Subject:
|
Re: Parental Responsibilites (was: Megan's Law, and its implications)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:51:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
459 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> > > > How is this modified when rape is involved? How do we hold the rapist
> > > > responsible for his part of the obligation?
> > >
> > > I think that both parents are obliged. If I give up a child for adoption, I
> > > ahve exercised a socially acceptable (by and large) way of temporarily
> > > dispensing with that obligation. However, if the adoptive parents then refuse
> > > to do their job, I am once again (or still) (along with the adoptive parents)
> > > obligated to the kid. I don't see rape as a clouding issue.
> >
> > I would want to feel that a properly initiated adoption would absolve
> > the parent of future obligation. I'd prefer to see adoption (and foster
> > care) present the same parental obligation as (more) natural parenthood.
> > Leaving the natural parent in a position of obligation gives the
> > adoptive parents a way out.
>
> My intention is not to give the adoptive parents a way out, but to prevent the
> natural parents an absolute way out. I believe that the parental
> responsibility transcends legal fabrications. When you bring a child into the
> world, you owe that child every scrap of a proper raising that is within your
> power to give. No matter what. If adoption suits the situation, then that is
> an acceptable arrangement, but I do not believe, whatever the law might say,
> that the natural parents' obligation has gone away.
>
> Once a child is adopted, the new parent(s) have an equal responsibility to the
> child. Forever. And while that situation might ease the burden of providing
> for the child on the natural parents when times get tight, it does not
> remove it.
>
> > My feeling on rape is that the raped parent (presumably usually the
> > mother...) should have less obligation to the child. I don't think it's
> > right to force an obligation on someone in this way, or at least force
> > the same level of obligation.
>
> You're looking at the poor rape victim come mommy. I'm looking at the baby who
> didn't ask for any of this and is owed just as much as any other baby. The
> simple fact is that every female in the civilized world has the ability to,
> with trivial inconvenience, manage their fertility with near perfection. You
> could still point to a woman who was trying to have a kid with her long-time
> husband and was raped at the fertile point in her cycle, but I don't think that
> weird circumstance absolves the parent of their debt.
>
> I don't think it's right of the rapist to force the obligation on the victim,
> but I think it's even less right to force a baby into a situation of neglect.
> The mother may well be within her rights to sue the rapist for compensation
> that would help her to deal with her newly found obligations, but that kind of
> financial help is just help, not doing away with it.
Ok, I see your point. I guess I'm comfortable with it given that I can't
conceive of a situation where the rape victim wouldn't have an
opportunity to terminate the pregnancy (ok, there could be situations
where somehow the person doesn't realize they were raped AND doesn't
realize they are pregnant, but I'm not sure that those situations still
wouldn't be a result of denial of bodily changes, yes, I've heard of the
girls who don't realize their pregnant until the baby drops, but I don't
buy it - assuming you know you were raped, your probably should be
getting a medical checkup, including a pregnancy test [and dna test if
there is a possibility the pregnancy is desired because the father is
not the rapist]).
> > I know health care rationing" is a dirty word, but we must do it.
>
> We agree. I want technology to keep providing more and cooler technologies
> even if they are cost prohibitive for most people. We have come to expect an
> absurd level of care. We should be cooperatively financing doctors who are
> willing to work for a reasonable cash in an environment where they can not be
> sued for silly sums of money for honest mistakes. I think that would supply
> everyone in the country with basic health care. There are cash-only docs out
> there making a good living.
>
> > This raises an interesting question. Is there ever an obligation for
> > children to care for their elderly parents.
>
> Not unless the child, as an adult, opts into such an obligation. I stand firm
> on the parental contract being completely one sided.
I'm not convinced yet. I guess part of the difference is that you see an
absolute obligation to the child, yet you also acknowledge that the
absolute requirement is tempered by the parent's resources, and doesn't
even demand every bit of the parent's resources (you've mentioned you
feel you owe your son time, but that you have control over when you give
that time). I think this is partly tied to your concept of right to
existence. I'm reluctant to create absolute rights/obligations at the
same time as acknowledging limits on them. It seems to me that either
you can say "I can't provide that," or you have to spend all your
resources providing it.
> > I think there is a very
> > similar obligation to the parents obligation to care for the children.
>
> I reject that you can be signed up for contractual obligation by someone else.
>
> > This seems like a fair payback.
>
> I agree, and intend to care for my elderly parents in my home (not a nursing
> home) as long as it is possible. But that's my choice. And even an obligation
> that I happen to feel is a moral one, but not something that I'd inflict on
> others.
I guess if you see the obligation as derriving from a different source
as a basic obligation to a child. I would certainly agree that the
obligation to the parents is earned.
> > > > If not, what actions can a parent take to end or reduce the obligation?
> > >
> > > Smother the child.
> >
> > But isn't that reneging on the obligation? Or are you saying that
> > assisted suicide has a legitimate place? Personally, I think there is a
> > place for assisted suicide, of course the checks and balances must be
> > strong.
>
> Well, it was kind of a flippant answer. But I do not get as freaked out at the
> idea of early infanticide as most people do. And I do think that assisted
> suicide is an appropriate action.
Obviously if one can accept assisted suicide, abortion and early
infanticide are just other points on that curve. Hopefully early
infanticide is not used for flippant reasons, though I could see
scenarios where it might be the best option (let's say you're on a
Martian colony, and your resource factory can only provide sufficient
resources for the 4 adults already there, and somehow a child is born,
should you string along the child while skimping on the resources for
the 4 adults until the point where the child's resource needs now put
the absolute minimum resources above what the factory can be coaxed into
providing? I think I'd rather smother a week old baby than a 5 year old
child... To put this in a different context, let's say that instead of a
baby being born, a space ship coming to set up another colony crashes
and one person survives and makes it to the 1st colony, and assume
rescue would be far enough out that at least one person will die if 5
people try to live on the resources the factory provides?).
> > Hmm, I guess I still see it as two-sided, however, I think the
> > dependant's obligation is commensurate with their ability. I guess what
> > I'm driving at here is that I don't think independance is a line, but a
> > spectrum.
>
> Certainly independance is a spectrum, but until the child feels ready to be on
> their own, they shouldn't be forced to. And once they prove capable of doing
> so, I think the obligations end. I still reject the birth-obligation on
> philosophical grounds.
>
> > Another example I remember is that our parents involved us in trip
> > planning.
>
> My son basically has a give-or-take equal share in any major family decisions.
> We have discussed as a family having one (or two) parent(s) quit working,
> moving into a more affordable house, and changing lots of things about our
> lifestyle. So far we're both still working. Garrett chooses where we go
> camping more often than either adult. Last summer we had a lot of fun on the
> Appalachian Trail (short day hikes only) here in New Jersey.
We certainly didn't have that much input, but then you're being pretty
intentional. I think that's pretty cool.
> > School (probably High School - I suspect it was in connection with our
> > trip across country [where my choice of what to see under the same
> > system as the European trip was Crater Lake (1)]).
>
> I camped in southern Oregon many times as a kid growing up in LA/Orange County.
> I saw Crater Lake a bunch of times, all before I was nine (when we moved to
> Missouri). I then saw it again almost six years ago on my honeymoon road trip.
> Crater Lake rocks!
>
> Cathy and I think that our most likely next stop is either the shores of Lake
> Superior or the PNW. We both like coastal NoCal through BC an awful lot. (But
> we'll have to consult our kids, of course/ :-)
Well, if you do wind up out this way, certainly consider a visit to
Portland...
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
