Search the Community

Listening to "FDR2182 Do You Own Your Kids?", it's clear that Stefan have the opinion that parents are morally obligated to feed their own children, but only their own. He is explicit on this, and mentions that we do not have a morally obligation towards others. Not feeding your own children, he equals to murder. As the child is in no way capable of surviving on his own. I believe that Stefan have an unfounded opinion on this, one that is not easily defend. I would be interested in hearing what you others are thinking on this, and perhaps Stefan as well? What is the cause for giving parents moral obligation towards a child? 1. Is it that the state have given a person the legal guardian status of the child? (obviously not...) 2. Is it that the child have some amount of shared DNA with you? 3. Is it that you did the act that directly caused the the pregnancy? There are plenty of follow-up questions to be answered to each of these points, for instance, do you have moral obligation towards your siblings children, or your grand children? From what I listen to in the podcast, in the example with the olympic swimmer, it appears to be the act of stating that you want the responsibility of the child, that makes you morally obligated. If that is all too it, then that's fine. Then a mother who have given birth, or have evacuated the fetus (still alive) from her womb, can declare that she have no intention or will to take care of that child. Will she need to actually get an agreement with another care-taker before her obligations are gone, or is it up to the society and anyone around to stand up and take responsibility? Stefan mentions that taking the kid home, seals the deal. This is fine as I said, I'm wondering about before and after giving birth. So my view on abortion, is that as long as it's done without killing directly, instead done using medicine or physically detaching the fetus/baby, than it's not in violation of the NAP. If anyone wants to take care of the baby, they should be allowed to do so freely. If on the other hand, the mother is morally obligated to take care of the child until agreement over parenthood is made, then abortion would in my mind be morally wrong (if nobody can take care of the child). Another question it raises, what about rape? If the baby is a result of action done by others and not the mother, does she have a morally obligation to feed that child? If so, then it's not the decision to make children that entangles the moral obligation, but simply the act of having something grow inside your body? That doesn't make much sense for me? The end question is, if it's not the actions, if it's not the DNA, then what is the cause that gives you moral obligation? How can we distinguish between which baby we have moral obligations towards, and which ones we do not?