Parental Relinquishment - A Bad Idea Violating Rights

[Conserative Morality]

The child does not have a right to a monthly check from their biological parents just because genetics. The biological parents are not the child's parents. The adoptive parents are.

This begs a question, if biological parents are not necessarily parents, what makes someone a parent?

Social and legal conventions.

[Galloism]

This begs a question, if biological parents are not necessarily parents, what makes someone a parent?

Social and legal conventions.

What social and legal conventions, and what makes them valid?

[New Emeline]

Hey I've got a radical idea: how bout we all say what we actually believe and argue based on that? Wouldn't that be crazy?

[Galloism]

I liked it better when people tried to convince people without using weird reverse psychology stuff.

I’m sure I have no idea what you mean.

[Ceolophysia]

The child does not have a right to a monthly check from their biological parents just because genetics. The biological parents are not the child's parents. The adoptive parents are.

This begs a question, if biological parents are not necessarily parents, what makes someone a parent?

Their idea that they are the parents, the child's belief that they are the parents, society's belief that they are the parents, and the mutual affection between the child and the parents. (Legal documents have something to do with it too.)

[Albrenia]

Considering it took me about ten seconds to give in to the chaos, I think you're right.

i swear i'm going to end up arguing with someone i agree with

No you're not.

[Conserative Morality]

What social and legal conventions,

Varies depending on state and region.

and what makes them valid?

En/acculturation and coercion, respectively.

[Ostroeuropa]

Hey I've got a radical idea: how bout we all say what we actually believe and argue based on that? Wouldn't that be crazy?

You mean people actually say the principles they consistently believe in and not merely repeat a set of excuses for them to not think further on the subject?
I agree, that would be novel.

[Conserative Morality]

Hey I've got a radical idea: how bout we all say what we actually believe and argue based on that? Wouldn't that be crazy?

But then people might see what you're arguing for and That's Bad.

[Ceolophysia]

What social and legal conventions,

Varies depending on state and region.

and what makes them valid?

En/acculturation and coercion, respectively.

Mutual affection too.

[New Emeline]

i swear i'm going to end up arguing with someone i agree with

No you're not.

Yes I am

[Galloism]

This begs a question, if biological parents are not necessarily parents, what makes someone a parent?

Their idea that they are the parents, the child's belief that they are the parents, society's belief that they are the parents, and the mutual affection between the child and the parents. (Legal documents have something to do with it too.)

So if say, a woman gives birth in a field, but doesn’t believe she’s a parent, the child has no beliefs regarding it at all, and she has no affection towards the child, is she a parent?

Only thing left is society’s belief against a mountain of comtradicting ones.

[Ostroeuropa]

Varies depending on state and region.

En/acculturation and coercion, respectively.

Mutual affection too.

Not so, parents can be forced to upkeep children even if they feel nothing for them and wish to spend no time with them, the child has rights.

[Conserative Morality]

So if say, a woman gives birth in a field, but doesn’t believe she’s a parent, the child has no beliefs regarding it at all, and she has no affection towards the child, is she a parent?

Only thing left is society’s belief against a mountain of comtradicting ones.

Society is significantly stronger than a mother and her newborn child.

[Galloism]

What social and legal conventions,

Varies depending on state and region.

and what makes them valid?

En/acculturation and coercion, respectively.

Well, we agree on the coercion anyway.

We do a lot of really shitty things based on coercion. For instance - letting parents abandon their responsibilities based on signing a few pieces of paper.

[Albrenia]

No you're not.

Yes I am

No you aren't...

...wait didn't we already do this once?

Sorry mods, I'll shutup now.

[New Emeline]

Does anyone here actually disagree or are we just arguing based off of other people's satirical arguments in order to argue against something?

[Ceolophysia]

Mutual affection too.

Not so, parents can be forced to upkeep children even if they feel nothing for them and wish to spend no time with them, the child has rights.

Then should those parents that don't care about their child be the child's parents? It would be a good thing for both parties if a child was relinquished by parents like the ones you described.

[Galloism]

So if say, a woman gives birth in a field, but doesn’t believe she’s a parent, the child has no beliefs regarding it at all, and she has no affection towards the child, is she a parent?

Only thing left is society’s belief against a mountain of comtradicting ones.

Society is significantly stronger than a mother and her newborn child.

Completely overriding even.

I agree. And society agrees that biological parents are parents even if the kids are adopted. We even have a term for it - “birth parents”.

[Conserative Morality]

Completely overriding even.

I agree. And society agrees that biological parents are parents even if the kids are adopted. We even have a term for it - “birth parents”.

Because genetics are something that's important and the English language only has so many words.

But hey, who needs context and shit like that when you're trying to make some weird-ass point by arguing in bad faith from the other side.

[New Emeline]

Completely overriding even.

I agree. And society agrees that biological parents are parents even if the kids are adopted. We even have a term for it - “birth parents”.

Because genetics are something that's important and the English language only has so many words.

But hey, who needs context and shit like that when you're trying to make some weird-ass point by arguing in bad faith from the other side.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Galloism]

Completely overriding even.

I agree. And society agrees that biological parents are parents even if the kids are adopted. We even have a term for it - “birth parents”.

Because genetics are something that's important and the English language only has so many words.

I really liked that movie, btw. They overdid the laughing big guy though.

Point is though, we still recognize them as parents - if children hunt them down later they don’t typically call them “mr” and “mrs” whatever - they call them mom and dad. They’re still recognized as parents - even when absent.

[New Emeline]

this thread is just the living embodiment of the "how many layers of irony are you on" meme

[Conserative Morality]

I really liked that movie, btw. They overdid the laughing big guy though.

Point is though, we still recognize them as parents - if children hunt them down later they don’t typically call them “mr” and “mrs” whatever - they call them mom and dad. They’re still recognized as parents - even when absent.

If children hunt their birth parents down later in life, there's not much 'typically' to go off of. "Mr" and "Mrs" are unusual because they're formal - first name basis I've seen with great regularity. Calling them 'mom' or 'dad' is usually an attempt to form such a connection with them.

[The South Falls]

I'm generally in agreement with this, because the child still deserves child support. It isn't fair, because you were born in the wrong circumstances, that you don't get child support. None of this "It's not fair" bullshit. It's fair if we can make it fair, and with what Gall has proposed, then that makes it fair.