TITLE: Why Parents Owe Their Kids for the “Crime” of Creating Them
SENTENCE 1: Rothbard argues that because rights are negative, parents legally only have to leave a child alone to respect its rights:  “Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights.
SENTENCE 2: But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.
SENTENCE 3: Parenting for Freedom article series: This is the first in a series of articles that analyzes how freedom-loving people can align their parenting with their political philosophy, and how doing so will allow ideas about personal liberty to carry on to the next generation.

Bias label: moderately
Annotator rationales:

ChatGPT said:
If parents owe their kids for the "crime" of creating them, then it suggests a provocative shift in perspective on parental responsibility. It implies that bringing a child into the world is not just a gift but a commitment, and perhaps even a debt, that parents must acknowledge by offering support, love, and opportunities.
If the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate their children, then this could lead to a fundamental shift in the understanding of parental rights and responsibilities.