|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2009 19:01:58 GMT
Here's the hypothesis: a made up case, but it could be true.
1. A couple meet, and become partners. The woman knows the man does not want children, and accepts this at first. She volunteers to take charge of contraception. Then she feels a desire to have children - her partner is still firmly against he idea.
So, without telling him, she removes her coil / comes off the pill or whatever and becomes pregnant. Is he still "responsible" for the child?
2. Would your answer be different if she got hold of a fertility drug and the result was quadruplets which all managed to survive?
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 9, 2009 19:24:11 GMT
1. No
2. No
;D
|
|
|
Post by mindy on Apr 9, 2009 20:25:03 GMT
Here's the hypothesis: a made up case, but it could be true. 1. A couple meet, and become partners. The woman knows the man does not want children, and accepts this at first. She volunteers to take charge of contraception. Then she feels a desire to have children - her partner is still firmly against he idea. So, without telling him, she removes her coil / comes off the pill or whatever and becomes pregnant. Is he still "responsible" for the child? 2. Would your answer be different if she got hold of a fertility drug and the result was quadruplets which all managed to survive? Unfortunatly, I say yes. If he did the deed, he's responsible for the kid. True, that would be a rotten and sneaky thing for a woman to intentionally do to a man though! But yes, by law, he's still responsible to pay child support, as far as I know.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2009 20:34:42 GMT
Yup - Mindy, you are right, by law he is responsible. But should he be?
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Apr 9, 2009 20:51:19 GMT
Actually mindy, in the cases in question, the woman is solely responsible for the kid...she chose to get pregnant, she is therefore responsible, the man is a victim of a manipulative bitch.
Men always get a raw deal in the UK in these cases, they also get a raw deal when they pay maintanence and try to be good fathers.
AH
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 10, 2009 5:16:44 GMT
Law and Ethics work differently and to different agendas.
Ethically he should not be made financially responsible because essentially she stole his chromosomes and used them without permission. In law if that was a credit card he'd be protected from the theft.
Unfortunately it's an impossible theft to prove or disprove in case 1 so the law thinks of the product of the transaction, the child, and makes both parents responsible because clinically they have made the baby together.
In case 2 it might be easier to prove that the father did not give consent but still difficult to prove and again, ethically, the law must consider the most innocent parties of the case, the children.
So the law is being as ethical as possible. Were there no duties attached to producing a child, the law would not have to be involved and we could view it from the ethics of theft and consent aspect alone.
Biologically, the man is the father regardless of consent and therefore if he was to behave in an ethical manner, he would take responsibility.
So I might change my answer to 1. Yes. 2 No.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Apr 10, 2009 10:47:56 GMT
This is a difficult one. It's a bit like the opposite way round to a pregnancy that came about by rape. Should the woman have an abortion or not?
I think the question of consent comes into it as well. If the man and woman are both totally irresponsible then both of them should take the consequences. If one is and one isn't then it's a difficult one.
If she's telling him porkies then that makes it even more complicated.
At the end of the day, though, people OUGHT to behave like decent human beings and take responsibility for their actions.
I don't think if it was one or four children makes any difference.
Anyway, legally I'm not sure but morally I think both partners are responsible.
I also agree with Alpha that fathers get a raw deal in British courts. Maybe we should start a tread on that side of things.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 10, 2009 13:09:28 GMT
The question of responsibility really devolves to financial responsibility and it does that because care for one's own children is still not treated as a 'job' in its own right on a par with traditional paid employment.
It is indirect discrimination against women in that they are the ones who become pregnant, so should have sole responsibility over whether to do so or not without having to take any other factor into consideration. In practice, if they choose to have children, they have to rely on a man or an additional job to provide for their upkeep. This is a fundamental denial of equality because it takes traditional men without family commitment as the criterion and ignores the fact that women have an ability that men lack. It is an extreme case of denying maternity leave or child care facilities.
Of course it also discriminates against a much smaller number of men left literally holding the baby after death and discourages men from more active family involvement and seeking custody after divorce.
Without children there is no future. Increasing numbers of children are seen to be neglected by parents caught up in Consumerist obsession. Apart from problems about their own future, they often result in policing and penal costs. There is no equality betwen the sexes until childcare becomes paid a living wage and supervised as a valid career in its own right equal to anything traditionally done by men.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Apr 10, 2009 13:16:04 GMT
An excellent post, Ratarsed, and quite possibly the best you have made here.
As you rightly point out, moral, legal and financial responsibility are entirely different areas and in certain respects women suffer more than men and in others the roles are reversed.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 10, 2009 13:19:21 GMT
You should see the aggro that kind of opinion has got me from some self-styled feminists! Even the idea of holding women solely responsible for their own fertility has had some of them frothing at the mouth about Misogyny!
|
|
|
Post by june on Apr 10, 2009 15:39:25 GMT
In response to the OP - if he really never wanted children he could have the snip.
If you have sex you must accept that a baby may pop along. The chap didn't take personal responsibility so yes he is liable in terms of being a father and provider, just as the mother is.
Of course there is something else here about a relationship built on lies....
|
|
|
Post by mindy on Apr 10, 2009 15:59:16 GMT
In response to the OP - if he really never wanted children he could have the snip. If you have sex you must accept that a baby may pop along. The chap didn't take personal responsibility so yes he is liable in terms of being a father and provider, just as the mother is. Of course there is something else here about a relationship built on lies.... I agree with you June. He should just get fixed if he feels that strongly about not having a child. Especially if he doesn't trust his significant other. If you can't trust someone, and your having sex with them, there's always a possibility for a baby to pop along.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 10, 2009 16:05:16 GMT
Is it morally right for a man to control a woman's potential fertility in that way though? The problem here arises because he does trust her - wrongly. It feels distasteful to take it for granted that women can't be trusted.
|
|
|
Post by june on Apr 10, 2009 17:02:27 GMT
I wasn't suggesting that all women could not be trusted, but mistakes do happen, no contraception is 100% effective and if you are deeply opposed to parenthood why wouldn't you do all you personally could to avoid it. I don't buy your assertions he's controlling her fertility - potential or not, he's controlling his.
If one of you wants children and the other doesn't someone is always going to end up not getting their own way or you find someone more compatible with your life view.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 10, 2009 17:51:37 GMT
The scenario given here is one of trickery, not of accident. It all comes back to financial support. Remove that and it removes most of the other problems. So it might horrify Puritans who don't count activity as 'work' unless it is done for somebody else. You can be paid to look after somebody else's children but for your own makes you a parasite on the State. Remember - that's what the Soviets thought too.
|
|
|
Post by june on Apr 10, 2009 18:02:54 GMT
The scenario given here is one of trickery, not of accident. It all comes back to financial support. Remove that and it removes most of the other problems. So it might horrify Puritans who don't count activity as 'work' unless it is done for somebody else. You can be paid to look after somebody else's children but for your own makes you a parasite on the State. Remember - that's what the Soviets thought too. # remove finacial support and you just move the problem - you do not remove it.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 10, 2009 18:08:21 GMT
In response to the OP - if he really never wanted children he could have the snip. If you have sex you must accept that a baby may pop along. The chap didn't take personal responsibility so yes he is liable in terms of being a father and provider, just as the mother is. Of course there is something else here about a relationship built on lies.... I agree with you June. He should just get fixed if he feels that strongly about not having a child. Especially if he doesn't trust his significant other. If you can't trust someone, and your having sex with them, there's always a possibility for a baby to pop along. Men can create babies for such a long period, into their 80s sometimes, if he's doesn't want babies now but wants to leave the possibility open for 5 or 40 years hence then why would he want to get the snip? Obviously both people must accept the risk that they might conceive, accidental conception is clear cut - both responsible - fully.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 10, 2009 18:09:02 GMT
Remove the problem of needing private finance, that is.
|
|
|
Post by june on Apr 10, 2009 18:26:48 GMT
Remove the problem of needing private finance, that is. thanks for the clarification
|
|
|
Post by june on Apr 10, 2009 18:29:11 GMT
I agree with you June. He should just get fixed if he feels that strongly about not having a child. Especially if he doesn't trust his significant other. If you can't trust someone, and your having sex with them, there's always a possibility for a baby to pop along. Men can create babies for such a long period, into their 80s sometimes, if he's doesn't want babies now but wants to leave the possibility open for 5 or 40 years hence then why would he want to get the snip? Obviously both people must accept the risk that they might conceive, accidental conception is clear cut - both responsible - fully. I agree re:joint responsibility. But I am trying not to think of an 80 year old man in the nip *ahem* ready to become a father again. Please desist with the image provoking posts ;D
|
|