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: highly
Annotator rationales:
if we call having children a crime, then we will become extinct
if parents let childs alone, then no one will be able to raise them properly
if parents dont take care of childs, then childs are not able to live alone because they are young yet
if the parents would have the legal right of dont feed the child, then the child will die
if the parents has a good moral, then the childs sure will be cared
if we allow too much freedom, then people forget their obligations