Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Right to reproduce?

Rate this topic


Whispersessions

Recommended Posts

I suppose that I felt it went without saying that if a child is born to parents who cannot support it that harm almost always result.

I think you will find that very few, if any, premises "go without saying" on this forum. Unless you have pre-cognition, you cannot say whether or not any given child will be necessarily "harmed" by being born from parents who do not have the means to support the child. In the same sense that you question what you allege as a narrow definition of "harm" on Jenny's part, I wonder if your definition might be too broad. Where do you draw the line on what is "harm" and what is not?

So without dwelling on the moral implications

That's precisely what you should dwell on before you start talking about making a law. Not all things that are immoral should be illegal, but all things that are illegal should be immoral.

if that can be shown to be the case...

It can't be "shown to be the case" unless you have pre-cognition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Whether government can regulate reproduction, I would say most definitely yes. Anybody can do whatever he wants as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others... and having a child without having the means to take care of it is definitely interfering with the rights of the child.

First, a fetus has no rights until it is born, so while the woman is carrying the potential to term, it doesn't matter if she has the means of taking care of it or not, since it has absolutely no rights. But it does only when it is born and only then does the means of taking care of baby come into play. Regulating reproduction as such is a violation not of baby's rights but of mommy's. Second, you said "having a child without the means to take care of it is definately interfering with the rights of the child." Again, only when baby is born does that come into play. Lastly, you said "Anybody can do whatever he wants as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others." So then why can the government interfere with the rights of a woman, then?

think: when parents plan for a child, they may have every mean at the time, but something might happen and those means are no longer there. if that occurs after baby is born, then the government can step in, but not prior to birth. the government can't tell a woman not to smoke or drink or what to eat or not to eat while being pregnant either, which again would be violating the potential mothers rights, and not the fetuses since it has no rights.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, a fetus has no rights until it is born, so while the woman is carrying the potential to term, it doesn't matter if she has the means of taking care of it or not, since it has absolutely no rights. But it does only when it is born and only then does the means of taking care of baby come into play. Regulating reproduction as such is a violation not of baby's rights but of mommy's. Second, you said "having a child without the means to take care of it is definately interfering with the rights of the child." Again, only when baby is born does that come into play. Lastly, you said "Anybody can do whatever he wants as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others." I absolutely agree! So then why can the government interfere with the rights of a woman, as you are saying is OK?

think: when parents plan for a child, they may have every mean at the time, but something might happen and those means are no longer there. if that occurs after baby is born, then the government can step in, but not prior to birth. the government can't even tell a woman not to smoke/drink/whatnot while being pregnant either, which again would be violating her rights, and not the fetuses since it has no rights.

Why are you bringing up the issue of fetuses? Did I ever mention a fetus? We are talking about babies here, as in human beings who have been born and are biologically independent of the mother. Whether she can support a baby while carrying a fetus is irrelevant (though probably a sign she won't be able to support a baby).

The governement is NOT interfering with a woman's "rights" by disallowing her to starve another human being. Nobody has that right. I thought it was obvious from the context, but when I said regulate reproduction I meant in the capacity to NOT allow someone to procreate. And this is perfectly acceptable if the parents are unwilling to sustain the life of a yet-to-be conceived human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

think: when parents plan for a child, they may have every mean at the time, but something might happen and those means are no longer there. if that occurs after baby is born, then the government can step in, but not prior to birth. the government can't tell a woman not to smoke or drink or what to eat or not to eat while being pregnant either, which again would be violating the potential mothers rights, and not the fetuses since it has no rights.

My apologies, I didn't read this last part. We're talking on an extremely low level of child-caring here. Nobody is considering banning someone from having a child if you can't send them to Harvard. All that would be required to do would be provide proper food and nutrients, along with protection from harm (physical or psychological). Enough to allow a child to develop into a rational adult. As low as that may seem, some parents don't even do that.

I also have reservations about a woman's rights during pregnancy. So many pro-choice people get so angry at the pro-life camp that they take completely irrational measures, thinking you can deform a fetus in any way that you want. It's true that a fetus has no rights, but a baby does. Smoking and drinking will affect the baby if carried to full term. In line with "Nobody has the right to starve someone", I would also add "Nobody has the right to make anybody else deformed".

Edited by nyos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you bringing up the issue of fetuses? Did I ever mention a fetus?

You are right that you never mentioned it. I brought it up for a reason. Here:

when I said regulate reproduction I meant in the capacity to NOT allow someone to procreate. And this is perfectly acceptable if the parents are unwilling to sustain the life of a yet-to-be conceived human.

In the premise, you are giving that fetus, or as you said the yet-to-be-conceived human, rights. How can you "sustain the life" of something that's hasn't been born?

Oh and before you said:

Fact is, lazy people's children are the main reason most people give some half-hearted support to all these socialist programs. Eliminate the children and ta-da, no more real reason to keep the socialism. (not that there ever was a real reason)

I think you have that backwards. It's such programs that make it possible for these children to be on in the first place.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The governement is NOT interfering with a woman's "rights" by disallowing her to starve another human being.

If she hasn't starved the child, or attempted to starve the child then the government has no business taking any sanctions on her right to life. The government IS interfering with her right to life if they say she cannot become pregnant because she MIGHT not take care of the child as the government sees fit. You are attempting to put the cart before the horse, so to speak.

You seem to be package-dealing two distinct but not necessarily related actions; having the child AND neglecting the child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right that you never mentioned it. I brought it up for a reason. Here:

In the premise, you are giving that fetus, or as you said the yet-to-be-conceived human, rights. How can you "sustain the life" of something that's hasn't been born?

Oh and before you said:

I think you have that backwards. It's such programs that make it possible for these children to be on in the first place.

But how could I have attributed rights to something that hasn't been born? The answer is, of course, that I haven't. What the government would be doing is withholding the yet-non-existent rights of parents to show that they could indeed sustain a human life if conceived. The only analogous example I can think of is getting a car license. Just because you own a car (have the capacity to drive) does not mean that you can drive and endanger the lives of others. Similarly, just because you have the capacity to reproduce does not mean that you have the right to endanger the lives of others (your children).

As for the welfare comment, I'm sure it cyclic. Having unsupportable babies causes people to feel sorry for the children, which makes them give the parents money, which causes them to be even more lazy/unproductive and have more babies. Last year in government class my professor gave lectures about American welfare statism and how most Americans only somewhat support it because of the children of such unproductive people. I'm not going to go googling for references, so take it for what it's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies, I didn't read this last part. We're talking on an extremely low level of child-caring here. Nobody is considering banning someone from having a child if you can't send them to Harvard. All that would be required to do would be provide proper food and nutrients, along with protection from harm (physical or psychological).

All you did there was just lower the "requirements", but still in clear violation of woman's rights. Reduce it to ZERO means, and she can still have a baby (whether or not she can keep it is a separate issue) she can still go out and get pregnant without the government "regulating her reproduction."

It's true that a fetus has no rights, but a baby does. Smoking and drinking will affect the baby if carried to full term.

May effect... Even if it does effect them as a baby later on, you cannot tell a woman to not do those things while she's pregnant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you did there was just lower the "requirements", but still in clear violation of woman's rights. Reduce it to ZERO means, and she can still have a baby (whether or not she can keep it is a separate issue) she can still go out and get pregnant without the government "regulating her reproduction."

May effect... Even if it does effect them as a baby later on, you cannot tell a woman to not do those things while she's pregnant.

Excuse me, I didn't lower any requirements as those are the only requirements necessary to sustain a human life (and why would I lower anything when my position hasn't changed in the slightest?) Whatever your conception of what my requirements were must have been off.

Most certainly the government should tell a woman not to deform another human being. For the exact same reason it can tell her not to rob, steal property from, or murder another one. If a woman wants a baby, then the woman must provide for its physical well-being.

Edited by nyos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how could I have attributed rights to something that hasn't been born? The answer is, of course, that I haven't. What the government would be doing is withholding the yet-non-existent rights of parents to show that they could indeed sustain a human life if conceived. The only analogous example I can think of is getting a car license. Just because you own a car (have the capacity to drive) does not mean that you can drive and endanger the lives of others.

Oh my...the "breeding license" revisited...

Similarly, just because you have the capacity to reproduce does not mean that you have the right to endanger the lives of others (your children).

Whose life? Children? They aren't even born yet... Just because a woman did something during pregnancy and after the baby was born, it was somehow effected by it, that means nothing at all legally and the government has no say so in matters where rights weren't violated. But if she were to do something to the baby after it was born, that's totally different.

Excuse me, I didn't lower any requirements as those are the only requirements necessary to sustain a human life (and why would I lower anything when my position hasn't changed in the slightest?) Whatever your conception of what my requirements were must have been off.

Yes, you are very right. My mistake. I misread. I apologize, but the rest of my statement stays.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the exact same reason it can tell her not to rob, steal property from, or murder another one.

But these are NOT the same things. The government cannot tell you not to rob somebody, all the government can do is tell you the consequences of what will happen if you do rob somebody or if you attempt to rob somebody. So with that, if a woman DOES neglect a child, or a woman ATTEMPTS to neglect a child you may have a case. Until then, having a child is not neglecting a child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the child requires, say, a million dollars' worth of healthcare - ought the parents be forced to be legally responsible for this child's "forced vulnerability"?

I'm not speaking of exceptional cases. Normally when we speak of principles we speak in terms of the rule, not the exceptions.

Your "what if" doesn't apply to what I'm speaking of. I've been discussing people who have children while they are incapable of supporting their child. Obviously special circumstances call for special consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I would have to ask why causing the condition of the vulnerable baby creates the obligation for ensuring that it's taken care of. Until that is answered, we are merely begging the question.
I suggested earlier that the problem here is the concept "obligation" and now I'm certain that I was right. If you remove the words "vulnerable" and "baby" and mention of the specific remedy, we have a general formula for denying any and all obligations -- "Why does causing something create an obligation to act in a certain way?". So specifically, why does driving drunk and causing the incapacity of a person create an obligation? Why does refusing to trim a dead tree on your property give rise to an obligation to pay for damages to the neighbor's house when the tree blows over in a storm? Why do any actions ever create obligations on the actor?

If you recognise that your actions can create obligations on you, then you should be able to come up with a principle that distinguishes cases where you do have an obligation, versus don't. Once you have that, if you have the right principle, then the principle ought to apply to children. We've offered a principle, having to do with accepting causality and the nature of your acts. The only thing that I can think of that could explain your reluctance to accept the connection is that you think that obligations arise from something other than causality; which is why I want you to explain what you think creates obligations, and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not speaking of exceptional cases. Normally when we speak of principles we speak in terms of the rule, not the exceptions.
And what is your principle, then?

As I understood it, your principle was

  • if you create a vulnerable human being, then you are responsible to mitigate that vulnerability

According to that principle, if you create a human being who needs a million dollar surgery to survive, then you are responsible to mitigate that vulnerability... and if you were deemed unable to pay for a million-dollar surgery, you ought to be denied the right to reproduce?

Your principle doesn't distinguish between "normal vulnerabilities" and "exceptional vulnerabilities" - so do you have a better principle, or is the distinction subjective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what is your principle, then?

As I understood it, your principle was

  • if you create a vulnerable human being, then you are responsible to mitigate that vulnerability

According to that principle, if you create a human being who needs a million dollar surgery to survive, then you are responsible to mitigate that vulnerability... and if you were deemed unable to pay for a million-dollar surgery, you ought to be denied the right to reproduce?

Your principle doesn't distinguish between "normal vulnerabilities" and "exceptional vulnerabilities" - so do you have a better principle, or is the distinction subjective?

The difference, as I pointed out, is that a healthy baby is vulnerable by default, even in its natural, normal state. When one engages in the act of procreation, one knows ahead of time that one is creating a vulnerable human being.

One NEVER knows ahead of time that one is creating a million dollar issue. On the contrary, smart money says that when a baby is created under ordinary circumstances, an ordinary childbirth will result.

In one case, one is acting in full knowledge and understanding of the consequences of one's actions. In the other case, one has stumbled unwittingly into a situation that an ordinary person in ill-equipped to handle. Surely you can see the difference.

Edited by Whispersessions
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Not entirely :confused:

Ignoring for a moment the subjectivity of "ordinary"...

Why would government be legit in forcing parents to prove they can handle ordinary childcare needs, but be acting illegitimately in forcing parents to prove they can handle anything above and beyond ordinary childcare needs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Undeniable facts of reality. Every baby is born completely helpless and dependent on someone else; that is a baby's nature, every baby. The person(s) having the child knows that fact of reality in advance of bringing that child into this world. The person(s) having the child is therefore causing the condition of that child when they bring it into the world. The person(s) causing that condition are the ones responsible and in turn obligated for ensuring that the child is taken care of, whether they do it themselves, or find another willing person to do it for them. This is what responsibility means, assuming the consequences of one's actions and decisions.

To think otherwise would be evading or denying the concept of responsibility and how it relates to the concept of obligation.

Excellent point by rationalbiker. One also has to consider the negative impact what having an abandoned child could have on individuals living in a free society. Revisiting the crack whore child machine problem; I feel that this case is not that uncommon and that the major violators of an abandoned child population explosion would stem from few members of society having many children. If we agree that a parent has a legal obligation to support their children then parents who fail to comply with that responsibility should be banned from having children until they can prove otherwise. I feel this would be a good remedy as the individual whos rights are being revoked has already violated those of other individuals by failing to care for his or her original child hence objectivism can be used to justify punative measured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we agree that a parent has a legal obligation to support their children then parents who fail to comply with that responsibility should be banned from having children until they can prove otherwise.
(bold emphasis mine)

If <--- is the key word. I definately don't agree with that. I only agree that a woman has individual rights, therefore has a right to her own body, period.

[....continued from the above quote...] I feel this would be a good remedy as the individual whos rights are being revoked has already violated those of other individuals by failing to care for his or her original child hence objectivism can be used to justify punative measured.
(bold emphasis mine)

You are absolutely misrepresenting Objectivism here, which gives the necessary proper moral defense for, upholds/protects a womans individual rights, including that of her getting pregnant - regardless of prior said violations.

Excellent point by rationalbiker.

Yes, definatley agree with you there! :)

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we agree that a parent has a legal obligation to support their children then ...
If <--- is the key word. I definately don't agree with that. I only agree that a woman has individual rights, therefore has a right to her own body, period.
Are you objecting to the "if" or to the "then" part of Mathlete's statement? I assumed that you earlier agreed that parents have some type of obligation to support children (as opposed to fetuses). Or were you saying that the government can step in to support the kids, but the parents do not have an obligation to do so?

...if that occurs after baby is born, then the government can step in, but not prior to birth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you objecting to the "if" or to the "then" part of Mathlete's statement?

Big oops! I meant "then"! Thanks for pointing that out. :)

I assumed that you earlier agreed that parents have some type of obligation to support children (as opposed to fetuses).

Yes, 100% correct.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are absolutely misrepresenting Objectivism here, which gives the necessary proper moral defense for, upholds/protects a womans individual rights, including that of her getting pregnant - regardless of prior said violations.

What about the individual rights of the members of society that that abandoned child is going to affect. By simply dropping an orphan onto a free society invariably someone else is going to have to bear the burdon of that action. That someone else would then require some sort of restitution. If the woman in question commited any other sort of delict against another individual surely objectivism would hold that in that case some sort of punishment is appropriate.

Objectivism does not grant absolute rights on all the citizens living in a free society. Consider if someone stole something from you. Would an objectivist judge not then order he pay you back what he stole plus some additional damages even though such an action entails forcibly taking away a portion of that persons property along with what is rightfully yours? The same is true here were rights are suspended based upon the irresponsible actions of a member of society.

Edited by Mathlete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the individual rights of the members of society that that abandoned child is going to affect.

And what of them? They are still respected and protected too. We are talking about governmental intervention in the matter, whatever that may particularly be is dealt with by each case.

By simply dropping an orphan onto a free society invariably someone else is going to have to bear the burdon of that action.

Someone else? No, not with governmental intervention in the matter, which is there to protect the individual rights of the child. Baby is not forced upon anyone, baby's rights are simply to be protected by government.

If the woman in question commited any other sort of delict against another individual surely objectivism would hold that in that case some sort of punishment is appropriate.

Yes. But that does not involve not letting her get pregnant again, and so forth.

Objectivism does not grant absolute rights on all the citizens living in a free society.

Not sure what you mean by absolute rights, but Objectivism through the proper political-economic system, laissez-faire capitalism, in which it's government exists TO protect/uphold EVERY citizens individual rights.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to set a baseline, we are not talking about the issue posed by the original questioner. Mathlete is speaking of a different situation. He is asking about someone who has been proven to have violated the rights of a baby. The broad question is: what type of action can the government take against such a person? If they have assets that they refuse to use, I presume the government can use some of those assets for the baby's support. Similarly, if could be reasonable to garnish some future wages toward the baby's support.

What if they're a deadbeat and a repeat offender to boot? Can they go to prison for such a repeated offence? If prison is too harsh, can they face any other lesser sanction?

Yes. But that does not involve not letting her get pregnant again, and so forth.
I do not see why not, in principle. This would be similar to a restraining order. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what of them? They are still respected and protected too. We are talking about governmental intervention in the matter, whatever that may particularly be is dealt with by each case.

Someone else? No, not with governmental intervention in the matter, which is there to protect the individual rights of the child. Baby is not forced upon anyone, baby's rights are simply to be protected by government

I follow what you are saying for the most part but get a bit lost in the execution of your ideas. Consider this following case:

Deadbeat has a child. The deadbeat in question has no assets that can be confiscated or put towards the childs upbringing. Furthermore the deadbeat is unable to perform any meaningful job that could be used to support the child. How is government meant to protect the child's rights which we agree is a real right to financial support from said deadbeat? We are in agreement that government sponsored foster care and day care are not acceptable solutions so what are others?

The way I see it there are only a few possibilities:

1) Child dies on the streets due to lack of support

2) Some charitable individual or organisation takes care of the child but resources are limited so they could not possibly care for every one

3) Perhaps a private initiative offers the child support in exchange for the future revenue that the child could earn. However a child could not consent to such an agreement or any other for that matter as it would lack the ability to conclude a binding contract at its age.

Would we have to accept option (1) as perhaps not being a common event but nevertheless a possible one under a laisse-faire economy and an objectivist government and society. If option 1 were to happen then the mother of course would be guilty of criminal negligence and by extention murder in which case losing her right to reproduce would probably seem lenient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see why not, in principle. This would be similar to a restraining order.

A restraining reproduction order? I don't agree with that, sNerd.

I think that when such a woman had done it the first time, the woman may very well be putting a "self-imposed" order of sorts upon themselves, seeing what had happened to them the first time they couldn't take care of baby, or at least make the right choices if pregnancy does occur, like adoption or whatnot before it turns into neglect/abuse, and so on. I see NO reason to restrict her reproductively. Now as I said before, as soon as baby is born, that's when any number of actions could be taken, but I see NO reason to restrict a woman, or ban her from pregnancy and carrying to term.

I think it comes down to more along the lines of what Dave had mentioned pages or many replies ago...let me find it.

Here:

the government does have the right and obligation to keep you from harming your child, and it does have the right and duty to force you to fulfill the obligations that you've taken on.

and

The right direction for solving the problem is to focus on causality -- "You did this, now it's your problem, so take care of it". Responsible parties should be held responsible.

The broad question is: what type of action can the government take against such a person?

That's THE question.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...