asunder

i dunno. is my comment longer?

( i love long comment. long, big, dripping ones...)

;

woot. these comments are so long i have to take notes on them so that i have some recollection of what you said & what i want to say. that's sweet.

anyway. just to try & respond to some of the good points you raise .... (some of these are more tangental than others, sorry for that!)

first, you suggest that the connection that a mother (or either parent maybe even?) feels towards a child is just a feeling. suggesting, i think, that the child is really an independent entity - an end of its own & no one really "owns" it. while i agree that no one owns it ... that argument *does* go against most of what we usually think in western philosophy. i mean, the family is traditionally a priviliged sphere of interconnection - where feelings of love (while 'irrational') are still considered viable & vital. further, i would be hesitant to dismiss 'emotion.' while i don't want to suggest that i'm gonna go all out & dismiss rationality/reason - i do think it is a bold move to privilege 'rational arguments' in all instances. i'm not comfortable w/relegating emotion to a 'lower' place and of less significance - i think it's a legitimate part of the human experience that needs to be considered in social/cultural/political life. but at this point - we're potentially at a crossroads, having more of an *ontological* discussion maybe than one about these specific issues you think?

more back to topic ..

i agree that chidren should not be used as playthings - either to entertain you, or to give your life meaning, or to cement together a relationship. that's all true. but of course, there's not much that we can really do about it. (as you said yourself - government interfernce is usually pretty questionable). so i just wanted to let you know that i'm on the same page w/you there.

but i'm still hesitant about the power of one partner to 'force' adoption. and your point that adoption is generally a good life for the child is well taken - and i think important (& correct). it drops out a whole second set of ethical concerns for us.

ultimately, you make a good point that men are already responsible for their children (however - it would be interesting to know in cases where men do not want the child just how responsibly they actually behave - i'm not aware of this, but it would a useful statistic in this discussion i think) & therefore should have some say in what happens to that child.

but, falling back on philosohical tradition, it is usally understood that children & the family are *unique* - and that traditional rules of society & reason just do not apply. w/in the framework you're working - sort of a kantian framework maybe? (as you focus on reason, people as ends, etc) - i think you're prolly right. but i'm hesitant about applying that to families & mothers. i think it degrades a unique relationship that exists b/c of the state of motherhood. again, it is not rational - but that does not make it *lesser*. it seems like the upshot of the arrangment you're expressing is ultimately worse for women:
an informed, adult couple engages in sexual behavior & an unintended pregnancy results. the man decides to not have the child. this has two possible results -
1. the woman's unique subjective experience of motherhood is devauled - the unique bond of pregnancy is rejected & she is forced to give up the child
2. the woman keeps the child but the man signs away responsibility for caring for the child - despite the fact that he engaged in this behavior knowing the potential outcome (so he is priviliged - he can walk away in a way that women cannot; male privilige is continued) & the woman is left burdened w/a baby & costs (women get the shaft again)

i know this is not the most well-thought out philosophical positin i've staked out here. but i think that families are not abstract entities that can be addressed solely through reason. families get messy & empirical - so the solutions we come up w/for these problems are correspondingly messy.

thoughts?