November 29th, 2011 by JasonStotts
by Jason Stotts
This is one of those stories that makes you feel like you’re reading fiction: not just any fiction, but fiction by an author who is very clever and original. At least, I wish it were fiction. For the most part it’s a rather common story: boy meets girl, boy and girl have sex, girl gets knocked up, boy and girl break up, boy pays child support. The twist? The man, in this case Joe Pressil from Texas, did not impregnate the girl, Anetria Pressil. He didn’t originally think he did either and so made Anetria do a paternity test on the twins that were born. The test confirms that the twins are his. The twins are, in fact, his. The twist? Joe did not, in fact, impregnate Anetria. Confused? Apparently, Anetria saved the used condoms from when they were together and convinced an infertility clinic to impregnate her with the sperm. This was successful and she gave birth to twins, all without the knowledge or consent of Joe. She then convinced him they were his kids (and again they are, in fact, his kids) and when he wouldn’t take her back, got the court to force him to pay child support. (Houston Press)
It’s so crazy it has to be true.
This raises a lot of questions for me, like: should men always be legally obligated to pay for their genetic offspring? Should there be times when men are released from paternal responsibility?
I think that it depends on the context. There are at least three cases heres: 1. the case of the man who consented to sex and took no precaution against pregnancy, 2. the case of the man who consented to sex, but who took precaution against pregnancy, and 3. the man who did not consent to sex or to pregnancy. In the first case, I think that a man actively consents to having children with a woman if he has sex with her and does not use any form of birth control. This man should be obligated to be responsible for any offspring from that liaison, since he worked to actively impregnate the woman, even if impregnation was not his explicit end. In the second case, I think the situation is more variable. The man actively took precautions against pregnancy and, yet, pregnancy still occurred. Thus, the man cannot be held wholly responsible, since he took positive action to prevent the end that arose. Nevertheless, he did engage in actions that cause pregnancy and he knew the risks of so doing. I think this man should usually be held responsible for his offspring. However, I think that there should be a way for this man to opt out of this. I think that in order for the man to be properly held responsible, he must be informed of the pregnancy and be given the choice to help support the child or not. His choice must be binding and must occur at a point at which abortion is still a viable option. If so, then the woman then has a chance to keep the baby or abort it as she choices and she will know in advance whether she can rely on the man for support. In cases where the man is not informed until too late due only to ignorance on the part of the woman or the man being unavailable to give consent, then the man should be held responsible. In the third and last case, I think it is obvious that the man should not be held responsible.
The principle here is that in cases where the man did not actively consent to pregnancy (used protection or did not consent at all), he should be given a choice of whether he wants to support the child. In cases where he did consent to the child, then he is responsible for it until it is an adult.
A separate question is what we do in a case like this, where a woman is so corrupt that she would connive to impregnate herself with a man’s child just to tie herself to him, even if only financially. I think that this person should be tried for fraud and theft. Further, I think the man should have the option of raising the children and if he does not wish to do so, then they should be taken custody of by the state. Either way, this woman is a criminal and unfit to be a parent.
Automatically Generated Related Posts:
June 25th, 2011 by JasonStotts
by Jason Stotts
Note, I was originally intending to have this published on Father’s Day, but it wasn’t ready in time.
Today, on the day that we celebrate fatherhood and thank our fathers for bringing us into existence and raising us well, I think it makes sense to discuss what fatherhood is, and paternity more generally, and what defines it. This post is dually motivated for me. On the one hand I don’t consider the man who sired me to be my father. On the other, I recently came across an example of a man who had no genetic connection to “his” child, but yet it seemed clear that he was her father.
In my own case, I haven’t spoken with my father in many years; in fact, it’s nearly been a decade. There are all too many reasons for this, but suffice it to say that he has done some of those things that one cites when one is looking for an example of action that is so obviously immoral and loathsome that no one could object to it as an example of something foul. To be even briefer, I don’t speak with him because he is a moral monster. Because of this, even though I can’t deny that he sired me and that we share half our genes, I do not consider him my father.
On the other hand I recently met a man named Antonio who raised a daughter who was not genetically related to him. From what I understand, he met her mother when she was pregnant and chose to marry her nonetheless and they raised her daughter together. He later had two other children who are half-siblings with the first daughter, Miranda. Now, just by looking at them, you would never think they were related. They look nothing alike; in fact, he is black and she is white. Yet this man seemed to be much more of a father to her, even though he was of no genetic relation, than my own biological father is to me.
So, there is something strange going on here. A man who is genetically related to me is not a father, while a man who is not genetically related to Miranda is a father. There must be something more to being a parent than a simple biological connection. Indeed, such a connection doesn’t even seem to be necessary.
So, then question then is: what makes a father? If mixing semen together with an egg isn’t enough, then what does it take to be a father? More broadly, if imparting your genetic material and bringing a new human into existence is not enough to be a real parent, then what does it take? What other thing might it be?
I think it is clear that this other thing is how one goes about trying to be a parent. Sometimes we choose to have offspring and sometimes we do not. Either way, it is our next choice, the choice to take responsibility for a child and to rear them to the best of our abilities, that determines whether we will be good or bad parents, or whether we should even be called parents at all. Good parents and bad parents should be thought of as on a continuum and admitting of degrees, but without anything in the middle. A parent that was only doing the bare minimum to keep the child alive, a “neutral” parent, should be considered a bad parent. The category of “non-parents” we will restrict to people who are genetically related to a child, but who do such a monstrous job of raising their child that they should not be considered parents (thus, we’re excluding everyone else who is not genetically related to the child as simply irrelevant and not part of the category of “non-parent”).
The above distinction rests on the choice of how to raise the child and how well the parent does at this. In terms of fatherhood, the question is whether the man did his best to raise his child and impart good ideas to him. I also think that there are ways to fail in parenthood that are so serious that one should no longer be considered a parent. No one would, or perhaps should, call a man a father who abused his children all his life and who had no real concern for them. It may be true that this person is genetically related to the children, but he is certainly not acting like a parent.
For a very similar reason, I think it’s strange that some people who are adopted want to find their “real parents.” I think that is a complete perversion of the idea of paternity and a desire for no more than to meet someone who is necessarily (biologically) connected to them. But, isn’t it much better to have people who associate with you because they want to and love you, than who are merely related and who neither love you nor even care about you? If your biological relatives give you up for adoption, they stop being your parents, even if that is the best choice for all involved. Further, I think it’s clear that sometimes the best parents are not (genetically) related to their children at all. If your adopted parents are good parents, then there is nothing to be gained by looking for one’s genetic ancestors, unless one merely wants to know about any history of disease in one’s genetic line, but even that can be ascertained by genetic testing now.
Ultimately, I want to argue that being a parent is not about a genetic relationship, but is more about raising a child and helping him to grow and be able to live a good life. Whether a person is biologically related to the child is completely irrelevant (although a biological parent might have an obligation to raise his child well, born of his choice to have a child). So, sometimes a man genetically related to a child is not a father and sometimes a man not genetically related to his child is a good father.
Automatically Generated Related Posts: