Minors: Rights And Children

[RationalBiker]

The pro-care argument has gone from

infants have rights to care via their nature as (infant) man, to

a mother chooses to be responsible for her child in "choosing" to bear the child, to

Actually, I don't think that the "pro care" argument has evolved in that fashion, at least not for all parties involved. Those represent two current arguments depending on who is involved in the discussion. I think AisA is still maintaining the first argument you list, as well as maintaining that that right is separate and distinguishable from the right(s) of violitional adult beings. The latter argument is, as you mentioned, simplified (at least from my point of view) as it still involves the right to life of the child (but not being a separate or distinguishable right from any other volitional being) being exercised through the gaurdianship of the parent(s) responsible for bringing the child into existence.

As Inspector mentions, and something I alluded to sometime back, I think some of us have a fundamentally different view of what "responsibility" means.

Since my position has been redundantly stated and argued throughout, I have no interest in regurgitating it at this point.

Edited January 6, 2006 by RationalCop

[hunterrose]

I think you made some good points, IAmMetaphysical.

"Responsibility" has been thrown about liberally, but as far as I recall, I don't think anyone's said why creating a helpless being creates responsibility to the newborn - as if it were a self-evident premise.

Things we can all agree upon?

• If person A harms another person B, then A now has a compensatory responsibility toward B, because harming another being is grounds for compensation.
  
  
• If A created a being who was not helpless, then A would have no responsibility to B.
  
  
• A has no responsibility to helpless beings he has not created.
  

Though few (if any) have explicitly concurred, I don't think anyone will challenge the idea that creating a being, helpless or not, is not an instance of harming another being.

The problem is that creating alone is not basis for this responsibility, nor helplessness alone, and no reason has been explicitly given as to why combining these insufficient premises should create a sufficient reason for this responsibility.

The closest thing to a reason I've seen is that because the mother has an alternative to the newborn's existence, then she is responsible for the newborn's status. That doesn't stand to careful scrutiny either, but I see little reason to address it unless I know whether this the necessary and sufficient reason for this responsibility.

This would make one heck of a court case, wouldn't it?

*hunterrose appeals to Judge Narrangansett*

[Inspector]

and no reason has been explicitly given as to why combining these insufficient premises should create a sufficient reason for this responsibility.

Hunterrose, without getting too far into the rest of what you have said, I’d like to question the premise that the above statement operates on:

Namely, that the combination of two or more insufficient conditions does not lead to the existence of a sufficient condition.

I don’t agree. There are plenty of sufficient conditions which are born of the amalgamation of several conditions which are not sufficient by themselves! How about the critical mass of fissionable material needed to construct a nuclear weapon, to name just one?

[IAmMetaphysical]

Hunterrose: thanks for clarifying my position, that is exactly my point, although I guess I didn't get it across sufficiently enough. I was rejecting what I saw as an equivocation between being "responsible" for someone's condition in the sense that one causes the condition, and being "responsible" for their well being in the sense that one has to feed them and ensure their survival. I did not and do not see a causal link between the two. I do not see how creating a being carries any further obligation on the part of the creator toward the created.

Inspector: I can appreciate what you mean by knowing beforehand the consequences of one's actions. I do not like to hear about fifteen year old girls leaving infants in dumpsters, and I do feel that morally they should deal with the consequences of their actions. The only thing I dissagree with you on, I think, is that I don't think the government should be in the business of forcing people to be moral, when their immorality does not infringe upon the rights of another. I feel the same way about drug abuse, sexual perversion and the like. Your position may be misinterpreted as wanting to force punishment on people for simply being irrational. I do not think that is consistent with objective politics. The proper role of government is the retaliatory use of force against those that initiate force against others, not to punish people for being irrational where they can "get away" with it otherwise. People who live their life irrationally will reap what they sow eventually, the government does not have to impose extra punishment upon them.

I am not afraid of a slippery slope and please don't insult me by assuming that I hold my beliefs for irrational reasons, if I am mistaken, it is because of a misunderstanding, not a deliberate evasion. I realize that I may have done the same in past posts by stating that people are appealling to their emotions and I now see that I was mistaken, I apologize for any offense I might have caused.

[Inspector]

I do not see how creating a being carries any further obligation on the part of the creator toward the created.

That is not a correct statement of my position. Simply creating “a being” does not carry any further obligation. It is the creation of a rational, helpless being in the context of knowing beforehand that your actions will do so.

The only thing I dissagree with you on, I think, is that I don't think the government should be in the business of forcing people to be moral, when their immorality does not infringe upon the rights of another.

That is another incorrect description of my position. The actions I propose should be illegal are in my judgment infringing upon the rights of another.

Your position may be misinterpreted as wanting to force punishment on people for simply being irrational. I do not think that is consistent with objective politics.

Why is what my position might be misinterpreted as a point against it? As you state, that would be a MISinterpretation of my position as it is not that “punishment [should be forced] on people for simply being irrational.”

I am not afraid of a slippery slope and please don't insult me by assuming that I hold my beliefs for irrational reasons, if I am mistaken, it is because of a misunderstanding, not a deliberate evasion.

I have done no such thing. The idea that you may be concerned about a “slippery slope” existing within my argument does not imply evasion, deliberate or otherwise, on your part. I have not insulted you, I was merely asking if your concern with my position was based on the idea that there was a “slippery slope” within it.

A simple “no, I am concerned because I don’t share your view of responsibility” would have done just fine.

Edited January 6, 2006 by Inspector

[IAmMetaphysical]

I believe "slippery slope" arguments are illogical. That's why I took offense.

You still have to demonstrate how "creating a rational, helpless being knowing beforehand" somehow gives the infant a "right" to care. You have to make a case that an infant has a right to "things" and not only to action which all other man have. You have to make a case that a certain "group" of people have "special" rights, which I think flies in the face of Objectivist Politics.

It is not the government's job to hold people responsible for the consequences of their irrational decisions, nature takes care of that, so you are right, the issue lies with whether or not an infant has the "right" to be taken care of. Your argument seems to stem from the fact that people should be held responsible for their conscious choices. You are directing your argument as a punishment against the parent's irrationality, not as a defense of the infant. This has nothing to do with violation of rights.

(I meant "INTERPRETED as", I misspoke.)

Edited January 6, 2006 by IAmMetaphysical

[Inspector]

I believe "slippery slope" arguments are illogical. That's why I took offense.

Then we must mean different things by that term. Anyhow, moving on:

You have to make a case that an infant has a right to "things" and not only to action which all other man have. You have to make a case that a certain "group" of people have "special" rights, which I think flies in the face of Objectivist Politics.

Neither of the above are my position, and if you read the thread, you will see that I have argued against AisA for having both of those positions. You may have the two of us confused, perhaps?

As for the rest, if you do not see the connection of responsibility, then I do not have any other way of putting it. If I think of one, I will let you know. Until then, we will have to agree to disagree, I suppose.

[AisA]

My position that a child has a right to material support from his parents has been universally attacked on the grounds that it allegedly contradicts Miss Rand’s statements that: 1) everyone has the same rights, and 2) rights are rights to objects not to actions. I have never considered my position to be in conflict with this, because I view children as a special case, and I am convinced Miss Rand did as well.

In “Ayn Rand Answers”, Miss Rand addressed three questions that relate directly to children and parents and a fourth question that is potentially related. Here are the questions and her responses.

1. Does the state have the right to interfere with parents who abuse their children?

Yes, in a case of demonstrable physical abuse, like beating or starvation. This is an issue of protecting individual rights. Since children cannot protect themselves from physical abuse, and are dependent on their parents, the government can interfere to protect a child’s rights – just as it can to prevent an adult from beating up, locking up, or starving another adult. Since the child is dependent for his survival on the parent, the government can see to it that the child’s life is safe. But this does not extend to intellectual issues. The government has no right to interfere in the upbringing of the child, which is entirely the responsibility and the right of the parent.

2. How do the rights of children differ from those of adults, particularly given a child’s need for parental support?

Both the adult and the child have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But those rights depend on one’s reason and knowledge. An infant can’t earn his own sustenance, nor can a child exercise his rights and know what the pursuit of happiness is, nor know what freedom is and how to use it. All human rights depend on man’s nature as a rational being; therefore, a child must wait until he has developed his mind and acquired enough knowledge to be capable of the full independent exercise of his rights. While he’s a child, his parents must support him. This is a fact of nature. Proclaiming some kind of children’s rights won’t make such “rights” real. Rights are a concept based on reality; therefore, a parent doesn’t have the right to starve his child, neglect him, injure him physically, or kill him. The government must protect the child, as it would any other citizen. But the child can’t claim for himself the rights of an adult, because he is not competent to exercise them. He must depend on his parents. If he doesn’t like them, he should leave home as early as he can earn his living by legal means.

3. Should the state prescribe the obligations of a marriage, or should this be left to the contractual desires of the couple?

This is an important and difficult subject, because of two complex issues: the rights of children and property rights. If two people are married, they many want to have children. Once a child is born, he is entitled to support until he is self-supporting.

4. Do severely retarded individuals have rights?

Not actual rights – not the same rights possessed by normal individuals. In effect, they have the right to be protected as perennial children. Like children, retarded people are entitled to protection because, as humans, they may improve and become partly able to stand on their own. The protection of their rights is a courtesy extended to them for being human, even if not properly formed ones. But you could not extend the actual exercise of individual rights to a retarded person, because he’s unable to function rationally. Since all rights rest on human nature, a being that cannot exercise his rights cannot have full human rights.

While some of these answers are open to interpretation, I think three facts are undeniable regarding Miss Rand’s position:

1) Children have an individual right to material support (food and care) from the parents.

2) Government may intervene when the parent fails to provide food and proper care.

3) A child’s rights are not the same as an adult’s.

These facts support the view that the relationship between parent and child is a special case involving different rights for the two parties. You may disagree with that view, but there is no doubt in my mind that such was Miss Rand’s view.

My position has not changed:

The purpose of the concept of rights is to define the conditions of existence, vis-à-vis other men, required for man’s proper survival. Rights are normally rights to actions, not to objects, because for man the adult, the freedom to act is all his “proper survival” requires from other men.

However, a child is a special case: a child is a rational being that cannot, without a period of learning and development, survive in the normal manner of a rational being, i.e. by using reason to produce what his survival requires. His nature, as an infant rational being, demands an additional "condition of existence vis-à-vis other men"-- it demands at least minimal material support from those who are causally responsible for his existence: his creators.

What is man’s “proper survival” as an infant? There is only one possibility: the child must accept material support from an adult. Why must that material support come from the parents and only the parents? Because the parents, and only the parents, are causally responsible for the child’s existence.

As I have written many times, I see no justification for declaring that the “condition of existence” required by man’s nature, as an adult, constitutes a right – but the “condition of existence” demanded by man’s nature as an infant is irrelevant.

[IAmMetaphysical]

I do not think Ms. Rand was speaking though in the terms you think. She said: "in a case of demonstrable physical abuse, like beating or starvation. This is an issue of protecting individual rights. "(note, i respond to her statement not as an authoritative statement, but because I do feel it makes a point.)

I think clarification of the term "starvation" is needed. What does starvation entail? In the case of one adult to another it means actively restricting another's access to food, or water. It does not mean withholding food or refusing to feed. In the case of a child, since it is incapable of attaining food for itself, refusing to feed it, AND NOT ALLOWING ANYONE ELSE to feed it, would be starvation. It would be actively restricting its access to food. In other words, as long as you retain possession of an infant, you are responsible for feeding it. I never disagreed with this. I just was uncomfortable with calling this a "right" for the infant or child granted by its metaphysics alone. I still do not see that if there is no one else who is willing to feed the infant then not feeding it and abondoning it would be starving it. I guess what I am saying is that it has a "right" to the food offered it, but not a right to have food offered to it.

[AisA]

I still do not see that if there is no one else who is willing to feed the infant then not feeding it and abondoning it would be starving it.

So, it is your position that what Miss Rand actually meant to say, in the comments above and in the article in The Objectivist Newsletter, is that child abandonment is fine as long as you don't interfere with someone else that is attempting to feed the child?

When Miss Rand says, "Once a child is born, he is entitled to support until he is self-supporting," she actually means "Once a child is born, he is entitled only to whatever support is volunteered by others until he is self-supporting"?

And the article in the Objectivist Newsletter that said, "The support (provided by his parents) is his by right" really means, "The support is his by right but only if others volunteer it"?

I guess what I am saying is that it has a "right" to the food offered it, but not a right to have food offered to it.

If the child does not have a right to have food offered to it, then why would preventing others from feeding it be a violation of its rights? You can argue that it would be a violation of the rights of the person offering the food, but if the child doesn't have a right to the food, it cannot be a violation of his rights.

[RationalBiker]

I have never considered my position to be in conflict with this, because I view children as a special case, and I am convinced Miss Rand did as well.

In “Ayn Rand Answers”, Miss Rand addressed three questions that relate directly to children and parents and a fourth question that is potentially related.

Just for the record, I don't see that any of these explanations are in conflict with my stated position either.

Edited January 10, 2006 by RationalCop

[hunterrose]

Let's see if we can make some progress here. For the sake of argument, let's say that were agreed that children have a right/entitlement/"whatever" to support. And also that at least some (e.g. non-parents) do not have to provide this support. What is the argument that a mother does have to provide some amount of support?

The single argument I've seen is that the mother has "chosen" to create a rational, helpless being. If anyone is offering a different justification for maternal obligations, feel free to state it.

First of all, as IAmMetaphysical has said (and has been long ignored,) the mother doesn't choose to create here in the strictest sense. Barring accidents and what-not, a pregnant woman will bear a child so long as she chooses to live, eat, shelter herself from harmful elements, etc. She isn't choosing something here that is for all intents and purposes automatic, anymore than a man "chooses" to age. Just as no legal weight could be placed on an idea that a man "choosing" to age obligates him to anyone else, it's just as silly to say that a pregnant woman "choosing" to bear a child obligates her to the newborn.

What you more accurately mean is that the mother has chosen to not prevent, or has allowed the birth to occur.

Using your argument, you could claim that a man isn’t responsible for killing someone if he points a gun at him and pulls the trigger. After all, death from a gunshot wound is “a natural process of the body.”

A more accurate analogy would be a bystander standing next to the gunman. The gunman chooses (causes) death; it could be argued that the bystander allows the death, but certainly not that he is responsible in any way. He didn't enact the harming process.

The gunman is indeed obligated because of a "natural process," but to transform that into "anyone who didn't prevent this natural process is obligated" is, shall we say, shady? Saying that this bystander's choice to kill creates obligations would be just as faulty as saying that the pregnant woman choice to birth creates responsibilities.

As for the rest, if you do not see the connection of responsibility, then I do not have any other way of putting it.

Ah, the aegis of "responsibility."

I don't think you were trying to be disingenuous, but you haven't put this connection in any way in the first place.

It hasn't been connected that a mother chooses to bear the child.

Or that allowing birth should create obligations on her part.

Or why birthing should be classed with harming as creating responsibilities anyway.

Let alone the assumption that the newborn has an entitlement to these obligations.

*hunterrose high-fives Judge Narrangansett*

[Inspector]

First of all, as IAmMetaphysical has said (and has been long ignored,) the mother doesn't choose to create here in the strictest sense.

Yes, she does. She chose to take the initial action of copulation which created the fetus and she chose to let the biological process complete itself.

Just as no legal weight could be placed on an idea that a man "choosing" to age obligates him to anyone else

I disagree. If a man signs a contract to perform strenuous physical activities (i.e. as a basketball player), then he can’t simply ignore the fact that he will age and eventually be unable to fulfill his obligations. He doesn’t have to be responsible for the fact of aging in order to be responsible for the consequence that he ages. A woman does not have to be responsible for the fact that birth creates babies in order to be responsible for birthing a baby.

What you more accurately mean is that the mother has chosen to not prevent, or has allowed the birth to occur.

That would only apply if it wasn’t her choice to set into motion the biological process in the first place. If we reproduced monozygoticallly and non-volitionally, then your logic would apply. We do not, so it does not.

more accurate analogy would be a bystander standing next to the gunman.

The gunman chooses (causes) death; it could be argued that the bystander allows the death, but certainly not that he is responsible in any way. He didn't enact the harming process.

But the woman DOES enact the entity-creating process by having sex! So your example is totally nonsensical in this context!

to transform that into "anyone who didn't prevent this natural process is obligated" is, shall we say, shady?

I haven’t said anything of the sort and your attempt to use that straw man is, shall we say, shady? You’re falling into your old pattern (from the “god” debate) of repeating tiny variations on the same nonsense over and over again while blatantly ignoring where I’ve clearly proven you wrong. I will be even less patient with your trolling this time than I was last time.

In short, don’t try that s*** with me.

*hunterrose high-fives Judge Narrangansett*

Your self-congratulation is… distasteful enough as it is; the fact that it is grossly premature… well, let me put it this way: stop making a fool of yourself.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Inspector

[AisA]

What is the argument that a mother does have to provide some amount of support?

What is the argument that anyone does have to do anything, such as respect the freedom of others?

[IAmMetaphysical]

So, it is your position that what Miss Rand actually meant to say......

In a way, I am saying that, but I am not trying to put words in her mouth. I am not making an argument from authority. I do not pretend to know what Ms. Rand meant, and I don't care, but I feel that what she did say was lacking elaboration. (She said herself that she was a novelist first, philosopher second so I can see how she didn't feel the need to expound upon everything about everything. I suspect there are some things she said, especially things she said in an off-handed way that were not totally explicit because she assumed that the reader would understand the fundamentals of her philosophy and she would not need to restate it.)

The context that I think applies to the situation she speaks of, and the one Nathaniel Branden speaks of is in a context of recieving a gift. It means that anything that annyone recieves from anyone of their own free will is "by right" the reciever's. So lets say that if person A wants to give a present to person B, and person C blocks person A from recieving said present, person C has violated person A's right to the present that person B offered to him. It is not a violation of person B's rights, because when he gave the intention to give the present he relinquished ownership to person A, said present was then the rightful property of person A.

Edited January 10, 2006 by IAmMetaphysical

[hunterrose]

She chose to take the initial action of copulation which created the fetus and she chose to let the biological process complete itself.

Not so fast, my friend. "Choosing to let" something happen is not a basis for responsibility in and of itself (it would require some prior reason that made the mother responsible.)

Let me return to the bystander analogy to make the point. Bear with me.

The bystander can attempt to stop the gunman. If he doesn't, he is not responsible simply because he can prevent it (right?) Unless he has hired the gunman to commit this violence. Or perhaps if bystander has incited or intentionally equipped the gunman. Or is himself impervious by some means or another to the gun and a person who he has pre-established responsibility for is under the gun.

In short, the bystander allowing (or "choosing to let" as you say) the injury occur not only doesn't, but can't make him responsible without some pre-existing responsibility. Without that pre-existing responsibility, the simple fact that the bystander could have prevented the gunplay doesn't make him responsible in any way. Similarly, the sole fact that a pregnant woman can attempt to prevent her pregnancy can't create some responsibility for not preventing the pregnancy, in and of itself.

Can we not agree on this?

[AisA]

Hunterrose, is it your position that a child leaps into existence on its own, i.e. that its creation is causeless, random and unrelated to any act on the part of the parents?

[Inspector]

Not so fast, my friend. "Choosing to let" something happen is not a basis for responsibility in and of itself (it would require some prior reason that made the mother responsible.)

Dude…. Are you joking? I mean, is this some kind of humor that I don’t get? “Some prior reason?” You are aware of how babies are made, right? And that it is an act of choice, right? (and that I said previously that my statements applied to the context of when there was no coercion involved in the act of copulation)

Let me return to the bystander analogy to make the point. Bear with me.

No, I won’t let you return to that invalid analogy. I’ve already, TWICE, told you why that does not apply… the first time was before you even came up with that analogy. You’re wrong. Admit it.

[hunterrose]

Hunterrose, is it your position that a child leaps into existence on its own, i.e. that its creation is causeless, random and unrelated to any act on the part of the parents?

No.

If I surmise you correctly, you are referring the relation copulation has to this issue, whereas I'm saying that the capacity to have an abortion by itself doesn't create responsibility, as stated in my prior post.

Having sex might, or having sex in addition to specific other things might create a responsibility, but the capacity to have an abortion by itself does not create a responsibility should the pregnant woman bear the child.

Isn't this correct?

I said previously that my statements applied to the context of when there was no coercion involved in the act of copulation

But that doesn't make sense. Going by that principle (correct me if I'm wrong) but a coerced-pregnancy woman (e.g. rape) has no responsibility if she bears a child... but a non-coerced one does???

I doubt that is your position, but that is what it seems from what I gather.

Edited January 11, 2006 by hunterrose

[Inspector]

I'm saying that the capacity to have an abortion by itself doesn't create responsibility, as stated in my prior post.

But that’s nonsense. You are responsible for your body and for what it does. Coughing is just as much of an uncontrollable process as childbearing (once initiated), but you can’t go around coughing in peoples’ faces and claim “I’m not responsible.”

The capacity to cover your mouth makes you responsible for doing so, if you don’t want to go around spreading disease. The capacity to abort makes you responsible for doing so, if you don’t want to have to care for a child.

But that doesn't make sense. Going by that principle (correct me if I'm wrong) but a coerced-pregnancy woman (e.g. rape) has no responsibility if she bears a child... but a non-coerced one does???

Saying that my statements are meant to apply to one context is not the same thing as saying that I mean the opposite outside of that context. I think my statements above should clarify this for you.

[hunterrose]

Only partially.

Are these indicative of your stances?

For women bearing children:

if she chose to have sex, but for some reason was unable to have an abortion, she is not responsible for the newborn.

if she did not choose to have sex, but was able to have an abortion, she is responsible for the newborn.

Yes/no answers (with or without elaboration) would provide the most clarity.

Edited January 11, 2006 by hunterrose

[AisA]

In a way, I am saying that, but I am not trying to put words in her mouth. I am not making an argument from authority. I do not pretend to know what Ms. Rand meant, and I don't care, but I feel that what she did say was lacking elaboration.

The context that I think applies to the situation she speaks of, and the one Nathaniel Branden speaks of is in a context of recieving a gift.

I take this to mean that you no longer dispute the meaning of Miss Rand's statements; you simply disagree with them, which is fine.

Your position is that the child is only entitled to whatever support the parent chooses to offer. If the parent chooses to offer no support, that may be immoral on the parent's part, but it is none of the government's business. The government should take no action, even if it means the child's death.

Given that, I have some questions about something you wrote in post 357:

"Morality ends when a gun begins" means that man would be unable to be moral, to live his life, if he was not free to make the choices involved in his self sustaining action. It is not the fact of his possessing rationality, but of the fact of his possessing volition. Being "free" in this sense means being without restraints, without coercion. "Living" while being unable to excercise free choice would not be living as a man. This is why it is "right" for man to be free from the initiation of force, it is right for him to live as his nature dictates; to live as a volitional being.

(emphasis added)

If it is "right for him to live as his nature dictates", how should an infant live? His "nature dictates" that he live as a dependent. That means that "it is right for him to live as a dependent." Why, then, does he not have a right to do so?

[Inspector]

Are these indicative of your stances?

For women bearing children:

if she chose to have sex, but for some reason was unable to have an abortion, she is not responsible for the newborn.

No, by having sex she is taking the risk that she may for some reason be unable to have an abortion, and will have to care for the child until she can have it adopted.

if she did not choose to have sex, but was able to have an abortion, she is responsible for the newborn.

Yes. If she did not choose to have sex, but was able to have an abortion and yet chose not to have an abortion, then she would be responsible for the child at least until she is able to have it adopted.

But why would someone do such a crazy thing? If they don’t want the child, and they are able to abort, why would they choose not to?

I hope this clarifies something for you, because from my perspective it looks like a bunch of rationalistic word games.

[RationalBiker]

I'm closing this thread for a while to give it some "breathing time". No new ground has been covered for quite some time and perhaps some time away from it will offer a fresh perspective.

[LaszloWalrus]

Yes, there would be laws against parental neglect. A child has no choice in the matter of being born, and is at first completely helpless. Since there was no consideration on the child's part about its birth, the parents have a moral (and legal) obligation to care for it until it has developed the capacities to survive on its own.