That’s the essential problem with your equation.
The difference to the child is that a child born from a sperm donation would be born into a new family instead of having a legal father who wants nothing to do with him.
The wellbeing of the innocent child comes first and foremost in the equation. Carol has no right to demand any sacrifices from the child or to try to insert herself between any child and its parents. The fact that Bob is now a father is written in stone, immutable, non-negotiable. Her choice is to accept that or move on.
Dio, maybe I’ve missed it, but what’s your take on Teddy and Alice, in which the aggrieved party is requesting abortion and/or adoption? Assuming Alice takes the latter, that is.
In case anyone’s wondering why I made them two women, it was so there’s be no question that Teddy is not the father in either a factual or legal sense. They’re from Tennessee for the same reason.
I think it’s unreasonable to demand that any woman give up or abort a child for the sake of a relationship. I would never even presume to ask something like that from my wife.
There are circumstances where I think it might be reasonable to suggest that a woman consider her options (if she is very young, if she is a crackhead – basically if her ability to parent a child is in obvious question), but “do it because I’m more important” is never an ethical option in my opinion. It’s just way too personal a choice, and too wrenching a sacrifice for a lot of women.
Sorry, I did not express myself clearly. I was wondering if you judge Alice giving the child up for adoption (regardless of Teddy’s feelings on the matter) to be immoral in the same way you judge it to be immoral for Bob to never see his child.
No. I don’t think giving up a child for adoption is immoral. I think that demanding somebody else give up a child for adoption is immoral.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It is reasonable for her to decide she does not want to raise the child and leave. It is not reasonable for her to ask her partner not to raise her own child.
[/QUOTE]
The child is not born yet, and Alice is effectively choosing between having Teddy in her life, and having her baby. If Teddy is adamant that she will not raise a child, then it is perfectly reasonable to put those cards on the table, because that is information that Alice needs in order to make her decision.
What do you consider a “new family” instead of having a legal father? Just because Bob is not present doesn’t mean the woman he fathered the child with will not give birth to the child in a new family. It’s simply not your ideal of a family. It’s still a family, because we’re assuming at least the mother will be there
What difference do you think there is between a guy depositing sperm at a bank and a guy depositing sperm in a woman he sees for a one-night stand? Both of those father want nothing to do with the child. Why do you consider one to have ethical responsibility and the other does not?
Same thing with a sperm donor. Given that the women who get the sperm is looking to get pregnant, we can assume that a donor becomes a father. Is that child less innocent? Or, using another example, does a sperm donor’s wife have the right, in your mind, to demand that the donor doesn’t have contact with future children?
The child is not born yet, and Alice is effectively choosing between having Teddy in her life, and having her baby. If Teddy is adamant that she will not raise a child, then it is perfectly reasonable to put those cards on the table, because that is information that Alice needs in order to make her decision.
[/QUOTE]
Not least because Alice may be willing/prepared/able to raise a child in if she is in a relationship but not alone. I think I wrote that Teddy & Alice are married in all ways except for the eyes of the state. If Teddy is the primary breadwinner, Alice may see her income go down by more than half if Teddy leaves.
I hadn’t thought about that till now. I think that Teddy must tell Alice about her feelings early on, particularly if she still loves her. Whether Teddy is going to stay is a major factor in Alice’s decision about her pregnancy. It’s just that, if Teddy wishes to be ethical, she has to be very careful about how she phrases things.
The child is not born yet
[/quote]
Irrelevant.
If Teddy is unwilling to accept Teddy’s child, then she doesn’t love Teddy.
This I totally disagree with. If through some highly improbale circumstance my partner of 10 years decided to raise a child, it would happen without me. I would still love him but I didn’t sign on for children.
It is not irrelevant, because Alice is still in the decision-making process. If the child was born, the decision would have already been made, and thus a different situation entirely.
It’s Alice’s decision to make alone, though, and not something Teddy has any business trying to intrude on.
Right, but you wouldn’t be demanding that he not raise his child. That’s what I’m calling unloving, not just leaving.
So if Teddy is willing to forgive the infidelity but not raise the child, so Alice’s keeping the baby after she or he is born is equivalent to breaking up in her view, how may Teddy communicate this?
By leaving in the first place.
Um, that does not communicate the message I spoke of. That communicates the message We’re done, and I’ll be sending the movers for my stuff because I don’t love you any more.
The message you spoke of is not one that can be ethically communicated because it can’t be ethically requested.
So it’s okay to abandon human being you don’t like?
As for your assertion that one parent is just as good as two, just use flipping Google and find out how many studies trace mental and behavioral problems to single parent households.
Dio may be being a bit absolutist, as is his habit, but he is essentially correct. The morality of taking care of a child takes precedence over the morality of taking revenge–if that can even be called moral in the first place.