Child Support

JCFolsom:

Yes, if you create a being merely to end its existence in some gruesome or horrible or otherwise involuntary fashion, you have violated it in a terrible way. Is that not so?

The violation comes when you end it's existence in some gruesome, horrible, or involuntary fashion, not when you created it.  The conceptual error expressed in your premise is the idea that you can create life for some purpose of your own.

And, before you go where you are so obviously keen to steer this, "ending its existence" is not the same thing as withdrawing support for its existence, even if the result is the same in some cases.

histhasthai:

And, before you go where you are so obviously keen to steer this, "ending its existence" is not the same thing as withdrawing support for its existence, even if the result is the same in some cases.

Step 1: Create a living human incapable of survival without your help.

Step 2: Refuse to help.

That seems like a murder, to me.

JCFolsom:

Step 1: Create a living human incapable of survival without your help.

Step 2: Refuse to help.

That seems like a murder, to me.

Actually, it seems like a wash to me.  Who is it that was harmed by the entire process again?

But you're still making the fundamental mistake of assuming that step one and step two are part of the same package.  After viability, the living human is still incapable of survival without someone's help, but it is no longer only the mother that can be that person. At that point, abortion is indeed murder.

histhasthai:

Actually, it seems like a wash to me.  Who is it that was harmed by the entire process again?

But you're still making the fundamental mistake of assuming that step one and step two are part of the same package.  After viability, the living human is still incapable of survival without someone's help, but it is no longer only the mother that can be that person. At that point, abortion is indeed murder.

The human you created just to starve or otherwise "allow" to die is harmed.

They are part of the same series of actions, adn your refusal to acknowledge it is why your philosophy seems so repellent to anyone whose basic decency has not been overridden by rationalization.

JCFolsom:

The human you created just to starve or otherwise "allow" to die is harmed.

But not by being created.

JCFolsom:

your philosophy seems so repellent to anyone whose basic decency has not been overridden by rationalization.

This part of my philosophy is only about what justifies the use of force.  We were talking about what is and is not murder, or otherwise a violation of rights, and what obligations are and are not created.  There's no room for sentimentality, or even basic decency in that, it's a matter of objective fact.

As to what I would do myself, or what I would think about people who do or do not do certain things, I suspect it would not be too different from you, except perhaps around the edges. I have no problem with the morning after pill, or a woman who was raped aborting the baby as soon as she found out she was pregnant. However, a woman, or a couple, who conceived cavalierly and refused to care for the child, I have a big problem with.  I  wouldn't force them to care for the child, that would be aggression, but I might stop inviting them over for dinner, or even refuse to do business with them. That's part of what I meant when I said earlier that "warmth" is a vital part of social interaction within the bounds of morality and law, but not a basis for morality and law itself.

JCFolsom:

The human you created just to starve or otherwise "allow" to die is harmed.

Define "harm". The child would certainly suffer, but "harm" implies external action, not the non-action we're talking about.

JCFolsom:

They are part of the same series of actions, adn your refusal to acknowledge it is why your philosophy seems so repellent to anyone whose basic decency has not been overridden by rationalization.

Actually, to be biologically correct, it is the child who "pre"/subconciously creates itself. The parent only provides fertility and nourishment. In that sense, the paren't isn't a singular causation for the childs existance.

banned:

the paren't isn't a singular causation for the childs existance.

The chain of causality, in a moral context, ends at the most immediate act of moral agency.  What you're saying is akin to claiming that running over a pedestrian in your car is not a singular causation for his death, since the actual cause was the metal of the bumper disrupting the integrity of his internal organs.

"Actually, to be biologically correct, it is the child who "pre"/subconciously creates itself. The parent only provides fertility and nourishment"

This is a straw man.

When you drive your car, you are fully aware of the possibility of an accident occurring.

When you point a gun at another person and pull the trigger, you are aware of the (rather good) chance that they will die or be seriously injured.

When you direct your penis into a vagina without a condom or some other form of contraceptive, you are fully aware that such action may produce a child.

In a free society, the individual is responsible for the consequences of their actions, and these examples would all constitute an implied contract with society. Adoption is now an alternative, but both parents would have to agree. Perhaps if the mother refused to give the unwanted child up for adoption, the father would then be released from his obligations to support the child.

The market would in fact provide adoption services, but the parents would probably be required to pay a fee for their services, but maybe not. The exact terms would be determined by the market, depending on the supply of unwanted children and the demand of child seeking parents.

All this being said, I find the whole tone of this discussion reprehensible. Creating some intellectual defense for fathering unwanted children is not productive to anyone who honestly believes that society can function with freedom.

spkrman:

This is a straw man.

No, a straw man is where I introduce an argument and pertain it's relevance to something you've stated, and then procede to debunk it, or I mischaracterize your argument into something that seems unacceptable.

For instance, you say that parents hold no obligation to their children and I retort by saying that you believe people should  throw babies in dumpsters.

spkrman:

When you point a gun at another person and pull the trigger, you are aware of the (rather good) chance that they will die or be seriously injured.

the person already exists, so of course it would be an act against them. If I'm at the shooting range and I fire, and someone magically comes into existance when they weren't in existance before I pulled the trigger in front of the target and the bullet hits them, it is not by my doing. The act was not aggressive nor did it violate any rights. When I proformed the act, no rights were posessed by the victim of the bullet. From their historical perspective there rights were never violated, since the action occured prior to their posession of rights. All they can observe is a bullet hitting them. The source would be unknown, and claiming that they were violated would be illigitimate as it's an ex post facto claim.

spkrman:

When you direct your penis into a vagina without a condom or some other form of contraceptive, you are fully aware that such action may produce a child.

No, I'm aware that my action may allow a child to grow, however sex doesn't produce children, just like capital doesn't produce final goods. It provides an environment or the ingredients that allow a child to develope itself. My action and the action of the child are completely different as the child is not my property, and is its own individual.

It seems to me you guys are repeating the same points over and over again.  And the semantics you guys are arguing over don't matter one bit.

Lets say I have a baby and refuse to care for it.  If there is someone willing to take care of the baby no one seems to have a problem with this at all (If I'm wrong on this and someone does disagree with this, let me know).  On the other hand, you are saying if there is no one willing to adopt then the disagreement is whether or not I should be forced to provide for the baby.  Obviously the baby isn't going to be the one doing the forcing though, so some outside party has to care enough to force me to provide (if there is no outside party then this point is moot because the father (or mother) is going to do whatever they want anyway).  It would seem to me, in such a circumstance, that the outside party would just take the baby in rather than forcing the unwilling parent to care for it.

But what if that person doesn't want it?  Well it probably doesn't care enough to force the parent to care for it either.

What if that person can't afford it?  He probably doesn't have the resources to force the parent to do anything either.

In reality we have plenty of capable people who cannot have children who would like to adopt and can't because of government intervention.  We have many many more who might not be seeking adoption but who would no doubt come to a baby's aid if it were in that situation.  Why are you spending this much time on a highly unlikely situation where there is a baby lying in the street not being taken care of while outraged onlookers refuse to take any action unless it be litigation against the parent?

histhasthai:

The chain of causality, in a moral context, ends at the most immediate act of moral agency.  What you're saying is akin to claiming that running over a pedestrian in your car is not a singular causation for his death, since the actual cause was the metal of the bumper disrupting the integrity of his internal organs.

That would only be true if the car was to be considered a voluntary actor, however we consider cars inanimate property and therefore it is the responsibility of the actor who used it. In that case it can be said that it was my actions that did it.

If my child goes and runs someone over it would be their responsibility. We don't suppose the causation of their existance is at fault. That is because they are individual actors.

I dunno, maybe I misunderstood you.

This thread provides us a good opportunity to see where unfortunately too many in the freedom movement fall short. People are unwillingly to take their arguements to their logical conclusions because that conclusion is so horrific and lacks any basic decency that they are afraid to follow through with their arguements. People argue they have no obligation to their children but then insist there will always be a third party to take care of unwanted children. This begs the basic question of if there is no obligation to the child why do they feel it necessary to argue that there will be a third party to care for the child? People argue that not feeding and caring for babies does no harm because the child is their own individual but these same people say it is reprehensible to put the child on the street. Again, if no one has an obligation to the child why does it matter to these people if the child is put on the street? It is this element in the freedom movement which in fact produces a great deal of harm to creating and spreading freedom. These people have confused freedom with meaning that there is no accountability or responsibility for one's actions. Free societies require that people be accountable for their own actions. Unfortunately, too many in the freedom movement can not accept this basic fundamental principle and insist that they have no accountability for their actions.

The singlest greatest threat to building a free society is not the masses but those within the freedom movement that seek to destroy any sense of humanity in the name of completely abdicating personal responsibility.

Maxliberty:

This thread provides us a good opportunity to see where unfortunately too many in the freedom movement fall short. People are unwillingly to take their arguements to their logical conclusions because that conclusion is so horrific and lacks any basic decency that they are afraid to follow through with their arguements.

Or perhaps it makes so much sense you're afraid to concede defeat.

Maxliberty:

People argue they have no obligation to their children but then insist there will always be a third party to take care of unwanted children. This begs the basic question of if there is no obligation to the child why do they feel it necessary to argue that there will be a third party to care for the child? People argue that not feeding and caring for babies does no harm because the child is their own individual but these same people say it is reprehensible to put the child on the street. Again, if no one has an obligation to the child why does it matter to these people if the child is put on the street? It is this element in the freedom movement which in fact produces a great deal of harm to creating and spreading freedom. These people have confused freedom with meaning that there is no accountability or responsibility for one's actions. Free societies require that people be accountable for their own actions. Unfortunately, too many in the freedom movement can not accept this basic fundamental principle and insist that they have no accountability for their actions.

The singlest greatest threat to building a free society is not the masses but those within the freedom movement that seek to destroy any sense of humanity in the name of completely abdicating personal responsibility.

You're so off base it isn't even funny.  No one is arguing that you have no responsibility towards your child.  We are arguing that it is only conditional until you see to it that the child is placed in proper hands, or at leas that's my argument.  Child is born, I as father can leave because the mother has agreed to raise the child.  Or, child is born, mother can leave because I as father have agreed to raise the child.  Or child is born but neither the mother nor I wish to raise the child.  As custodians of the child we are obligated to see to it that the child is placed in the hands of someone that will care for it such as an adoption agency or foster home or such.  To throw the baby in the trash, I'm sure everyone would agree, is amount to neglect and possibly murder if the child should die.  That's how I view it and I believe that's the right way to view it.

There will always be someone out there who is willing to take a baby in and care for it.  Prove it you say?  Look around -- you can take unwanted babies to hospitals, fire departments, police stations, adoption agencies, orphanages, etc.  And that would not change in a free society.  And in fact there would be more and they would be more efficient in placing children with adoptive parents.

Maxliberty:

People argue they have no obligation to their children but then insist there will always be a third party to take care of unwanted children. This begs the basic question of if there is no obligation to the child why do they feel it necessary to argue that there will be a third party to care for the child? People argue that not feeding and caring for babies does no harm because the child is their own individual but these same people say it is reprehensible to put the child on the street.

You surely have a vivid phantasy. I don't think anybody ever said they have no obligation to their children. Merely that if somebody else is accepting the care of the child, and the mother or father no longer are willing to care for it, they can put the child in to the care of someone else and their obligation stops.

I seriously doubt that anybody said that not feeding a child would do no harm.  Come on, even the biggest fool knows that not feeding a child or an infant will cause it to die. Doing so on purpose, most of us (maybe even all of us) would agree that that is considered murder.

I really think that you have your mind set on what you think the freedom movement is or should be like that you are completely unwilling to accept any variances from your ideas.

Maxliberty:

...because that conclusion is so horrific and lacks any basic decency that they are afraid to follow through with their arguements.

No, I'll say it straight out: If parents do not want to care for their child they have no obligation to and can stop caring for their child by removing it from their property. If no one is willing to take care of that baby, they have no right to force the biological parents to.

Maxliberty:

This begs the basic question of if there is no obligation to the child why do they feel it necessary to argue that there will be a third party to care for the child?

I would assume it is because the relevance of your whole argument relies on the existance of a third party too. However, I haven't said a third party is necessary.

Maxliberty:

People argue that not feeding and caring for babies does no harm because the child is their own individual but these same people say it is reprehensible to put the child on the street.

Irresponsible and lawful/legitimate are two totally different concepts. It's irresponsible to abuse drugs but not unlawful (going along Natural Law lines).

If the street is not owned by someone else and as long as you aren't putting the baby in any harm to cars coming by -- If there is no initiation of force -- it's totally legitimate.

Maxliberty:

These people have confused freedom with meaning that there is no accountability or responsibility for one's actions. Free societies require that people be accountable for their own actions. Unfortunately, too many in the freedom movement can not accept this basic fundamental principle and insist that they have no accountability for their actions.

You have accountability for your own actions and being as they relate to other people, but If I spill a tub of juice in my own home, I have no obligation to clean it up as it's not affecting anyone else. Get off your moral high horse and read what I've actually posted. A child is not the cause of a couples labor or the consequence of their actions and that is why it can be considered an individual as it is self developed. The fact that the mother imput nutrition into the baby does not make her any more

No contract was made or broken between the mother and child and that is why there are no obligations between them.

The singlest greatest threat to building a free society is not the masses but those within the freedom movement that seek to destroy any sense of humanity in the name of completely abdicating personal responsibility.

Your masked attempt at creating a pseudo-state isn't a big help either.