posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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?"
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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.)
