| | Introduction
The morality of “dead beat parents”, specifically men who do not want to be a parent, is being discussed in this forum. I will argue that a being a “dead beat dad” is not immoral. I will also argue that a woman who is incapable of raising a child by herself, but choses to do so, is immoral.
I will start out by quoting some notable discussion made by Lee Stranahan. I will also bring in a point made by Luther Setzer on a woman's choices. Then I will display the premises made by mainly Mr. Stranahan and others on this board. Finally, I will make my argument.
Discussion by Lee Stranahan
Post 0 (summarized by me):
A man has sexual intercourse with a woman. She becomes pregnant, and decides to raise the child. Lee says "a child can lay claim on a parent." Lee seems to imply that a man is obligated (morally should) be a good father, and it would be immoral not to do his best to raise the child.
Post 76 (quote):
My premise is really simple - responsibility for the consequences of one's action, including unintended consequences, plus the metaphysical differences between the genders, plus the rational basis for changing one's value system based on changes in reality.
Post 103 (quote):
If a man refuses to take responsibility for his children, he's irresponsible. Making all the excuses or rationalizations in the world doesn't change that. He's failing to recognize reality, and failing to be responsible for the consequences of his actions.
Post 167 (quote):
Another slight correction - it's not that the woman wanted a child, now, with this person. But she got pregnant, so now she has to deal with that. A lot of people are acting as though abortion or adoption was casual, simple choices - and I find that extremely insulting to women.
This is, in a sense, similar to a question like "What if you hit a parked car in the middle of the night?" What the right thing and what would people do?
Authors Note: Post 167 shows that Lee does not consider abortion or adoption as moral options.
Point by Luther Setzer
Post 18 (quote):
The woman has three options:
1. Abort the fetus
2. Put the baby up for adoption
3. Keep the baby
Premises
1. The person(s) who cause a result of keeping a baby are morally responsible to do what they can to make the being have as positive an influence on society (and hence themselves) as possible.
2. The man and woman who have sexual intercourse are the primary cause for a case of conception.
3. The woman decides to keep the baby.
Premises disputed:
4. The three options provided by Luther are the only options available after conception, and only the woman is responsible for choosing between these options.
5. Abortion and adoption are not a moral option, the only available action after a case of conception is to keep the baby.
Arguments made:
6. If #1,#2 and #4 are true, then the man and woman are the primary person(s) in #1. Note that #3 is irrelevant. The man is a primary cause because keeping the baby was a result of his behavior.
7. If #1,#2,#3 and #5 are true, then the woman is the deciding factor of whether to allow the being to exist, and whether to keep the baby.
8. If #7, then the woman is the primary person(s) in #1. (The woman is morally entitled...)
9. If #7, then the man is part of the process of creating the chance for a being to exist, but he is not the primary cause of existence, nor is he the cause of the woman keeping the baby. The man is not a primary person(s) in #1. (The man is not morally entitled...)
Discussion
I think that Lee holds to #6, and I think it is because he agrees with #5.
I hold to #7-9, which is because I agree with #4.
Support for Premise #4
I think that if a child is brought into this world without guidance as to what is rational and moral, then that child is dangerous to itself, others, and myself. I think that sometimes the genetic parents of a child are not capable of properly guiding the child through to the point where the child is neither a threat nor a beneficiary to society. Hence, I think it is rational to conclude that in some circumstances, adoption and abortion are moral.
Conclusion
The truthfullness (disputed?) of premise #4 implies that #7, #8, and #9 are also true. #9 shows that the man is in fact not morally entitled to raise or support the child. Instead, the woman is the sole primary cause of keeping the baby, and she is solely responsible to guide, raise, and support the child. If the woman decides to raise the child by herself without the capability of fulfilling her responsibility, then she has made a decision that will damage society (from previous paragraph), and hence she has made an immoral decision.
In a society that forces people to support a child, a woman can decide to keep a baby even when she knows she is incapable of doing it herself. In this case, she actually becomes more capable. Never the less, the support comes from an immoral source, force of action, and hence her decision to keep the baby is still immoral.
Thanks,
Dean
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 3/12, 9:02pm)
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 3/12, 11:19pm)
|
|
