It Is Unjust For Unwed, Reluctant Fathers To Be Coerced To Pay Child Support

On to round 2. Interesting rebuttal, although not, of course, introducing any new points. My opponent asserts that I "misrepresented arguments, misunderstood arguments, and provided baseless assertions," however, I shall here prove that that is not so and that furthermore these are activities engaged in by my opposition. The opposition begins by stating that "I am saying that an unwilling, reluctant father who has not entered under contract with the fetus or the mother is not depriving anyone of their rights and therefore his rights should not be deprived," however, this is misrepresenting my own argument, which stated that property rights could be curtailed UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, and I did not limit those circumstances to an instance where an individual is depriving another of THEIR property rights. Anyhow, what are property rights? They are rights granted by law, and thus law may take them away if necessary. I agree that nobody has the right to take away another's property WITHOUT CONTRACT OR DISCOURSE, however, entering into the legal system (by being born) is a contract, and should be treated accordingly. My opponent then states his next argument argument, saying that "And as for the non-aggression principle in relation to the serial killer parallel, I am afraid my opponent has missed the mark. "In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others." (http://en.wikipedia.org......)" Then how, if it is matter of property rights, does one establish that the rights of the people the serial killer is killing are on a higher level than those of the serial killer? Doesn't a serial killer have rights? And if you kill the serial killer before he commits the crime, are you not compromising his rights? He hasn't actually committed the crime yet! Therefore, my argument against the non - aggression principle most assuredly stands. "The point of argumentation ethics in relation to the non-aggression principle is if someone decides to forgo his rights of discourse by engaging in violence, then he will be treated the same way. He has not only dismissed his victims personal rights, but by ignoring discourse he has also dismissed his own." Now we delve into the realm of opinion over what is right or wrong - surely my opponent would not initiate force against government because he was asked to pay his taxes - this is the iniation of force by a party to deprive another party of property rights, but it would irrational of my opponent not to pay his taxes in that case. That government has not dismissed the opponnent's right to himself or his property INSOFAR as that right can be upheld. Some things in life are necessary - but has a government dismissed it's right to existence because it initiated force? Certainly not. To say that one dismisses one's own rights when one dismisses another's is an opinion backed neither by reason nor the law. In real life, it all depends upon the circumstances. "An unwilling, reluctant father has taken no act to deprive another's liberty, he has merely exercised his own by copulating for pleasure. Therefore, one can conclude by my opponent's own concession that the father's property rights (labor, money, time) should therefore not be taken from him." Here my opponent's argument rests on previous fallacy - that the only reason property rights provided by law should be taken away is if they directly infringe upon the property rights of another individual, however, there are many indirect ways of causing problems in this world and there are many needs (both direct and indirect) that we rely on others for, including the government. Property is taken away from us all the time in the form of taxes. Even the most radical libertarians would agree that some form of taxation is necessary, otherwise the very system of property rights will collapse due to an end to law, order, and peace. Circumstances change the property rights granted to an individual by law, as has been said previously. "Just because a father is incapable genetically of performing birth does not mean he should be accountable for a woman's decision based on social pressure or agenda to not have an abortion until late, or to feel bad about it if she does. A person's emotions do not determine logical conclusions. And the inequality of genetics cannot be rectified by law without impeding a person's liberty. (Ie. A woman has breasts. In sports it is more difficult to play when you have large breasts in front of you. Therefore all men should strap weights to their chest... This is a logical fallacy and completely absurd. My opponent is saying something similar. He is saying that because women are the only ones capable of going through birth, the man should be forced to suffer as well. The conclusion doesn't follow the premise. I refer you to Hume's guillotine regarding all normative assertions.)" I paste this entire response because there are several points where my opponent makes mistakes - first, he suggests that inequality cannot be rectified by law, and adds the analogy. On the contrary, rather than men having to wear weights strapped to their chests whilst playing in sports with women, women are given a separate league entirely more often than not. Also, politicians have been working for ages to mend gender inequality, and to say that the two are primarily unequal introduces bias, covered (in Canada) under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as impermissible. Regardless, an abortion is an action, and actions have consequences, and these consequences must be taken into account. To not take them into account because "that is the way of things" would be like saying that there cannot be a woman's league, because the one sports league is good enough and if there are no women then too bad. "What is a contract? A contract is an agreement entered into voluntarily by two parties or more with the intention of creating a legal obligation, which may have elements in writing, though contracts can be made orally. (http://en.wikipedia.org......)" In this we have a difference in definition. I used the dictionary.com definition (http://dictionary.reference.com...) of a contract, which is "an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified." Therefore we have a difference in the definition of contract itself. However, my opponent's definition seems to me to be more in league with my argument that mine with theirs - Sex is an agreement entered into voluntarily by two parties or more, whether a child is a legal obligation is what we are trying to decide and said contract MAY have elements in writing, though contracts CAN be made orally. This seems to be more in tune, essentially, with my definition - the truth is that they are defining the same thing, but my opponent's wikipedia clipping is less brief! My opponent continues to mention "(my) previous concessions and argumentation ethics," however, I have already shown that my opponent's views of argumentation ethics must be false and limited to argumentation, and my previous concessions include that adult human beings have property rights, (given to them, as all rights are, by laws and government) however, I have also stated that there are some instances where it is necessary to take some of ose rights away - this, to put it bluntly, is one of them. My opponent states that the knife allegory is a strawman argument, however, by not helping a child our father has indirectly caused harm, just as one does by providing the knife. To contradict that inaction is decision is to contradict an earlier assertion that my opponent made - that it is equally a yes or no decision to have an abortion, and that the default is neither! Therefore my opponent's points are entirely illogical, especially in the real world, where unsaid agreements are made daily and abortions do not occur by themselves!