patrick.net

FP says

But an unwilling father pays child support?

No. The burden is on the person deciding to become a parent. If that person is the mother and she chooses to not have an abortion, she's on the hook. If that person is the father, and the mother agrees to bear the child only to give it to the father and not be a mother herself, then he's on the hook. Again, equality and choice.

Liberty means you are free to make your own choices in life. It does not mean you are free from the consequences of those choices.

FP says

And this is better than forcing a woman to abort, which you are against?

It is more enforceable.

You have the right to do whatever you want as long as it does not interfere with other people's rights. Using taxpayer dollars just to get your genes passed on does interfere with other people's rights. Forcing a man into indenture servitude does interfere with other people's rights. The woman still has the choice of whether or not she goes through with becoming a parent. She does not have the choice to freeload at other people's expenses or to inflict persistent poverty onto her child.

FP says

Also:

1. How does this fit your liberal beliefs:

- "equality under law. We all have the same rights, and no privileges"

Reproduction isn't a right. It's a responsibility same as driving, flying, practicing medicine, and everything else that requires a license. We license things to avoid dilemmas.

FP says

2. Still no fair solution for all parties (mother, father, and child) when a child is born to licensed parents but unwilling father.

It's not fair that some people inherent good genes and others are born ugly or with birth defects or genetic disease. It's not fair that some children are born to rich parents and other poor. If it's possible to achieve a higher degree of fairness than demonstrate how. The proposals I gave are the fairest proposals thus far. They are also the most forgiving.

Also, if the father is unwilling, then just the mother would be licensed assuming she meets the fiscal, stability, and responsibility standards.

FP says

rando says

@FP So it's ok for women to steal from men as long as it's "for the benefit of" the child?

1. steal is not the correct word

2. it is not women per se but society who forces men to support their children

It's still taking forcibly a man's material possessions and the part of his life he spent earning them. That is, by definition, theft even if it's a legal form of theft. Governments steal all the time. Sometimes it's necessary. Usually it's not.

Dan8267 says

No. The burden is on the person deciding to become a parent.

So still unfair to the child. Ergo, your solution is not a solution (see above where we started from).

Dan8267 says

FP says

And this is better than forcing a woman to abort, which you are against?

It is more affordable.

and this makes it better?

Dan8267 says

Reproduction isn't a right. It's a responsibility same as driving, flying, practicing medicine, and everything else that requires a license. We license things to avoid dilemmas.

These things that you listed require very specific skill sets that can be tested. How do you propose to test parenting ability?

FP says

and this makes it better?

Bad spellcheck. I meant enforceable, not affordable. I corrected the mistake right away, but you quoted it before I could.

FP says

These things that you listed require very specific skill sets that can be tested. How do you propose to test parenting ability?

How does CPA do it right now? They have tests to determine if parents are fit. The licensing should be done by CPA. They are the experts. The only thing I'm adding is a requirement that the parents aren't on any form of welfare or child support, because if you need state assistance or someone's unwilling payments, then you cannot afford a child.

Dan8267 says

It's not fair that some people inherent good genes and others are born ugly or with birth defects or genetic disease.

Right, life is not fair. Can't have it good for everybody. So choices are made according to values. My priority is to ensure that all children are given as much equal start as possible.

Dan8267 says

FP says

and this makes it better?

Bad spellcheck. I meant enforceable,

does not make it morally right

FP says

My priority is to ensure that all children are given as much equal start as possible.

You fail at that priority if you reject parental licensing.

Dan8267 says

ou have the right to do whatever you want as long as it does not interfere with other people's rights.

What rights? Their tax dollars?

FP says

does not make it morally right

How is allowing children to be subjected to abject poverty and even death -- many children die from bad parenting -- morally superior?

How is requiring people to be responsible before becoming parents morally wrong? Some states require that you have a license to have a dog or cat. Doesn't having a kid require far more responsibility and expense? We shouldn't let people have dogs and cats if they can't take care of them. Same should be true for children.

I have the moral high ground, not you.

I think FP has a gross ignorance of just how bad poverty is for single mothers and the incredible burden placed on children as a result.

http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/329/poverty-rates-are-higher-among-single-mother-families-regardless-of-race

https://phys.org/news/2015-08-mothers-poverty-fathers.html

It's a damn serious problem in the U.S. and getting worse every year.

Dan8267 says

How is allowing children to be subjected to abject poverty and even death -- many children die from bad parenting -- morally superior?

sterillizing women is neither necessary nor sufficient condition for preventing this

Dan8267 says

I think FP has a gross ignorance of just how bad poverty is for single mothers and the incredible burden placed on children as a result.

No, I don't.

So your solution is to sterilize poor women?

FP says

What rights? Their tax dollars?

Subjecting a man to indentured servitude violates his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life is stolen from him in the form of the time it takes him to work to pay child support as well as any jail time for falling behind even if he is fired for no fault of his own. Liberty is directly taken from the man. He loses the ability to pursue happiness from his earnings.

You seem very apathetic to the suffering you so willingly would inflict upon your fellow man.

Now I need to go get my kid from an event.

FP says

sterillizing women is neither necessary nor sufficient condition for preventing this

Prove it. Oh, and the sterilization does not have to be permanent. That's why I said chemical spaying.

FP says

So your solution is to sterilize poor women?

My solution involves preventing women or men from continuing to choose to produce more children when they have failed to take care of the ones they already have. And yes, that is the path of least evil in this situation. It is far less evil than what you propose: slavery, childhood poverty, and debtor prisons (which are in the status quo you are defending). Rapists are chemically castrated so they cannot rape again. The justification is that they should not have the freedom to commit more of the same harm. Why should irresponsible parents be allowed to commit more of the same harm?

Dan8267 says

Prove it.

Ah, nonsense. We both know I'm right. In any case, you are the one who must prove it is necessary and sufficient.

Dan8267 says

It is far less evil than what you propose: slavery, childhood poverty, and debtor prisons (which are in the status quo you are defending).

1. Paying child support is not slavery.

2. See above about necessary and sufficient condition.

3. You and I obviously have different views on evil.

FP says

1. Paying child support is not slavery.

Paying a large percentage of your income under threat of violence if you do not, for the majority of your working life, is an approximation of slavery.

As the percentage approaches 100%, the situation does indeed approach slavery.

Dan8267 says

Why should irresponsible parents be allowed to commit more of the same harm?

Again, how do you define irresponsible? Having income below certain level?

Harm - to your wallet?

Too bad society does not view you using all your income, as you wish, for your pleasure only, regardless of what you've done, as your irrvokable right. But I am fine with it. After all, you are breathing the air of my children. And you are getting old and useless. Why should we tolerate your existence? I say we need license for living. You have lived irresponsibly, not raised descendants to take your place and to take care of you in your old age. Why should we allow you to continue doing the same thing?

rando says

As the percentage approaches 100%, the situation does indeed approach slavery.

The percentage can be varied. I do not claim that the current laws are perfect and should not be changed.

Is there any percentage you find acceptable?

Do you find a governmental allowance acceptable?

FP says

1. Paying child support is not slavery.

rando says

Paying a large percentage of your income under threat of violence if you do not, for the majority of your working life, is an approximation of slavery.

Slavery, like almost every evil, can be throttled. There are degrees of it, and yes, forcing someone at gunpoint to either work for you or be locked up in a cage is, by definition, slavery. Like all other laws, child support laws are enforced with the barrel of a gun.

FP says

3. You and I obviously have different views on evil.

Yes, mine is based on do no harm to others. Yours is based on if you have fun, you have to pay a price.

FP says

Dan8267 says

Why should irresponsible parents be allowed to commit more of the same harm?

Again, how do you define irresponsible? Having income below certain level?

Harm - to your wallet?

Harm to the children they create and to society that must deal with the systemic inter-generational poverty and crime that results from irresponsible reproduction.

FP says

Why should we tolerate your existence?

You should tolerate other people's existence because if you don't, they won't tolerate yours. This is called war.

FP says

I say we need license for living.

So murder and population control are the same thing? I think not.

FP says

You have lived irresponsibly, not raised descendants to take your place and to take care of you in your old age. Why should we allow you to continue doing the same thing?

Becoming a parent is the most selfish act you can commit when there are 7+ soon to be 10 billion people on the planet and already a third of them don't even have sufficient drinking water, and we've killed off half the wildlife on the planet in the past 40 years, and we're polluting it to the point of drastically changing the climate. So no, being childless is being selfless. We should strongly encourage that.

People should not reproduce like locus and consume everything in their path. That is not being responsible, and it harms all future generations.

When the world population drops below 10 million, then you can complain that we need more children. Until then such a claim is ridiculous.

FP says

Ah, nonsense. We both know I'm right. In any case, you are the one who must prove it is necessary and sufficient.

This is the lamest argument posted on PatNet ever.

Dan8267 says

Yes, mine is based on do no harm to others. Yours is based on if you have fun, you have to pay a price.

Yours are based on selfishness and bearing no responsibility.

Dan8267 says

Harm to the children they create and to society that must deal with the systemic inter-generational poverty and crime that results from irresponsible reproduction.

And how do you determine this before they've had children? Based on wealth and income? I hope you realize the implications of this, especially considering how wealth is "earned" in our society.

By the way how is child poverty in the Scandinavian countries, or Japan?

Dan8267 says

FP says

Ah, nonsense. We both know I'm right. In any case, you are the one who must prove it is necessary and sufficient.

This is the lamest argument posted on PatNet ever.

This is the lamest argument posted on PatNet ever.

Dan8267 says

So murder and population control are the same thing? I think not.

Just continuing your line of logic, one small step further, to illustrate its absurdity.

Do you really believe that people will allow you to decide who can and who can't have children? To sterilize their wives and daughters? That there are no better solutions for population control (what is the natural growth rate in the developed countries again?)? Just so that you can save some dumbfuck who can't use a condom (or the taxpayers) a few bucks needed to provide for their children.

FP says

Dan8267 says

Yes, mine is based on do no harm to others. Yours is based on if you have fun, you have to pay a price.

Yours are based on selfishness and bearing no responsibility.

Bullshit. My entire proposal is based on the principle that a child is a person, not an accessory like a purse. Yours is based on the principle that children are the property of their parents and parents can act as selfishly as they want and force others into slavery to compensate for their irresponsibility.

You don't get to declare good policies evil and evil polices good simply because you say so.

FP says

Dan8267 says

Harm to the children they create and to society that must deal with the systemic inter-generational poverty and crime that results from irresponsible reproduction.

And how do you determine this before they've had children? Based on wealth and income?

The exact same way Child Protective Services determines this after children are born. Same standards. It's already being done for children post-birth. The exact same thign can be done pre-birth.

If you want to argue that Child Protective Services should be disbanded and the state should never be able to take children away from unfit parents, then grow a pair of balls and argue that. You'll lose that argument though.

FP says

Do you really believe that people will allow you to decide who can and who can't have children?

Who the fuck said I would be deciding. I said that Child Protective Services would license parents based on whether or not they are fit parents using the same standards they use right now for deciding whether or not children need to be taken away from their parents for their own protection. The only criteria I'm adding is a basic financial solvency test requiring that the parents aren't receiving any kind of financial aid because if they need financial aid to support themselves or their children, then they are not ready to have children. If you can't pay rent or your mortgage, you can't afford a child. Children are expensive, and you do not have the right to inflict abject poverty on them.

FP says

Just so that you can save some dumbfuck who can't use a condom (or the taxpayers) a few bucks needed to provide for their children.

First off, asshole, you're assuming that's the case. Some pregnancies do occur even when condoms are used.

More importantly, you just revealed your real motivations, and they are not noble. You don't give a shit about people or the children. You only care about punishing men who have had recreational sex. This is why your position is evil. You do not seek to decrease suffering or improve the lots of children. You seek to inflict suffering on men because they had some pleasure in life. You are sick.