Forced Child Support

[labmath2]

Is it moral to require that one parent be forced to pay for the support of the child they had with another parent? Should they be allowed to relinquish responsibilities as well as right if they so wish?

[Agalloch]

Yes. No.

 

In reality though, you haven't given enough information. Are you assuming the State exists and is doing the force? Does the receiving parent allow full access to the paying parent? Did the receiving parent really attempt at reconciliation, continuing the relationship and attend counselling? Does the receiving parent spend the money on the child? Why can't the paying parent pay for the child directly? And so much more...

 

In reality, you need to take a step back in any given situation and ask why the parents aren't together, and how you can judge anything when something completely wrong for the child has clearly already happened.

[labmath2]

This came up because i saw a story of a guy who was cheating on his wife and ended up getting the girl pregnant. Now the girl wants child support. Without the state, would people really be fine with him being forced to pay child support even if he wants nothing to do with the child?

[cobra2411]

It took two parties to create that child. As a man, it's always in the back of my mind that I may get a girl pregnant and it should be in the minds of women that the man cheating on his wife might not be the most honest and trustworthy person in the world. 

In our current system the women simply shoves a gun to the father's head, even if the sperm was stolen. Women have little to no barriers when it comes to financial support for their children. In a "normal" relationship they have the largest gun in the room, in a welfare relationship they have uncle sugar who also happens to be the biggest gun in the room. With no downside other than maybe stretch marks there's little else but personal preference to stop them from having children and forcing someone to pay.

Now in an anarcho-capital system I'm sure there would be mechanisms to ensure fair treatment of children. Mother's would have to be more careful and would ultimately own the responsibility of the child. If the father wants visitation then in my mind that would imply a desire to take care of the child, including financially. Any agreements made prior to sex would be enforced by something like a DRO. 

[Slavik]

In my mind I ask this question " is the father who isnt paying child support initiating force?"  Of course given that no prior contract was made, I do not see how forcing someone to pay child support would be moral.  So I would say no, I dont think it is moral to force a parent to pay child support.  

[AncapFTW]

In my mind I ask this question " is the father who isnt paying child support initiating force?" Of course given that no prior contract was made, I do not see how forcing someone to pay child support would be moral. So I would say no, I dont think it is moral to force a parent to pay child support.

There was an implied contract when they had consentual sex. If you loan me your car, theres an implied contract that I'll pay any traffic fines I incur while using it, and will pay to fix it if I am at fault in a wreck with it.

 

Also, he accidentally caused her harm by getting her pregnant.

[Slavik]

There was an implied contract when they had consentual sex. If you loan me your car, theres an implied contract that I'll pay any traffic fines I incur while using it, and will pay to fix it if I am at fault in a wreck with it.

 

Also, he accidentally caused her harm by getting her pregnant.

Pregnancy is harm?  Can you expand on that please?

 

If you loan me your car, I dont have to pay parking tickets per contract,  sure that would make me a complete ass, but it doesnt make it immoral, nor am I contractually obligated.  

 

Implicit contracts especially in pregnancy do not exist, abortion demonstrates it very well

 

Isnt "social contract" an implicit contract that we as anarchists completely disagree with?

[Mister Mister]

 Without the state, would people really be fine with him being forced to pay child support even if he wants nothing to do with the child?

 

No.  But they wouldn't send an army to force him to pay either.  Most likely, a woman in such a situation would have to put the kid up for adoption, where he would have a far better life with a family who actually wanted him.  Because of this, women would be more discerning about what kind of men they had unprotected sex with.

[Nathan Metric]

Good question. Is forced child support justified?

 

 

First, we need to have a standard of virtue.

 

1)Truth is universally preferable to falsehood.

 

2)Because truth is morally superior to falsehood living with rational beings is preferable to living without rational beings.

 

3)There are no conflicts of interest between rational beings unless there are conflicting moral rules.

 

4)Therefore, morality that is universal is preferable to morality that isn't universal.

 

 

So in order for any moral theory to be valid it must

a)Be universal

b)Serve the purpose of morality/natural law which is to aid the pursuit of the truth.

 

 

So would forcing child support from a parent who had a child with another parent be moral? Under natural law, coercion is wrong unless it's purpose is to reduce coercion in the long run. This is a logical correlate of the NAP. Taking this into account it would be logical to ask whether the parent is contractually obligated to provide child support otherwise any force against such an individual is to be construed as initiation.

 

This of course begs the question what exactly does it mean to be "contractually obligated" to do something. The only universal standard for consent is written consent. Of course, there is such a thing as implicit consent and explicit consent, but when it comes to an obligation as huge as the duty to provide child support and the threat of moral hazard that comes from enforcing too low a standard of consent  it would make sense to respect only the highest possible form of consent which is written down.

 

So to answer your question, the only duty a parent has to provide child support is that what they consented to via written contract. If no contract exist then the women is 100% responsible for burden of child rearing. If this sounds harsh then I recommend watching Girlwriteswhat's early videos on Equal Responsibility which debunks the idea that men and women are equally responsible for pregnancy.

[AncapFTW]

Pregnancy is harm? Can you expand on that please?

 

If you loan me your car, I dont have to pay parking tickets per contract, sure that would make me a complete ass, but it doesnt make it immoral, nor am I contractually obligated.

 

Implicit contracts especially in pregnancy do not exist, abortion demonstrates it very well

 

Isnt "social contract" an implicit contract that we as anarchists completely disagree with?

Well, you caused her to incur a cost that she wouldn't have had without your action, so, yeah, it is harm. That doesn't even consider the health problems she's now at risk for, or the fact that you chose to risk producing someone who can't provide for themselves for at least another decade. The same goes for the car.

 

And how does her ability to nullify the contract mean it doesn't exist? do corporate contracts cease to exist when an escape clause is added?

 

Also social contract =/= implied contract.

[Slavik]

Well, you caused her to incur a cost that she wouldn't have had without your action, so, yeah, it is harm. That doesn't even consider the health problems she's now at risk for, or the fact that you chose to risk producing someone who can't provide for themselves for at least another decade. The same goes for the car.

 

And how does her ability to nullify the contract mean it doesn't exist? do corporate contracts cease to exist when an escape clause is added?

 

Also social contract =/= implied contract.

Being pregnant is one thing, but we are talking about a child that apparently only one party wanted but the other didnt.  I dont see how one person can force another to pay, while that person can absolutely negate the contract without any incurred costs (giving up for adoption or abortion.)  All laws have to be universal, otherwise you end up with tyranny of one part of the population.  

 

A woman in this case has decided to get pregnant with what appears to be the wrong person, voluntarily.  Unless an explicit contract has been signed AKA marriage, I do not see how a law that is only enforced non universally on one part of the population, can be considered moral.  

 

The escape clause in the business contract is implicit contract since both parties sign it.   

 

"Also social contract =/= implied contract. " not sure what that means, so is it or is it not implied ?  And why is it not an implied contract?

[AncapFTW]

Pregnancy has a physical and monetary cost, and abortion has a monetary cost.  Raising the child, which results from a consensual relationship you both had, is a huge cost.  The fact that one person has a way out and the other person doesn't means that the contract isn't fair, not that you have no responsibility for the costs you caused her.  Should one parent have all of the choice for the child's life?  No, but that doesn't mean that one party has no responsibility to something they accidentally created.

 

----

 

An implied contract is essentially the unspoken bounds on what they agree to that are automatically understood due to social convention.

 

For example, let's say a business executive lets an old friend of his that is now homeless crash on his couch for the night because it's storming.  The next morning the homeless friend uses his bathroom, takes a shower, drinks a cup of coffee, borrows his BMW and a business suit, and goes to meet a guy for a job interview.

 

The bathroom, maybe shower and coffee, are generally assumed to be a part of letting them crash on your couch.  The BMW and suit aren't.  If you tried to file charges for the bathroom, shower, or coffee, people would think you were being a bit ridiculous.  Not so for the BMW and suit.

 

As another example, let's say you meet a woman in a bar and she comes over to your house for the night.  All that was explicitly agreed to was sex, and even that is contingent on continued acceptance of the agreement.  Does that mean you can bill her for a condom?  How about a night's rent for staying there?  For using your bathroom?  For taking a shower?  For a cup of coffee the next morning?  If, on the other hand, you catch an STD from her when she knew she could infect you, would you just say "well, that's just my responsibility" and and cover the cost yourself?  What if it was something that can't be cured, like HIV?

[Slavik]

Pregnancy has a physical and monetary cost, and abortion has a monetary cost.  Raising the child, which results from a consensual relationship you both had, is a huge cost.  The fact that one person has a way out and the other person doesn't means that the contract isn't fair, not that you have no responsibility for the costs you caused her.  Should one parent have all of the choice for the child's life?  No, but that doesn't mean that one party has no responsibility to something they accidentally created.

 

----

 

An implied contract is essentially the unspoken bounds on what they agree to that are automatically understood due to social convention.

 

For example, let's say a business executive lets an old friend of his that is now homeless crash on his couch for the night because it's storming.  The next morning the homeless friend uses his bathroom, takes a shower, drinks a cup of coffee, borrows his BMW and a business suit, and goes to meet a guy for a job interview.

 

The bathroom, maybe shower and coffee, are generally assumed to be a part of letting them crash on your couch.  The BMW and suit aren't.  If you tried to file charges for the bathroom, shower, or coffee, people would think you were being a bit ridiculous.  Not so for the BMW and suit.

 

As another example, let's say you meet a woman in a bar and she comes over to your house for the night.  All that was explicitly agreed to was sex, and even that is contingent on continued acceptance of the agreement.  Does that mean you can bill her for a condom?  How about a night's rent for staying there?  For using your bathroom?  For taking a shower?  For a cup of coffee the next morning?  If, on the other hand, you catch an STD from her when she knew she could infect you, would you just say "well, that's just my responsibility" and and cover the cost yourself?  What if it was something that can't be cured, like HIV?

Any laws that are not universal, end up with a fallacy called "special pleading."  Calling something unfair doesnt address the fact that something which is not universal, is illogical thus should not be enforced.  By principle, if you create one exception, you open the door to other exceptions.  

 

There is 9 months is "accidental" creation, so people should be very responsible for what they do.  By not allowing any exceptions, and by not enforcing that which was chosen voluntarily, you will have a greater amount of responsibility, and greater amount of caution exercised by women when choosing men.  Enforcement of payment is what you have right now, and its not only immoral to use force against someone who has never entered into explicit contract, but it also given a tremendous out for women to be irresponsible, as we can see in current culture. 

 

I do not see how your examples cover the principle of non aggression.  If someone infects you knowingly (if you can prove that) then yes it is their responsibility noww for using aggression against you, if it is done unknowingly then you can not claim aggression against you.  

 

The principle is non aggression, if aggression used then you can seek restitution, if no aggression is used then you can not seek restitution, as there is no bases for it.

 

Ok so would it be correct to say that you are for the "social contract?" It implied by social convention after all and seems to fit every criteria you present the rest by. 

[Nathan Metric]

Yes, pregnancy and abortion has both a monetary cost and a biological cost. So what? Having sex with someone = consenting to a bunch of duties. Let's put some things into perspective.

 

 

1)Sex is something good in and of itself. Sex is something human's pursue because it feels good. Not just because they want kids. Most sex is casual sex. 

 

2)The decision to engage in voluntary sex is a decision made by two people. Nothing is imposed on the woman that she didn't agree to.

 

3)No man can force a woman to control her fertility and force her to have an abortion. If a man wants to use a condom the woman also has to agree to it as well. Any form of condom usage, birth control or abortion is fundamentally the woman's choice. The latter two of which the man has no say in whatsoever nor does he have the right to know whether she is fulfilling her end of the bargain.

 

4)Birth control and condoms have a small possibility of failure. Their ability to stop pregnancy is not absolute.

 

5)It's also theoretically possible for a woman to steal sperm from a condom in a dumpster. This is extremely rare, but it could theoretically happen. Thus, pregnancy doesn't necessarily require that the woman had sex with the donor.

 

 

Given all the above, what sense does it enforce an implicit standard of consent when it comes to obligation to render child support? What sense does it make to treat men and women as having equal responsibility for pregnancy? Clearly women are 99.9999% responsible for pregnancy when it comes to voluntary sex.

 

 

 

Now as for social conventions, It's completely possible for men to understand the social convention that he is to be treated as though he is equally responsible for pregnancy but this has nothing to do with whether the convention is justified in the first place.

 

 

 

Also, you speak of a man accidentally giving himself a STD by having sex with some woman and that the woman has an implicit duty to render him medical aid since she gave him an STD. I agree that she does, but that is because this is a clear case of injustice called fraud.. If a woman gets pregnant and is demanding child support however it it is not a clear cut case of injustice.
She can be pregnant becuase

a)The man defrauded her.

b)Mechanical failure of birth control methods. Accidental misuse of birth control.

c)She defrauded a man and is trying to manipulate the court system into enslaving him.

 

There is only one universal and absolute standard of consent: written consent. As far as I can tell, unless the contract is written down and signed there is effectively no contract. Implicit contracts if they exist at all should only exist for minor obligations such as paying a tip to the waiter. Not for obligations as life changing, as time consuming and as expensive as child support. If you enforce too low a standard of consent you create moral hazard.

[AncapFTW]

Any laws that are not universal, end up with a fallacy called "special pleading."  Calling something unfair doesnt address the fact that something which is not universal, is illogical thus should not be enforced.  By principle, if you create one exception, you open the door to other exceptions.  

 

There is 9 months is "accidental" creation, so people should be very responsible for what they do.  By not allowing any exceptions, and by not enforcing that which was chosen voluntarily, you will have a greater amount of responsibility, and greater amount of caution exercised by women when choosing men.  Enforcement of payment is what you have right now, and its not only immoral to use force against someone who has never entered into explicit contract, but it also given a tremendous out for women to be irresponsible, as we can see in current culture. 

 

I do not see how your examples cover the principle of non aggression.  If someone infects you knowingly (if you can prove that) then yes it is their responsibility noww for using aggression against you, if it is done unknowingly then you can not claim aggression against you.  

 

The principle is non aggression, if aggression used then you can seek restitution, if no aggression is used then you can not seek restitution, as there is no bases for it.

 

Ok so would it be correct to say that you are for the "social contract?" It implied by social convention after all and seems to fit every criteria you present the rest by. 

So, you have no responsibility for something which you caused to happen (accidentally) by your own actions because no aggression was used?  So, if I fire off a gun randomly and shoot someone, I'm not responsible for them being injured.  If I fire off a bottle rocket and it lands on my neighbor's roof, catching their house on fire, I'm not responsible for that because I didn't do it on purpose?

 

And that doesn't even account for the fact that in the actual situation we were discussing there is now another person involved, one which was created accidentally by your actions and which has no fault in this, yet will be harmed by your chosen actions if you don't take responsibility for the results of your actions.

 

You are using legality to argue ethics and then, when I point out that there is a moral issue with it which is separate from the legal issue, and that your idea of how to fix the legal issue would actually be immoral, you accuse me of special pleading.  Legality and morality are not the same, and whether or not something is moral has nothing to do with whether or not it's legal.

 

And then you accuse me of supporting something which I already said this wasn't.

 

 

Yes, pregnancy and abortion has both a monetary cost and a biological cost. So what? Having sex with someone = consenting to a bunch of duties. Let's put some things into perspective.

 

 

1)Sex is something good in and of itself. Sex is something human's pursue because it feels good. Not just because they want kids. Most sex is casual sex. 

 

2)The decision to engage in voluntary sex is a decision made by two people. Nothing is imposed on the woman that she didn't agree to.

 

3)No man can force a woman to control her fertility and force her to have an abortion. If a man wants to use a condom the woman also has to agree to it as well. Any form of condom usage, birth control or abortion is fundamentally the woman's choice. The latter two of which the man has no say in whatsoever nor does he have the right to know whether she is fulfilling her end of the bargain.

 

4)Birth control and condoms have a small possibility of failure. Their ability to stop pregnancy is not absolute.

 

5)It's also theoretically possible for a woman to steal sperm from a condom in a dumpster. This is extremely rare, but it could theoretically happen. Thus, pregnancy doesn't necessarily require that the woman had sex with the donor.

 

 

Given all the above, what sense does it enforce an implicit standard of consent when it comes to obligation to render child support? What sense does it make to treat men and women as having equal responsibility for pregnancy? Clearly women are 99.9999% responsible for pregnancy when it comes to voluntary sex.

 

 

 

Now as for social conventions, It's completely possible for men to understand the social convention that he is to be treated as though he is equally responsible for pregnancy but this has nothing to do with whether the convention is justified in the first place.

 

 

 

Also, you speak of a man accidentally giving himself a STD by having sex with some woman and that the woman has an implicit duty to render him medical aid since she gave him an STD. I agree that she does, but that is because this is a clear case of injustice called fraud.. If a woman gets pregnant and is demanding child support however it it is not a clear cut case of injustice.

She can be pregnant becuase

a)The man defrauded her.

b)Mechanical failure of birth control methods. Accidental misuse of birth control.

c)She defrauded a man and is trying to manipulate the court system into enslaving him.

 

There is only one universal and absolute standard of consent: written consent. As far as I can tell, unless the contract is written down and signed there is effectively no contract. Implicit contracts if they exist at all should only exist for minor obligations such as paying a tip to the waiter. Not for obligations as life changing, as time consuming and as expensive as child support. If you enforce too low a standard of consent you create moral hazard.

So, you name a bunch of ways in which men and women are equal in responsibility, one way in which they aren't due to legal reasons, not natural law or logical reason, and then assert that "it's almost all her responsibility".  Can you explain to me how a law has any bearing on the morality of the situation?

 

You then name three ways a woman could get pregnant when both parties didn't want it, and , because two of the situations are fraud, which is a form of aggression, you assume that it isn't the same as my example even though all three of those are analogous to my example.

 

Literally every interaction you have with another person has implied boundaries to it.  Wile UPB covers many of these, there are also social conventions which exist.  For example, though the forum rules don't explicitly state it, topics should be placed in their proper category and you should only talk about the thread's topic or something related to it in a thread.  I'm also pretty certain the rules don't outright ban NSFW images, but people don't post them because it's understood that you shouldn't post stuff like that in a debate thread unless it's necessary to the discussion.

 

Just try to imagine life without understood boundaries, where everyone can do whatever they want as long as there isn't violence or an explicit contract involved and tell me if that's really the way you want things to be.  In fact, I'm fairly certain the need for all interactions to b governed by explicit, signed, written contract can't be UPB because it could never be signed in the first place without the agreed upon convention of language.

[Nathan Metric]

 

So, you name a bunch of ways in which men and women are equal in responsibility, one way in which they aren't due to legal reasons, not natural law or logical reason, and then assert that "it's almost all her responsibility".  Can you explain to me how a law has any bearing on the morality of the situation?

 

 

Dude, what are you talking about? I was trying precisely to prove that men and women do not have equal responsibility. Let's make this even simpler.

 

When it comes to pregnancy a man only makes one irreversible decision at one point of time. A decision he makes along with the woman.

The woman makes an innumerable number of decisions many of which are reversible for a period of approximately 9 months almost all of which require neither the consent of the man nor oversight from the man.

 

And you still you think men and women have equal responsibility? How can a man be equally responsible for something he doesn't have equal power over?

Ownership = Control = Responsibility. If you don't have power over something you can't be responsible for it.

If you want more info Girlwriteswhat (Karen Straughan) on YT completely debunks the idea of Equal Responsibility for pregnancy in a 4 part series.

 

 

 

You then name three ways a woman could get pregnant when both parties didn't want it, and , because two of the situations are fraud, which is a form of aggression, you assume that it isn't the same as my example even though all three of those are analogous to my example.

 

 

 

What? You are trying to justify forced child support. Only one of those three theoretical examples would justify forced child support. The other two wouldn't justify it. This means the mere fact that a woman is pregnant does not conclusively prove that a man "consented" to child support.

 

 

Literally every interaction you have with another person has implied boundaries to it.  Wile UPB covers many of these, there are also social conventions which exist.  For example, though the forum rules don't explicitly state it, topics should be placed in their proper category and you should only talk about the thread's topic or something related to it in a thread.  I'm also pretty certain the rules don't outright ban NSFW images, but people don't post them because it's understood that you shouldn't post stuff like that in a debate thread unless it's necessary to the discussion.

 

So what? The fact that implied boundaries exist doesn't justify any specific standard of consent in any particular situation. You also seem to be COMPLETELY unaware of the moral hazard this particular social convention creates. It increases the chance of slavery, unplanned parenthood. single parenthood and all the resulting evils that arise from single parenthood. Why would you want a non-universal social convention that results in moral hazard? Why?

 

 

Just try to imagine life without understood boundaries, where everyone can do whatever they want as long as there isn't violence or an explicit contract involved and tell me if that's really the way you want things to be.  In fact, I'm fairly certain the need for all interactions to b governed by explicit, signed, written contract can't be UPB because it could never be signed in the first place without the agreed upon convention of language.

 

Strawman argument. I never said all consent has to be written down. I said when it comes to certain things it is wise to enforce a higher standard of consent. Just because written consent is the only universal form of consent doesn't mean other forms of consent don't exist.

[Slavik]

So, you have no responsibility for something which you caused to happen (accidentally) by your own actions because no aggression was used?  So, if I fire off a gun randomly and shoot someone, I'm not responsible for them being injured.  If I fire off a bottle rocket and it lands on my neighbor's roof, catching their house on fire, I'm not responsible for that because I didn't do it on purpose?

 

And that doesn't even account for the fact that in the actual situation we were discussing there is now another person involved, one which was created accidentally by your actions and which has no fault in this, yet will be harmed by your chosen actions if you don't take responsibility for the results of your actions.

 

You are using legality to argue ethics and then, when I point out that there is a moral issue with it which is separate from the legal issue, and that your idea of how to fix the legal issue would actually be immoral, you accuse me of special pleading.  Legality and morality are not the same, and whether or not something is moral has nothing to do with whether or not it's legal.

 

And then you accuse me of supporting something which I already said this wasn't.

 

 

When I said accidental in quotes I was being sarcastic.  the whole point is nine months to birth a child which is clearly not accidental, but rather well thought ought intentional 9 months worth of deliberations and giving birth to a child with a man who clearly isnt the right person.  So the accidental examples you brought up can be dismissed, since I wasnt saying that it is accidental. 

 

Im not sure where I use legality when I talk about establishment of moral laws being universal without exceptions, you either accept that moral laws and further legal rules established have to be universal or you dont.  If you dont accept  the universality, I would like to hear why you dont, an not by any given specific examples, but rather with logic. 

 

I am not accusing you of supporting social contract I obviously understand that you do not support it.  I was asking if you see how your support of non universality and implicit contracts can be used in support of social contract, I also asked you to tell me how it is not the same in principle.

[AncapFTW]

Dude, what are you talking about? I was trying precisely to prove that men and women do not have equal responsibility. Let's make this even simpler.

 

When it comes to pregnancy a man only makes one irreversible decision at one point of time. A decision he makes along with the woman.

The woman makes an innumerable number of decisions many of which are reversible for a period of approximately 9 months almost all of which require neither the consent of the man nor oversight from the man.

 

And you still you think men and women have equal responsibility? How can a man be equally responsible for something he doesn't have equal power over?

Ownership = Control = Responsibility. If you don't have power over something you can't be responsible for it.

If you want more info Girlwriteswhat (Karen Straughan) on YT completely debunks the idea of Equal Responsibility for pregnancy in a 4 part series.

 

 

 

 

What? You are trying to justify forced child support. Only one of those three theoretical examples would justify forced child support. The other two wouldn't justify it. This means the mere fact that a woman is pregnant does not conclusively prove that a man "consented" to child support.

 

 

 

So what? The fact that implied boundaries exist doesn't justify any specific standard of consent in any particular situation. You also seem to be COMPLETELY unaware of the moral hazard this particular social convention creates. It increases the chance of slavery, unplanned parenthood. single parenthood and all the resulting evils that arise from single parenthood. Why would you want a non-universal social convention that results in moral hazard? Why?

 

 

 

Strawman argument. I never said all consent has to be written down. I said when it comes to certain things it is wise to enforce a higher standard of consent. Just because written consent is the only universal form of consent doesn't mean other forms of consent don't exist.

The child will be born with or without her choices at this point unless she she make the choice to end the child's live, which is a legal "right" not a moral right.  Look up "coma test".

 

Because you had an equal part in the creation of it, and it is a moral agent.  That means that you can't simply abandon it as you would an object.

 

Sure, if you don't believe in taking responsibility for your own actions.  in all three examples the child is the result of a risk you were willing to take.  Yes, if she chose to keep the child against your wishes, she takes on more responsibility for the child, but that doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to the other person involved, ie. the child.

 

Wait, so you realize that single parenthood causes problem, but support something that increases single parenthood, ie. the man not having any responsibility to the child unless he wants to.  You consider holding someone responsible for a situation they put themselves into to be "slavery", but would force a woman to either have an abortion or spend the next 18 years of their life taking responsibility for the result of both your actions.  Sounds to me like you don't understand the definition of "hypocrisy".

 

Yet you shouldn't have to be responsible for your accidental harm of both people because you didn't explicitly consent to it in writing?  Does that mean a murder has to explicitly consent to being responsible for his crimes?  Do I have to explicitly consent to being responsible for the injuries I cause if I randomly fire bullets into the air?

[AncapFTW]

When I said accidental in quotes I was being sarcastic.  the whole point is nine months to birth a child which is clearly not accidental, but rather well thought ought intentional 9 months worth of deliberations and giving birth to a child with a man who clearly isnt the right person.  So the accidental examples you brought up can be dismissed, since I wasnt saying that it is accidental. 

 

Im not sure where I use legality when I talk about establishment of moral laws being universal without exceptions, you either accept that moral laws and further legal rules established have to be universal or you dont.  If you dont accept  the universality, I would like to hear why you dont, an not by any given specific examples, but rather with logic. 

 

I am not accusing you of supporting social contract I obviously understand that you do not support it.  I was asking if you see how your support of non universality and implicit contracts can be used in support of social contract, I also asked you to tell me how it is not the same in principle.

I've already covered these in my post to Nathan, but I'll cover them briefly here.  85% of pregnancies (including atypical pregnancies, early miscarriages, etc. which aren't terminated result in live birth.  The woman doesn't have to do anything for the child to be born, that's automatic.  You are basically saying that because she didn't choose to kill the child that she chose to take full responsibility for it.  That, by the way, would be an implied contract, which you don't like, so I don't know why you are using it.  Also, she only has a legal "right" to have an abortion, not a moral right (outside of it threatening her life) so you are arguing legality.

 

No, I don't see how it can be used to support social contracts.  "Social Contracts" exist without your consent or even your knowledge.  Implied contracts require your consent to the activity they are a part of, and your general knowledge of the boundaries and restrictions put on you because of that consent.

 

---

 

Just to cover a previous comment that I think will shed light on your argument.

 

"1)Sex is something good in and of itself. Sex is something human's pursue because it feels good. Not just because they want kids. Most sex is casual sex."

 

No, it isn't.  It is inherently neutral.  If it was good, there wouldn't be so many restrictions placed on it both by societies and individuals.

The fact that it "feels good" has nothing at all to do with whether or not it is morally good.  Rape "feels good" for one party, maybe even both in a way, but does that make it good?  Eating junk food feels good.  Does that make it good?  Is it also "good" to use recreational drugs?

How often it is specifically for the creation of children is immaterial to the conversation as well.  Children are a possibility any time two fertile people of opposite genders you engage in a certain form of sex.  If you don't want to risk having children, then reduce that risk to zero by either not having that form of sex, or making sure that your partner is completely infertile.

[Slavik]

I've already covered these in my post to Nathan, but I'll cover them briefly here.  85% of pregnancies (including atypical pregnancies, early miscarriages, etc. which aren't terminated result in live birth.  The woman doesn't have to do anything for the child to be born, that's automatic.  You are basically saying that because she didn't choose to kill the child that she chose to take full responsibility for it.  That, by the way, would be an implied contract, which you don't like, so I don't know why you are using it.  Also, she only has a legal "right" to have an abortion, not a moral right (outside of it threatening her life) so you are arguing legality.

 

No, I don't see how it can be used to support social contracts.  "Social Contracts" exist without your consent or even your knowledge.  Implied contracts require your consent to the activity they are a part of, and your general knowledge of the boundaries and restrictions put on you because of that consent.

 

---

 

Just to cover a previous comment that I think will shed light on your argument.

 

"1)Sex is something good in and of itself. Sex is something human's pursue because it feels good. Not just because they want kids. Most sex is casual sex."

 

No, it isn't.  It is inherently neutral.  If it was good, there wouldn't be so many restrictions placed on it both by societies and individuals.

The fact that it "feels good" has nothing at all to do with whether or not it is morally good.  Rape "feels good" for one party, maybe even both in a way, but does that make it good?  Eating junk food feels good.  Does that make it good?  Is it also "good" to use recreational drugs?

How often it is specifically for the creation of children is immaterial to the conversation as well.  Children are a possibility any time two fertile people of opposite genders you engage in a certain form of sex.  If you don't want to risk having children, then reduce that risk to zero by either not having that form of sex, or making sure that your partner is completely infertile.

The only implicit contract a woman has is when she absolutely agrees to take care of the child, there is always a choice to give the child away after birth, so no its not kill a child let a child live thats a false dichotomy.  Now the implication of taking care of is to the child, not to a grown person, a soon as this child grows and becomes an adult, no contracts or implied contracts are present.  Here you can see a difference because a child is absolutely unable to care for itself, its physically a different being, therefore an exception in this case is no longer a fallacy.  

 

Social contract exists with the logic that the majority can enforce the laws on the minority of people, or one half on to the other (just like women on to men).  Implied contracts in your examples do not require a consent, if a woman gets pregnant and chooses to have a child, a man has no say in it.  If a woman decides to keep a child and not to give it up, even though a man is long gone, in your examples it would be ok to go hunting him down to force him to pay for the child, even though he never wanted that child.  Where is the consent for the child? 

 

I wasnt making any arguments about sex.

[AncapFTW]

The only implicit contract a woman has is when she absolutely agrees to take care of the child, there is always a choice to give the child away after birth, so no its not kill a child let a child live thats a false dichotomy.  Now the implication of taking care of is to the child, not to a grown person, a soon as this child grows and becomes an adult, no contracts or implied contracts are present.  Here you can see a difference because a child is absolutely unable to care for itself, its physically a different being, therefore an exception in this case is no longer a fallacy.  

 

Social contract exists with the logic that the majority can enforce the laws on the minority of people, or one half on to the other (just like women on to men).  Implied contracts in your examples do not require a consent, if a woman gets pregnant and chooses to have a child, a man has no say in it.  If a woman decides to keep a child and not to give it up, even though a man is long gone, in your examples it would be ok to go hunting him down to force him to pay for the child, even though he never wanted that child.  Where is the consent for the child? 

 

I wasnt making any arguments about sex.

I don't explicitly consent to losing money when I gamble.  I don't explicitly consent to paying for the damage to another person's car when I drive.  Both of those are implicit in the act because they are accidental.  The fact that they can let you out of your debts doesn't matter, you still have a responsibility unless they let you out.  In the same way the consent to be responsible for a child is implicit in the consent to have the only form of sex that can result in a child.  Even then, your debt isn't primarily to the mother, but the child, who doesn't have the understanding necessary to make a decision about you paying child support, and therefore can't let you out of your obligation until they are at least a teenager.

 

Yeah, but the other guy was and I didn't think to post it until after I responded to him, so, instead of making three posts, I tacked it on to the end.

 

I'm going to out on a limb here and guess that you don't want to pay child support, but want to keep having sex.  Instead of simply accepting the risk or eliminating it by not engaging the form of sex that can result in a child, you are doing mental backflips to try and "reason" your way out of it, the consequences to the woman and child be damned.

[Slavik]

I don't explicitly consent to losing money when I gamble.  I don't explicitly consent to paying for the damage to another person's car when I drive.  Both of those are implicit in the act because they are accidental.  The fact that they can let you out of your debts doesn't matter, you still have a responsibility unless they let you out.  In the same way the consent to be responsible for a child is implicit in the consent to have the only form of sex that can result in a child.  Even then, your debt isn't primarily to the mother, but the child, who doesn't have the understanding necessary to make a decision about you paying child support, and therefore can't let you out of your obligation until they are at least a teenager.

 

Yeah, but the other guy was and I didn't think to post it until after I responded to him, so, instead of making three posts, I tacked it on to the end.

 

I'm going to out on a limb here and guess that you don't want to pay child support, but want to keep having sex.  Instead of simply accepting the risk or eliminating it by not engaging the form of sex that can result in a child, you are doing mental backflips to try and "reason" your way out of it, the consequences to the woman and child be damned.

In first paragraph you are describing either using services for which you must pay or you are stealing, or damage to the property for which you must pay or you are aggressing against another persons.  

 

Go back to the principle can you universalize it or not?  If you can not universalize the principle it becomes incorrect thus non enforceable.

 

Now on the last paragraph, do you realize that with this straw man argument you have just insulted me?  What child support am I not paying?  What in the world are you talking about.  I dont even have children for the sole reason that I dont yet have finances.  Dont use personal when talking about principles.  With your last statement you have actually hit on something incredibly painful.  I personal take great responsibility in choosing a proper woman and to have finances before having family.  With this "welfare state = single mother state"  And "lets subsidize careless women state"  we have women who go around sleeping with whom ever they want, having children with careless asshole men who leave them, and now its becoming more and more difficult to find a good, responsible woman who doesnt have children yet, and state is taking half my pay check to subsidize them.

 

So again, universalize the principle, and if it can not it be universalized then its incorrect, and stay away from personal. 

[Nathan Metric]

I'm not going to respond to someone who is just going to ignore what I said or interpret what I say to mean the exact opposite of what I said.

[AncapFTW]

I'm not going to respond to someone who is just going to ignore what I said or interpret what I say to mean the exact opposite of what I said.

since I didn't do that, I don't know why you'd leave, but goodbye anyway.

[AncapFTW]

In first paragraph you are describing either using services for which you must pay or you are stealing, or damage to the property for which you must pay or you are aggressing against another persons.  

 

Go back to the principle can you universalize it or not?  If you can not universalize the principle it becomes incorrect thus non enforceable.

 

Now on the last paragraph, do you realize that with this straw man argument you have just insulted me?  What child support am I not paying?  What in the world are you talking about.  I dont even have children for the sole reason that I dont yet have finances.  Dont use personal when talking about principles.  With your last statement you have actually hit on something incredibly painful.  I personal take great responsibility in choosing a proper woman and to have finances before having family.  With this "welfare state = single mother state"  And "lets subsidize careless women state"  we have women who go around sleeping with whom ever they want, having children with careless asshole men who leave them, and now its becoming more and more difficult to find a good, responsible woman who doesnt have children yet, and state is taking half my pay check to subsidize them.

 

So again, universalize the principle, and if it can not it be universalized then its incorrect, and stay away from personal. 

No, I'm not using a situation in which I'm using a service I have to pay for.  Even if I was, the situation is still analogous to having an affair and accidentally getting her pregnant.  At that point you owe her and the child in the same way you owe the casino or the person who's car you hit.

 

But are you saying NOT paying child support can be universalized?  Are you saying that getting women pregnant and then deciding you don't want deal with the child can be universalized?

 

I don't know about your situation, but when people do mental backflips to try and defend hurting other people, they usually have a good reason for it.  Wanting to rationalize not paying child support would be a good reason.  Maybe you aren't in that situation, but if you aren't, can you please explain why you don't want men to have to take responsibility for their own children?

[Slavik]

No, I'm not using a situation in which I'm using a service I have to pay for.  Even if I was, the situation is still analogous to having an affair and accidentally getting her pregnant.  At that point you owe her and the child in the same way you owe the casino or the person who's car you hit.

 

But are you saying NOT paying child support can be universalized?  Are you saying that getting women pregnant and then deciding you don't want deal with the child can be universalized?

 

I don't know about your situation, but when people do mental backflips to try and defend hurting other people, they usually have a good reason for it.  Wanting to rationalize not paying child support would be a good reason.  Maybe you aren't in that situation, but if you aren't, can you please explain why you don't want men to have to take responsibility for their own children?

Forcing one party to pay child support, while allowing the other to completely remove all responsibility from themselves is never universal.  So the principle is "the biological parent has to pay child support even if they do not want to."  Well then if mother gives a child up for adoption then by the principle she can be forced to pay child support.  

 

Yes not paying child support can be universalized.  Woman can rid of that responsibility, as they do so now, and so can men, this is universal.  

 

Calling something a "mental back flip" is not an argument, I hope you can get that.  Appealing to emotions is a fallacy, please do not use that, there are many things that are not fair and may hurt others or can be perceived as such.

 

You still have not proposed a theory of how forced child support can be universalized.    

 

I very much so want men to take responsibility, and that is why I want women to be responsible first and foremost.  What women want is how men will behave, when women want to sleep with the "bad boys"  as what we have now, we get more bad boy, when women start asking for men to be more responsible and start looking for such qualities in men, then you will get men who are very responsible.  Stefan has covered this many times in his podcasts.  

[AncapFTW]

Forcing one party to pay child support, while allowing the other to completely remove all responsibility from themselves is never universal.  So the principle is "the biological parent has to pay child support even if they do not want to."  Well then if mother gives a child up for adoption then by the principle she can be forced to pay child support.  

 

Yes not paying child support can be universalized.  Woman can rid of that responsibility, as they do so now, and so can men, this is universal.  

 

Calling something a "mental back flip" is not an argument, I hope you can get that.  Appealing to emotions is a fallacy, please do not use that, there are many things that are not fair and may hurt others or can be perceived as such.

 

You still have not proposed a theory of how forced child support can be universalized.    

 

I very much so want men to take responsibility, and that is why I want women to be responsible first and foremost.  What women want is how men will behave, when women want to sleep with the "bad boys"  as what we have now, we get more bad boy, when women start asking for men to be more responsible and start looking for such qualities in men, then you will get men who are very responsible.  Stefan has covered this many times in his podcasts.  

Taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions is already a universal principle, but we can explore how it applies to pregnancy.

 

You degree of responsibility is dependent on you having complete culpability for the actions, and a complete knowledge (within reason) of the risks or consequences involved, and on whether anyone else alters those chances or consequences.  For example, if I'm stopped at a red light and someone purposefully rear ends me, the are completely responsible for the injuries to myself and my property because they drastically altered the risk by purposely making the injuries happen.  If I go sky diving and the company gives me a parachute with a hole in it, they are responsible for my injuries because they gave me faulty equipment which they are responsible for inspecting.

 

The first is analogous to a rape, the second to someone purposely using defective birth control or lying bout using it.  In either case, the actions of the other person has shifted the responsibility.

 

If, however, the car wreck was an actual accident (say a dog or tree limb in the road makes me swerve off of the road) or the sky diving injuries were accidental, the responsibility is still mine, as agreeing to the risk is part of agreeing to the activity.

 

Now, one side can choose to take full responsibility, but that is up to them.  Full responsibility can't be forced on the other party involved by one side refusing to take responsibility.

 

The fact that the consequence is a moral agent complicates things, as both parties also have a responsibility to them as well, but I can't think of a valid analogy for that.

[Slavik]

Taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions is already a universal principle, but we can explore how it applies to pregnancy.

 

You degree of responsibility is dependent on you having complete culpability for the actions, and a complete knowledge (within reason) of the risks or consequences involved, and on whether anyone else alters those chances or consequences.  For example, if I'm stopped at a red light and someone purposefully rear ends me, the are completely responsible for the injuries to myself and my property because they drastically altered the risk by purposely making the injuries happen.  If I go sky diving and the company gives me a parachute with a hole in it, they are responsible for my injuries because they gave me faulty equipment which they are responsible for inspecting.

 

The first is analogous to a rape, the second to someone purposely using defective birth control or lying bout using it.  In either case, the actions of the other person has shifted the responsibility.

 

If, however, the car wreck was an actual accident (say a dog or tree limb in the road makes me swerve off of the road) or the sky diving injuries were accidental, the responsibility is still mine, as agreeing to the risk is part of agreeing to the activity.

 

Now, one side can choose to take full responsibility, but that is up to them.  Full responsibility can't be forced on the other party involved by one side refusing to take responsibility.

 

The fact that the consequence is a moral agent complicates things, as both parties also have a responsibility to them as well, but I can't think of a valid analogy for that.

You are still not talking principles and taking analogies.  Thats fine then.  So with this principle of forced child support you get "biological parent can be forced to pay child support no matter what."  Then still a mother giving up her child for adoption can be forced to pay child support, since she was aware of the consequences, she is a biological parent, and it doesnt matter that financially she can not support the child (the reason for giving it up).  I would like to see how this principle would be welcomed.

 

You are still addressing only fathers in your examples while ignoring the other biological parent.

 

Argument from analogy is another fallacy by the way, it can only be used after the principle is discussed to illustrate it, not instead of the principle.  Analogies by themselves are not principles and do not hold proper arguments.  

 

So are you ok with all biological parents being forced to pay child support?  Using your own logic it does follow. 

[AncapFTW]

You are still not talking principles and taking analogies.  Thats fine then.  So with this principle of forced child support you get "biological parent can be forced to pay child support no matter what."  Then still a mother giving up her child for adoption can be forced to pay child support, since she was aware of the consequences, she is a biological parent, and it doesnt matter that financially she can not support the child (the reason for giving it up).  I would like to see how this principle would be welcomed.

 

You are still addressing only fathers in your examples while ignoring the other biological parent.

 

Argument from analogy is another fallacy by the way, it can only be used after the principle is discussed to illustrate it, not instead of the principle.  Analogies by themselves are not principles and do not hold proper arguments.  

 

So are you ok with all biological parents being forced to pay child support?  Using your own logic it does follow. 

No, and I named exceptions. (rape, tricking the other person into using known faulty birth control, accepting responsibility from another person or giving letting another person take it)

 

No, because when someone adopts the child they agree to take her responsibility for themselves.  The same happens if one parent says "I'll raise them, I don't need anything from you." to the other parent.

 

I didn't ignore the other parent, I was just talking about fathers because that was the parent everyone else was talking about, including the OP, and it's the one that stereotypically tries to get out of child support.  This applies to both of them equally.

 

The principle is already well established, so I was demonstrating with illustrations.  I wasn't trying to defend the principle, just saying that I applied it to this as well.

 

Depends on the specifics.  There are exceptions to every rule, so saying "all" biological parents should have to pay child support doesn't work.. In fact, I'd already said that in cases of rape and them purposely increasing the risk they took all of the responsibility for themselves.

[Slavik]

No, and I named exceptions. (rape, tricking the other person into using known faulty birth control, accepting responsibility from another person or giving letting another person take it)

 

No, because when someone adopts the child they agree to take her responsibility for themselves.  The same happens if one parent says "I'll raise them, I don't need anything from you." to the other parent.

 

I didn't ignore the other parent, I was just talking about fathers because that was the parent everyone else was talking about, including the OP, and it's the one that stereotypically tries to get out of child support.  This applies to both of them equally.

 

The principle is already well established, so I was demonstrating with illustrations.  I wasn't trying to defend the principle, just saying that I applied it to this as well.

 

Depends on the specifics.  There are exceptions to every rule, so saying "all" biological parents should have to pay child support doesn't work.. In fact, I'd already said that in cases of rape and them purposely increasing the risk they took all of the responsibility for themselves.

At which point is the father of the child able to say no I dont want to take care of that child?  Everything you have stated is the exceptions for the mother.  You dont have any way for the father to not take on the responsibility.

 

The principle has never been said by you, I have asked you for the principle multiple times and have not seen it, I might have missed it "be responsible for our actions" is not the principle since this is precisely what we are debating, as in who is responsible.  

 

" Depends on the specifics.  There are exceptions to every rule, so saying "all" biological parents should have to pay child support doesn't work.. In fact, I'd already said that in cases of rape and them purposely increasing the risk they took all of the responsibility for themselves."    It doesnt work because it can not be universalized.  You have only made exceptions for the mother while there is no way for the father to not have that responsibility.  A principle is that which applies to all equally with no exceptions, otherwise it become a mere opinion, which you will have to enforce with violence.  

 

The exceptions you gave all you will end up with is the "father" saying "Oh I was tricked,"  there goes your exception and we are back to what I was saying.  there is no way to prove if he was tricked or not, so all you will end up with is a large "he said she said in most cases."  

 

So yet again, what is the principle that directly has to do with pregnancy and not "be responsible" as this type of principle can be used to support my view as well.  Plus find one that applies to both with no exceptions . 

 

By the way "fathers stereotypicaly trying to not pay child support," is a false stereotype, in the current system, fathers lose all custody of children, and thats why most of them dont want to pay since they do not get to see them.    

[AncapFTW]

At which point is the father of the child able to say no I dont want to take care of that child?  Everything you have stated is the exceptions for the mother.  You dont have any way for the father to not take on the responsibility.

 

The principle has never been said by you, I have asked you for the principle multiple times and have not seen it, I might have missed it "be responsible for our actions" is not the principle since this is precisely what we are debating, as in who is responsible.  

 

" Depends on the specifics.  There are exceptions to every rule, so saying "all" biological parents should have to pay child support doesn't work.. In fact, I'd already said that in cases of rape and them purposely increasing the risk they took all of the responsibility for themselves."    It doesnt work because it can not be universalized.  You have only made exceptions for the mother while there is no way for the father to not have that responsibility.  A  principle is that which applies to all equally with no exceptions, otherwise it become a mere opinion, which you will have to enforce with violence.  

 

The exceptions you gave all you will end up with is the "father" saying "Oh I was tricked,"  there goes your exception and we are back to what I was saying.  there is no way to prove if he was tricked or not, so all you will end up with is a large "he said she said in most cases."  

 

So yet again, what is the principle that directly has to do with pregnancy and not "be responsible" as this type of principle can be used to support my view as well.  Plus find one that applies to both with no exceptions . 

 

By the way "fathers stereotypicaly trying to not pay child support," is a false stereotype, in the current system, fathers lose all custody of children, and thats why most of them dont want to pay since they do not get to see them.    

I haven't stated any exceptions for the mother, I stated exceptions for either parent.  Neither parent can just abandon the child.  Either they have to convince the other to take full responsibility or they have to convince someone else too, or both parents together must convince someone else to.

 

Whose actions had consequences that need someone to take responsibility for them?  That answers "who should take responsibility".  When it is both parents, both are responsible.  If one of them changed to situation to defraud or assault the other, though, it's their responsibility almost completely, if not completely.

 

In that case rules against murder can't be universalized because there are situations in which killing another person against their will is acceptable.  It applies to both equally.  Either can commit rape, and either can defraud the other in order to create a child against the other's will.

 

So, because people can lie to make a situation favor them, rules can't exist?  How do you deal with it in any other case of an exception to a rule?  What makes sex consensual and not rape?  What make it a boxing match and not assault?

[Slavik]

I haven't stated any exceptions for the mother, I stated exceptions for either parent.  Neither parent can just abandon the child.  Either they have to convince the other to take full responsibility or they have to convince someone else too, or both parents together must convince someone else to.

 

Whose actions had consequences that need someone to take responsibility for them?  That answers "who should take responsibility".

 

In that case rules against murder can't be universalized because there are situations in which killing another person against their will is acceptable.

A female and a male are both acting agents in this case, and both are aware that whatever they do, might have consequences.  Female in your scenario can keep a child no matter what the father says, or even if he is no longer present, after one night, she can give birth to a child and demand child support.    

 

The principle "take responsibility for your actions" still doesnt work as it supports my position as well, having intercourse and choosing to get pregnant and choosing to keep a child, is what a female does with full knowledge.  If the male is saying that he doesnt want a child, he knows fully that it is her actions that she must take full responsibility for. 

 

You need to come up with a principle where someone can seek life long restitution from a person who never used any force against them, and was never under any contract to begin with.

 

The only Contract is marriage, so get married before having children.

 

If you are murdering someone, it is never acceptable.  Unless you are talking about self defense which is a completely different term.    

[AncapFTW]

A female and a male are both acting agents in this case, and both are aware that whatever they do, might have consequences.  Female in your scenario can keep a child no matter what the father says, or even if he is no longer present, after one night, she can give birth to a child and demand child support.    

 

The principle "take responsibility for your actions" still doesnt work as it supports my position as well, having intercourse and choosing to get pregnant and choosing to keep a child, is what a female does with full knowledge.  If the male is saying that he doesnt want a child, he knows fully that it is her actions that she must take full responsibility for. 

 

You need to come up with a principle where someone can seek life long restitution from a person who never used any force against them, and was never under any contract to begin with.

 

The only Contract is marriage, so get married before having children.

 

If you are murdering someone, it is never acceptable.  Unless you are talking about self defense which is a completely different term.    

So basically, because the current system gives the mother preferential treatment, you can't comprehend a system in which she wouldn't receive it. I've mentioned the difference, but you choose to ignore it so that you can continue to talk about how unfair the current system is.

 

And "different term" is meaningless as an argument.  "Taxation" and "armed robbery" are different terms, too, but they are the same thing.  You are literally arguing semantics.

 

Marriage isn't "the only contract", and doesn't necessitate children either.

 

Obviously, this conversation is going to go nowhere, as you refuse to read what I wrote and I can't force you to read it.

[AncapFTW]

Something else that I realized after rereading your post, is that you still see child support as restitution to the woman. It isn't. It is money for the child. She, as the one that is watching the child and caring for it, is merely the one who decides how to use that money for the child.

They take responsibility by raising it, you take responsibility by providing for it monetarily. And before you say anything about it, the roles can also be reversed.

[regevdl]

The child is not property.  Not yours, not the other parent.  It's not like you owning land and then giving it up.  Not the same.  

 

The child is a human being.  It is not the right of the parent to receive child support.  it is the right of the child to receive child support.  You created the child with another person.   The child did not choose this and is dependent upon both parents for food, clothing, shelter, education, other general care.  By either/both parent relinquishing without providing a suitable substitute (giving up for adoption to another providing family or making other arrangments of financial support and care) then you are initiating force against the child.