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

The title "philosopher" on your account page is certainly well earned, and I had to fire up my laptop and spend a few moments idly in bed to come up with some of the answers for this particular discourse. .. The first gap I could find in the argument made by the opposition is that "it is irrational to deprive that human of such property rights. " On the contrary it is quite rational to deprive a human being of their property rights, even to themselves, under certain circumstances, circumstances which, I might add, the two participators in the debate are not engaged in. We assume, as the two participants in said debate, that we have property rights, but an individual who is willing to deprive another of THEIR rights to themselves obviously should not, and cannot otherwise the entire system of property rights would collapse. The non - aggression principle is also fallacious in that it often leads to greater amounts of violence. By not stopping a serial killer and depriving them of their rights to themselves, one may be putting many lives at stake, and thus CAUSING violence by our inaction. This is where, you could say, objectivism trumps libertarianism. The non - aggression principle is a pre - supposition of argumentation in the sense of the argument itself, but it would seem highly irrational to (without any support whatsoever) extend the principles of that argumentation to all else. As humans, we adapt to the circumstances evident in our daily lives in different ways, therefore by not using violence (I prefer the term force, otherwise any relatively coercive activity, such as taxation, is considered "violence") to decide this debate we are using the non - aggression principle in this debate and nowhere else. Yet I shall concede that a person does primarily have a right to their own property, including themselves, ASSUMING that conditions do not arise where deprivation of that property is necessary. I also concede that a fetus is not a human being until that fetus obtains consciousness, I shall accept that we are framing this argument in the context of American law (Canadian law is similar regardless) and I shall accept that in the US, a woman has reasonable access to abortion clinics. However, this is where the rationalism of my opponent's argument stops, first of all, one must accept the emotional baggage of having an abortion, emotional baggage, by the way, that the would - be father does NOT have to partake in. However, assuming that emotional baggage is paid for in some way, what of belief? What if a woman believes that having an abortion will send her to hell - does she still have a choice in the matter of an abortion? Are there not other factors? Also, there are times at which an abortion is not available. However, assuming all these things are not true of a particular case, to have an abortion is an ACTION, therefore that action must RESULT from the woman's labour i. e. both her money and her time. All in all, an abortion, as most would accept, is not an activity that is taken likely under any circumstances. Assuming that the would - be father can pay for at least half of all this, what of fathers who abandon the child after it is born? Or after the obtainment of consciousness? I believe that you will find that a vast majority of cases fall under the above circumstances. What the argument essentially must rest on, then, is that there is no contract made between two individuals when they have sex. A contract, by definition, is "an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified. " However, the doing or not doing of having a child really rests on whether the parents both know the possible consequences of the actions that they will perform - and they inevitably will in modern society, therefore they must agree to the possibility of having a child, as I'm certain a court would not require advanced psychologists to establish. Since they entered into a contract to possibly have a child, the question is whether that child is still owned by the mother after it is born, which the law clearly establishes it is not, as will be evident with laws concerning the rights of the child and such. Who, therefore, is responsible for the child? In having intercourse, the parents entered into a contract that accepted the possibility of having a child, as they must, being grown adult human beings, (by the same ilk, by choosing this debate we entered into a contract to have a debate, and as I'm certain the opposition knows, contracts do not have to be legally on paper and neither do they have to be spoken) and that contract played out accordingly. WHERE the child was during the months that it was developing is of no consequence, only the fact that the said contract PRODUCED the child matters, i. e. we are responsible for the consequences of our actions, which makes sense in the real world. Therefore, since a child is a human being, and two adult human beings have entered into a contract to create that human being, they share responsibility for it, regardless of where it has been or WHAT it has been. One example of how this plays out elsewhere might be this; let's say I give my friend a knife, knowing full well that that friend is in a fit of rage and headed off to a knife fight, (just because I'm vindictive and want to see some drama) that knife is now my friend's property, and he may or may not choose to draw it in the fight. HOWEVER, I know that my friend may very well draw it, and if it was discovered in court that I gave him the knife, knowing full well what he might do with it, there is not a shadow of a doubt that I would be criminally culpable. Therefore, is is certainly NOT unjust for unwed, reluctant fathers to be coerced to pay child support, coercion happens all the time and is necessary, and the father knew that the child would exist as a result of a contract he participated in, so he can pay his fair share!