« First « Previous Comments 280 - 319 of 335 Next » Last » Search these comments
Yes, absolutely!
I'm glad I didn't misrepresent your position. One always does go out on a limb when presenting what he thinks someone else thinks, but usually you can tell from what others write what their position is, as long as they write clearly and intelligible.
The point of fomenting division along the lines of race and sex is to gain power by making some group very angry and therefore likely to vote for you, or keep your funding going for feminist or racist projects. They don't care if it's bad for the country as long as it gets them some power.
This is very true, and it should be opposed heavily. Both the left and the right engage in this tactic. Being conservatives, both believe the ends justify the means. They don't.
Even if you could justify a short-term gain by using such a tactic, the long-term consequences always outweigh whatever you get.
It's only fair.
But not to the child.
It's not fair to the child to be brought into the world without willing parents.
Again, this is why parenting should require a license. It's completely unfair for a child to be born into poverty, or to a crazy single parent that cannot raise him or even take care of herself because she's bipolar. Or to parents who are too immature to raise a child, or too lazy, or too unwilling to sacrifice and work hard. Or that already has eight kids and lives on welfare. The only solution is requiring a license backed by testing people for their ability to parent.
"But not to the child"
And that is the rub and is what is used by the government to use its enormous power to adversely affect men through the child support system. The system is archaic and was meant for a time long ago when the family was intact - and makes sense for marriages where the implication is that child rearing was agreed upon by both parties (otherwise why get married - though I do realize that some marry not simply to pro-create - but that is the exception). Now, the government is applying unjustified coercion of the man on behalf of two parties: the child and the woman who deliberately carries to term the child knowing full well the man was not committed to raising this child.
For parties that were married, it makes sense to act in the best interests of the child (from the gov perspective), as the government is trying to recreate a situation where the child is not deprived of resources that would have been otherwise available if the marriage was intact. Of course, no fault divorce has made the dissolution of a family that much easier. In any case, government is trying t apply the same standard to one-night stands which is patently silly on the face of it.
I would agree that the only truly "fair" way would be to outlaw abortion. Both parties would know the ramifications of a pregnancy and one party would not have power over the other. The next best thing would be a second tier type of support for the unmarried situations- perhaps a 50/50 cost sharing not based on income (today, the higher earning party is completely screwed) or some other system that does not incentivize the woman to lie about taking the pill or to dump the contents of condom into her vagina.
It's not fair to the child to be brought into the world without willing parents.
and your solution is?
License parenting. If you can't afford the kid without getting welfare or child support payments, you don't get to have the kid. If you do have a kid without getting a license first, CPA is all over your ass watching everything you do like your on probation. Also, mandatory birth control or chemical spaying until you meet the licensing requirement if you have a kid w/o a license. If you cannot take care of the kid, CPA takes it away and your wages are garnished. Both you and the kid are not eligible for a parental license until you have paid back the state for the cost of raising the child. Society will eat the cost for some people, but they are prevented from having descendants. This creates an evolutionary pressure to not be a parasite and to be a productive member of society.
Childhood poverty would be eliminated, as would most bad parenting.
If you do have a kid without getting a license first, CPA is all over your ass watching everything you do like your on probation.
But an unwilling father pays child support?
chemical spaying
And this is better than forcing a woman to abort, which you are against?
Also:
1. How does this fit your liberal beliefs:
- "equality under law. We all have the same rights, and no privileges"
-" liberty. If you aren't violating another person's rights, you can do what you want."
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 only fair.
But not to the child.
@FP So it's ok for women to steal from men as long as it's "for the benefit of" the child?
@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
3. I am fine with the burden being transferred to society under certain circumstances
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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).
And this is better than forcing a woman to abort, which you are against?
It is more affordable.
and this makes it better?
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?
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.
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.
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.
and this makes it better?
Bad spellcheck. I meant enforceable,
does not make it morally right
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I say we need license for living.
So murder and population control are the same thing? I think not.
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.
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.
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.
« First « Previous Comments 280 - 319 of 335 Next » Last » Search these comments
Let's call it the affirmative consent law, requiring men to give affirmative consent to paternity.
This would achieve equality with a woman's "her body her choice" right to ignore the man's request for an abortion or to give the child up for adoption. Rights which only women have.
If she has the right to refuse responsibility for the baby, he should also have the right to refuse responsibility for the baby. In recognition of the biological reality that it is the woman who physically has to have the abortion, if she wants to abort, the man should have to pay the entire financial cost of the abortion.
Married men should be assumed by the fact of marriage to have given their consent to financial support for legitimate biological paternity.
It is not fair that a woman should have the right to entrap a man with one night sex, obligating him to 20 years or more of financial liability, when she has the right to simply opt out of the same situation via abortion or giving up the baby for adoption. Without a man's affirmative consent to paternity, it's rape.
#politics