Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Right to reproduce?

Rate this topic


Whispersessions

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't think there's an official position. I'll tell you the logical position: people don't have a right to *keep* their children if they can't or won't support them.

The purpose of law is not to force people to be responsible or attempt to prevent them from being irresponsible, but to prevent them from harming others with your irresponsibility. Simply giving birth to a child that you cannot support does not harm that child. Keeping it, does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not an issue of people having the right to do as they wish with their bodies.

Well actually it is. The government does not have a right to tell people how to use their bodies. As Jenny said, the purpose of law is (supposed to be) to protect individual rights, not force people to be responsible. This is essentially the same rationale for illegalizing drugs. Drugs are bad for you, can make people irresponsible and commit crime and taxpayers have to bear a burden for people's drug use so therefore we should prevent them from using drugs.

but create a burden on society in multitudes of other ways.

This is largely because of the way the government (we'll assume the US for purposes of discussion) is funded and how it operates; involuntary taxation with "social programs". Irresponsible baby millers would have much less incentive if the government was not set up the way it is in that actually pays them to crank out babies at the expense of other tax-payers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I basically agree with Jenni & Vern, but want to bring together what I think are all of the specific rights issues. The government does not have the right to tell people how to use their bodies; the government does not have the right to force other people to take custodianship of children that were created by someone else; 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. The fact is that in giving birth to a child, the person (mother) incurs an custodial obligation to the child, and it is proper for the government to enforce that obligation. The problem is, what do you do with crack whores giving birth, who are incapable of taking care of themselves much less someone else. There is no problem if some charitable agency is willing to step in and shoulder the obligation shirked by the mother, but thought should be given to the question, what should happen if there is a mass of abandoned babies from utterly unfit mothers, and an undersupply of foster care? State-run social care agencies is not an option.

Were this situation to ever come to pass, there would be a problem. 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. Exactly how you do that with a dissolute crack whore isn't trivial, but that is where the attention should be.

I suspect that ending the welfare system would result in a massive reduction ion the number of children needing to be placed in foster care, so that the existing level of voluntary charity would be sufficient to handling the occasional crack whore's child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were this situation to ever come to pass, there would be a problem. 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. Exactly how you do that with a dissolute crack whore isn't trivial, but that is where the attention should be.

Forced labor? I mean, as an alternative to sending someone to prison over something such as this. Then you can just use part of their wages for paying for their own basic needs, and use the rest to support the child (who is now in someone else's care, or whatever).

I don't think that'd be an initiation of force on the part of the government, as you can also currently go to jail for not meeting obligations you assumed at an earlier point in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

About a decade ago I was a card carrying member of the CoS, and right before I was banned from a forum for questioning one of Anton LaVey's nine Satanic statements, I had encountered Satanists bringing up the idea of a "breeding liscense" in an attempt to curb stupidity (<--yes, someone actually said that) only letting those of ability have children and so on, think: eugenics. What standard(s) involved in judging a person as being fit for parenthood, I have no exact idea in their case. Some were suggesting a kind of test for people to take to see if they should be allowed to have children, and if not, in some cases sterility would somehow be forced upon the person. Now these thoughts are a mere minority among Satanists, but still, it reminded me of it. So prohibiting citizens from reproducing, what happens if they do? or would you take "preventative" measures, like those few Satanists on that forum were suggesting? I'm not saying you are advocating the position, you just can't think of a good reason why the government shouldn't do this. Is this good enough? How about this:

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?

It is and always will be their right, to have a child or to continue to have children, no matter how handicapped they are in whatever way that they are, no matter how unfit they appear to be, financially unstable, mentally unstable. What can be prohibited is not having a child as such, but the treatment they recieve after delivery, upon birth. Then the government has every right to put it's hands in between child and parent, because the child has rights as soon as it's born. If there is another parent/legal custodian/guardian they very easily can get custody of baby, if the conditions are not in baby's best interests, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At first blush anyway, I'm not sure I necessarily agree that giving birth to a child amounts to taking on a custodial obligation. Rather I see exercising custodial rights as the source, so that if a parent chooses to keep the child in their custody, then they have an obligation of care. This is because a promise of care inheres in the choice of being a child's caring custodian. The relationship of right to responsibility is more proximate than in the case of giving birth, though such a right reasonably belongs to the birth parents in the first instance (who naturally will want to exercise it). A failure to meet such obligations would dissolve the right, enabling other parties to take over if they so chose.

As to the mass of crack whores problem, it falls under the rubric of "too bad". It's too bad that nature enables unfit or neglectful parents to have kids, but it does. Them's the breaks, but unless the unfit parents assert custody there would be no implicit promise to enforce around which to base a law demanding care. One difference with this approach would be that government couldn't enforce a law preventing child abandonment, which is too bad, but on the other hand how precisely would government enforce an obligation of care anyway given an unfit parent who simply shrugs it off? I don't see how they can, so as a practical matter we need go no further than to dissolve the custodial right at that point and allow others to take over.

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At first blush anyway, I'm not sure I necessarily agree that giving birth to a child amounts to taking on a custodial obligation.

It does upon birth, save for special cases like her being a surrogate mother for example or giving it up for adoption upon delivery or whatever other the case that had special orders already in place prior.

Look at it this way. As soon as that bun comes out of the oven, the cord is clamped and cut, the potential becomes an actual, the mother or the appointed legal custodian/guardian is responsible for it, until she or they decide what to do with the newborn.

As Dave said:

The government does not have the right to tell people how to use their bodies; the government does not have the right to force other people to take custodianship of children that were created by someone else; 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. The fact is that in giving birth to a child, the person (mother) incurs an custodial obligation to the child, and it is proper for the government to enforce that obligation.
Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does upon birth, save for special cases like her being a surrogate mother for example or giving it up for adoption upon delivery or whatever other the case that had special orders already in place prior.

Essentially I would agree but I would avoid the term "custodial obligation", but rather allowing the child to be born infers a responsibility to ensure that some willing person takes on care for the child. The parent(s) would have then initial responsibility to do so until they could find someone else who would.

If they (she) had no intention of taking care of the child to begin with, abortion was an option well before the baby came to term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does upon birth, save for special cases like her being a surrogate mother for example or giving it up for adoption upon delivery or whatever other the case that had special orders already in place prior.

Look at it this way. As soon as that bun comes out of the oven, the cord is clamped and cut, the potential becomes an actual, the mother or the appointed legal custodian/guardian is responsible for it, until she or they decide what to do with the newborn.

As Dave said:

IF they decide to keep it, yes. But what if they don't? The responsbility is to choose one or the other, but to be responsible for making a choice doesn't entail being obligated to choose a particular thing. That, of course, is the crux of the argument: is the birth parent obligated to provide care by virtue of having given birth, and if so, why is that a fact?

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF they decide to keep it, yes. But what if they don't?
There is a point at which an earlier choice entails something about the future. Maybe this is an indication that we need to sort out the concept of obligation. or example, when you decide to undertake a contractual obligation, that is a choice which you can freely make, but you can't unmake it afterwards -- the choice to engage in a contract entails an obligation. Under some circumstances, you can discharge the obligation, like paying a fine, or securng a surrogate guardian. This notion of obligation is intimately connected to the notion "other person's rights", so you have no obligation to your cat or a tree. This is where I think attention should be turned (in a separate thread because the question is about oligations, not having children -- the latter is just a concretization of the principle).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF they decide to keep it, yes. But what if they don't?

They are still responsible by virtue of having given birth to baby. Who else would be?

The responsbility is to choose one or the other, but to be responsible for making a choice doesn't entail being obligated to choose a particular thing.

She carried as I call in my book I'm writing "the potential" to term, knowing the consequences of doing so, in most cases. In most cases, she could have made prior arrangements, like adoption at birth, or abortion beforehand, etc.

That, of course, is the crux of the argument: is the birth parent obligated to provide care by virtue of having given birth, and if so, why is that a fact?

Both morally and legally obligated, because she in most cases choose to bring into the world a baby, that also has its own individual rights born right along with it. If it was a mistake, or somehow she hadn't "made up her mind in time", or dare I say *somehow* gives birth to baby without even knowing she was pregnant, she's still responsible by default, regardless. She can give baby up for adoption, to someone she knows, or doesn't know. (or think of a man who never knew he had gotten a woman pregnant, until he gets a summons to go to court for a child support hearing...he is morally and legally obligated if it is his and she files for financial support)

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this is an indication that we need to sort out the concept of obligation. or example, when you decide to undertake a contractual obligation, that is a choice which you can freely make, but you can't unmake it afterwards -- the choice to engage in a contract entails an obligation.

I agree completely with the general concept of obligation, however, my question is whether having children is, in fact, a concretization of such principle. In particular I am taking aim at the notion of the infant's right to care. We seem to presuppose that such right exists, then try to answer the question of who is obligated to provide it. Naturally, I consider the question of a "right to care" without the caregiver's consent to be territory worthy of careful examination. The idea that infants have a right to be cared for by their parents feels natural, but I want to avoid rationalizations. Are we couching this in terms of objective harm to the child resulting from its dependency when care is withdrawn? If so, then the issue is the child's dependency regardless of consent. So a stranger who found a baby lying by the side of road, or the nurse to whom the baby was left when the indigent mother split the scene at the hospital, are obligated because the infant depends upon them, and when they withdraw care, it engenders harm. Well, if that reasoning doesn't work, and I don't think it does, then the child's dependency and ensuing harm doesn't work as an argument and we are back at square one. Why does the parent's decision to carry a baby to term incur a consenting obligation to a "right to care" afterwards?

They are still responsible by virtue of having given birth to baby. Who else would be?

Off the top of my head I would say, no one. But see my answer above. I just want to see the connection between the decision to conceive (or not abort previability, I guess) and the contract-like obligation to provide care post-birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we couching this in terms of objective harm to the child resulting from its dependency when care is withdrawn?
Not solely only from that, but also from the fact that the parents put the child in that position by creating him. So, no, a stranger coming across an abandoned baby does not have a legal obligation to take care of that baby till it is a teenager.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off the top of my head I would say, no one. But see my answer above. I just want to see the connection between the decision to conceive (or not abort previability, I guess) and the contract-like obligation to provide care post-birth.

The connection I see, is rather a disconnection via the umbilical cord. As soon as the bun is out of the oven and the cord is clamped and cut, the mother is obligated to provide care, whether she is going to keep the baby or whether she's going to give baby up for adoption, or dare I say even just have a nanny take care of it. Regardless, all responsiblity, all obligations, moral/legal, all decisions are all the mothers. She entered motherhood/parenthood the moment the baby was born. (i'm leaving out the father in this, since it is all about the mom right now in our discussion) (it's hers, her responsibility, her obligation...unless the court somehow got involved and deemed her unfit, etc.)

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly agree that the mother puts the baby in a position of dependency on her by creating him. I am not certain that this answers my question of why she thereby incurs an obligation to provide care. I guess we could analogize to providing care to those forcibly taken into custody, i.e. prisoners, but that analogy suffers from an equivocation on the meaning of "put" - is having a baby really a use of force in the proper sense? - and we are right back to square one. It seems to me that when you are talking about creating another human being, that this is sui generis and we can't readily apply principles taken from outside of that context.

If I were to offer an example of a mother who at the moment of birth abandoned her infant, could we say that this is simply wrong because it's not how man lives? And reason from that?

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In particular I am taking aim at the notion of the infant's right to care. We seem to presuppose that such right exists, then try to answer the question of who is obligated to provide it.
Although there is a difference, if one person injures another person so that they cannot take care of themself for some period of time, and the person who caused the injury did so with the capability to prevent the injury (for example, they were driving drunk and could have not driven, thus causing the collision), does the person who caused the injury have any obligation to the injured party?

This is an application of the concepts of causality and justice. Your actions have consequences, such as putting a person in the position where they cannot take care of themselves. It is wrong to do that to another person. The law should not be concerned about what you do to just yourself, but it is the proper business of the law to care about your actions with respect to other people. In certain objectively defined cases, the "offense" is significant enough that the government does have the proper power to force you to make the other person whole, as they say in the litigation business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly agree that the mother puts the baby in a position of dependency on her by creating him. I am not certain that this answers my question of why she thereby incurs an obligation to provide care. I guess we could analogize to providing care to those forcibly taken into custody, i.e. prisoners, but that analogy suffers from an equivocation on the meaning of "put" - is having a baby really a use of force in the proper sense? - and we are right back to square one. It seems to me that when you are talking about creating another human being, that this is sui generis and we can't readily apply principles taken from outside of that context.

If I were to offer an example of a mother who at the moment of birth abandoned her infant, could we say that this is simply wrong because it's not how man lives? And reason from that?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does the parent's decision to carry a baby to term incur a consenting obligation to a "right to care" afterwards?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Oh my, was that well said! Between you and Dave Odden I have never looked at the actual causality behind it that way until now! Wonderful, now I have the specific causality to back up what I've been saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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. Let's say I'm the mother - I know I caused the baby to exist, I know it's vulnerable, I know it needs me. Now point to where this means I'm obligated to care for it. You can wrap it however you like, ultimately you are simply asserting that which remains to be proven, namely that the fact of causing the child's vulnerability amounts to an obligation to mitigate that vulnerability. I remain unconvinced that obligation works so easily. I could just as easily say that since I caused the baby's vulnerability, I am obliged to watch it starve to death on account of that vulnerability.

I think you have to make an affirmative statement about man's nature, i.e. that it is right for a baby to be cared for by the person who created it, hence it has a right to be cared for by its mother. It isn't hard. I would accept that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have to make an affirmative statement about man's nature, i.e. that it is right for a baby to be cared for by the person who created it, hence it has a right to be cared for by its mother. It isn't hard. I would accept that.

I did. I established a logical chain of knowing and willful causation on the part of the parent(s) which obligates them to a certain responsibility based on their actions. I think you are just denying the concepts of causation and responsibility.

How can a man be held responsible for blowing another man's head off just because he pulled the trigger of a gun that caused the path of the bullet to intersect with the now dead man's head? Because he caused that man's head to be blown off.

I think the other thing you are denying is that a baby has a right to life in accordance with it's nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there's an official position. I'll tell you the logical position: people don't have a right to *keep* their children if they can't or won't support them.

The purpose of law is not to force people to be responsible or attempt to prevent them from being irresponsible, but to prevent them from harming others with your irresponsibility. Simply giving birth to a child that you cannot support does not harm that child. Keeping it, does.

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?

Edited by Whispersessions
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Causing the condition of the vulnerable baby isn't what obligates the parents to ensure it's taken care of. Having the baby is what obligates the parents to ensure its taken care of. When you become a parent, you take on an obligation (enforced by law) to provide for the human whose condition is under your complete control. Children have rights, the main one being the right to sustenance until they are old enough to sustain themselves. Your idea of "I had this baby but what's it to me?" is ridiculous. Babies are not born from a void, they are born from parents who are the sole reason they are here and are thus their natural providers.

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. Behind every skinny, starving face lay hidden two people who are breaking the law by not providing for what they couldn't take care of in the first place. Just because you have genitals does not mean you have the right to harm another human being.

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 would become one's responsibility to mitigate that vulnerability...
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"?
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...