|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Fatherly ethics
#9588519 - 01/11/09 10:02 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
When someone with brown eyes has a child with someone with blue eyes, the child will almost always end up with brown eyes.
This is because the gene that causes blue eyes is recessive, so the only way it can be expressed is if it inherits a copy of that gene from both parents. However, it can get a bit complicated because you can never know if a person with brown eyes also has the recessive gene for blue eyes. In fact, both parents can have brown eyes and end up with a child with blue eyes, though the probability is small.
There are genetic disorders such as color blindness that are caused in a similar way by two sets of a recessive gene being passed on to a child through its parents. There are also life threatening illnesses that are passed down in exactly the same manner, such as cystic fibrosis. This is called a recessive genetic disorder (RGD).
So what happens when a child is sick and the doctor suspects that the illness is a RGD? They do a DNA test, a fairly cheap test that costs about fifty dollars today.
There is something very interesting that happens when they do this test, and doctors who specialize in RGDs face it all the time. Around 10 percent of the time, the father does not have the recessive gene, and the parents rejoice in the knowledge that their child doesn't have cystic fibrosis. However, the child's health does not improve and after a second round of more expensive testing the child is confirmed to have the genetic disorder.
I'm not sure how they deal with this awkward result, but what it means is that the kid has a mystery dad. Since this is a random sample, it should be fairly indicative of the general population, that about 10% of the time the man you think is your father isn't, genetically, your father.
How to deal with this?
From an ethical perspective, the child is not and cannot be at fault. This is such an interesting question because it forces us to examine just how selfish our desire to nurture our own offspring really is. Your perspective may differ. So instead of bickering on who's viewpoint is right, let's look at how this situation is handled within the legal system, and then discuss which is most ethical.
In Australia the system tends to "favor" the father's "right" to have the experience of raising a genetic child. The idea is that because the father was deceived into believing that they were the genetic father, when they learn otherwise it is a great emotional hurt to them which should be compensated. This compensation comes from the mother to the father, and can include the repayment of the cost incrued by the father raising children that were "not really his kids."
This is termed "paternity fraud".
In Canada the situation is just about the opposite. Simply living with a woman with children places fiduciary responsibility on the man she is living with. Genetics do not play a role.
Various other countries have policies in between these two, but I think there are two opposing viewpoints here resposible for the differences.
1. That having a child, child rearing, requires that the child have some of your DNA. In other words the motivation behind child rearing is the propagation of your own genetics. This may not be a conscious thought, but rather an irrational instinct inherited due to a positive feedback loop favoring selfish behavior toward individuals of close genetic relation.
2. That having a child, child rearing, requires only an innocent being that requires your help to survive. In other words the motivation is an altruistic one, that you are choosing to divert your own resources towards someone who needs it, because they need it. No other reason.
My personal viewpoint is that number 2 is the most ethical philosophy to base laws on, which is what we see in Canada. The child is not responsible for being illegitimate. If you are in a position to care for them, because a child is incapable of looking after itself, I think it is your responsibility to do so. I find it really sick actually that fathers are being compensated the cost of raising children that were presented as their own but were later found not to be.
However, I think that number 1 is what most people actually believe, although some men may try to cloud the issue by saying they have a right, just as a woman does, to bear their own genetic children. I base this on my own experience that you will virtually always find some degree of favoritism and bias between individuals who are closely related genetically, for no other reason than that.
I also think that this is indicative of a larger trend of placing greater value on your own group at the expense of another. We know for example that the most effective way to reduce suffering right now on our planet is to provide free AIDS medication and contraceptives to people who can't afford it. Yet more more money is spent on our pets... oh the humanity!
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
|
Quote:
Yet more more money is spent on our pets... oh the humanity!
What does spending one's personal income on pets have to do with the above subject?
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
Quote:
So instead of bickering on who's viewpoint is right, let's look at how this situation is handled within the legal system, and then discuss which is most ethical.
Thanks.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
|
I thought it was part of your argumentation.
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
Yet more more money is spent on our pets... oh the humanity!
What does spending one's personal income on pets have to do with the above subject?
First we must cloud the issue before we get to the meat. Makes for a more convoluted thread.
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
|
Ahhhh
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
In most cases the erstwhile father, who has already been fucked over by his wife, now gets fucked over by the state. I think it is wrong. The woman should bear the full brunt for her deception and infidelity. The non-biological father owes the child NOTHING!
Case closed.
--------------------
Edited by OrgoneConclusion (01/11/09 10:55 AM)
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
What I meant was that I think it is more ethical just to gloss over the fact that your partner cheated/decieved you because the child is blameless, and still needs a provider to look after them regardless. So legally I don't think it is ethical to force the mother to repay the cost of raising the child, as is done in Australia currently.
I added that last part because it was an example of favoring one group over the other, which is what I hinted was the real heart of the issue, ie the child suddenly being revealed as not being part of the father's genetic group.
But you still haven't said how you feel about the issue, which I am interested to know.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
The 'father' is also blameless and has no reason whatsoever (other than societal convenience) to be held accountable - none!
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
|
I think that an universal rule regarding matters that only seem the same but are so different in so many other aspects is kind of stupid and superficial, and also I think that ethics is just another word that points towards one's inability to cope with reality.
Quote:
I added that last part because it was an example of favoring one group over the other, which is what I hinted was the real heart of the issue, ie the child suddenly being revealed as not being part of the father's genetic group.
Show me one example where one group or individual isn't favored over another.
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
If you were bisexual you would favor men and women equally, right? Maybe you like both large and small breasted women too?
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
This is really unlikely, but let's say there was a mix up at birth and you got the wrong baby. So the baby would have no genetic relation to the mom or the dad. I guess that means that once you find out about this you can drop the kid off at the hospital and charge all them the expenses raising them, right? Poor kid.
Probably a simpler solution would be mandatory paternity tests at birth, since they already do tons of tests on newborns and a paternity test only costs about 50 dollars to do.
|
Amber_Glow
Sat Chit Anand
Registered: 09/02/02
Posts: 1,543
Last seen: 11 years, 20 days
|
|
Compensate the deceived father's time and money out of the pocket of the biological father. Hopefully the lady didn't go too crazy and we won't have to turn to Maury.
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
Re: Fatherly ethics [Re: Amber_Glow]
#9588995 - 01/11/09 12:11 PM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I love those paternity test shows.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
I guess that means that once you find out about this you can drop the kid off at the hospital and charge all them the expenses raising them, right? Poor kid.
Sounds good. You fail to address why the non-biological father holds any responsibility for another's child.
--------------------
|
Indigenous
Stranger
Registered: 01/08/09
Posts: 814
Loc: Celestial Realm
|
|
If you order Coke and the bring Pepsi are you legally responsible for the bill?
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
It just seems like such an arbitrary thing that the guy who's sperm wins the race is automatically responsible. If you look at the way men and women have sex, it seems obvious, and is borne out through research, that women have a higher sex drive and a greater capacity for sex than men. You also find things in men like blocker sperm that block the passageway to the egg, preventing enemy sperm from reaching the goal. Why would that have evolved if it wasn't an advantage?
I think women evolved from a situation where they usually had multiple partners, just like you see in the great apes where the females use sex as a tool. The only reason this is a big deal in our society is because it is male dominated and we can't come to terms with the fact that women tend to be deceptive when it comes to sexuality.
I can't "prove" to you who is responsible for raising a child. I just find it callous and unethical that a father would disown his child simply because of a mix up that has nothing to do with the personal relationship they have together, let alone demand to be payed back for the cost of raising the child. You obviously feel the opposite.
|
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl
Stranger
Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 11,123
Loc: Texas
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: I think the teachings of Christ, whether real or mythical man, are highly commendable tenets to follow.
I assume you mean treat others as you would like to be treated? Forgive enemies etc? Yes, highly commendable. Whoops wrong thread. Sorry.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 15 days
|
|
Quote:
adjust said: If you were bisexual you would favor men and women equally, right? Maybe you like both large and small breasted women too?
What does this have to do with my reply to you? Earlier, when I questioned a statement you made in your post, you were asking to stay on topic even though I was. It'd be nice if you could follow your own advice and actually reply to me in a way that makes sense.
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Just an aside: when a new male lion takes over a pride, the first thing he does is to kill all the cubs as they were fathered by the previous leader.
--------------------
|
|