Your Comics Or Your Kids

[Stefan Offenberg]

I'd say fathering a child says you will provide for their needs, which may involve an active role in raising, but doesn't preclude providing financial support while someone else raises them, if that's what seems best for the child and no one else is willing/able to.

There's room for plenty of argument about what's best for the child, but losing that argument doesn't give the father an opt out clause because he's not going to be called Daddy..

Cheers

But what if I don't agree that's what's best? Am I going to allow a stranger to take away my rights and tell me I still have the responsibilities associated with those rights?

I look at making the decision to create a child as an agreement. And I would not enter into that agreement with anyone who didn't agree with my view of those rights.

[Victorian Squid]

Let's hear a round of applause for Objectivist Dad, ladies and gentlemen!

[Stefan Offenberg]

Let's hear a round of applause for Objectivist Dad, ladies and gentlemen!

I'm not sure you know what Objectivism is. It doesn't mean "taking a strong stand on an issue."

[Comicsfan101]

But what if I don't agree that's what's best? Am I going to allow a stranger to take away my rights and tell me I still have the responsibilities associated with those rights?

I look at making the decision to create a child as an agreement. And I would not enter into that agreement with anyone who didn't agree with my view of those rights.

Except that you appear to be forgetting about the third party who is a part of that agreement. Sure it can be argued that there are certain responsibilities associated with certain rights, but there are also responsibilities associated with the act of creation, itself. If you want to view this purely through the lens of agreement, a breach between one side of the triangle does not, inherently, void the agreement between another side in a three party agreement.

[Stefan Offenberg]

Except that you appear to be forgetting about the third party who is a part of that agreement. Sure it can be argued that there are certain responsibilities associated with certain rights, but there are also responsibilities associated with the act of creation, itself. If you want to view this purely through the lens of agreement, a breach between one side of the triangle does not, inherently, void the agreement between another side in a three party agreement.

The child obviously isn't a party to the agreement, since they don't get any input into whether or not they will be created. I would want what was best for the child, but unless the father is abusive or endangering the child (in which case he should be locked up anyway), then taking away his parental rights is not what is best for the child, particularly because it sends a terrible message about what the role of a father should be.

[Comicsfan101]

The child obviously isn't a party to the agreement ...

If you actually believe that ...

Sorry, I'm pretty big on agreement/contract philosophies, and I know of none (left, right, middle, or whatever) that would support that view. You create the obligation of agreement by creating the child. The child's inability to reciprocate does not impact your side of things. The fact that the child is, essentially, forced into the agreement makes your obligation to that agreement more, not less. You chose the obligation with no possible negotiation, thus you have no other party to blame or fault for the terms of the agreement. You created the obligation to the child by creating the child. No disagreement with the other party to that creation can alter the obligation to the created.

[Stefan Offenberg]

Then, by your logic, the same must go for the mother and the courts, and thus the situation I initially suggested would never arise. Problem solved.

[Comicsfan101]

Then, by your logic, the same must go for the mother and the courts, and thus the situation I initially suggested would never arise. Problem solved.

By my logic, the same does go for the mother and the courts, though how that means the problem doesn't arise is beyond me. Problems usually arise precisely because people do not attend correctly to their obligations and responsibilities. Isn't that exactly what's under discussion? The point is that one or more of the other parties breaking their obligation does not void obligation to a party that did not breach.

[Peter J Poole]

But what if I don't agree that's what's best? Am I going to allow a stranger to take away my rights and tell me I still have the responsibilities associated with those rights?

I look at making the decision to create a child as an agreement. And I would not enter into that agreement with anyone who didn't agree with my view of those rights.

So you - regardless of gender - enter into an agreement with another consenting adult to create and - optionally - raise a child together. For arguments sake, let's call it marriage.

Things change, people change, sh!t happens, spectacularly or by inches, and suddenly the two of you are not co-operating on Project Offspring.

Your responsibility to the life you have co-created does not change. And you have no rights whatsoever that are not trumped by that responsibility. And if you and your partner can't agree on how best to fulfill them, society will decide.

Having a child means their needs come first, 24x7x365, No ifs, ands, buts or maybes allowed.

People who don't realise or accept that should stick to rearing pets. Preferably pet rocks.

Cheers

[Enigma_2099]

I need more info on this situation before I pick a side...