In cases of results that stem from multiple peoples actions it can be quite logical to say that more than 1 party is “at fault”. The specific degree of liability or responsibility can be disagreed with amongst reasonable people.
Are you saying that the man can not be responsible in any way for the child?
The Night Before:
Man: “I find you attractive.”
Woman: “I reciprocate.”
Man: “Would you object to a night of passion, culminating in intercourse?”
Woman: “Not at all, in fact, I welcome it. But beware; pregnancy may result, and that is a thing I do not wish to experience at this point in my life. Precautions must be taken.”
Man: “I concur. I, also, have no desire to sire a child. To that end, I have procured a ‘Morning After’ pill- should conception occur, said pill will prevent unwanted childbirth.”
Woman: “An excellent idea. Shall we leave forthwith?”
Man: “Agreed.”
In The Morning:
Woman: “That was pleasant.”
Man: “I quite enjoyed it, myself. Ah, lest we forget; here is the aforesaid pill. Shall I fetch a glass of water for you?”
Woman: “Nay. I have changed my mind- I now find the concept of motherhood a pleasing one. I will raise this child, within, as my own. You, of course, will be expected to assist in the rearing of the product of our union. I do not wish to marry; nor to enter into any further relationship with you. Here is my address: once the babe is born, I will expect monetary support until the child’s eighteenth birthday- or longer, if college is to be entered upon.”
Man: “But we agreed- the night, previous, neither of us wished to become a parent, and agreed that any issuance would be avoided.”
Woman: “As I said, I have changed my mind.”
Now, what’s to do in this situation? The two of them agreed before conception to AVOID pregnancy- and yet she changed her mind after the fact, thereby forcing him into fatherhood.
There you go again, ingnoring the third party.
Unless she forced his penis into her vagina and forced him to ejaculate, the only thing that “forced him into fatherhood” was his own gullible horniness. Doesn’t seem fair? Welcome to the real world.
Did anyone actually READ the part about her agreeing to use the Morning After pill, and then changing her mind afterwards? HER decision, not his. She changed the terms afterwards.
And Minty? The only party I’m ignoring is you- or, rather, your argument. It’s not part of this scenario at all. Might I suggest, for future discussions on this matter, you abbreviate your argument into “IFTC!” (It’s For The Child!)? It’d save time.
Lightning, that is a good way to limit the argument to a specific aspect.
How about this.
The man can now declare that he wants nothing more to do with this woman.
Some criteria must be established to measure the amount of support he is liable for. This would eliminate the possibility of the woman arguing that the man pay more later simply because he earns more.
Some mechanism must be created so that he can give that level of support and still avoid her. Escrow accounts are common for other purposes why not for the purposes of child support?
Of course taking this course would limit any privilages the man might otherwise have enjoyed.
I’m saying that those who say that a woman has absolute rights over her body are correct. No rights = no responsibilities. As I said before, man and woman share responsibility for the fertilized egg, but woman alone is responsible for getting from there to baby. Pregnancy = shared, birth = solo.
Or, you could keep demanding that a third party has a right to take money from me with no contracual obligations. If you do, however, you have no moral leg to stand on when I demand that you lose the same right to freedom from uncontracted obligations.
Sigh. Any number of unfair things happen in the real world. Enforced abortions and enforced child support barely even make the list. Did you have anything to add that I missed, or was this just a “The law says so, so nyah!”?
Hypothetical, if you believe that a father should be forced to pay child support. Woman and man have sex. Woman discovers she is pregnant afterwords, goes to Planned Parenthood, is kidnapped by rabid pro-lifers, who prevent her from getting an abortion until the baby is born. Should the involuntary mother be financially responsible for the baby? After all, she knew when she had sex that a baby could result, couldn’t she?
Oh goodness, you mean Lightnin’ just wants to keep on ignoring the interests of the child as irrelevant to the issue? What a shocker.
Actually, Minty, it kinda looks like everyone wants to ignore that 'cept you.
Is your first paragraph the only principle you site for elliminating the man’s responsibility for his offspring? Are you saying that it is moral for a man to stop supporting a child at any point after the first trimester? If, as you suggest, that the woman’s choice to abort or not completely elliminates the man’s responsibility, then are you suggesting that any support a father gives his children is an unobligated gift? That he should be able to simiply walk away at any time with no repercussions? Is it possible you are simply over reacting out of frustration with the woman’s absolute right issue? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. I simply can’t understand the principles involved with your assertion that men have no obligations whatsoever for their children.
[shock]
Could it be because if your rights are being infringed, it matters little who is doing the infringing?!?
[/shock]
When you feel like contributing to the debate, Minty, you just let us know.
In the scenario I posted above, the child does not yet exist. We’re not discussing the child. We’re discussing the woman making a unilateral decision to HAVE a child.
If you feel like yelling “IFTC!” again, please reread the the above paragraph. Thanks.
pervert, I’m not starting from the assumption that being a biological parent should have even a passing impact on what the legal definition of parenthood is. If someone wants to be a father, then child support is owed, and the privelage of raising the kid is granted. If not, no support is owed, but you have no more rights concerning the kid then Random Guy off the street. Is this really a revolutionary concept?
I’m not sure what you mean in the context of this discussion. I am proposing that the sex act itself, the choice to have sex with a fertile female by a fertile male is an agreement to a contractual obligation.
Or are you saying that the woman doesn’t have a contractul obligation to use the funds in a responsible way?
Or are you saying that the child has no contractual obligation to use the funds responsibly?
I think I am standing on both legs. I am not asking anyone to give up anything with out agreeing to. I am simly proposing that agreeing to support a child might look like having sex which could result in said child.
Perv -
I think you’ve stated Robertliguori’s views in the most unflattering way possible and taken to the extreme.
It seems much simpler to me: Responsibility without Authority is not acceptable.
I think he put it pretty clearly: If the man has NO rights regarding the pregancy (which he doesn’t), how can one hold him fully responsible for the outcome?
If your boss tells you “get this there tomorrow or you’re fired” but you do not have authority to send an overnight package, and you can’t tell the person who DOES have the authority to send it to do so, then you’d certainly scream “foul!” – even if the “this” in question was a product that WAS developed by your department…
by Lightnin
Yes, we read it but it doesn’t matter. The sex was still had. And the sex was what resulted in conception.
The Morning After pill is not 100% guaranteed to prevent pregnancy. A risk of successful implantantion remains, even if it is a small one. What if the woman had taken the pill and turned up pregnant in spite of it? Would she still be responsible for what had happened? Yes! Would you? Yes! Shit happens, but it still needs to be cleaned up. Just because you didn’t intend on the shit to happen, doesn’t mean you didn’t play a part in making it happen.
What is so hard about this? If you don’t want to deal with the consequences of pregnancy, make damn sure to keep your gametes on lock down. If that means using the pill and condoms, so be it. If fatherhood is that scary of a prospect, stay as far away from it as possible. Don’t play Russian roulette with guns even when you think they are unloaded.
by robert
I’m talking about accountability, not law. Lightnin presented a hypothetical as if to show an injustice had occured. “I had sex without a condom because the woman said she would take a pill in the morning, but she changed her mind and now I’m forced to be a daddy!”
To me that argument sounds like this: “I jumped out of a plane without a parachute because the pilot said he would swoop down in his plane and catch me before I hit the ground, but he changed in his mind and now I’m forced to be a dead man!”
Boo hoo.
Well, other than the fact that the birth control pill is an everyday, dependable, normal reality and “swooping down” a plane to catch a falling person is unlikely and has probably occurred never…
Those of us living in the land of “real” await a better analogy.
DrLizardo and robertliguori;
I appologize for any misunderstanding. My intention was NOT to imply that your views were untenable or that they were extreme. I really was only trying to express my on inability to understand the principles behind your views.
I understand the frustration with Responsibility without Authority. And I agree that it is not equitable.
And I never intended to suggest that the man should be held “fully” responsible for the result of a pregnancy. I only meant to suggest that his responsibility is not removed because he does not get pregnant.
I think we are closer on this thing than might be obvious. I certainly agree that if you had nothing to do with the creation of a child you should not be obligated to support it. The key to this IMHO is if you had NOTHING to do with the creation of a child. Once she is pregnant I don’t understand the argument that the father had nothing to do with it.
I realize I may be misrepresenting your views again. I am truly sorry for that. I don’t mean to marginalize you or reduce your arguments. I’m just trying to pry for more information.
by robert
Who else should be held responsible for the baby? Should she turn her kid over to the pro-lifers after it is born?
So, Lamia, if you were to have sex, and be (illegally) prevented from getting an abortion, do you claim that you would be financially accountable for your child? You did have sex, after all.
If not, then please drop this sex = accountability for kid thang.