Max,
I admire your passionate respect for the sanctity of life. However, some people in the world face starvation and they are not able to feed their kids. Are those parents murderers when their children die of starvation?
<< Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Charles Anthony: Max, I admire your passionate respect for the sanctity of life. However, some people in the world face starvation and they are not able to feed their kids. Are those parents murderers when their children die of starvation?
Of course not. There are always circumstances that are unfortunate such as the parents dying or being ill or otherwise being unable to care for their children. That is why charities and charitable people are important. There is big difference from simply abandoning children beacuse its inconvenient and being physically unable to care for them. The obligation still exists but we recognize they are unable to fulfill the obligation.
Maxliberty: Charles Anthony: Max, I admire your passionate respect for the sanctity of life. However, some people in the world face starvation and they are not able to feed their kids. Are those parents murderers when their children die of starvation? Of course not. There are always circumstances that are unfortunate such as the parents dying or being ill or otherwise being unable to care for their children. That is why charities and charitable people are important. There is big difference from simply abandoning children beacuse its inconvenient and being physically unable to care for them. The obligation still exists but we recognize they are unable to fulfill the obligation.
This is just ridiculous. You want to force people who are unwilling to take care of their child, possibly resulting in lifelong psychological damages? They only have an obligation to care for them until they can find someone else to care for their children.
Sometimes "majority" simply means that all the fools are on the same side
Maxliberty:Well like I said if you you do not believe that parents are involved in the creation of children then we do not agree on the underlying basic premise of how people are created... It is not possible to create life without having parents...
Do you not understand "ingredients"? The parents are the supplement of child growth, but they do not make the child grow. The child grows off it's own cell division; it grows off it's own actions.
Maxliberty:Your premise gives no rights to children and that is why you think they can be dumped in trash bins.
Why do you keep bringing up this straw man?
Maxliberty: I can see no other scientific explanation for the creation of children other than by the actions of the parents.
We're not debating whether the parent's scientifically cause conception or could be said to be the cause of creation. We're debating the legal application of conception. If rights are said to come about after conception, then the parent can't be deemed an aggressive cause.
Maxliberty:It is understandable you arrive at such horrific conclusions based on your completely false starting premise. You have what I call the "Flat Earth Arguement", it is factually false from the beginning so the conclusion is equally distorted.
I suppose you'll back up your observance of my factual relevance with some factual evidence yourself?
katja328: Maxliberty: Charles Anthony: Max, I admire your passionate respect for the sanctity of life. However, some people in the world face starvation and they are not able to feed their kids. Are those parents murderers when their children die of starvation? Of course not. There are always circumstances that are unfortunate such as the parents dying or being ill or otherwise being unable to care for their children. That is why charities and charitable people are important. There is big difference from simply abandoning children beacuse its inconvenient and being physically unable to care for them. The obligation still exists but we recognize they are unable to fulfill the obligation. This is just ridiculous. You want to force people who are unwilling to take care of their child, possibly resulting in lifelong psychological damages? They only have an obligation to care for them until they can find someone else to care for their children.
You are right, they have an obligation to care for the child or to make sure the child is being adequately cared for by a responsible third party. If no third party can be found or is willing then the obligation remains with the parents. I am glad you are in agreement with me.
You are right, the parents obligation is to care for the child or to make sure the child is being cared for by a responsible third party. If no third party can be found or no third party is willing then the responsibilty and obligation remains where it started, with the parents. I am glad you are in agreement with me.
banned: Maxliberty:Well like I said if you you do not believe that parents are involved in the creation of children then we do not agree on the underlying basic premise of how people are created... It is not possible to create life without having parents... Do you not understand "ingredients"? The parents are the supplement of child growth, but they do not make the child grow. The child grows off it's own cell division; it grows off it's own actions. Maxliberty:Your premise gives no rights to children and that is why you think they can be dumped in trash bins. Why do you keep bringing up this straw man? Maxliberty: I can see no other scientific explanation for the creation of children other than by the actions of the parents. We're not debating whether the parent's scientifically cause conception or could be said to be the cause of creation. We're debating the legal application of conception. If rights are said to come about after conception, then the parent can't be deemed an aggressive cause. Maxliberty:It is understandable you arrive at such horrific conclusions based on your completely false starting premise. You have what I call the "Flat Earth Arguement", it is factually false from the beginning so the conclusion is equally distorted. I suppose you'll back up your observance of my factual relevance with some factual evidence yourself?
What you fail to understand is that the child only exists as the result of the actions of the parents. The parents have acted and caused something to occur that would not otherwise have occurred without their action. The parents have intiated the action and the resulting consequence is that a third party in this instance was created that is dependent upon them for care. I use the car analogy again for you, when you drive your car there are possible outcomes one of which is that you may cause an accident an injure a third party. Your accountable for injuring the third party. The accident didn't exist until you created it, but you are the intiating party.
Regarding your straw man suggestion you specifically said you would put babies out on the street to die. Would you prefer I said that you were willing to let babies die on street corners instead of place them in dumpsters?
Maxliberty:You are right, the parents obligation is to care for the child or to make sure the child is being cared for by a responsible third party. If no third party can be found or no third party is willing then the responsibilty and obligation remains where it started, with the parents. I am glad you are in agreement with me.
We have already determined that there will be a 3rd party. Just as there is a third party now. So you point is moot!
katja328: Maxliberty:You are right, the parents obligation is to care for the child or to make sure the child is being cared for by a responsible third party. If no third party can be found or no third party is willing then the responsibilty and obligation remains where it started, with the parents. I am glad you are in agreement with me. We have already determined that there will be a 3rd party. Just as there is a third party now. So you point is moot!
The belief that there will always be a third party under all circumstances to care for your unwanted obligations is absurd. There is no guarantee that there will always be a third party willing and available. The notion that your phiosophy only works if there is a third party demonstrates you are not interested in individual freedom but you always need a third party crutch for your lack of responsibility. In fact the "need" for a third party crutch for unwanted obligations is the exact arguement of people advocating for the state.
Maxliberty:What you fail to understand is that the child only exists as the result of the actions of the parents.
That's still irrelevant. The child does not have an ex post facto claim and the actions of development are only done by the child meaning the parent does not interfere further but only offers things that allow the child to continue it's development.
Maxliberty:The parents have intiated the action and the resulting consequence is that a third party in this instance was created that is dependent upon them for care.
That is also irrelevant for the same reason. In order to accurately legitimize legal action you could only begin the set of actions at the moment the child possessed rights.
Maxliberty:The accident didn't exist until you created it, but you are the intiating party.
But again, we're dealing in legality. Legally, the person you hit posessed rights immediately prior to the accident. In which case you violated them. If they had no rights until after the accident took place, they would have no claim.
Maxliberty:Would you prefer I said that you were willing to let babies die on street corners instead of place them in dumpsters?
No, I never said I was willing to let a child die on the street. I said that any legal claim against the parents who leave their child in the street is illigitimate. Also, a street is different from a dumpster since the baby is not imprisoned by it.
Also, in a previous post you mentioned that there would not always be a third party to take care of a child. That's silly. Your whole argument here hinges on the existance of a third party that would prosecute a parent who left their child on the street. If there's a third party in that case, I don't see how on earth they would opt to prosecute and punish the parents and force them to care for their baby rather than removing the baby from their irresponsible care.
.
I have always said that there is an obligation of parents to care for the children. We have not discussed what should be done outside the bounds of contracts to those individuals should they not be willing to meet their obligation. So my arguement is not contingent on the existence of a third party.
Again, you bring up the idea that there will always be a third party willing to take the child. This is just factually false. There are numerous times and circumstances where there is no third party. You are the one relying on a third party to come and rescue the baby from the street.
Finally, where you abandon the baby is irrelevant. Babies by definition can not care for themselves and are not mobile for about six months. The fact that you are abandoning the baby in a location that without the assistance of a third party the baby will die indicates that you in fact are willing to let babies die in the street. Now maybe you wish you had not said that and you are trying to run away from that statement.
Maxliberty:We have not discussed what should be done outside the bounds of contracts to those individuals should they not be willing to meet their obligation.
I think we should, as I believe that was my original question.
Maxliberty:There are numerous times and circumstances where there is no third party.
Like what, especially in a free-market society?
Angurse: Maxliberty:We have not discussed what should be done outside the bounds of contracts to those individuals should they not be willing to meet their obligation. I think we should, as I believe that was my original question. Maxliberty:There are numerous times and circumstances where there is no third party. Like what, especially in a free-market society?
Once we have established there is an obligation which is what much of the discussion was about then we can move on to what to do next. First, I think the situation generally is rare where both of the parents are unwillingly to care for the child. Second, most people I would estimate over 95% will belong to some sort of PDA which will have its own rules regarding safeguarding children. So we have a small percentage of independents to begin with whose actions will not be covered by any PDA and even among these the % where both parents will abandon their child will still be very small.
The only circumstances then are where we have independents where both parents abandon their child and do not turn the child over to some third party which may very well exist but is not a guarantee. So in these very rare circumstances we will have two independent parents that abandon their child in some location leaving the child to die.
The free market will have organizations like the SDK in the Liberty Colony that extend their services charitably to those unable to defend themselves. So for parents who murder or attempt to murder their children the SDK will act as if the child is a client of the PDA and take the same action as it would with any other client who has been murdered.
I didn't fully answer when third parties may not be available. One example is that a third party may be available but may not currently have space or may need additional time to secure adoptive parents. So there may be some period where they can not immediately provide the service. Also, people might live very far away from other services and so geographically these services might not be available. The Liberty Colony will be very small at first so there may not be anyone willing to care for someone elses child.