Loading...
Title : "Can I Keep a Baby My Boyfriend Doesn’t Want?"
link : "Can I Keep a Baby My Boyfriend Doesn’t Want?"
"Can I Keep a Baby My Boyfriend Doesn’t Want?"
An interesting question to the NYT "Ethicist." The woman is 38, pretty late to be having her first child, and she wants the baby and says she won't ask the man to support the child. But he is her boyfriend and she's not at all opposed to abortion. He's telling her she's forcing him to have a baby "against his will," and — in the last sentence of the letter — she admits that she allowed him to think she was on birth control when she was not. The first sentence of the letter uses the expression "accidentally pregnant."If you think abortion is murder, it will color your response to the question. The wrong to the unborn child outweighs the imposition on the man. If he's a decent person, he will care about his child once it is born, so there's no way to relieve him of that burden (even if you're will to let him off the hook financially). You might say: Who cares about this selfish man who's lobbying to kill the unborn child? Lose the man, have the baby, and go forth and try to live a virtuous life. Devote yourself to that child.
If you accept abortion, you might say ethics require her to end the pregnancy because she deceived him into have unprotected sex. (You could even accuse her of rape.) She's mired in deception, as she portrays the pregnancy as accidental. And she doesn't seem to love her own boyfriend, since she's willing to estrange him over this interloping nonentity. Or did she think this man who told her he never wanted children would reshape his world for her?
Now, I'm going to read what the actual NYT ethicist Kwame Anthony Appiah says.
First, he blames the man for not pro-actively ensuring that birth control was in force. (The letter-writer says the boyfriend "never asked." I hadn't noticed that detail.) And if the man is angry because he's thinking "you deliberately misled him, in order to try to entrap him with the child," the man is having an "uncharitable thought." Bad man. (And I'm bad too, because I thought that too.)
The ethicist excludes the question whether it's "morally permissible" to have an abortion. (The woman believes it is, and her opinion locks down the answer). He observes that the man is being forced into having whatever feelings of responsibility might arise from the birth of the child, even if the mother is willing to let him off the hook financially. And "an ongoing relationship with you would involve a relationship with your child." (I'd thought of it more in terms of how feelings of wanting to be connected with his own child would force him into continued involvement with the woman who deceived him and didn't get that abortion he wanted. But I guess they could stay together, with that child he didn't want. It was only a relationship of "a few months.")
The ethicist continues:
I don’t have much sympathy, though, with the idea that he has property rights in his sperm or half-rights in the baby. Children aren’t property, and we should think about their futures in terms of their interests, our relationships with them and the responsibilities those connections entail. So both his feelings and the prospective interests of the child may provide some grounds for ending the pregnancy. (It may seem odd to say that consideration of someone’s interests may count against continuing his or her existence, yet that’s sometimes the case.)That's one hell of a parenthetical.
In the end, the ethicist recommends calm conversation and, failing that, counseling. But — and I agree with this — she could "drop the boyfriend and keep the child." She wants it, and she's willing to take all responsibility for it. His "wishes" have some weight, but hers have more, because — as the ethicist puts it — "women bear the greater risks of bringing children into the world." I would have said: The woman's choice prevails because she must have the power to control what happens inside her own body. And: The man lost his power when he gave her his genetic material which was once inside his body, in the domain where he rules.
An interesting question to the NYT "Ethicist." The woman is 38, pretty late to be having her first child, and she wants the baby and says she won't ask the man to support the child. But he is her boyfriend and she's not at all opposed to abortion. He's telling her she's forcing him to have a baby "against his will," and — in the last sentence of the letter — she admits that she allowed him to think she was on birth control when she was not. The first sentence of the letter uses the expression "accidentally pregnant."
If you think abortion is murder, it will color your response to the question. The wrong to the unborn child outweighs the imposition on the man. If he's a decent person, he will care about his child once it is born, so there's no way to relieve him of that burden (even if you're will to let him off the hook financially). You might say: Who cares about this selfish man who's lobbying to kill the unborn child? Lose the man, have the baby, and go forth and try to live a virtuous life. Devote yourself to that child.
If you accept abortion, you might say ethics require her to end the pregnancy because she deceived him into have unprotected sex. (You could even accuse her of rape.) She's mired in deception, as she portrays the pregnancy as accidental. And she doesn't seem to love her own boyfriend, since she's willing to estrange him over this interloping nonentity. Or did she think this man who told her he never wanted children would reshape his world for her?
Now, I'm going to read what the actual NYT ethicist Kwame Anthony Appiah says.
First, he blames the man for not pro-actively ensuring that birth control was in force. (The letter-writer says the boyfriend "never asked." I hadn't noticed that detail.) And if the man is angry because he's thinking "you deliberately misled him, in order to try to entrap him with the child," the man is having an "uncharitable thought." Bad man. (And I'm bad too, because I thought that too.)
The ethicist excludes the question whether it's "morally permissible" to have an abortion. (The woman believes it is, and her opinion locks down the answer). He observes that the man is being forced into having whatever feelings of responsibility might arise from the birth of the child, even if the mother is willing to let him off the hook financially. And "an ongoing relationship with you would involve a relationship with your child." (I'd thought of it more in terms of how feelings of wanting to be connected with his own child would force him into continued involvement with the woman who deceived him and didn't get that abortion he wanted. But I guess they could stay together, with that child he didn't want. It was only a relationship of "a few months.")
The ethicist continues:
If you think abortion is murder, it will color your response to the question. The wrong to the unborn child outweighs the imposition on the man. If he's a decent person, he will care about his child once it is born, so there's no way to relieve him of that burden (even if you're will to let him off the hook financially). You might say: Who cares about this selfish man who's lobbying to kill the unborn child? Lose the man, have the baby, and go forth and try to live a virtuous life. Devote yourself to that child.
If you accept abortion, you might say ethics require her to end the pregnancy because she deceived him into have unprotected sex. (You could even accuse her of rape.) She's mired in deception, as she portrays the pregnancy as accidental. And she doesn't seem to love her own boyfriend, since she's willing to estrange him over this interloping nonentity. Or did she think this man who told her he never wanted children would reshape his world for her?
Now, I'm going to read what the actual NYT ethicist Kwame Anthony Appiah says.
First, he blames the man for not pro-actively ensuring that birth control was in force. (The letter-writer says the boyfriend "never asked." I hadn't noticed that detail.) And if the man is angry because he's thinking "you deliberately misled him, in order to try to entrap him with the child," the man is having an "uncharitable thought." Bad man. (And I'm bad too, because I thought that too.)
The ethicist excludes the question whether it's "morally permissible" to have an abortion. (The woman believes it is, and her opinion locks down the answer). He observes that the man is being forced into having whatever feelings of responsibility might arise from the birth of the child, even if the mother is willing to let him off the hook financially. And "an ongoing relationship with you would involve a relationship with your child." (I'd thought of it more in terms of how feelings of wanting to be connected with his own child would force him into continued involvement with the woman who deceived him and didn't get that abortion he wanted. But I guess they could stay together, with that child he didn't want. It was only a relationship of "a few months.")
The ethicist continues:
I don’t have much sympathy, though, with the idea that he has property rights in his sperm or half-rights in the baby. Children aren’t property, and we should think
Loading...
about their futures in terms of their interests, our relationships with them and the responsibilities those connections entail. So both his feelings and the prospective interests of the child may provide some grounds for ending the pregnancy. (It may seem odd to say that consideration of someone’s interests may count against continuing his or her existence, yet that’s sometimes the case.)
That's one hell of a parenthetical.
In the end, the ethicist recommends calm conversation and, failing that, counseling. But — and I agree with this — she could "drop the boyfriend and keep the child." She wants it, and she's willing to take all responsibility for it. His "wishes" have some weight, but hers have more, because — as the ethicist puts it — "women bear the greater risks of bringing children into the world." I would have said: The woman's choice prevails because she must have the power to control what happens inside her own body. And: The man lost his power when he gave her his genetic material which was once inside his body, in the domain where he rules.
In the end, the ethicist recommends calm conversation and, failing that, counseling. But — and I agree with this — she could "drop the boyfriend and keep the child." She wants it, and she's willing to take all responsibility for it. His "wishes" have some weight, but hers have more, because — as the ethicist puts it — "women bear the greater risks of bringing children into the world." I would have said: The woman's choice prevails because she must have the power to control what happens inside her own body. And: The man lost his power when he gave her his genetic material which was once inside his body, in the domain where he rules.
Thus articles "Can I Keep a Baby My Boyfriend Doesn’t Want?"
that is all articles "Can I Keep a Baby My Boyfriend Doesn’t Want?" This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article "Can I Keep a Baby My Boyfriend Doesn’t Want?" with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2017/08/can-i-keep-baby-my-boyfriend-doesnt-want.html
Related Posts :
Gameweek 25 - Daily Fantasy Premier League Tips
26 33 37 44 64 | Train crash kills 3 outside of Milan, Italy, January 25, 2018
24 39 43 67 93 | Warren Miller, ski bum, dead at 93, January 24, 2018 +Warren Miller Entertainment
Commentaries, Analysis, And Editorials -- January 25, 2018
Parsing the Poland Problem Paradox: Local Versus National Outcomes
0 Response to ""Can I Keep a Baby My Boyfriend Doesn’t Want?""
Post a Comment