My view on abortion, and both parents rights to the baby.

[Neopergoss]

So forcing a woman to give birth violates their rights but forcing a man to pay support does not violate their rights?
The property right to one's body and the property right to currency are the same type of right.
PS: The man supporting the mother's child is ideal but not required. Interesting how that parallels the woman giving birth to the father's child being ideal but not required.

Ah, now we're really getting down to it. The difference is that the child's needs become relevant after birth. The father's right to property is not as great as the child's financial need. I suppose if the mother could pay for the child and provide care for it without any trouble his assistance would not be necessary.

The mother's right to her body is much more important than the fetus that she's carrying.

[OldTrees]

So forcing a woman to give birth violates their rights but forcing a man to pay support does not violate their rights?
The property right to one's body and the property right to currency are the same type of right.
PS: The man supporting the mother's child is ideal but not required. Interesting how that parallels the woman giving birth to the father's child being ideal but not required.

Ah, now we're really getting down to it. The difference is that the child's needs become relevant after birth. The father's right to property is not as great as the child's financial need. I suppose if the mother could pay for the child and provide care for it without any trouble his assistance would not be necessary.

The mother's right to her body is much more important than the fetus that she's carrying.

What if the father and the mother together could not provide for the child? How demanding is this right borne from financial need? How many people can it require to serve the single child? Are you sure that the financial need creates an positive right? I believe there is a lot of gray space between Ideal and Impermissible where the suboptimal but permissible exists. Just because something is the Ideal world does not mean that the absence of it is Impermissible.

[Neopergoss]

So forcing a woman to give birth violates their rights but forcing a man to pay support does not violate their rights?
The property right to one's body and the property right to currency are the same type of right.
PS: The man supporting the mother's child is ideal but not required. Interesting how that parallels the woman giving birth to the father's child being ideal but not required.

Ah, now we're really getting down to it. The difference is that the child's needs become relevant after birth. The father's right to property is not as great as the child's financial need. I suppose if the mother could pay for the child and provide care for it without any trouble his assistance would not be necessary.

The mother's right to her body is much more important than the fetus that she's carrying.

What if the father and the mother together could not provide for the child? How demanding is this right borne from financial need? How many people can it require to serve the single child? Are you sure that the financial need creates an positive right? I believe there is a lot of gray space between Ideal and Impermissible where the suboptimal but permissible exists. Just because something is the Ideal world does not mean that the absence of it is Impermissible.

I'll agree there is a lot of gray space. I do think it's generally expecting too much for a single mother to raise and financially support a child all on her own.

[OldTrees]

So forcing a woman to give birth violates their rights but forcing a man to pay support does not violate their rights?
The property right to one's body and the property right to currency are the same type of right.
PS: The man supporting the mother's child is ideal but not required. Interesting how that parallels the woman giving birth to the father's child being ideal but not required.

Ah, now we're really getting down to it. The difference is that the child's needs become relevant after birth. The father's right to property is not as great as the child's financial need. I suppose if the mother could pay for the child and provide care for it without any trouble his assistance would not be necessary.

The mother's right to her body is much more important than the fetus that she's carrying.

What if the father and the mother together could not provide for the child? How demanding is this right borne from financial need? How many people can it require to serve the single child? Are you sure that the financial need creates an positive right? I believe there is a lot of gray space between Ideal and Impermissible where the suboptimal but permissible exists. Just because something is the Ideal world does not mean that the absence of it is Impermissible.

I'll agree there is a lot of gray space. I do think it's generally expecting too much for a single mother to raise and financially support a child all on her own.

You did not answer the questions. How demanding is this right that you claim exists? If it is borne from financial need then is it really tied to the baby's age? Extrapolating from your claims it seems that your belief that the father is required to support the child would necessitate a requirement that everyone support the impoverished to just before the point that they would attain a financial need.
In my opinion Charity is ideal, good and ought to be done but refraining from giving almost everything is not immoral.
Do you believe that people have a right borne from financial need that makes Charity morally obligatory and not just virtuous?

[Belthus]

Rights are an important part of ethics, but they aren't enough. We have to consider what is required to create and maintain a society that is a decent place to live.

In the past, a man had to support his children. Divorce and out-of-wedlock children were stigmatized and thus rarer. Today we have personal freedom to dissolve relationships, but children still need support. There are two solutions. One is child support payments by the father. The other is government welfare. (Charity is inadequate.) Both have their problems, but the alternative - letting children grow up destitute - would be much more costly in the long term.

[Neopergoss]

So forcing a woman to give birth violates their rights but forcing a man to pay support does not violate their rights?
The property right to one's body and the property right to currency are the same type of right.
PS: The man supporting the mother's child is ideal but not required. Interesting how that parallels the woman giving birth to the father's child being ideal but not required.

Ah, now we're really getting down to it. The difference is that the child's needs become relevant after birth. The father's right to property is not as great as the child's financial need. I suppose if the mother could pay for the child and provide care for it without any trouble his assistance would not be necessary.

The mother's right to her body is much more important than the fetus that she's carrying.

What if the father and the mother together could not provide for the child? How demanding is this right borne from financial need? How many people can it require to serve the single child? Are you sure that the financial need creates an positive right? I believe there is a lot of gray space between Ideal and Impermissible where the suboptimal but permissible exists. Just because something is the Ideal world does not mean that the absence of it is Impermissible.

I'll agree there is a lot of gray space. I do think it's generally expecting too much for a single mother to raise and financially support a child all on her own.

You did not answer the questions. How demanding is this right that you claim exists? If it is borne from financial need then is it really tied to the baby's age? Extrapolating from your claims it seems that your belief that the father is required to support the child would necessitate a requirement that everyone support the impoverished to just before the point that they would attain a financial need.
In my opinion Charity is ideal, good and ought to be done but refraining from giving almost everything is not immoral.
Do you believe that people have a right borne from financial need that makes Charity morally obligatory and not just virtuous?

Wow, I'm not talking about charity, here. I'm talking about a child being supported by its parents -- the ones who created it. If the father and the mother can't together care for the child then society should in some way step in. The best option would probably be adoption. I do think that as a society we shouldn't (with perhaps a few complicated exceptions) allow our fellow citizens to starve to death, for example. Not sure how that's controversial  ??? That right is very demanding -- yes, morally obligatory, just like saving a drowning man. I'm not sure about the precise point where support becomes excessive, but it's definitely past starvation. And yes, the baby's age is relevant. Babies/children are not capable of taking care of themselves, so greater consideration must be given to supporting them.

Belthus speaks well. I like what he has brought to politics discussions here.

[OldTrees]

So forcing a woman to give birth violates their rights but forcing a man to pay support does not violate their rights?
The property right to one's body and the property right to currency are the same type of right.
PS: The man supporting the mother's child is ideal but not required. Interesting how that parallels the woman giving birth to the father's child being ideal but not required.

Ah, now we're really getting down to it. The difference is that the child's needs become relevant after birth. The father's right to property is not as great as the child's financial need. I suppose if the mother could pay for the child and provide care for it without any trouble his assistance would not be necessary.

The mother's right to her body is much more important than the fetus that she's carrying.

What if the father and the mother together could not provide for the child? How demanding is this right borne from financial need? How many people can it require to serve the single child? Are you sure that the financial need creates an positive right? I believe there is a lot of gray space between Ideal and Impermissible where the suboptimal but permissible exists. Just because something is the Ideal world does not mean that the absence of it is Impermissible.

I'll agree there is a lot of gray space. I do think it's generally expecting too much for a single mother to raise and financially support a child all on her own.

You did not answer the questions. How demanding is this right that you claim exists? If it is borne from financial need then is it really tied to the baby's age? Extrapolating from your claims it seems that your belief that the father is required to support the child would necessitate a requirement that everyone support the impoverished to just before the point that they would attain a financial need.
In my opinion Charity is ideal, good and ought to be done but refraining from giving almost everything is not immoral.
Do you believe that people have a right borne from financial need that makes Charity morally obligatory and not just virtuous?

Wow, I'm not talking about charity, here. I'm talking about a child being supported by its parents -- the ones who created it. If the father and the mother can't together care for the child then society should in some way step in. The best option would probably be adoption. I do think that as a society we shouldn't (with perhaps a few complicated exceptions) allow our fellow citizens to starve to death, for example. Not sure how that's controversial  ??? That right is very demanding -- yes, morally obligatory, just like saving a drowning man. I'm not sure about the precise point where support becomes excessive, but it's definitely past starvation. And yes, the baby's age is relevant. Babies/children are not capable of taking care of themselves, so greater consideration must be given to supporting them.

Belthus speaks well. I like what he has brought to politics discussions here.

So only the creators of the child are obligated to support it and all other support is not obligatory but remains praiseworthy?
If something is not a child when the mother decides to abort or not then she by her decision the sole creator of the child is she not? She was the sole decider in whether to have the clump of cells turn into a baby. Therefore she was the sole creator.

I find it hard to believe that you believe that everyone has a positive right to eat. In other words you find it immoral for anyone to allow anyone else to go without food. Have you though the implications though? People current are starving. If this positive right exists then not feeding them right now is an immoral act.
I personally believe that people do not have a positive right to eat. Rather I believe that it is morally praiseworthy but not obligatory to support the world.
Not all moral acts are obligatory.
However as the spoiler says this is off topic because you claimed that the act of creating caused the obligation not the financial need.

[Neopergoss]

So only the creators of the child are obligated to support it and all other support is not obligatory but remains praiseworthy?
If something is not a child when the mother decides to abort or not then she by her decision the sole creator of the child is she not? She was the sole decider in whether to have the clump of cells turn into a baby. Therefore she was the sole creator.

I find it hard to believe that you believe that everyone has a positive right to eat. In other words you find it immoral for anyone to allow anyone else to go without food. Have you though the implications though? People current are starving. If this positive right exists then not feeding them right now is an immoral act.
I personally believe that people do not have a positive right to eat. Rather I believe that it is morally praiseworthy but not obligatory to support the world.
Not all moral acts are obligatory.
However as the spoiler says this is off topic because you claimed that the act of creating caused the obligation not the financial need.

No. Not only the creators. Eating is indeed a positive right, but the first ones responsible for the baby are the parents. If they are not able to provide adequate care, others are next in line.
No. The mother may have been the one to decide not to terminate her pregnancy, but she is not the sole creator.

Regardless of whether something is a right, consider what Belthus said:

Rights are an important part of ethics, but they aren't enough. We have to consider what is required to create and maintain a society that is a decent place to live.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the idea of rights, but it's clear to me that what I'm arguing for is just.

I will PM you a response. We do this too often.

[BluePriest]

Who then gets to decide what is a right? In america, we have life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for a generalization, however, the constitution has many rights.

Does a mothers right to have a baby that the father doesnt want, trump the fathers right to his own money? Although it would be morally praiseworthy, it is next to slavery when the man has no say in whether he supports a child he doesnt want or not. You keep talking about what is morally right but who are you (or anyone for that matter) to say what is morally right? Is it wrong to kill someone? People all around the world rejoiced at bin ladin dieing. Was that wrong? He had children, should his killers be forced to feed his family?  If a mother wants the baby and the father doesnt, the mother shouldnt expect financial aid from the father.  Especially if she is aware of it before having the baby.

[Neopergoss]

Who then gets to decide what is a right? In america, we have life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for a generalization, however, the constitution has many rights.

Does a mothers right to have a baby that the father doesnt want, trump the fathers right to his own money? Although it would be morally praiseworthy, it is next to slavery when the man has no say in whether he supports a child he doesnt want or not. You keep talking about what is morally right but who are you (or anyone for that matter) to say what is morally right? Is it wrong to kill someone? People all around the world rejoiced at bin ladin dieing. Was that wrong? He had children, should his killers be forced to feed his family?  If a mother wants the baby and the father doesnt, the mother shouldnt expect financial aid from the father.  Especially if she is aware of it before having the baby.

OK, I'm really getting tired of this. This is a forum where people express ideas. If you don't want to listen, you don't have to. You created this thread expressing a perceived injustice. I've expressed that I don't share that perception. If you don't like it, fine, but don't start telling me I don't have the right to say what's morally right or wrong -- that's exactly what you are doing.

This is what you sound like: "Who are you to say what's right and wrong? Was it wrong for Bin Laden to blow up the WTC? How dare you even think about answering that question!"
And btw, we killed his son in the raid.

Done with this thread.

[QuantumT]

*snip*

I'm going to have to side with OldTrees on this one. When the mother  is presented with the choice of abortion vs. no abortion, she is making a choice that will completely determine whether or not another person comes into the world. Because she is given sole power to make the choice, she becomes the sole creator of the child, as if she hadn't made the choice, the child would not exist.

Given this, the child has no right to claim any financial assistance on the part of the father, just like the child can't demand assistance from any other random person on the street.

[OldTrees]

*snip*

I'm going to have to side with OldTrees on this one. When the mother  is presented with the choice of abortion vs. no abortion, she is making a choice that will completely determine whether or not another person comes into the world. Because she is given sole power to make the choice, she becomes the sole creator of the child, as if she hadn't made the choice, the child would not exist.

Given this, the child has no right to claim any financial assistance on the part of the father, just like the child can't demand assistance from any other random person on the street.

However to play devil's advocate since Neopergoss left,
Imagine 2 people Bob and Mary.

Case 1
Bob takes an ice cube puts it on a table and leaves for an hour. Mary comes in and can either leave the ice cube where it is or put it in the freezer. Mary decides to leave the cube out.
Who made the puddle?

Case 2
Bob and Mary chip away at a block of ice in a freezer. Bob goes away for a day. Mary can either leave the carved ice block inside the freezer or put it outside to melt. She leaves it in the freezer.
Who made the sculpture?

Case 3
Bob and Mary conceive. Mary can choose to abort or not. The baby is born.
Who created the baby?

Additionally: Are there any significant differences between the cases?