:You are to be blamed for who you are
Did I say blame? Did I say others should pass judgement upon you for being born, or yourself - no.
: Slums? "Tough luck."
Slums - and what then? And use them as an excuse to affect a fantasy of mythic Robin Hood on 'their behalf' (ie your personal goals). To set about anyone not in a slum with the righteous indignation of "you must help" and the authoritarian coercion of ends justifying means? What then? Rich kid in NY is not guilty for poor kid in Sierra Leone. One was born rich the other wasnt, thats it, trying to make one out to be the thief or to be obliged on pain of punishment to relieve the other is naked tyrrany.
A free society does not say "you must help or else" it says "I will not stop you from helping"
: I guess Gee thinks that motherly love is some kind of evil coercion...
You guess wrong then. deliberately perhaps. Perhaps youre a few steps behind the conversation or you are reacting as you would to the claim to be an atomised individual. I have not denied influence in genetics, in environment, in relations. I do deny that this creates some kind of obligation upon you which can be decided by others without your involvement.
If I am slower than Donovan bailey due to my genetic potential then I am slower. If I am less educated than Eton schoolboy because I was born in Ghana then I am less educated. Bailry is not 'hoarding' genetics from me, the Eton boy is not 'hoarding' what he has been able to learn from me.
: Social responsibility for the care of infants implies some sort of onerous force
Its a chosen obligation, there being a difference between what you choose (agree) to be obliged to do and what you have not chosen (ie been forced to against your will).
You seem to be assuming a number of beliefs for me and responding more to your general dislike of claims to atomised individuals than to the specific points made by me.