|
An Issue of Responsibility | by Illiad | 2003-11-06 08:30:47 |
|
IMO no. | by LurkerMo | 2003-11-06 08:40:19 |
| Hang on.... |
by Ravenlock |
2003-11-06 09:36:40 |
"I don't think that he has any rights as such concerning this child - he gave them up when he agreed to not wanting a child. I don't think he has any obligations either - the woman gave up any claim when accepting the agreement not to have a child."
By your logic there, since they both agreed they did not want the child, the above statements also apply to the mother. Just because she happens to be the one who carries the child does not negate the fact that they both contributed to its conception equally, though neither wanted it. So we have a child going to be born, that according to you no one owes responsibility to.
Yet the child is quite real, is going to be born (barring abortion or miscarriage or some other complication), is going to become a full-sized human, and someone needs to care for it.
Seems to me the only workable solution is to say they're both obligated to be responsible for the child, when the only logical alternative is to say that neither are. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
But, | by buddha | 2003-11-06 09:44:51 |
|
I'm not talking about what "has"... | by Ravenlock | 2003-11-06 09:53:45 |
|
Even taking abortion out of the picture | by buddha | 2003-11-06 10:05:45 |
|
Again, legally, he does not have that choice. | by Ravenlock | 2003-11-06 10:10:50 |
|
Ethically, the child could not exist without that | by LurkerMo | 2003-11-06 11:02:01 |
|
Thinking about it | by buddha | 2003-11-06 13:32:48 |
|
;-) (n/t) | by LurkerMo | 2003-11-06 15:59:57 |
|
No. | by LurkerMo | 2003-11-06 10:53:23 |
|
That's what makes the most sense to me, too. (n/t) | by NOLAWitch | 2003-11-06 10:59:03 |
|
Read my replies to others - | by Ravenlock | 2003-11-06 11:00:42 |
|
Ethically I would agree with you. Except for | by LurkerMo | 2003-11-06 11:04:10 |
|
She did choose, though | by Arman X | 2003-11-06 11:18:10 |
|
NO! | by LurkerMo | 2003-11-06 12:06:36 |
|
Violently opposed. NO back at you. | by Ravenlock | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Agreed | by Arman X | 2003-11-06 12:31:53 |
|
Wrong. | by BloodyViking | 2003-11-06 13:01:08 |
|
It is a legally valid option. | by Ravenlock | 2003-11-06 13:22:22 |
|
Some feel it is ethically valid too. | by BloodyViking | 2003-11-06 13:28:36 |
|
I have. I wonder... | by Ravenlock | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Who said the debate was closed? | by BloodyViking | 2003-11-06 13:46:04 |
|
That's what was not clear - thank you. :) | by Ravenlock | 2003-11-06 13:52:28 |
|
I thought as much from your last post. | by BloodyViking | 2003-11-06 14:04:40 |
|
True, but | by Arman X | 2003-11-06 14:01:58 |
|
Nope. | by BloodyViking | 2003-11-06 14:13:18 |
|
No, it's not | by Arman X | 2003-11-06 15:12:21 |
|
Why should he pay for her decision? | by BloodyViking | 2003-11-06 15:22:35 |
