How about if we modify the hypothetical to make it a little less bizare. If a woman gets pregnant and she simply doesn’t know until the second trimester. Would you agree that she is still responsible for the child? Assuming no dangerous medical situations arrise she could conceivably be in the position of Responsibility without athority.
I certainly never meant to suggest that pregnancy or child suppor t is the sole responsibility of the Father. I was only responding to suggestions that the father held no obligations at all.
Well, it’s an ignorance-fighting forum, isn’t it? That includes willful ignorance of the lalalaI’mnotlisteninglala variety too.
So what? In nine months, give or take, the child will or will not exist. You won’t owe any child support unless and until that happens. At which point, I will happily call upon all the forces of the state to soak you until you squeal. (Well, not quite. Although there are times when I do tend to fantasize about punitive child support for those who seek to run out on their obligations.)
Perv: Now THAT is a good point… Let’s make it really ironclad. Let’s take the situation (rare but happens) of a woman who doesn’t know she’s pregnant until the baby comes.
Now we definitely have a situation of responsibility without authority… but since infanticide is not being prescribed here, you gotta take the responsibility, that’s clear enough.
While I’m not a slave to the OP, this is an ENTIRELY different situation, though. The original posit was clearly one where choice is involved. THe pregnancy is known, there is a choice NOT to terminate it despite the father’s preference. The element of choice makes all the diff.
Well in the magical land of robertliguori, if both biological parents want to be legal parents, then both parents. If one bioparent, then that parent. If neither, then neither of them.
But then, you might state, we will have children starving in the streets!
If you do, I pre-emptively reply, “So? Children starving sucks, but stealing from people to feed them sucks more.”
pervert:
Not nothing. The dealer who sold you the car that you drove to your partner’s house had something to do with it as well. But said dealer had no control over what you did with the car, so he’s not screwed if you do naughty things with it. Similarly, since men have no control over what women do with their sperm once they get it, they should not have to suffer any consequences of what the woman does with their sperm they do not willingly undertake.
Birth control pills are not 100% effective. (And do you expect or assume that she’ll take care of the birth control? There are condoms and vasectomies too, you know.) But, condoms aren’t foolproof either. The possibility of pregnancy still exists with both these methods. Hell, I’ve heard of couples getting pregnant when two or more birth control methods were used.
The man and woman both must be aware of this possibility before they have sex. For the man to expect, hope or assume that the birth control will work (and therefore he is responsibilty-free) is stupid. For him to expect that she’ll “bail him out” (if there is a pregnancy) in a way that he prefers is also stupid. It’s her body that he helped impregnate. She didn’t get in this situation by herself, but now it’s only her body that is affected. He doesn’t have the right to expect her to undergo a procedure that she may have fears over (abortion has its risks) or that she feels is morally abhorrent.
He should know up front that birth control is not 100% effective, and be aware that an “oopsie” pregnancy may occur, no matter how “careful” everyone is. And that he can’t expect her to “swoop down” and rescue him from his responsibilities after the fact, just because he thought (stupidly) that the odds would be in his favor (that the not-quite-foolproof birth control failed in this case).
She’s not obligated to do something to her body (abortion, or whatever)—to have any medical procedure, merely because he wants his precious and sacred wallet to remain untouched.
You’re missing the point, but I’m a patient woman so it’s okay.
Whether you are a sky-diver or a horny man, by refusing to safeguard yourself and by choosing to put your life/financial freedom in the hands of someone else needlessly, you leave yourself open for disaster. The fact that this disaster could have been avoided simply by strapping on a parachute/abstaining/wearing a codom means that no one “forced” anything to happen you. You brought it on yourself.
This is rich. So your sacred wallet is more important than the starvation of innocent children who did not ask to brought into this world? And I might add, the taxpayers all feel like their resources are being “stolen”—they are having to help support children whose deadbeat parents (often dads) refuse to support. Personally, I’d prefer that the person who actually impregnated of the mother of this “starving” child should have his money “stolen” from him to help support this child. Not me. Not the other taxpayers.
Face: I’m not missing the point at all. You’re ignoring the fact that “proving” something with a spurious analogy only proves you have no real argument to demonstrate it.
Try the phrase “reasonable expectation” on for size. There is a reasonable expectation that birth control pills work. There is not a reasonable expectation that jumping out of a plane to be swooped up is going to work.
The logical structuring of the analogy makes sense, but for it to be valid, it has to be applied in an analogy based on realistic scenarios. I don’t think you can come up with one because the argument is wrong… But I’m curious to see if you can.
Minty: Can you justify your claim that a man who has sex which results in a child has an obligation to that child without invoking the law of the land?
I would say similarly that my wallet is not obligated to support a child just because you want your precious and sacred reproductive system to remain untouched. Just as similarly, because I am willing to support a child with my wallet does not mean you should be forced to with your reproductive system.
And I could say with just as much justification that if you don’t want to get an abortion, keep your legs closed. Except that would be a patently false argument, because uncontracted access to womb or wallet are both wrong.
Forced child support = bad. Forced abortions/lack of abortions = bad.
Yes, it is.
[quote]
Personally, I’d prefer that the person who actually impregnated of the mother of this “starving” child should have his money “stolen” from him to help support this child. Not me. Not the other taxpayers.
[quote]
I’d rather that if no one felt the desire to support said children, that said children remain unsupported. I will say it plainly: I would prefer that children starve than money be taken involuntarily from anyone to feed them.
Yes, I’m heartless basterd.
Is anyone else getting shades of IRC here? By the time I’ve written one reply, other people have responded.
If I had sex and somehow was prevented from getting an abortion, yes I would accept financial responsibility for the child that I produced. That’s not only because I’m pro-life (personally), but also because I carry responsibility for the baby that no one else is expected to carry. Other than the dad. And even that is in question, judging by this thread.
Right, so instead of having the government “steal” from us, we’ll just have the children stealing from us. No big deal, though. We’ll just lock 'em up in prison and electrocute the really bastardly ones. They had no business being alive in the first place.
Puerile and stupid, but actually seems to be a very succinct statement of your viewpoint: “You lose.” That would be about right, Minty. But the man losing is no big deal, is it? It’s just a man, what right to his own life does he have. What right to his “sacred wallet” (what a pig that he wants to control his own finances, the nerve!) It’s fish and bicycle time, babe.
Exactly. My only point is that the fact that the woman has an opportunity to change the outcome does not remove the man from some responsibility. At best this means that the woman cannot argue that she had no choice in bringing a child into the world after she became pregnant. I still don’t see how her choice removes the father’s obligation.
In fact I’m not sure that her choice limits the fathers obligations at all. I can see how in the case where she promised beforehand to abort and then changed her mind the man might cry foul. And I can agree that this would certainly remove any obligation to her. But biologically speaking he agreed to take her word that she would abort. He had to know that there was a chance it wouldn’t work. And while I might be able to help come up with a few derogatory terms to call her, I don’t see how this removes his responsibility to the child.
If I may, let me look at the choice issue from an other angle. What about a couple who agree to and want to have a baby. While she is pregnant she insists on drinking (smoking, not eating right whatever) and the baby is born deformed. Clearly this is an instance of the female using the fact that she gets pregnant and he doesn’t to hinder his normal procreative rights. But does this kind of thing COMPLETELY remove the fathers obligations to the child?
In terms of the OP does the act of sex itself infer some assumption of risk by the male? Perhaps not complete responsibility, certainly not sole responsibility, but it must convey some. Certainly the father has more responsibility than a disineterested third party?
Pervert: I don’t think the act of sex imposes obligation for support on the father any more than it imposes obligation on the mother to bear the child.
That wasn’t clear enough. What I mean is the act of sex imposes obligation on the father for support to the EXACT same extent it imposes obligation on the mother to bear the child.
Depending on the situation and society that could range from “all” to “none”…
Don’t feel bad you with the face. He calls everyone Lamia.
I also say that yes, the mother would be accountable for the child. Sex does not equal accountability for a child. A child who you are the parent of equals accountability for the child. It is unfortunate that the women was not allowed her legal rights to control over her body. However, once the child is there it does need to be taken care of.
In fact, if the mother didn’t want the child and the father took custody I think the mother should pay support to the father even in the above situtation.
Firstly, apoligies to all, especially you with the face and minty green. All I will say in my defence is that by the time preview refreshes, there is a new message to reply to, and I got mixed up. I will do my best to avoid further name-related insult.
Minty: if rhymes = justification, then… “If your name is minty green, then we can rip out your spleen.” Or, if you didn’t get that, I…am challenging…your claim. You… should… argue… with … logic … or … debate … as … opposed … to … rhymes and statements of opinion.
Then you are consistent, which is a lovely quality in a debate opponent. My next question: is it right that you should be involuntarily obligated in such a manner? (Not right that you were held, right that you should be forced to pay, I mean)
Well, yes again. We already do that, although you need to steal something quite valuable, like people’s lives, before they jolt you up. Are you arguing that penalties for theft should not include jail, etc?
What part of the analogy keeps you from seeing how silly it is to claim “forced into fatherhood” as a defense? That was what I found to be ridiculous. The utter sense of victimization that Lightnin suggested we feel for the man in his hypothetical.
Don’t like the sky-dive example? Fine. Try this one on for size.
Me and you are driving in a car together. I tell you to not bother putting on a seatbelt because I am an excellent driver. And I promise! And you believe me! Even though, in actuality I’m a lousy driver and I know it! So you neglect to buckle up. Well, what do you know? A cat runs across the street and spooks me, and I end up plowing the car into a pine tree. You end up with a broken neck that leaves you a quadriplegic. An injury that could have been prevented had your worn your frickin’ seat belt. I end up through the windsheild and under the wheels of my own car.
Tragic, sure. But are you not at least partially responsible for what has happened to you? Did I force you do anything that put your life in danger? Was your carelessness and trust my fault or yours?
Which is why it took me all of 2 minutes to think of one, right? Don’t call a victory until you see a white flag waving.
If someone needs a kidney to live, and the only one available is yours, are you legally obligated to give it up? A need for something does not translate into a right to it.
pervert:
To me at least, the issue is not how a woman chooses to exercise her deservedly absolute power over her body while pregnant. It is that she does have absolute power over her body, and I as a man may be expected to pay for the choices she does or does not make, just because we had sex. That ain’t right.
