Nope. The father is not guilty in your hypothetical.
But the mother is guilty of fraud in addition to murder. (Note: this assumes that the father, which you describe as a good hearted, responsible man, has made inquiries about whether his deed has produced a pregnancy.)
OK, let’s say the hypothetical is a one night stand. Maybe they even use “protection” and it fails. The two never find out anything about each other and never see each other again. Does the unknowing father bear responsibility for the murder? To me, that’s not unlike the married father/mother being charged with child endangerment when the other parent was solely responsible for the criminal action. I may not like the fact that the father is a jerk, but I still don’t think you can hold him responsible for actions he had no reasonable knowledge of.
On the other hand, if he knows she was pregnant, notices she is no longer pregnant, sees NO evidence of said baby, and does nothing; then he is much more prosecutable.
Of course, hypothetical-one-night-stand father is still responsible for paternity…
What he bears responsiblity for are his actions. If he has had sex with a woman, no matter what precautions they have taken, then he is responsible for following up on whether he has fathered a child (the purpose, you will recall, of sex).
The fact that he is not the vessel in which the baby develops does not release him from his parental responsibility. He must make himself available to support his partner during the pregnancy. It’s his baby, too.
If she has deceived him, then he cannot be blamed. But if he has shirked his responsibility to her and the child, then he is complicit in whatever fate that befalls either of them.
I agree with you fully on the moral aspect of this, but legally what is he responsible for? Correct me if I’m wrong (maybe it varies state to state), but I’m under the impression that if the father never assumes the parental role, the only thing he can be forced to do is pay child support (and that’s if you can find him). By not involving himself, doesn’t he implicitly release custody? The mother, on the other hand, must release custody explicitly (by abandonment or adoption) simply because she already has the child.
It would be great if we could split the responsibility of pregnancy right down the middle, but I don’t think biology allows us that convenience. Barring an abortion, the mother must inherently take at least 9 more months of responsibility.
Another thought: if the father is punishable by the actions of the mother, might a rejected lover kill her baby so the father would go to prison?
Who knows? That depends on what Tyrant du Jour rules the society. I can only comment on the ethical issues. Perhaps there is a lawyer present.
Not ethically. If she cannot prove his complicity in the murder, she now faces multiple fraud charges in addition to the murder charge. Ethically speaking.
To paraphrase the late, great, Mike Royko, “It would be nice if taxes were paid voluntarily, but I doubt the government would function for long on the $1.98 a day it would collect.”
Matthew 19:21, KJV: Jesus said unto him, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor…”
Matthew 26:9, KJV: For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
Matthew 26:11, KJV: For ye have the poor always with you…
Those are just three verses where Jesus tells people to give to the poor. Since you provided a link to the Institute for Creation Research on another thread, I must conclude you are a Christian, and yet you state above that we should not give to the poor.
Please explain this contradiction.
(NOTE: Long-time posters and lurkers should know by now that I am not prosletyzing here. I have stated many times that I am an atheist. I think Jesus was a real person who created a wonderful philosophy of generosity and pacifism, but I don’t think he performed any miracles. I don’t think he was any more the son of God than I am.)
When all else fails, ask Cecil.
Manda JO:
I’m looking for that cite. It’s not a particularly easy one to find. It’s not like an adoption agency is going to put that on the web page or something. I’ve e-mailed a couple of PHD’s so maybe they can point me in the right direction.
I will say this though, yes I do have a tendency toward pulling stuff out of my ass, but I have read that adopted children are more likely to be aused than a child raised by his natural parents somewhere.
Anywho, still looking for a cite . . .
I’m not a lawyer either, but IMHO I think it’d be pretty difficult to actually legislate the ethics you are describing because it would require considerably more responsibility by men than has been historically required by law (in the US anyway).
But, by all means, if he was involved in the murder, nail him to the wall.
What a terrific observation!
That’s why, in Libertaria, there is only one law, and upon it all arbitration is based. There is no legislation.
http://www.elnet.com/~sburch/sjbgrin.gif
http://www.elnet.com/~sburch/sjbgrin.gif
http://www.elnet.com/~sburch/sjbgrin.gif
http://www.elnet.com/~ sburch/sjbgrin.gif
Inertia, I hope you find that cite. When you do, please check and see if it takes into accout a few varibles:
The issue this thread is grappling with is infant adoption. Adoption of older kids has its own set of complex varibles. It is a facinating issue, but it needs to be handled seperatly.
The cite need to compare the rate of abuse of adopted infants compared to the rate of abuse within the group the infant was adopted out of. If teen age mothers and drug addicts abuse there children X% of the time, and the genral population abuses their children (X-10)% of the time, an abuse rate amoung adoptive parents of (X-5)% is still an improvment.
I would like to see studies that differentiate between stranger adoption and interfamily/friend adoption. Sometimes there are cases when an incapable individual suffers from an unplaned pregnancy and a family member or friend, reacting to the situation, adopts the child. I can see where this could be problematic because often the adopter did not set out wanting a child and makes a decision in haste that they later regret, conciously or unconciously. This regret could translate into mistreatment of the child. However, those same factors do not apply to adoptive parents who set out to adopt a child and put a great deal of time, money, and effort into finding one.
I am very concerned about this issue because I worry that you might inadvertantly convince some fifteen year out there who is reading this to not give up a child that she has not the resources, skills, or emotional maturity to handle because she is convinced it means the child will be abused. This is a case where false information could cause someone to make a horrible mistake that could lead to a lot of pain and misery in two or more lives.
You’ve GOT to be joking! That has to be the most unrealistic and least workable form of government I’ve ever heard of.
You’re not a monster, but you sure are misguided, IMO. I may even go so far as to say deluded.
When all else fails, ask Cecil.
inertia:
I can’t tolerate such an asinine statement. Even if you found ten studies that proved that adopted children suffer abuse and neglect 10 times more often than other children, your statement still wouldn’t be correct. Not to mention the fact that such a study would prove nothing in regards to the topic here…an issue like this doesn’t exactly lend itself to generalizations like that.
I usually save that line for my LAST post on a particular thread (while I’m being run out of the thread by an angry leftist mob).
Speaking of which, I’m liking Boomer more and more every day.
Man, I’m collecting Lib quotes like Pokemon cards now. You’d better steer clear of all abortion debates from now on.
Gee, I wonder why the libertarians haven’t gained any power in Washington yet.
jab1 is Imus??
“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill
jab 1:
You leftists tickle me to a deep rosy pink!
There is no contradiction until you take my statements out of context, then make a HUGE, inexplicable leap to an erroneous conclusion, and attempt to formulate some damning (but very weak) accusation.
BTW, thanks for the scripture reading.
I assume you mean “Love thy neighbor as thyself”?
A noble suggestion, but of course impractical in our society since love means so many different things to different people. As shown by our posts, when you come down to splitting hairs over what’s right and wrong, you really need clearly defined laws so everyone has a common point of reference. Of course, now we just need lawmakers who can make a clearly defined law–good luck finding those.
Not quite. He means the Noncoercion Principle. (Ask him.)
The cute thing about Lib is that he has absolutely no clue of the roughly 57,934 reasons why you can’t get by with only one law, no matter how good that law is.
If that’s so, Lib, I guess I am unclear on how the Noncoercion principle makes the father responsible for finding out about the mother’s pregnancy. After all, if both parties are consenting and the mother knows she risks getting pregnant and being a single mother, isn’t it coercive to force the father to do anything? Perhaps I am just unclear on how you personally apply said principle.
That’s one reason! 
Enough of voting for the lesser of evils - vote Cthulhu 2000!
inertia:
Your implication that adopted children do not have the same opportunities is flat out wrong. To suggest that they are abused more often is ludicrous. To be honest, your post makes me so angry I’m shaking.
Let me give you a little background to help make my point to you. When I was fifteen years old I got pregnant. I decided to give up 9 months of my life to give life to another. My choice. Let’s look at my choices after that:
I could have kept and raised my daughter. Well, lets be honest about that situation. I was a 15 year old insecure twit. My mother would have ended up raising that child because she loves me and would want me to finish high school. She was also 50 years old, had raised six kids and was looking more towards retirement. I would have resented the child because all I wanted to do was run around and be self destructive. She wouldn’t have had a daddy. Or somebody who could put her through college since I doubt I’d be in college now if I had kept her.
I could give her up for adoption. I spent my pregnancy looking at resumes, reading letters from potential adoptive parents, and doing interviews. I know the family I’m giving her to, they are very loving. She’ll have an older brother, a daddy, a chance to go to college. She goes to a private school, has an aunt who babysits. Seems like lots of opportunities to me.
Now you tell me, which situation has more potential for abuse?
I know for a fact that she’s not being abused. I see her about once a month. Actually, she’s the flower girl in my wedding.
And you actually have the balls to say that my thoughtless actions fucked up other peoples lives? By giving my child up for adoption I made damn sure that nobody was hurt other than me. That’s taking responsibility. And there’s a beautiful five year old girl who doesn’t mind either.
I echo MandaJo here. I hope you didn’t misinform some scared 15 year old and through your stupidity cause them to make a wrong decision.