Libertarian is a monster

[SingleDad]

Originally posted by Libertarian in The Ethics of States Raising Kids (http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001404.html) in Great Debates.

What the government should force her to do is pay for someone who is a responsible citizen to raise it. It should throw her into prison and force her to work to pay for her room and board and for the baby's support.

Make as public an example of her as possible. If madness like this isn't stopped, your own children will bear the fruits of your harvest.

The baby is already a lost cause, inflicted on society be her.

A Libertarian supporting slavery? Criminalizing an attempt by a mother's attempt to assure that her child has at least a chance at a decent life? Declaring a human being a "lost cause" because of an accident of his birth?

Lib, these comments demonstrate that you have a cruel, self-righteous character without a shred of human compassion. You discredit libertarian philosophy and the Christian religion.

I used to think that you were a rational, well-intentioned person with values and opinions different from my own. I think now that I was wrong. Your comments are monstrous to me.

[Liberal]

Well, firstly, I'm frankly surprised that Lib is advocating extra government intervention in people's lives. But I like it.

I have always advocated that government interfere to stop coercion. That's what government is for.

And nothing is more coercive than child abuse or neglect.

[andros]

OK, I'll buy that.

[Sake Samurai]

Lib, a monster? I can't wait until SingleDad stumbles upon my ethics.

------------------
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.

[Liberal]

Sake

:D :D :D

All of the tragedy in this scenario was brought on by the mother. All of it.
Failure to punish her sanctifies the horrible crime she committed on the child.

Sure. The father didn't have anything to do with it at all. He's standing in the wings desperately wanting to take this child, raise it, support it, provide it and its mother a loving home and financial security.

-Melin


------------------
Voted Best Moderator

Siamese attack puppet -- California

[SingleDad]

Lib: As an adoptive parent, my intervention is no miracle, but an expression of my human values. My children are not "all but assured of a life of misery and rejection."

My children were not abandoned. Their birth mother made a difficult choice for the best interest of her children. Should she be punished for this?

Andros:
Otherwise, we'll continue to have idiots screwing like minks without protection and forcing those of us with sense to pay for the unwanted kids that result ... Let's avoid the knee-jerk, deliberately inflammatory hyperbole, shall we?

Yes, lets. :p

it hardly helps your case any to sling insults like that around.

<looking at the Forum line>Yes, this is the BBQ Pit.

But in all seriousness, I'm using the term "monster" to mean a human being who appears to lack human compassion.

Lib: In your original post you did advocated punishement not of someone who abandoned, neglected or abused their child. You advocated punishment of someone who turns over their child to a responsible authority (a hospital) for the best interest of that child. And not only punishment, but (yes, I'll say it again), enslavement.

[Liberal]

SingleDad

My children were not abandoned. Their birth mother made a difficult choice for the best interest of her children. Should she be punished for this?

Of course not.

In your original post you did advocated punishement not of someone who abandoned, neglected or abused their child. You advocated punishment of someone who turns over their child to a responsible authority (a hospital) for the best interest of that child. And not only punishment, but (yes, I'll say it again), enslavement.

I'm afraid your rage clouded your comprehension.

From the Opening Post of the thread you linked:

Trying to give troubled mothers an alternative to dumping their babies in trash bins and bathroom stalls, the Georgia House voted 153-15 Friday to allow women to leave newborns at a hospital.

I was talking about those worthless bitches and their jackal boyfriends.

Slavery is too good for them. They forfeit all their rights when they abridge another's right to life.

SingleDad, I hope you will take a couple of deep breaths, calm down, and read this a few times till it sinks in. With all due respect, I do not believe you are thinking about what I'm saying, but about what you think I'm saying. We are talking about animals who would throw babies in the trash. (My blood boils even to think of it.) These are nothing like mothers who voluntarily gave up their children to adoption so their child could have a better home.

Those who would throw their babies away could already could give up their children for adoption, but they don't. THEY THROW THEM AWAY!

Now, I know you might think that all that will change now in Georgia. But I tell you that nothing will change except that mothers who before wouldn't have thrown their babies away because they are not that far gone, now will begin to give less consideration about what they're doing when they pop out babies. Mothers who would have thrown away their babies do not think rationally.

[Scylla]

THere may be a misunderstanding here, confusing women who abandon their baby i.e. in a trashbin, and women who put their children up for adoption.

I have no problem with the latter, and cannot think of a punishment fitting enough for the former.

Any woman that would abandon their own child in a dumpster is the monster, not Lib.

I think enslavement is too gentle a punishment for such. I prefer flaying alive.

[Liberal]

Scylla

Better sit down. [fanning your forehead for you...]

I agree with you one hundred percent.

[Liberal]

Melin

Sure. The father didn't have anything to do with it at all. He's standing in the wings desperately wanting to take this child, raise it, support it, provide it and its mother a loving home and financial security.

Your point is very well taken, and was brought up by someone else in the GD thread this spun off from.

I was extremely remiss for not lambasting the worthless father with equal fortitude. Thanks for spotting the omission.

[jab1]

I made this post on the other thread, but it's worth repeating here: Faced with prison for abandoning a baby, some mothers-to-be would rather get an abortion. Since you're so against mothers "throwing away their babies" (and so am I), I'm guessing you think abortion should also be illegal. (I don't. I think it ought to be safe, legal and used only as a last resort.)

I lived in Orlando, Florida, a few years ago when a young woman gave birth in a Walt Disney World restroom. The baby was found in time and is now a three-year-old girl, adopted by a married couple. I'm not sure what happened to the mother. (I think she was deported. She was from Indonesia, I think.) I'm also not sure why she gave birth at WDW. But I think she later tried to get the baby back and was denied. At any rate, had the hospital option been available, she might have gone there instead.

I was unable to find anything on the WWW about this particular case, but maybe you should read this old story from CNN. (http://cnn.com/US/9707/29/abandoned.babies/) The title is "Fear, denial lie behind abandoned babies epidemic."

(Please note that understanding why this happens is not necessarily condoning it.)

Part of it is the stigma attached to unwed motherhood. Some get rid of their infants so people won't consider them sluts or whores. Pretty screwed-up priorities, hmm?

Another reason is that these are often first-time mothers. Pregnancy can be a terriying thing and abandoning the child may be her way of getting the whole thing over with as quickly as possible.

And a third reason is denial. They refuse to face the fact that they made a mistake and and got pregnant and if they get rid of the infant, they're thinking, they can continue to pretend that they were never pregnant at all.

None of these reasons are good, of course, but I don't think imprisoning them is the answer. You also said something about preventing this in the future. How? Sterilization?

------------------
When all else fails, ask Cecil.

[techchick68]

Singledad,

In Lib's defense, I think you are misunderstanding what he is saying.

Correct me if I am wrong Lib, but Lib finds the act that abandonment by a woman as an outrage. What he sees is the government is giving approval for woman to give little or no thought when having sex (hey this goes for men too). If a woman finds herself in the predicament (sp?) of being pregnant, all she needs to do is have the baby and drop it off no questions asked. This opens the doors for people to not take responsibility.

He's not against adoption, but he is against the idea that dropping off your baby, no questions asked is absolutely repulsive and she and the father of her baby (course no one has really brought up the man in this issue) should be held responsible for this.

Lib said:

All of the tragedy in this scenario was brought on by the mother. All of it. Failure to punish her sanctifies the horrible crime she committed on the child.

This is where you and I disagree...the father of this child should be held accountable too. It's his sperm and a man should be considered just as responsible for this just as much as a woman, she is the vessel by which this baby was able to survive, but it takes two to tango.

[Sake Samurai]

I've got a great idea! Let's keep it 100% legal to discard your baby at a State Disposal Facility. When a mother arrives to throw her newborn away, she is drugged, tagged, sterilized and released back into society. After five years the State claims 80% of all of her paychecks for the rest of her life.

I think Georgia's on to something!

------------------
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.

[mrblue92]

the father of this child should be held accountable too...

Assuming she told him she was pregnant, yes?

[nebuli]

My own opinion is that there is not enough information available to be dogmatic on this issue. There are two points under consideration re the proposed change in the abandonment law- 1st: will it increase the number of babies abandoned by their parents; 2nd: will it decrease the number who are abandoned in unsafe locations (e.g. dumpsters, toilet stalls &c. ) Note that these are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

There has not been enough experience to state with certainty whether either will occur. Lib has stated (and not without reason IMHO) that he believes the first outcome will occur- there will be more cases of child abandonment- but that the second will not occur, because the people who are currently abandoning babies in dumpsters are not moved by rational considerations.

However, assume that experience in fact shows that the new law does reduce unsafe abandonment of babies, while increasing the total number of abandonments. What should be done in that case? Wouldn't the need to save babies' lives override society's otherwise justifiable right to punish irresponsible parents and its right to be spared the expense of raising the children of the irresponsible?(Realize the expense will be short-lived for the abandoned babies who are healthy and white, as they will quickly find adoptive parents- it is sad that such restrictive qualifications have to be made, but, if we're examining this issue honestly, they must)

[andros]

[The father should be held responsible] Assuming she told him she was pregnant, yes?NO. Unprotected sex = babies. The hypothetical father had sex knowing that equation. Why should not knowing about the kid absolve him of responsibility? If he isn't willing to take responsibility for his actions he shouldn't be engaged in those actions.

-andros-

[Liberal]

TechChick

As you can see above, I acknowledged my omission. Yes, the father is equally to blame.

[SingleDad]

Lib: It is entirely possible that I missed the point of your post.

If you are indeed saying that you were referring to the mothers who actually are (as opposed to might be) "dumping their babies in trash bins and bathroom stalls" as deserving the most extreme punishment, then I fully retract my original posting, in all sincerity, humility and profound embarassment.

I perhaps disagree with you on the specific appropriate response, but I agree as to the general finding that such people have inexcusably placed themselves beyond the pale of any reasonable morality.

The post to which I'm specifically referring:

Arnold: I'm confused here. Libertarian, if a mother doesn't want her baby, what's the solution here? Should the government force her to raise it?

Lib: Is that a joke?

What the government should force her to do is pay for someone who is a responsible citizen to raise it. It should throw her into prison and force her to work to pay for her room and board and for the baby's support.

An ordinary reading of that exchange leads me to believe that you support slavery ("it {the government} should throw her into prison and force her to work") for "a mother {who} doesn't want her baby."

The remainder of the post refers to 'she', presumably referring to the only referent in the post, "a mother {who} doesn't want her baby." You accuse 'her' of being a criminal among criminals, among other things.

And that is not entirely an unjustified presumption. In the aforementioned post as well as others, you seem equate placing the child with hospital authorities with abandoning the child in a dumpster; having an unwanted pregnancy with actually treating a born child with depraved indifference.

When we give a parent, who may well have less moral sense than a retarded sea slug, the opportunity to make a morally correct decision, and they take it, we cannot then punish them. We cannot punish a person for their nature or for actions they might have taken.

[techchick68]

Sorry Lib, I missed it!

< blush >

[Liberal]

SingleDad

I blame myself for the misunderstanding. Father Mentock was right; I sometimes shoot from the hip.

TechChick

Go, and sin no more! ;)

[andros]

[paternal condescension]
I think we've learned a few things today, right Beav?
[/paternal condescension]

[Scylla]

I'm sorry but I can't tolerate this kind of harmony and constructive working out of differences in the pit.

So...


Lib:

I just received an email from Singledad, and he said he was going to kick your ass during recess because your a poopyhead, and we all know what you REALLY meant with that comment know matter how well you played it off.

Singledad:

C'mon man! You gonna let him off that easy? You got him on the ropes. Finish him off with a quick personal attack!

Andros:

Nobody likes a reasonable peacemaker. So but out!

Allright, let's get back to fight.


Hey, it's the Pit, right?

[techchick68]

Scylla,

What, no flame of me....I am hurt :(


;)

[Scylla]

Tech:

You and I are supposed to stand on the sidelines and encourage the fight!

Here, you distract Andros, I'll smack Lib on the head and say Singledad did it, 'kay?

[techchick68]

Andros,

Well said....thank you.

It should never be the sole responsibility for a woman to ensure she doesn't become pregnant, even if she is a slut (one who sleeps around) a man should never assume that she is taking care to not become pregnant. If he doesn't want a kid then he needs to assume some responsibility on his end too.

As a woman, I find it incredibly offensive that I am to assume ALL responsibility when it comes to fertilization or not....hmmm, this may make a good GD topic as I stray from the OP.

[Rousseau]

Nothing matters but the child
I'm putting this quote in my pocket for use at a later date. You never know when these things will come in handy.

Editorial: Personally, I don't see dumping a nine month old developing child in a trash can as any more or less despicable than throwing a 3 month old developing child in a trash can. Which isn't to say that I don't think it's the most inhumane and ruthless thing that a human being is capable of.

None of this changes the fact that "monster" probably isn't the best word to describe Libertarian. He's just a confused man with a soapbox. The difference between monsters and confused men with soapboxes is monsters usually command some military might. So when Lib leads a coup d'etat and overthrows the government with his ragtag team of commandos and mercenaries, then and only then shall we talk about him being a "monster."

------------------
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." -Winston Churchill

[inertia]

I guess you guys n gals are gonna' have to stick me in the same hole as the other monsters 'cause I believe we ought to flay all of 'em; anyone, male, female or space aliens who creates a human life without the intent of taking care of their responsibility.

Melin: Yes, the father should be castrated also.

As for me:

cruel = practical in the long-term (oh yeah, fuck 'em)

self-righteous character = maybe so, but I've had sex a couple of times and never produced offspring I didn't intend to provide with everything I possibly could.

without a shred of human compassion = not a lot. As long as the rules are equally applied, you reap what you sow.

SingleDad:

Even if a woman decides to turn her children over to an institution or individual(s) that child statistically will NEVER have the same opportunities as a wanted child. Adopted children and step children are physically, mentally and sexually abused by their adoptive parents way more often than a natural child and that's only the tip of the iceberg.

It happens much more often that the mothers are the one's left holding the bag so-to-speak. I think we ought to hunt down all of the thoughless SOB fathers and do something very nasty . . . I can't think of anything bad enough right now.

These thoughtless individuals are fucking up someone else's entire lives. I've had my life fucked up and I goddamn well don't appreciate it. If you disagree with what I've said here, well fuck you too.

[CalifBoomer]

People need to be responsible for their actions. Leftists don't like this concept and would rather live in an environment of 'victimization', where there is no wrong doing (because there is no right or wrong, no points of reference).

Single Dad:

Criminalizing an attempt by a mother's attempt to assure
that her child has at least a chance at a decent life?

Abandoning her child is 'an attempt to assure at least a chance at a decent life'?

and:

A Libertarian supporting slavery?

The current consficatory income tax system is not a form of slavery?

What leftists don't seem to understand is that you get more of whatever you subsidize. Want more 'homeless' in your town? Open a homeless shelter. Want more people in poverty. Pass out food stamps/welfare.

Or maybe the socialists know this all too well. They know that by creating more and more dependent people, they will hope to ensure their powerbase for generations to come.

Have a nice day :)

[Tymp]

SingleDad,

Having read quite a number of Lib’s posts and applying what I know about libertarians in general, I would guess that he is not really suggesting that the government take extra steps to punish irresponsible mothers. Rather, I think he is suggesting that the government do less in terms of giving the irresponsible and ignorant extra opportunities to foul up their lives and our society without consequence.

When Lib’s says anything about the government forcing individuals to do anything, it’s a pretty safe bet that he’d rather there was a better option and would not work to have such things actually come about.

I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong.

[Tymp]

Please feel free to envision the above post of mine without any extra apostrophes or letters.

[Spiritus Mundi]

I would guess that he is not really suggesting that the government take extra steps to punish irresponsible mothers.

It looks to me like that is exactly what he has suggested.

------------------

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.

[Spiritus Mundi]

For the record, though, I quibble with the word "monster". I view Libertarian as someone for whom ideology outweighs humanity. The word that sugests is "fanatic".

------------------

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.

[SingleDad]

Cheeseheads who paint themselves green and white and attend sub-freezing football games half-naked are 'fanatics'.

I stand by my original characterization.

[Liberal]

SingleDad

Your anger has blinded you.

Nothing matters but the child, and future children that irresponsible behavior like that by the mother will injure.

You quoted that I said the baby was a lost cause, but you neglected to quote the qualifying statement that followed it.

It might, by some miracle, grow up happy and loved, but she has already all but assured it a life of misery and rejection.

It is a cause that was lost, no, discarded — thrown away, by its mother. As I said in that post, if the baby cannot now be adopted, it must be given over to an orphanage.

All of the tragedy in this scenario was brought on by the mother. All of it. Failure to punish her sanctifies the horrible crime she committed on the child.

What crime? The crime of delivering a child she had no intention of caring for, a child that she viewed as a nuisance.

I am a single father too, my friend. Your anger is sorely misplaced. You need to be angry at that damn woman.

[Liberal]

I would guess that he is not really suggesting that the government take extra steps to punish irresponsible mothers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It looks to me like that is exactly what he has suggested.

Damn right I am!

What crime is more heinous than abandonment of a child? Huh? Huh?

[andros]

Well, firstly, I'm frankly surprised that Lib is advocating extra government intervention in people's lives. But I like it.

And secondly, it's fairly rare (ok, extremely) that Libertarian and I agree on political and social issues, but it seems we agree on this:What the government should force her to do is pay for someone who is a responsible citizen to raise it. It should throw her into prison and force her to work to pay for her room and board and for the baby's support.I agree with this completely. We, as a society, have an obligation to ensure that kids are raised correctly. We have an obligation to force parents to support their children, or provide for their support. Otherwise, we'll continue to have idiots screwing like minks without protection and forcing those of us with sense to pay for the unwanted kids that result.

What's the problem?

And, "slavery?" Puh-leeze. Let's avoid the knee-jerk, deliberately inflammatory hyperbole, shall we?

-andros-

[andros]

Oh, and let me add: "Libertarian is a monster?????" Huh. News to me. I thought he was human. I'm glad you qualify that by saying "your comments are monstrous," but still, it hardly helps your case any to sling insults like that around.

-andros-

[Manda JO]

Even if a woman decides to turn her children over to an institution or individual(s) that child statistically will NEVER have the same opportunities as a wanted child. Adopted children and step children are physically, mentally and sexually abused by their adoptive parents way more often their adoptive parents way more often than a natural child and that's only the tip of the iceberg.

Cite? And for adopted children, not stepchildren. Furthermore, I flat out refuse to believe that adopted children suffer from abuse and neglect at a higher rate than children left in the enviroment that the adopted children were adopted out of. In other words, I can't believe that two fifteen year olds with no jobs and no prospects are doing their baby an injustice or preforming a selfish act when they place their infant with a mature, finacially sound, emotionally prepared enviroment. Is this what you are trying to imply?

[mrblue92]

Why should not knowing about the kid absolve him of responsibility?

I was referring to the abandonment. Perhaps I should have been clearer... Lib is proposing we should prosecute mothers for abandoning their children. Techchick says we should prosecute fathers. I agree that the parties privy to the abandonment/murder should be held responsible. But...


Law is passed that punishes both father and mother for abandoning child. A particular mother never tells father she is pregnant, has the child, leaves it in a dumpster and it dies. The law now says the father must be punished as well, regardless of whether he had any knowledge of the mother's actions. Had this particular father known, he would have taken responsibility, but because she was too afraid to tell anybody or never saw him again, he must go to prison for actions he had no knowledge of.

[Liberal]

Nope. The father is not guilty in your hypothetical.

But the mother is guilty of fraud in addition to murder. (Note: this assumes that the father, which you describe as a good hearted, responsible man, has made inquiries about whether his deed has produced a pregnancy.)

[mrblue92]

this assumes that the father, which you describe as a good hearted, responsible man, has made inquiries about whether his deed has produced a pregnancy.

OK, let's say the hypothetical is a one night stand. Maybe they even use "protection" and it fails. The two never find out anything about each other and never see each other again. Does the unknowing father bear responsibility for the murder? To me, that's not unlike the married father/mother being charged with child endangerment when the other parent was solely responsible for the criminal action. I may not like the fact that the father is a jerk, but I still don't think you can hold him responsible for actions he had no reasonable knowledge of.

On the other hand, if he knows she was pregnant, notices she is no longer pregnant, sees NO evidence of said baby, and does nothing; then he is much more prosecutable.

[mrblue92]

Of course, hypothetical-one-night-stand father is still responsible for paternity...

[Liberal]

Does the unknowing father bear responsibility for the murder?

What he bears responsiblity for are his actions. If he has had sex with a woman, no matter what precautions they have taken, then he is responsible for following up on whether he has fathered a child (the purpose, you will recall, of sex).

The fact that he is not the vessel in which the baby develops does not release him from his parental responsibility. He must make himself available to support his partner during the pregnancy. It's his baby, too.

If she has deceived him, then he cannot be blamed. But if he has shirked his responsibility to her and the child, then he is complicit in whatever fate that befalls either of them.

[mrblue92]

He must make himself available to support his partner during the pregnancy.

I agree with you fully on the moral aspect of this, but legally what is he responsible for? Correct me if I'm wrong (maybe it varies state to state), but I'm under the impression that if the father never assumes the parental role, the only thing he can be forced to do is pay child support (and that's if you can find him). By not involving himself, doesn't he implicitly release custody? The mother, on the other hand, must release custody explicitly (by abandonment or adoption) simply because she already has the child.

It would be great if we could split the responsibility of pregnancy right down the middle, but I don't think biology allows us that convenience. Barring an abortion, the mother must inherently take at least 9 more months of responsibility.

Another thought: if the father is punishable by the actions of the mother, might a rejected lover kill her baby so the father would go to prison?

[Liberal]

I agree with you fully on the moral aspect of this, but legally what is he responsible for?

Who knows? That depends on what Tyrant du Jour rules the society. I can only comment on the ethical issues. Perhaps there is a lawyer present.

Another thought: if the father is punishable by the actions of the mother, might a rejected lover kill her baby so the father would go to prison?

Not ethically. If she cannot prove his complicity in the murder, she now faces multiple fraud charges in addition to the murder charge. Ethically speaking.

[jab1]

Originally posted by CalifBoomer:
The current consficatory income tax system is not a form of slavery? To paraphrase the late, great, Mike Royko, "It would be nice if taxes were paid voluntarily, but I doubt the government would function for long on the $1.98 a day it would collect."

Want more 'homeless' in your town? Open a homeless shelter. Want more people in poverty. Pass out food stamps/welfare.

Matthew 19:21, KJV: Jesus said unto him, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor..."

Matthew 26:9, KJV: For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.

Matthew 26:11, KJV: For ye have the poor always with you...

Those are just three verses where Jesus tells people to give to the poor. Since you provided a link to the Institute for Creation Research on another thread, I must conclude you are a Christian, and yet you state above that we should not give to the poor.

Please explain this contradiction.

(NOTE: Long-time posters and lurkers should know by now that I am not prosletyzing here. I have stated many times that I am an atheist. I think Jesus was a real person who created a wonderful philosophy of generosity and pacifism, but I don't think he performed any miracles. I don't think he was any more the son of God than I am.)

------------------
When all else fails, ask Cecil.

[inertia]

Manda JO:

I'm looking for that cite. It's not a particularly easy one to find. It's not like an adoption agency is going to put that on the web page or something. I've e-mailed a couple of PHD's so maybe they can point me in the right direction.

I will say this though, yes I do have a tendency toward pulling stuff out of my ass, but I have read that adopted children are more likely to be aused than a child raised by his natural parents somewhere.

Anywho, still looking for a cite . . .

[Liberal]

I'm not a lawyer either, but IMHO I think it'd be pretty difficult to actually legislate the ethics you are describing...

What a terrific observation!

That's why, in Libertaria, there is only one law, and upon it all arbitration is based. There is no legislation.

[RTFirefly]

http://www.elnet.com/~sburch/sjbgrin.gif http://www.elnet.com/~sburch/sjbgrin.gif http://www.elnet.com/~sburch/sjbgrin.gif http://www.elnet.com/~ sburch/sjbgrin.gif http://www.elnet.com/~sburch/sjbgrin.gif http://www.elnet.com/~sburch/sjbgrin.gif

[Manda JO]

Inertia, I hope you find that cite. When you do, please check and see if it takes into accout a few varibles:

1) The issue this thread is grappling with is infant adoption. Adoption of older kids has its own set of complex varibles. It is a facinating issue, but it needs to be handled seperatly.

2) The cite need to compare the rate of abuse of adopted infants compared to the rate of abuse within the group the infant was adopted out of. If teen age mothers and drug addicts abuse there children X% of the time, and the genral population abuses their children (X-10)% of the time, an abuse rate amoung adoptive parents of (X-5)% is still an improvment.

3) I would like to see studies that differentiate between stranger adoption and interfamily/friend adoption. Sometimes there are cases when an incapable individual suffers from an unplaned pregnancy and a family member or friend, reacting to the situation, adopts the child. I can see where this could be problematic because often the adopter did not set out wanting a child and makes a decision in haste that they later regret, conciously or unconciously. This regret could translate into mistreatment of the child. However, those same factors do not apply to adoptive parents who set out to adopt a child and put a great deal of time, money, and effort into finding one.

I am very concerned about this issue because I worry that you might inadvertantly convince some fifteen year out there who is reading this to not give up a child that she has not the resources, skills, or emotional maturity to handle because she is convinced it means the child will be abused. This is a case where false information could cause someone to make a horrible mistake that could lead to a lot of pain and misery in two or more lives.

[jab1]

Originally posted by Libertarian:
in Libertaria, there is only one law, and upon it all arbitration is based. There is no legislation.

You've GOT to be joking! That has to be the most unrealistic and least workable form of government I've ever heard of.

You're not a monster, but you sure are misguided, IMO. I may even go so far as to say deluded.

------------------
When all else fails, ask Cecil.

[Rousseau]

inertia:
Even if a woman decides to turn her children over to an institution or individual(s) that child statistically will NEVER have the same opportunities as a wanted child.
I can't tolerate such an asinine statement. Even if you found ten studies that proved that adopted children suffer abuse and neglect 10 times more often than other children, your statement still wouldn't be correct. Not to mention the fact that such a study would prove nothing in regards to the topic here...an issue like this doesn't exactly lend itself to generalizations like that.
If you disagree with what I've said here, well fuck you too.
I usually save that line for my LAST post on a particular thread (while I'm being run out of the thread by an angry leftist mob).
Speaking of which, I'm liking Boomer more and more every day.

The fact that he is not the vessel in which the baby develops does not release him from his parental responsibility. He must make himself available to support his partner during the pregnancy. It's his baby, too.
Man, I'm collecting Lib quotes like Pokemon cards now. You'd better steer clear of all abortion debates from now on.
That's why, in Libertaria, there is only one law, and upon it all arbitration is based. There is no legislation.
Gee, I wonder why the libertarians haven't gained any power in Washington yet.
I don't think he {Jesus} was any more the son of God than I am
jab1 is Imus??

------------------
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." -Winston Churchill

[CalifBoomer]

jab 1:

You leftists tickle me to a deep rosy pink!


There is no contradiction until you take my statements out of context, then make a HUGE, inexplicable leap to an erroneous conclusion, and attempt to formulate some damning (but very weak) accusation.

BTW, thanks for the scripture reading.

[mrblue92]

...in Libertaria, there is only one law...

I assume you mean "Love thy neighbor as thyself"?

A noble suggestion, but of course impractical in our society since love means so many different things to different people. As shown by our posts, when you come down to splitting hairs over what's right and wrong, you really need clearly defined laws so everyone has a common point of reference. Of course, now we just need lawmakers who can make a clearly defined law--good luck finding those.

[RTFirefly]

I assume you mean "Love thy neighbor as thyself"?Not quite. He means the Noncoercion Principle. (Ask him.)

The cute thing about Lib is that he has absolutely no clue of the roughly 57,934 reasons why you can't get by with only one law, no matter how good that law is.

[mrblue92]

If that's so, Lib, I guess I am unclear on how the Noncoercion principle makes the father responsible for finding out about the mother's pregnancy. After all, if both parties are consenting and the mother knows she risks getting pregnant and being a single mother, isn't it coercive to force the father to do anything? Perhaps I am just unclear on how you personally apply said principle.

[jab1]

Originally posted by Nutmeg:
By giving my child up for adoption I made damn sure that nobody was hurt other than me.

EXACTLY. Two people were at fault here, and they were the parents. Only they should suffer the consequences and not the child they produced. By giving her up for adoption, Nutmeg did the best she could under the circumstances to make sure her girl did not suffer. She did the right thing.

Some of you may say, "She should have thought of that before she had sex!" Like it or not, we do not all have 20/20 foresight. Few fifteen-year-olds, boys or girls, have this ability. We do our best to teach them foresight, but since none of us is perfect, mistakes WILL be made.

I'd like to know what inertia would prefer to adoption.

I'm glad you decided to join us, Nutmeg. That was a wonderful story of courage and facing up to your responsibilities. Again, you did the right thing. Don't let anyone tell you you didn't.

[jab1]

Originally posted by Rousseau:
I don't think he {Jesus} was any more the son of God than I am
jab1 is Imus??

I assume you mean Don Imus. I was not quoting him, since I've barely heard of the man or what he's ever said. If he's ever said anything like that, I didn't hear it. (It's possible I'm quoting him unconsciously, but I doubt it.)

And just to clarify everything to everyone:

I am a fallible, mortal human being. I believe Jesus of Nazareth was a mortal, fallible human being. He died about 1,970 years ago and he is not coming back, ever. One day, I, too, will die and I won't be coming back after that, either.

[mrblue92]

I can only comment on the ethical issues.

I'm not a lawyer either, but IMHO I think it'd be pretty difficult to actually legislate the ethics you are describing because it would require considerably more responsibility by men than has been historically required by law (in the US anyway).

But, by all means, if he was involved in the murder, nail him to the wall.

[Jodi]

Okay, help me out here:

If the one law of Libertania (that hypothetical land to which pure Libertarianism is limited, because it would never in a million years work in the real world) is the Noncorecion Principle, on what grounds does the government coerce a woman into taking care of a baby she doesn't want? Because she has "implicitly" signed up to do so by getting pregnant? Aside from all the ways a woman might unintentionally or involuntarily get pregnant, how can Libertarianism ratify an "implicit" contract? If THAT'S allowed, why can't we agree that you have implicitly contracted to pay taxes and support the existing system by continuing to live here.

It seems obvious that the answer to the problem under the strictest interpretation of Libertarianism is for the baby to crawl out of the dumpster and take care of his or her own peaceful, honest self. The reality, of course, is that he or she can't. So even Lib has to bend his precious Libertarian "principles" to the breaking point to avoid an outrageous result. The question therefore becomes, why is he willing to do so in this case, but in no other?



------------------
Jodi

Fiat Justitia

[RTFirefly]

That's one reason! ;)

------------------
Enough of voting for the lesser of evils - vote Cthulhu 2000!

[Nutmeg]

inertia:

Your implication that adopted children do not have the same opportunities is flat out wrong. To suggest that they are abused more often is ludicrous. To be honest, your post makes me so angry I'm shaking.


Let me give you a little background to help make my point to you. When I was fifteen years old I got pregnant. I decided to give up 9 months of my life to give life to another. My choice. Let's look at my choices after that:

1) I could have kept and raised my daughter. Well, lets be honest about that situation. I was a 15 year old insecure twit. My mother would have ended up raising that child because she loves me and would want me to finish high school. She was also 50 years old, had raised six kids and was looking more towards retirement. I would have resented the child because all I wanted to do was run around and be self destructive. She wouldn't have had a daddy. Or somebody who could put her through college since I doubt I'd be in college now if I had kept her.

2) I could give her up for adoption. I spent my pregnancy looking at resumes, reading letters from potential adoptive parents, and doing interviews. I know the family I'm giving her to, they are very loving. She'll have an older brother, a daddy, a chance to go to college. She goes to a private school, has an aunt who babysits. Seems like lots of opportunities to me.

Now you tell me, which situation has more potential for abuse?

I know for a fact that she's not being abused. I see her about once a month. Actually, she's the flower girl in my wedding.

And you actually have the balls to say that my thoughtless actions fucked up other peoples lives? By giving my child up for adoption I made damn sure that nobody was hurt other than me. That's taking responsibility. And there's a beautiful five year old girl who doesn't mind either.

I echo MandaJo here. I hope you didn't misinform some scared 15 year old and through your stupidity cause them to make a wrong decision.

[Rousseau]

Imus wrote a book entitled "God's Other Son." It actually wasn't about him, it was about Billy Sol Hargus, but your statement just triggered an immediate reaction. Sorry.



------------------
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." -Winston Churchill

[jab1]

Quite all right, Rousseau.

------------------
When all else fails, ask Cecil.

[samclem]

jab1 wrote:I am a fallible, mortal human being. I believe Jesus of Nazareth was a mortal, fallible human being. He died about 1,970 years ago and he is not coming back, ever. One day, I, too, will die and I won't be coming back after that, either.

There you go again! Equating yourself to Jesus Christ! Wot an ego!

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by jab1:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CalifBoomer:
Matthew 19:21, KJV: Jesus said unto him, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor..."

Matthew 26:9, KJV: For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.

Matthew 26:11, KJV: For ye have the poor always with you...

Those are just three verses where Jesus tells people to give to the poor.

No, that's one. The last two involve a situation where Jesus said that the poor shouldn't be helped.

[Liberal]

So even Lib has to bend his precious Libertarian "principles" to the breaking point to avoid an outrageous result. The question therefore becomes, why is he willing to do so in this case, but in no other?

How delightfully moronic.

The question, as I see it, is why you don't understand that breach is a coercion, and breach against children is a heinous coercion.

I know this is difficult for you to grasp, but get someone you know and trust to explain to you that ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE CHILD. He was made a party to the contract without benefit of his consent, which is ethically okay, since he is not capable of giving meaningful consent. But once a parent has contracted with a child to raise it into adulthood, that parent is responsible for that child.

That you think this requires an exception to the Noncoercion Principle simply means that you don't understand our simple ethic. Considering your intelligence, the problem is your will. You simply hate us. And like any bigot, you make no effort whatsoever to understand anything about us.

[CalifBoomer]

The Ryan:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CalifBoomer:
Matthew 19:21, KJV: Jesus said unto him, "If thou wilt be perfect, go
and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor..."

Either provide the link to where I posted that, or you are a hypocrite and a liar.

[mrblue92]

Lib, you're not confusing me with Jodih, are you?

I think you sort of answered my question--that you feel the father (and mother), by having sex, entered into an implicit agreement (that you are considering a contract) to care for any resulting children. Since the child has no say in the matter, any breach of responsibility by either party forces the child to live without the benefit of a full family.

This seems generally reasonable to me. Then the question becomes, how do you enforce this policy fairly? If people let their child be raised by the nanny, are they neglecting the child by not giving them a real father and mother?

[Liberal]

Lib, you're not confusing me with Jodih, are you?

Lord, no. I have a new job and don't really have time to respond much any more. I had intended to stop posting altogether, but Jodi stirred me with her ignorant comments.

Then the question becomes, how do you enforce this policy [of noncoercion with respect to children] fairly?

The only way to enforce any policy fairly is to enforce it consistently, in accordance with good principle, and in the proper frame of reference (or context). Libertarianly, those attributes manifest as enforcement only upon the order of arbitration, the Noncoercion Principle, and the child's perspective respectively.

If people let their child be raised by the nanny, are they neglecting the child by not giving them a real father and mother?

Parents may fulfill their contract with their child in any manner they please, so long as they conduct their affairs peacefully and honestly. Their only restriction with respect to the child is the same as their restriction with respect to everyone else: they may not coerce the child. They may use defensive force to protect the child, and retaliatory force to punish the child, but they may never initiate force against the child.

They may also transfer their contract with their child to any other willing party who is also peaceful and honest, i.e., they may put their child up for adoption. They may also subcontract any or all of their duties to their child, i.e., they may hire a nanny. If their contract is transferred in full, then the resonsibility transfers with it. But if they subcontract their duties then the responsiblity still lies with them. They risk exposure when they hire others for any task, and raising their children is no different. If the child is under the care of a nanny and initiates force against another citizen, then it is the parents whom the government holds to account because they are the contact's parties. The parents may bring charges against the nanny, but that is a separate matter and would likely require some sort of fraud on the part of the nanny (like lying about the circumstances, saying he or she was attentive when he or she was not, etc.)

---

As a matter of interest, you might wonder why I always (and to the chagrin of so many) qualify the people in my scenarios as peaceful and honest. It is because that qualification is necessary, Ockhamly speaking, since people who coerce or defraud have abrogated their rights. For example, if above I had said that parents may transfer their contract to anyone else, you could conclude that they may "sell" their children as sex slaves to scoundrels who prey on humans who cannot give meaningful consent.

Rights are not for everyone; they are only for people who are peaceful and honest — in other words, people who initiate no force.

I hope that answers your questions. I really won't have much time to post much for the forseeable future. My new job looks like it might take off quite nicely.

God go with you in your search for truth.

[mrblue92]

Lib, although I could continue with further questions, I'll relent and let you go in peace. (Incidently this has probably been too civil a conversation to have taken place in the Pit.)

Good luck on your new endeavors; may God go with you as well.

[jab1]

Originally posted by The Ryan:
No, that's one. The last two involve a situation where Jesus said that the poor shouldn't be helped.


Am I going to have to read Matthew again? :o *SIGH*

------------------
When all else fails, ask Cecil.

[RTFirefly]

Ah, Lib is back, in full Christian-witness mode:How delightfully moronic.You simply hate us. And like any bigot, you make no effort whatsoever to understand anything about us.I had intended to stop posting altogether, but Jodi stirred me with her ignorant comments.Let me sit at your feet, O Master, and learn to love my enemies by your example.

[Liberal]

Yes, RT.

Unlike you, I fail at being perfect. And if you were the Christ, I would surely be in Hell. By the way, while you're at my feet, kindly give those toes a good rub.

[RTFirefly]

And unlike you, I don't claim to have all the answers, or to know the Lord's political philosophy.

And one hardly needs to be perfect (which I've never claimed to be) to be a bit underwhelmed by your returning to the board simply to call somebody an ignorant, moronic bigot.

Does my quoting you offend you? That's your problem, I'm afraid.

[Jodi]

LIB says, with his usual patience with those who call him on the fundamental inconsistencies of his so-called philosophy:

How delightfully moronic.

You wouldn't, perhaps, like to explain why it's moronic? That is assuming you even have the ability to recognize that name-calling advances your position not one iota.

The question, as I see it, is why you don't understand that breach is a coercion, and breach against children is a heinous coercion.

The problem, as I see it, is that you throw around legal terms without any idea of what they mean. A contract is an agreement between two individuals whereby goods and services are provided in exchange for lawful consideration. If you fail to hold up your end of the contract, you have breached it. If I agree to sell you 10 widgets for 10 dollars and you do not pay me, you have breached the contract. You have not, however, coerced me -- coercion being "compulsion or constraint; compelling by force or arms or threat." You can say a breach of contract always equals a coercion only by defining "coercion" in a manner other than the way it is customarily defined -- which, of course, you are free to do. But your saying it is so doesn't make it so, anymore than I would have to agree that red is actually blue simply because you so choose to define it.

I know this is difficult for you to grasp, but get someone you know and trust to explain to you that ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE CHILD.

Actually, I get this. What I don't get is how the best interests of the child are compatible with the Libertarian principle of non-coercion.

He was made a party to the contract without benefit of his consent, which is ethically okay, since he is not capable of giving meaningful consent. But once a parent has contracted with a child to raise it into adulthood, that parent is responsible for that child.

Explain to me, please, how a parent can "contract" with a child without either the consent of the parent or the child. I would remind you, also, that a child by definition does not legally have the power to enter into a contract in the first place, precisely because of his or her lack of capacity to consent. You can place the moral obligation to raise the child upon the parent (and reasonably so), but you can't do so through a theory of contract -- unless you define contract to mean something other than what it means to the rest of us,
which, knowing you, you probably do.

That you think this requires an exception to the Noncoercion Principle simply means that you don't understand our simple ethic.

Then explain it to me. I will ask you a simple and direct question, though I have not have much luck in getting straight answers from you (and Lord knows I'm not the only one): How can you bind a parent and/or a child through an IMPLIED contract, which neither has explicitly consented to, and which at least one would disavow ever having intended to enter into, without breaking your Noncoercion Principle? You are obviously coercing both the parent and the child to be bound by a contract neither anticipated or agreed to. Obviously, the only way you can get around this sticking point is by theorizing an IMPLICIT contract -- an idea that is itself antithetical to Libertarian priciples. But if you will allow an implicit contract under these circumstances, why then will you not allow that YOU have entered into an implicit contract with THIS society by continuing to live within it?

Considering your intelligence, the problem is your will.

Actually, the problem is that I think you are a single-minded zealot who continually (and annoyingly) interjects his personal crusade into every subject posted on this board. Worse, you lack the ability (or the desire) to defend it when challenged to, which leads one to wonder why you continue to bring it up.

You simply hate us. And like any bigot, you make no effort whatsoever to understand anything about us.

Frankly, I don't care enough about you or your beliefs to hate you. You want to consider me an anti-Libertarian "bigot," fine with me; I really don't care what you think of me. I find your statement that I refuse to make any effort to "understand" you ironic, however, given your documented and repeated refusal to deal with the difficult questions regarding the system you purport to defend. If you want me to "understand" Libertarianism, reconcile for me the idea of an implicit contract, entered into without volition or consent, and the Noncoercion Principle. Ideally, you will be able to do so without redefining "coersion," "contract," or "consent," but frankly I'm not holding my breath.



any bigot, you make no effort whatsoever to
That you think this requires an exception to the Noncoercion Principle simply means that you don't understand our simple ethic. Considering your intelligence, the problem is your will. You simply hate us. And like understand anything about us.


------------------
Jodi

Fiat Justitia

[Jodi]

Oh, and since you DID call me ignorant, moronic, and a bigot, and since this IS the Pit: Bite me, ya pseudo-libertarian dipshit.

------------------
Jodi

Fiat Justitia

[jab1]

:standing and applauding Jodih:

------------------
When all else fails, ask Cecil.