ofriceandruin [none/use name]
If the parent as an individual is not undertaking X activity or cost for the benefit of a child, then another person at-large must undertake X activity or cost who doesn’t deserve to have to do that.
I mean, there are exceptions that prove the rule. If I were to hypnotize a man into sleeping with a woman and a child resulted, I would be responsible to some extent for that outcome.
Is that you, Jordan Peterson?
And it’s not too hard to conceptualize a way to relieve parents who were coerced into being parents that isn’t just “let anybody abandon ship”.
It’s easy to conceptualize a good way to do it. It would be something like “Child Support For All” just like medicare for all or anything like it. Your argument about people “abusing” a system like this is just as applicable to other universal support systems so I don’t really buy it. Somehow we can all get on board with those things but when it comes to state supported child support, it all of a sudden becomes this incrementalist (at best) thing where the burden falls on individuals and where we can’t do it because “the lazies will abuse it.” This sounds like some kind of Milton Friedman framing or some “welfare queen” shit. It’s not too far from that kind of reasoning to the kind that says “listen I would love to have a Nordic style social democracy, but they’re just too ethnically homogeneous… meaning we can’t have that here b/c of all the darkies who would abuse it at the expense of the european-lineage folk.”
If you were arguing in good faith, the analogy would be “don’t shit on capitalism if you haven’t had to sell your labor and/or pay compound interest on debt”. Or “you shouldn’t have an opinion on climate change if it doesn’t affect you”.
I don’t know why you think I’m not arguing in good faith. I wasn’t giving a bulletproof analogy, which is why I said it “comes off” as a republican talking point. Are we doing a debate club here or are we trying to have a genuine back and forth, dare I say dialectic?
The problem of deadbeat parents FAR outweighs the problem of parents who were tricked or coerced into becoming parents.
The issue I have with statistical arguments like this is that it can be applied unjustly in other contexts. For example, trans people are a tiny fraction of the population, so why should we cater to them when it comes to bathrooms or health services? Same with gay, lesbian, bi, etc. Same with people with disabilities. “Normal” people FAR outnumber those other groups, so I don’t really buy the whole statistical thing when it comes to things like rights (however you want to define those).
Presumably you are a part of society yourself. I’d be a lot more convinced if you had taken part in what you have stated “society” should do, i.e. adopting and raising a child.
I don’t understand this appeal to identity here. Should my opinion on climate change not be taken seriously because I’m not a climatologist? This comes off as some kind of republican talking point (“don’t shit on capitalism if you haven’t even started your own business, mr. lefty hipster”)
However, the present conditions being what they are, you do have to bear part the responsibility for bringing a child into the world. It’s not ideal, but until we establish FALGSC it’s necessary.
This is what you said, which is basically some kind of incrementalist argument. I reject that premise. We can have these things now. I was responding to that if it wasn’t clear.
I’ve made it clear multiple times that I want the state to take care of the child instead of doing this weird personal responsibility shit (e.g. “you should’ve known that sex is bad, just like Sister Mary said in Sunday school”). It’s the people on this thread who can’t seem to read and automatically assume that I’m some sort of MRA incel.