Should negligent parents be punished by the law?

[Josh]

Everything I have suggested are ways to: (1) promote marriage, and (2) reduce the number of single parent families.

That's nice. But the topic is if choosing to create children out of wedlock should be punished by the law. The topic is not "every idea under the son of how to help families and children."

If you don't care about those things then fine.

I do care about a lot of things, but I don't talk about every single thing I care about in this specific thread.

I happen to think that encouraging marriage and seeking to reduce the number of out of wedlock births and single parent families is the actual objective here. Because as you say, it is really about the children.

The actual objective I have in mind is to talk about how parents could stop hurting their children by doing negligent things to them.

But if all you want to do is punish sex then fine. Good luck with that. I don't think you'll get many takers. And the Supreme Court has found that approach to be unconstitutional anyway.

God himself said fornication and adultery are wrong, and he is a higher authority than the Supreme Court.

[Ken]

The actual objective I have in mind is to talk about how parents could stop hurting their children by doing negligent things to them.

So you believe it is the specific circumstances of conception that happened years earlier that uniquely harms children and not the fact that they are being raised in single parent families?

What is the actual harm to children that you are referring to and what actually causes it? You really don't believe the harm is due to the absent parent but rather the circumstances of conception years earlier?

[Josh]

So you believe it is the specific circumstances of conception that happened years earlier that uniquely harms children and not the fact that they are being raised in single parent families?

I didn't say that, either. What I said was that choosing to conceive a child out of wedlock is a very selfish, despicable act.

Obviously, conceiving a child out of wedlock creates a great risk it will grow up without a stable home with two married parents. The parents COULD get married, but they often don't, and it doesn't change the fact that they aren't married when they choose to do a selfish thing. They could just get married first, instead of fornicating.

Why is this concept so hard for you to admit to? Do you think fornication is OK?

[Ken]

So you believe it is the specific circumstances of conception that happened years earlier that uniquely harms children and not the fact that they are being raised in single parent families?

I didn't say that, either. What I said was that choosing to conceive a child out of wedlock is a very selfish, despicable act.

Obviously, conceiving a child out of wedlock creates a great risk it will grow up without a stable home with two married parents. The parents COULD get married, but they often don't, and it doesn't change the fact that they aren't married when they choose to do a selfish thing. They could just get married first, instead of fornicating.

Why is this concept so hard for you to admit to? Do you think fornication is OK?

It is not hard at all for me to admit that single parent families are less than ideal. And that likewise, teen pregnancies are a bad thing as is sex between children (or between children and adults). And I happy support a wide variety of policies that would tend to reduce all of those things. Because I think our primary objective should be to provide for the best outcomes for our children.

I'm not particularly concerned about REGULATING sex between consenting adults. Just like I'm not particularly concerned about REGULATING other moral failings like greed and gossip. The Supreme Court says it is not the government's business to regulate that and I tend to agree. But if they are going to do it they should be doing it safely and not negligently (i.e. not spreading disease or getting pregnant or otherwise being foolish). And that is more a matter of education and health care, not a subject for criminal law. We live in a country with limited government and that is one of the limits. You got all exercised about red light cameras on the other negligence thread and then want the government to monitor and criminalize what people do in their own bedrooms?

[Josh]

It is not hard at all for me to admit that single parent families are less than ideal. And that likewise, teen pregnancies are a bad thing as is sex between children (or between children and adults). And I happy support a wide variety of policies that would tend to reduce all of those things. Because I think our primary objective should be to provide for the best outcomes for our children.

Please stop trying to distract from the topic; teenage pregnancies are not the topic here. Out of wedlock pregnancies happen quite often in the 20-30 demographic. For the purposes of this discussion, let's just assume that we're only talking about pregnancies that happen to parents age 18 and up.

I'm not particularly concerned about REGULATING sex between consenting adults.

I think that certain immoral things do need to be "regulated"; in particular, ones that can cause harm to other people. Sexual activity is not just something that happens between two adults; there is the possibility of a third life being created. That third life is indeed an interest of the state and of the public at large.

And that is more a matter of education and health care, not a subject for criminal law.

No, it isn't. It's a matter of saying "This is a bad behaviour, it hurts others, and it should be illegal." We aren't afraid to say that about speed limits or running red lights. Why should fornication be any different?

We live in a country with limited government and that is one of the limits. You got all exercised about red light cameras on the other negligence thread and then want the government to monitor and criminalize what people do in their own bedrooms?

I never said I am opposed to red light cameras. I said I am opposed to them being unlawfully operated by a private company for private gain and done so in a way that hurts road safety by shortening yellow lights.

[Ken]

It is not hard at all for me to admit that single parent families are less than ideal. And that likewise, teen pregnancies are a bad thing as is sex between children (or between children and adults). And I happy support a wide variety of policies that would tend to reduce all of those things. Because I think our primary objective should be to provide for the best outcomes for our children.

Please stop trying to distract from the topic; teenage pregnancies are not the topic here. Out of wedlock pregnancies happen quite often in the 20-30 demographic. For the purposes of this discussion, let's just assume that we're only talking about pregnancies that happen to parents age 18 and up.

I'm not particularly concerned about REGULATING sex between consenting adults.

I think that certain immoral things do need to be "regulated"; in particular, ones that can cause harm to other people. Sexual activity is not just something that happens between two adults; there is the possibility of a third life being created. That third life is indeed an interest of the state and of the public at large.

And that is more a matter of education and health care, not a subject for criminal law.

No, it isn't. It's a matter of saying "This is a bad behaviour, it hurts others, and it should be illegal." We aren't afraid to say that about speed limits or running red lights. Why should fornication be any different?

We live in a country with limited government and that is one of the limits. You got all exercised about red light cameras on the other negligence thread and then want the government to monitor and criminalize what people do in their own bedrooms?

I never said I am opposed to red light cameras. I said I am opposed to them being unlawfully operated by a private company for private gain and done so in a way that hurts road safety by shortening yellow lights.

So we've narrowed it all the way down to single adults who get pregnant? We aren't worried about teen pregnancies or any other cause of single parent households. Just single adults who choose to get pregnant?

I suppose you could get some state to fine or imprison or otherwise punish single adults who get pregnant. What would happen then? Such a law would be unlikely to make much of a dent in the amount of sex people are having since the sex itself is constitutionally protected and people are pretty hard-wired to have sex. But such a law would affect behavior in two obvious ways.

First, people would most certainly use a lot more passive forms of birth control: IUDs, the pill, Norplant, vasectomies, tubal ligations, and so forth. If they are going to be punished for getting pregnant they will definitely make more effort to avoid it. An of course the second consequence would be an increase in abortions. Especially medical abortions. Even in states where it is banned. If one can get fentanyl on any street corner in America then one will certainly be able to get Mifepristone as well. If the fine for getting pregnant is $100 then the street price of Mifepristone jumps to $100. If the fine is raised to $500 then the street price of Mifepristone jumps to $500. Simple economics, supply and demand. And we would no doubt see a drop in single parent households among that specific cohort of young adults.

Is that the policy consequence that you are seeking?

[Josh]

So we've narrowed it all the way down to single adults who get pregnant? We aren't worried about teen pregnancies or any other cause of single parent households. Just single adults who choose to get pregnant?

I narrowed the scope so that you would stop muddying the waters.

Ken, I feel like you argue in bad faith about things like this. I made it very clear what the topic was in the original post. Somehow, you extended that to a woman who wants to selflessly foster and adopt children.

Why do you do this?

[Ken]

So we've narrowed it all the way down to single adults who get pregnant? We aren't worried about teen pregnancies or any other cause of single parent households. Just single adults who choose to get pregnant?

I narrowed the scope so that you would stop muddying the waters.

Ken, I feel like you argue in bad faith about things like this. I made it very clear what the topic was in the original post. Somehow, you extended that to a woman who wants to selflessly foster and adopt children.

Why do you do this?

Because you have been incoherent as to the exact act that you wish to make criminal and what kind of punishment you are contemplating. And for that matter, what harm you are seeking to eliminate which as far as I can tell is the harm associated with being raised in a single parent family. Children are not actually harmed by the circumstances of an act of conception that happened 9 months before they are born. To the extent they are harmed by family structure it is by the circumstances of their childhood and whether or not there are two parents present. Consequently it is logical to question anyone who chooses to enter into a single parent family situation regardless of how they got there. Because the effect on the child is exactly the same.

In any event, it appears that we have narrowed it down to punishing single adults. Not for having sex, but for getting pregnant and having children. Good luck with that.

What is actually bad faith here is to seek to punish single people for having sex while claiming it is about the children. When you really just don't approve of single people having sex. Because if it was actually about the children you would be more expansive and include divorced families and single women seeking to adopt. And really anyone who voluntarily enters into single parenthood through any means, not just those who do so by having sex. And rather than simply punishing single people for having sex, you would be seeking to reduce the harm to children by encouraging marriage. Which is the real objective isn't it? To encourage 2-parent families?

[Josh]

Because you have been incoherent as to the exact act that you wish to make criminal and what kind of punishment you are contemplating.

I haven't been incoherent at all. I said that I think choosing to create a child outside of wedlock is a selfish, despicable, and criminally negligent act.

Is there anything about that I can make more clear?

As far as punishments, that isn't on-topic. If you want to start a thread about appropriate sentencing for criminal negligence and that harms children, feel free to.

And for that matter, what harm you are seeking to eliminate which as far as I can tell is the harm associated with being raised in a single parent family. Children are not actually harmed by the circumstances of an act of conception that happened 9 months before they are born.

You have a view of cause and effect that is different than mine. I think that conceiving children out of wedlock often results in children born out of wedlock and often results in them then being raised in a single parent home.

Do you disagree with this?

To the extent they are harmed by family structure it is by the circumstances of their childhood and whether or not there are two parents present.

The circumstances of their childhood is "being raised in a single parent home because they were born out of wedlock because they were conceived out of wedlock".

Consequently it is logical to question anyone who chooses to enter into a single parent family situation regardless of how they got there. Because the effect on the child is exactly the same.

But that's not the topic of this discussion. The topic is specifically parents who choose to conceive out of wedlock. Please stay on topic, and stop introducing other things that are not on topic.

In any event, it appears that we have narrowed it down to punishing single adults. Not for having sex, but for getting pregnant and having children. Good luck with that.

I have made it clear I think fornication and adultery are wrong. However, the specific topic here is fornication that results in a pregnancy out of wedlock. It is possible for us as adults to discuss a narrow scope of something.

What is actually bad faith here is to seek to punish single people for having sex while claiming it is about the children.

No, I think it should be criminally negligent and thus punished like other criminal negligence against children when a child is conceived and born out of wedlock. I did not call for anything beyond that.

When you really just don't approve of single people having sex.

I have never claimed that I do. Do you approve of it? I think fornication is wrong. However, the topic of this is specifically fornication paired with a child conceived and born out of wedlock.

It's wrong to run red lights or to text when driving. However, it may be appropriate to talk about negligence when you run red lights and then T-bone someone else's car. Can you understand the difference?

If I talk about that, it does not mean that I really just want to punish people who run red lights. It's possible to narrow the discussion to just talking about people who run red lights and then cause a crash. For starters, such a thing is much easier to adjudicate and prosecute.

[qute]Because if it was actually about the children you would be more expansive and include divorced families and single women seeking to adopt.[/quote]

Ken, you tried to make things so expansive that you wanted to talk about the need for union jobs, which I think is completely irrelevant to the topic of children being born out of wedlock. I think you regularly do this: try to make something so expansive, almost anything under the sun can be covered.

And really anyone who voluntarily enters into single parenthood through any means, not just those who do so by having sex.

Nobody becomes a birth parent other than by conceiving a child, and they face a choice to do so where they can choose to either be in wedlock or outside of it.

Foster parents, adoptive parents, and so on are completely irrelevant to this discussion.

And rather than simply punishing single people for having sex, you would be seeking to reduce the harm to children by encouraging marriage. Which is the real objective isn't it? To encourage 2-parent families?

The real objective is to see fewer children given a tremendous disadvantage by being raised outside of wedlock because their parents made a selfish, wicked, sinful choice to conceive them out of wedlock.

Is that wrong?

[Ken]

Because you have been incoherent as to the exact act that you wish to make criminal and what kind of punishment you are contemplating.

I haven't been incoherent at all. I said that I think choosing to create a child outside of wedlock is a selfish, despicable, and criminally negligent act.

Is there anything about that I can make more clear?

Yes, what specific act are you proposing to make criminal. How would your new law actually read? What is your definition of "choose"

Are you going to prosecute any single person who becomes pregnant?

• People in long-term common law relationships who simply choose not to get married but plan to raise children together?
• People who get pregnant through coercive or abusive relationships that don't rise to the level of rape who decide to keep the child and not have an abortion?
• People who planned to get married but then for whatever reason changed their minds? Maybe found out their fiancé was unfaithful or some such.
• People who say they plan to get married in the future but can't at this exact moment?
• People who hope that a child will solidify the relationship and make it last but that turns out not to be the case?
• Older financially secure single women who just want to form a family and have a child? Is it OK for them to adopt? They simply aren't allowed to get pregnant?
• People using birth control who did not intend or choose to get pregnant and decided to keep the child and not to get abortions?
• What if the person is giving the child up for adoption?
• What if the man wants to give up the child for adoption and the woman does not? Or vice versa?
• What if the man wants an abortion and the woman does not? Or vice versa?
• What about surrogate mothers?

Which of the above are the criminals in your mind who deserve prosecution?

And finally, why is it a "selfish, despicable, and criminally negligent act" for a single woman to choose to have her own child, but not for her to adopt? What is the difference in harm to the child? Is it only biological children who are harmed by a single parent but not adoptees?