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

Hermann- Hope's Argumentation EthicsHumans use argumentation as a method to settle disputes regarding rivalrous goods as opposed to the alternative method: violence. Once a person engages in discourse, he is accepting norms contingent to the basic norm of non-violent conflict resolution. We (Pro and Con) are engaging in argumentation instead of violence and are therefore accepting the presuppositions involved with engaging in argumentation. We assume initial freedom as two moral agents and by engaging in debate we are allowing that the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of argumentation. (To deny these norms would raise performative contradiction (saying something like, "I can't express arguments), and void this argument of meaning altogether.) For instance, I can't argue that violence is the correct means of conflict resolution because in doing so I am 'arguing' on behalf of violence and saying that the result of this discourse is meaningless. It is a performative contradiction.) If we engage in debate rather than violence we are presupposing that both parties have private ownership. Because argumentation requires the active use of one's body, all universal norms for resolving conflicts over the human body except for self-ownership aren't consistent with argumentation. Thus we establish, since we are debating, human's have property rights. And we are saying that it is irrational to deprive that human of such property rights (NonAgression Principle). If we say an unwed father has property rights over himself and by extension his labor (his money) we then conclude that you cannot deprive him of it without giving up our argument's basis in logic. We become irrational. U.S. Law and Sex Not Being A Contract In the U.S. it is legal to have an abortion for the reason of property rights. The government refuses to deny women their right to their property (themselves). A woman who wants an abortion has entered no contract with the fetus they are aborting and the fetus isn't wanted in the woman's womb, therefore she is given the legal right to dispel said fetus. If that is a right afforded to women, why should the same right (property rights) not be afforded to unwed, unwilling fathers?By having sexual intercourse with the mother, the father is not entering into contract for the resulting fetus (as shown by law in the argument above.) If it is not true for the mother, then logically it follows that sex doesn't constitute a contract for the father either. If the mother is capable of deciding to have the child, then she is also capable of deciding not to have the child. So I disagree with my opponent's statement that, "This is essentially an issue that concerns gender equality - it is true that the female involved gives birth to the child, but both her and her husband are equally responsible for it's existence. To say that fathers should not pay child support or (similarly) help to raise the child would be unethical in and of itself, as the mother has little choice in the matter." This statement is absolutely false. They are not equally responsible for its existence. The mother is solely responsible for its existence in the fact that she has the choice to abort the child. And the mother has COMPLETE choice in the matter. A father has entered no contract with the mother or the fetus, and therefore his role or involvement with the fetus should not be constringent upon the woman's decision to abort or not to abort. Basically, a father doesn't suddenly get a bunch of responsibilities just because a mother decides to have the child. That is the mother's decision, as it is also her decision to not have the child. The child's rights (under a free society dedicated to equality) are not paramount to the mothers, and therefore cannot be paramount to the father's. If the unwed father doesn't want the child, and sex is not a contract, then the father should not be coerced to pay child support by U.S. law.