To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 19510
19509  |  19511
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: 
572 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:
  Re: Parental Responsibilites (was: Megan's Law, and its implications)
 
So, have we debated out this topic? I'm getting sick of the pointless debate going on now... Frank (22 years ago, 27-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Parental Responsibilites (was: Megan's Law, and its implications)
 
(...) But you're just defining what the parents owe with an absolute dollar value, while I'm not. I think parents owe time and spending power and even a particular style (or one of several, more like) of parenting. But there is no single good that (...) (22 years ago, 27-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Parental Responsibilites (was: Megan's Law, and its implications)
 
(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR