Parents should be legally identified and held responsible [2]

The notion that it is unethical to require parents to support their children is novel. Con argues that "This means that a mother, who is highly successful or at the very least financially and psychologically stable, is not allowed to determine whether or not the father is involved in the child's life. Clearly there is an ethical issue here, namely, the proposition supposes that Big Brother knows best, and it is always in the best interest of the child to have the father involved." The proposition supposes that a child has rights, including the right to be supported by both parents. Usually, there is no difficulty, because the parents voluntarily live up to their responsibility. It is only in the case when the father absconds that Courts are involved, and that is quite reasonable. Starting with the child's right to support, the Court determines if the father needs to provide any financial support. The proposition does not require that the father "be involved" in the raising of the child to any extent other than providing financial support. That the father need not necessarily be involved in the raising of the child was made clear in my opening argument in the paragraph beginning "In the case of a dissolved relationship ..." What is at issue is only potential child support from a father seeking to avoid responsibility. Con argues that "Next, in part g., my opponent claims that the parents are responsible for any support the child receives from the government for the rest of their lives. If this is true, then all public schools should be paid for by parents of children only, ..." Con is ignoring the definition of "support" giving in the opening round, as "the ongoing obligation for a periodic payment made directly or indirectly by a non-custodial parent to a custodial parent, caregiver or guardian, or the government, for the care and support of children ..." Clearly I have not ventured beyond the conventional definition of child support as given in the Wikipedia article. Con's broader interpretation is fanciful. There is no obligation beyond the ordinary financial responsibility of a non-custodial parent. Con argues completely irrelevant language in international law regarding the right to have a child. Nothing in the the proposition limits the right to have a child or for it to be raised entirely by the mother. Con overlooks language in International law cited in my opening argument that declares "that the upbringing and development of children and a standard of living adequate for the children's development is a common responsibility of both parents and a fundamental human right for children, and asserts that the primary responsibility to provide such for the children rests with their parents." There is nothing in the proposition that limits the right to have children, rather the proposition asserts the right of the child to be supported by both parents. 1. Con did not claim that a "should" resolution must be Constitutional. He rebutted that those judging the debate are free to judge it on the basis of Constitutionality if they choose to, whether it is required or not. That's true. In general, there is no compulsion to judge a debate based upon logic or evidence either. Doing so is simply a convention associated with debate. The resolution asserts that parents should be held responsible for their children. I would be bizarre if the Constitution prohibited that, but if that is the case then the Constitution ought to be amended to allow it. 2. (I apologize for referring to Con as "Pro" in 2 and 3.) The right to search airline passengers is held by Con to be a consequence of airline travel being voluntary. I searched diligently and could find no Court decision supporting that reasoning, although there is much support for a conflicting "right to travel." If searching passengers is based upon travel being voluntary, then clearly the identification of parents is equally well-grounded upon parenthood being voluntary. If a person wishes to avoid the responsibility of parenthood, that is easily accomplished by not becoming a parent. 3. Con claimed that the proposition was inherently too broad because, "cannot be refined in enough detail to dispel the broadness because Pro is adamant about maintaining robust police authority for searches." However, I pointed out exactly how the searches could be narrowed, subject to judicial review. Con went on to argue that the mother could nonetheless provide erroneous names under the guise of providing probable cause. However, that is inherent in any providing of probable cause. Whatever evidence of probable cause could be in error. That is why a judge decides whether the evidence is sufficient or not. 4. Con admits that the person from whom a swab is required is not being charged with a crime, "However, since the proposition on offer is that the parents will be responsible for all of the financing of their children, it can be argued that having a child is at the minimum a civil offense if one is poor and did not expect the child (i.e. failed contraception)." This is incorrect. There is no requirement that the parent be charged with a civil offense. The judge determining responsibility may determine that the father owes nothing. For example, the woman may have tricked him into believing that she was using effective contraception. The father, upon being identified, may volunteer to support the child, and thereby escape civil penalty. Moreover, the identification of the parent is always separate from imposition of financial responsibility. Is installing a security camera or requiring a driver's license a violation of the Fourth Amendment. According to Con's legalistic thinking, they ought to be. A security camera provides identification that could lead to criminal penalties if it shows the commission of a crime. A driver's license is even worse, because it requires self-identification that could be used if the license-holder is caught driving under the influence. The is no Fourth Amendment right against identification on the grounds that identification might be used as part of separate prosecution. 5. I grant the Con did not declare a presumption of innocence to be a Constitutional right. Sorry. 6. I pointed out that only denial is punished, not failure to self-identify. That stands. 7. Con provided no rebuttal that something unprecedented was nonetheless valid. The proposition before us is quite reasonable: "The parents of each child should be identified as a legal requirement and the parents shall be held responsible by the government for the costs of raising the child." Con asserts, that "the proposition leads to unacceptable ethical violations" Have we really reached the point in society where holding parents responsible for the financial upbringing of their children is unethical? I do not think so. The resolution is affirmed.