Originally, we were to just have four people but two more people joined us that night - one of them didn't know that an exchange of ideas on abortion was one of the topics to be tackled. Thankfully, no one shied away from the topic and the discussion was very fruitful. I doubt anyone's mind was changed that night but then again, such was never the goal of this discussion. The discussion was meant primarily to show both sides of an issue, probably touch on some grey areas and what not.
To my surprise, the case that gathered the most intrigue that night was not one of abortion though it did touch on it very slightly. Here's how the story goes:
Faith was telling us about this girl in the US who got pregnant and since she didn't want the baby, wanted to get an abortion. Her boyfriend, as was the case, wanted the baby and so they both decided that the girl would carry the baby the term but that the guy would have to take care of the baby. The went as far as getting papers signed in court saying the guy will not hold her responsible for the child.
Months later, the guy was demanding that the girl have a more direct active role in the child's life - it must be said the woman was paying child support. The girl declines and cites the papers they signed in court and the guy goes on social media bashing her and calling her a deadbeat mother.
Now, upon hearing the story, I couldn't make heads or tails of it. I'm always against social media bashing but in my gut, I could say that the mom was indeed a deadbeat. I, however, was the only one who took that position. Two of the guys said that they didn't think it was right but that it was legal as the the mother of the child does have the papers to show she doesn't want anything to do with the child. As it would be legal, they couldn't say it was wrong.
The issue ate at me for the rest of the night and during a trip to the bathroom, it hit me why we didn't think it was right. Everyone in the table was so focused on the mom and the dad and their agreement and we all just forgot about the third person involved in the story - the child. I pointed out that whatever the agreements on paper between the mom and the dad, the child will never cease to be the child of both.
Further discussion brought everyone to the conclusion that the signed agreement between the parents can be viewed as one signed under duress. The mother was practically holding the child under hostage. In a way, it was a classic case of, "sign on the dotted line or I pull the trigger". Once the issue was framed this way, it became much easier for everyone to see what was wrong with it.
We then moved onto abortion but it was the interaction I mentioned above that set the precedent for the rest of our conversation. Essentially, when we're talking about human rights, we need to consider all the humans in the conversation - including the child's, the mother's and the father's.
No comments:
Post a Comment