
I have said that the physical effects of pregnancy give the mother a greater stake in the pregnancy, not in the life of the unborn. In an ideal situation, I have stated that both mother and father have an equal stake in the child after it is born. And both parents (should) have an equal emotional and economic responsibility to the child.
"Pregnancy" and "life of the unborn" are different things. The pregnancy is a physical process that effects only the mother. In terms of the emotional effects of the pregnancy, the father might be somewhat (or greatly )involved, but its simply untrue to state that he is equally involved as the mother (ensured both by the physical location of the pregnancy, and the biological changes that occur due to pregnancy).
The "life of the unborn," is the embryo or fetus that the mother is carrying. But it is a seperate thing then the pregnancy.
You also quoted me stating this "I am loathe to grant someone rights over anything that they do not have responsibilities for"
To which you responded
"I've already stated that the father has responsibilities for the unborn child (by virtue of the fact of his fatherhood), and that making those responsabilities known and valued is important. So, obviously, I think you're off base on this point."
If you had quoted me in context, you would have seen that my statement read thusly
""I am loathe to grant someone rights over anything that they do not have responsibilities for, which means I am loate to grant rights over the physical processes of a pregnancy to the father."
The father has absolutely no responsibilites for the physical processes of the pregnancy. He might share some of the economic and emotional responsibilities, and might even share them equally (a good thing). But thats not the same as having responsibility for the pregnancy.
By taking me out of context, you completely changed the meaning of what I had written.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"Pregnancy" and "life of the unborn" are different things.
I agree, which is why I don't agree with the inclusion of "after it is born" (emphasis mine) in the following:
quote:I have said that the physical effects of pregnancy give the mother a greater stake in the pregnancy, not in the life of the unborn. In an ideal situation, I have stated that both mother and father have an equal stake in the child after it is born. And both parents (should) have an equal emotional and economic responsibility to the child.
quote:The father has absolutely no responsibilites for the physical processes of the pregnancy. He might share some of the economic and emotional responsibilities, and might even share them equally (a good thing). But thats not the same as having responsibility for the pregnancy.
But he does have responsibility for the child during the pregnancy, which is how I interpreted Scott's remark. Hopefully Scott will clarify.
Assuming this is what he meant, I agree with him. As you said, the pregnancy and unborn child are different but related entities, and the decisions about one affect the other. Of course, I don't think anyone should have the power to make the decision to abort absent the threat of physical health consequences, so this aspect is fairly moot for me.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"But he does have responsibility for the child during the pregnancy"
Economic and emotional, yes. Physical responsibility for the child, no. Physical responsibility for the pregnancy, no.
"Of course, I don't think anyone should have the power to make the decision to abort absent the threat of physical health consequences"
Not trying to be snarky, really, but as noted at the top of this page, every pregnancy has physical health consequences. I think what you really mean is "serious health consequences."
If one grants that health consequences are an acceptable reason to terminante a pregnancy, and we note that all pregnancies run a health risk (some greater then others, but all carry a small but statistically significant liklihood of death, and all pregnancies cause at least some damage to the longterm health of the mother), then what we're really arguing about in legalizing/criminalizing abortion is "Who determines how much of a health risk is an acceptable risk to take?"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Economic and emotional, yes. Physical responsibility for the child, no. Physical responsibility for the pregnancy, no.
We quite simply disagree here.
quote:"Who determines how much of a health risk is an acceptable risk to take?"
I hope you don't think I haven't thought about that. It would certainly be an element of a justification defense to abortion, just as it's an element of every legal analysis of the taking of a life.
A man who has killed 10 people, released on a technicality, calls you and tells you you're next. If you go seek him out and shoot him, you're guilty, at least in the vast majority of states. If you wait until he's in your house or physically near you, it's more likely to be considered self-defense (almost certainly would be, if the threats could be proved).
Imminence and level of threat analysis is not new to legal evaluations of justified homicide.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"We quite simply disagree here."
really? You think that the father has an equal responsibility for the physical well-being of the child during pregnancy?
"I hope you don't think I haven't thought about that."
I didn't say you hadn't. I'm saying that any argument, once you grant that a health risk is a legitimate reason to terminate a pregnancy, makes the debate about who has the right to make the decision about acceptable risk. Since there is a 100% probability of decreased long term health from a pregnancy, you would need extremely detailed medical information on each pregnancy at the time of abortion in order to make a case against a woman or her doctor for aborting. I simply can't see how that need in order to prosecute ends well, in terms of an operative and just legal system.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:really? You think that the father has an equal responsibility for the physical well-being of the child during pregnancy?
You added "equal," not me."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Paul, my point is that the father DOES have responsabilities to the unborn child-- that's the part of your point of view I disagreed with. [EDIT] I don't think it's useful to seperate the child from the pregnancy, as one cannot exist without the other. [/EDIT] I agree that the mother is more physically affected by the pregnancy. I do not agree that that position justifies the discrepancies in the cultural and legal systems in our country that we've mentioned in this thread.
If you feel that I quoted you maliciously out of context, I apologize-- that was not my intention.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul, my point is that the father DOES have responsabilities to the unborn child-- that's the part of your point of view I disagreed with. "
Of course the father has responsibilities to the unborn child. I don't disagree with that.
I disagree that his responsibilities are anywhere near the responsibility of the mother.
Further, I think the mother has a much greater stake in the pregnancy (and, frankly, the child) prior to birth. The biology of the situation makes this a cut and dried factual statement.
"I do not agree that that position justifies the discrepancies in the cultural and legal systems in our country that we've mentioned in this thread."
Some of them, yes, and some of them, no.
The father has no physical responsibility to the unborn, and has no physical stake in the pregnancy. Since 100% of the dangers of pregnancy are to the mother, and since the mother is entirely physically responsible for the physical well being of the child, prior to birth, any legal power the father would have over the pregnancy would be giving him control over the health, and physical processes, and frankly actions, of an adult human without her consent. Assuming legal abortion, giving one person power to make health decisions and decisions about another person's body, and physical processes, without her consent and assuming being in a sound mind, is simply anathema to what I think are our nation's ideals (and frankly, should be repugnant to everyone).
Now, there are other issues besides abortion that have been raised, here. As has been noted, though, abortion and child support are different things. So just because the father has no legal rights over the decision making processes of the pregnancy, does not mean that he has a legal choice in providing child support.
In terms of adoption, the father should (and perhaps does) have the right to first choice. That is, if the mother is going to put the child up for adoption, the father should be given first chance to raise that child.
Other issues get much more complex, I think.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Assuming legal abortion, giving one person power to make health decisions and decisions about another person's body, and physical processes, without her consent and assuming being in a sound mind, is simply anathema to what I think are our nation's ideals (and frankly, should be repugnant to everyone).
Does this statement strike you as ironic at all?
In any case, as I've acknowledged-- legislating my views on this makes me uncomfortable.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
A woman left infertile after cancer therapy has lost her fight to use embryos fertilised by an ex-partner.
Natallie Evans, from Trowbridge, Wilts, and Howard Johnston began IVF treatment in 2001 but he withdrew consent for the embryos to be used after they split up.
She turned to the European courts after exhausting the UK legal process.
The courts made the right decision, in my opinion.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
), but I wonder when you start to talk about Canadian law. (ie - "Without giving my thoughts on such a system in particular, the existence of such a system does not mean that either the right must not exist or that the system must violate the right. There are other alternatives.") what you mean by "rights".![[Frown]](frown.gif)
) And even when the boyfriend is very committed, I often hear pregnant women state that because they don't live together he "gets it easy" in terms of her pregnancy symptoms. (i.e., he doesn't suffer as much even though he loves her because he doesn't know the full extent of what is going on.)