After reading both the original source article and the Guardian's take on it, it looks like Guardian is selectively highlighting the most incendiary bits in order to work people up and sell ad space, to the surprise of no one. The original article is a garden-variety philosophy exercise, in which the authors are in full recognition of the ways in which their holistic theory of family, which they are attempting to develop, is in concert and in conflict with tradition, human nature, and common sense.
After watching a programme about one of NZ's horrific child abuse cases though I am inclined to say bearing of fathering a child is not the same as being a parent.
The original ABC article indicates the philosophers agree with you wholeheartedly:
‘When we talk about parents’ rights, we’re talking about the person who is parenting the child. How you got to be parenting the child is another issue. One implication of our theory is that it’s not one’s biological relation that does much work in justifying your rights with respect to how the child is parented.’
For Swift and Brighouse, our society is curiously stuck in a time warp of proprietorial rights: if you biologically produce a child you own it.
‘We think that although in practice it makes sense to parent your biological offspring, that is not the same as saying that in virtue of having produced the child the biological parent has the right to parent.’
Then, does the child have a right to be parented by her biological parents? Swift has a ready answer.
‘It’s true that in the societies in which we live, biological origins do tend to form an important part of people’s identities, but that is largely a social and cultural construction. So you could imagine societies in which the parent-child relationship could go really well even without there being this biological link.’
