Whispersessions

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.

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.

I'd question your seemingly narrow definition of harm. In this context it seems there are many ways for a child to be harmed. To have a child knowing that you 1. can't support it and 2. that its best alternative is to be put into a system where the odds of a functional, healthy upbringing are miminal and 3. that it will create a situation with all bad options (either it will go unsupported or the responsibility of raising him or her will become someone elses problem) has to be irresponsible and harmful and therefore unethical. You don't have to beat or neglect a kid to harm it. I would challange your assertion that simply giving birth to a child you cannot support does not harm the child. Indirectly, it seems that much harm is done. 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. So without dwelling on the moral implications, if that can be shown to be the case, then would it not follow that people shouldn't legally be able to spawn other vulnerable, fragile people at will, knowing that they cannot live up to their responsibilitites, resulting in harm to the child?

It seems apparent to me that when one brings a child into the world through one's deliberate actions, then one is in essence physically forcing another human being (the child) into a mortally vulnerable position. It therefore seems apparent that it would become one's responsibility to mitigate that vulnerability, should one decide to force another into such a position. Ultimately, that's what it boils down to, and that's why it's a parent's responsibility to care for the well-being of thier children. But I wouldn't stop there. I would say that the logical extinsion of this is that it is the parents responsibility to ensure the mental, psychological, and physical health of their offspring. But that's not something I'm going to take the time to get into here. Long story short - you create a vulnerable human being, you are responsible to mitigate that vulnerability.

I'm curious what the Objectivist position is on the idea that citizens shouldn't be allowed to reproduce without the means to support ones offspring. I cannot think of a good reason why a government should not be able to pass laws that prohibit citizens from reproducing when they cannot demonstrate the ability to support thier offspring. This seems a basic rights/responsibilities issue. If citizens have a child, and cannot support that child, how can it be thier right to continue having children until and unless they subsequently demonstrate that ability? This is not an issue of people having the right to do as they wish with their bodies. It is about people demonstrating irresponsibility toward other people (children) who depend on them for life support, and in doing so not only harm those people, but create a burden on society in multitudes of other ways. Is there an official Objectivist position on this issue? Has this idea been examined at legnth?