have a child = positive obligation to it?

[dsayers]

Does the decision between two people to have a child together create a positive obligation to that child?

 

If so, is that obligation to guide and provide for the child until such a time as they're able to do so on their own?

[Daniel Unplugged]

Yes and yes.

[alexqr1]

Yes because the child is there as a result of the parents' decisions and actions that directly resulted in the child's birth.

 

The same would not be true for a woman that was raped as the child would not be there as a result of the woman's actions and decisions. You can not acquire a positive obligations that you never agreed to or to someone who your actions have never directly affected.

[dsayers]

The same would not be true for a woman that was raped as the child would not be there as a result of the woman's actions and decisions. You can not acquire a positive obligations that you never agreed to or to someone who your actions have never directly affected.

 

I agree. However, human gestation is on average nine months long with the woman knowing that she is pregnant as early as a few days in. Would you revise this position in light of the option of abortion where she can still choose to not gestate a child? Or to not abort, but avail herself of adoption arrangements in advance to voluntarily transfer the positive obligation (if there is one) by choosing to not abort?

[Daniel Unplugged]

If I may answer the above question to alex; if a woman realises that she has become pregnant from a rape, I think an abortion is morally acceptable. If she chooses not to abort, is she, implicitly at least, accepting the responsibility of a parent? I think she is, and that it is acceptable to pass this responsibility onto a willing adopter if she sees fit. If she gives birth, then allows the baby to go without care, she has failed in her responsibility as a parent, and is morally accountable. This is however, unlikely, and a bit of a mute point, since she would likely make her decision with certainty, in the early stages of pregnancy. Rarely would a woman choose not to abort, and also choose not to ensure the child is taken cared of, one way or the other.

[alexqr1]

I agree. However, human gestation is on average nine months long with the woman knowing that she is pregnant as early as a few days in. Would you revise this position in light of the option of abortion where she can still choose to not gestate a child? Or to not abort, but avail herself of adoption arrangements in advance to voluntarily transfer the positive obligation (if there is one) by choosing to not abort?

Well, if she chooses not to abort and arrange for adoption then she would only gain a positive obligation to gestate the child and to put him/her safely in the hands of those who knowingly and willingly acquired positive obligations to the child by wanting to adopt him or her. 

If I may answer the above question to alex; if a woman realises that she has become pregnant from a rape, I think an abortion is morally acceptable. If she chooses not to abort, is she, implicitly at least, accepting the responsibility of a parent? I think she is, and that it is acceptable to pass this responsibility onto a willing adopter if she sees fit. If she gives birth, then allows the baby to go without care, she has failed in her responsibility as a parent, and is morally accountable. This is however, unlikely, and a bit of a mute point, since she would likely make her decision with certainty, in the early stages of pregnancy. Rarely would a woman choose not to abort, and also choose not to ensure the child is taken cared of, one way or the other.

Well I have to say I agreed with this 100% when I first read it, even my previous post goes along these lines, but then I thought about it a bit more.If the woman is raped and becomes pregnant, she never acquires a positive obligation to the child unless she willingly accepts it. She does not even acquire the obligation to take care of the child even if he is born. This may be one of those situations where I don't like the outcome of logical ethics, but I don't think the mother has any obligation to the child even if the child is born if she did not willingly accept that obligation.This goes against my previous post, so yes, I have changed my mind upon further examination.You could say "if the mom decided not to abort then she willingly accepted the responsibility" but you would be assuming that she had a previous positive obligation to decide, which she did not.I'm curious to hear both (dsayers and Daniel) of your ideas here, or anyone else's for that matter.

[dsayers]

If the woman is raped and becomes pregnant, she never acquires a positive obligation to the child unless she willingly accepts it. She does not even acquire the obligation to take care of the child even if he is born. This may be one of those situations where I don't like the outcome of logical ethics, but I don't think the mother has any obligation to the child even if the child is born if she did not willingly accept that obligation.

 

This is exactly what I was thinking. I have more to add though. Tell me if you think this is a logical, ethical explanation or just me trying to connect dots that "feels like" they should be connected.

 

If a person trips and breaks their leg, they did not choose this but it is the reality of their situation. They will go through the effort and expense of setting their leg in order to avoid the predictable outcome of a life with only one useful leg. If a person gets sick by contracting some bacteria, they did not choose this but it is the reality of the situation. They will go through the effort and expense to treat the disease in order to avoid the predictable outcome of death.

 

While it might sound callous to compare a rape victim getting pregnant to contracting a disease, the effects are very similar. The woman will have to eat a lot more than she normally would since her body will divert nutrition to the fetus and the process of birth without medical assistance has historically been a lethal coin toss. In terms of survival and protection of herself, the decision to continue gestation is not a passive one.

 

To me, the question then becomes whether or not this is an eventuality of the coercion of the rape and therefor the mother isn't morally responsible. Or if because the decision to gestate directly effects another person, she is morally responsible.

 

If person A holds a gun to person B's head and says, "Hurt person C or I will kill you," we understand that person B's injuring person C in the moment accrues to person A. If person B later chooses to hurt person D of their own volition, person B is now morally responsible. Similarly, once the rape is over and the rapist and victim are no longer together, the victim is no longer under the coercion of another. Therefor I would argue that the decision to gestate or not, while an unfortunate result of coercion, is one that is the victim's to make. One that would have significant health risks to her and therefor could not be considered passive.

[quickstine]

Weird thought experiment. If you are living in a moral universe, yes, the decision between two people to have a child together creates a positive obligation to that child.

 

Well, sort of anyway. And yes  that obligation is to guide and provide for the child.

I say "sort of" because If you live in a moral universe, it is not even felt as an obligation. It makes no sense to be otherwise. It is something you want to do, as you freely give love and everything needed to child, partner and self, expanding the moral universe ;-)

 

Situations of rape etc are not indicative of a moral universe. These are in the realm of coercion. Coercion changes the game, by definition. The exploration of the victim's situation here is rather bizarre. It is never as clear as described ...

 

Even asking the question about obligations and imperatives shows that one is not living in a moral universe.

Best not to have children or partners until you can live in morality ... without coercion.

Deciding not to be a victim, taking responsibility for actions and decisions, these are first steps along the way to a moral universe.

[alexqr1]

To me, the question then becomes whether or not this is an eventuality of the coercion of the rape and therefor the mother isn't morally responsible. Or if because the decision to gestate directly effects another person, she is morally responsible.

This is a tough one, because the mother made a decision about her own body when she decided to gestate, so in that sense, how could she obtain a positive obligation if her decision was about her body?On the other hand, her decision DIRECTLY affects the child, this may be the only situation in which a person's decision about her own body directly affects someone else. I say "directly" because there is no moral obligation when it comes to indirect consequences.I think that the child in this case (and I hate the comparison) is an intruder or a parasite if the mother does not willfully accept responsibility for its life, so even if she goes on with gestation, she would have no positive moral obligation to the child. That is the way I see it, but I feel there might be a lot more to explore here.

Weird thought experiment.

It sure is, but I think it is precisely these type of experiments that need to be brought forward because they are the ones that ultimately test the validity of a principle. I mean, it is very simple to see how stealing is wrong but there is no real test to the the ethical principle at hand.

[square4]

If the decision of the parents to have a child creates the positive obligation to care for the child, what about orphans? Maybe the parents should have purchased life-insurance, but suppose they have not done that.

[dsayers]

This is a tough one, because the mother made a decision about her own body when she decided to gestate, so in that sense, how could she obtain a positive obligation if her decision was about her body?

 

What about a man who swallows a bomb and then enters a crowd? The decision to swallow the bomb is his to make. Unless he follows it with a decision to not allow that decision to harm another, he's initiating the use of force. Because the explosion will have an impact on an area that exceeds his body. Or how about somebody who smokes right next to somebody who doesn't wish to breath smoke? Does the decision being in regards to their own body change the fact that it inhibits another's ability to breathe (live)?

 

We're talking about creating a person. The decision to keep lasts 9 months and with ~15 years of dependence. This mean the decision could directly lead to the torture of another human being for a decade and a half. Just because the human being doesn't exist at the time of the decision, I don't think this is enough to avoid the creation of a positive obligation.

 

@quickstine: I don't think we could fully transition into a moral world without the consideration of morality such as here. While we're talking about this, some people are talking about who to tax and how much as if that is a moral consideration.

 

@square4: I think whether a parent creates a positive obligation needs to be resolved before what it looks like or what comes after it can be considered.

[Mike Fleming]

What exactly would the obligation entail?  To feed it?  To clothe it?  If we just went by a few basics like this the child would really not receive much care at all.

 

In a free society, and this society, a person or couple can put their baby up for adoption pretty much immediately if they wish.  And i think this is better for children in general than trying to put an obligation on to the head of every parent whether they like it or not.  I think these perceived obligations have led to a lot of bad families in the here and now.

 

Let those who want to be parents be parents and those who don't, not be parents.

 

It's better for society as a whole that parents treat their children better of course, but I don't think that can be forced in any way, which is what obligations are to some degree.  I think it just has to come about by people wanting to be good parents and being given the necessary tools to be able to parent well.  Those who don't want to parent the child they have created don't have any obligation to.  

 

Maybe that seems a bit cold, but my observation is that society has no desire to see babies abandoned and so has created things like adoption, orphanages, etc to prevent this.  And this is, broadly, how things would continue to work in a free society.

[Daniel Unplugged]

Alex, I accept your agruement, the woman does not aquire an obligation to the child when she does not choose to abort. The obligation only arises if the woman willingly accepts it. I still consider that, seeing to it that the child is cared for, is the right thing to do, even though it is not an obligation. In the same way, the right thing to do is to give a glass of water to a person dyeing of thirst, but it is not an obligation unless you have previously accepted it as one.

 

Thanks, Daniel