Fatherhood in the 21st Century

I thought that this article was very thought-provoking; in brief summary, the genetic father of a child in Kentucky is seeking legal parental rights but the courts have ruled that the boy's true father is his genetic mother's husband. When one first reads this story, I think it's very easy to be convinced that the genetic father has been wronged, that this is an outrage, etc. etc. But one need only step back and consider the shoe on the other foot -- where an alcoholic, abusive genetic father wants visitation rights to see his child as a pure power trip, and where the genetic step-father is a kind, loving man who has raised the child like his own from Day One -- to see that it's not a black and white situation. That is to say, in my opinion genetics does not equal parental privilege.

Another case where we see that my opinion holds true in this country is that the the courts separate children from their genetic parents and place them into foster care when those parents fail to meet the state's requirements for proper parenting, e.g. they are methamphetamine addicts who have left the children to scrounge for scraps of food in the alley trash cans (as an extreme, easily-accessible example).

Anyway, I do not find the article particularly interesting for any of the points I've mentioned so far; I have mentioned them only to bring you up to speed with what I do find interesting about this article; and that is the philosophical concept of parenthood. What is a parent? Is a parent defined as the person whose seed and egg help to create the child? I say no. I say no pretty strongly to that, actually. I am strongly of the opinion that a parent ought to be defined by the person or persons who raised the child as their own. In fact, I don't know that I put any special weight on the genetic basis of parenthood. I guess the easiest way for me to put it into words is, let us assume that there are two components to Man: that of flesh, and that of spirit (for lack of a better vernacular term). I would say that genetic parentage pertains to the flesh, whereas true parenthood, i.e. the parenthood I place all of my value in, is the parenthood of the spirit.

Some examples:
If a child's genetic father is his spiritual uncle all his life, then he is effectively an uncle and not a father. If a child's genetic grandmother is his spiritual mother mother all his life, then she is effectively a mother and not a grandmother.

On the other hand, if a child's genetic father is his spiritual father but is as rare a feature in the boy's life as would be an uncle or aunt, then he is still the boy's father even if he is not a typical father. And if a child's genetic grandmother is also his spiritual grandmother, raising the boy but always referring back to the boy's deceased parents (as is what happens in 99.9% of cases where a grandmother raises her grandson, let's say), the she is still the boy's spiritual grandmother. So to be clear, what I meant by the above examples is where a boy (for instance) is raised by his genetic grandmother but under the complete impression that she is actually his mother (genetic, spiritual, the whole nine yards). I am saying that in such a case, the genetic invalidity of her parenthood (and validity of her grandparenthood) become completely irrelevant. That, I am saying, is how little stock I put in the "Universal truth" of genetic parentage. I am saying that genetic parentage is essentially next to nothing without spiritual parentage.

Do I think that the genetic father in the Time/CNN story above has been wronged? Yes, I do. I feel very badly for the man and I think that what the mother has done is incredibly irresponsible. I also think that the child is still young enough for the genetic father to be included in the child's life and to be allowed to assume (as he sees it) his proper role as the child's spiritual father. My point, however, is simply that I agree with the court's decision to place spiritual parenthood above genetic parenthood, principally because I believe that parenthood is a spiritual relationship and not a genetic one. I guess what I'm trying to put into words is ... I view parentage as being as much a social contract as I do marriage. But I also agree that when the child is first born it follows that the person entitled to have "first dibs" on fatherhood is the genetic father, and that he should only be excluded if (a) he is a danger to the child or (b) he chooses to exclude himself.