Most Helpful Guy
Here is the essential problem:
A child is born that is unwanted by both the father and mother.
Here is society's trilema:
1. The child will require resources to stay alive, but forcing parents to take care of a child they don't want would invade their right to privacy and freedoms regarding family choices (Grinswald v. Conn.; Roe v. Wade)
2. Leaving the child completely unprovided for would be equivalent to killing the child.
3. Nobody wants to pay for that child.
So, basically, society wants people to have their reproductive and familial autonomy, not kill excessively produced children, keep excessively produced children alive, and also not pay for these children. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too!
Well, the solution is to then reframe the issue into one involving a "right to life" approved solely by the child.
This child would otherwise be dead. The biological parents did not want this child. The mother would have aborted it physically, and the father would have aborted it financially, in both instances, the necessary support for the child would be terminated - leading to its death. Society, through its people or its government, is under no duty to care and provide for the child's life. So, this is a child that would otherwise be dead.
It therefore owes a moral obligation to the person or entity that kept it alive, where all others would have cared less if it died. In your scenario, the government's generosity (really, the taxpayer's generosity) does not stop at merely keeping the child alive. The child is required to work and recoup the cost of its initial care. However, it is not limited to military jobs. It can choose to work in any array of government jobs, jobs that the rest of the civilian population would otherwise not take.
Why is this "fair" or "moral"? These are children that would otherwise not exist! They would be dead right now, but for the taxpayers not offering them a chance to live. This is essentially a financial deal, a finance structure. The taxpayers will front the costs of raising a child that would otherwise die, and in return, get to recoup those costs through its labor as an adult, working in necessary jobs that the rest of the population would otherwise not take. Everyone wins here.
I'm all for it, and I think it's a very creative solution that is more cost effective than the current "free lunch" child welfare or privatized social security (i.e., forced fatherhood or prison for willful nonpayment of child support; forced motherhood or prison for murder by abortion) model.
- Show AllShow Less