| | Commitments-Obligations-Owed
Case 1:
They 'do it.' She gets herpes. He gets gonorrhea.
What does he owe her? What does she owe him?
He owes her any and all financial help re any physical-cum-medical complications to her inevitably resulting from their consensual actions.
She owes him any and all financial help re any physical-cum-medical complications to him inevitably resulting from their consensual actions.
Case 2:
They 'do it.' She gets pregnant. He gets...told.
What does he owe her? What does she owe him?
He owes her...see above; but, read it carefully.
She owes him...nothing.
Case 2a:
She decides that she wants to carry to term. He decides 'nope.'
Her choice about how/when/where to deal with her medical situation, for whatever her reasons is not properly claimable by anyone to be open to debate; his obligation to help her get through her choice of how to handle it is exactly that: an obligation.
In short, she has all (moral) 'rights' in deciding about this. He (nor anyone else...unless she's a 'minor') has none, since he 'committed' to risking whatever inevitable consequences of his actions with her resulted. He therefore has no place to claim a right to demand she abort if she does not wish to...for whatever her 'reasons.'
Keep in mind, however, that her choice, is not an inevitability (else, it's not meaningfully called a 'choice').
The fetus is 'born'; it acquires a consciousness and now, thereby, becomes a child/baby...by her choice.
His obligations to her are now fulfilled.
Her obligations to the child have just begun.
What obligations does he have/owe to the child? The same that he had to the zygote: None. --- Unless and until he so 'commits' himself to being obligated to it.
I'll leave it to others just how that should be defined/decided/recognized...by whatever criteria. Such is a topic for another, separate thread.
Notice that I never used the ambiguous term 'responsibility' or that worse one 'duty.' I suggest that all who consider my post stick to the terminology I used: Commitment-Obligation-Owe. Mainly because, on the bottom line, that's all we're really talking about.
Notice also I referred to no 'laws' or 'legal prescription'. I suggest all avoid such to keep things simple; this mainly because the moral perspective (which all above is in terms of my answering) has to be straightened out before one decides what the laws should require (re 'obligations') of any of the parties of the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd part.
There's my $2 (jeez, these posts are expensive lately)
LLAP
J:D
(Edited by John Dailey on 10/18, 7:08pm)
|
|
