Right to reproduce?

[JMeganSnow]

Hang on a second. If someone has provably violated the rights of a child (by causing harm to the child), that person *should* go to jail. If you violate the rights of an *adult*, you go to jail. I agree with RationalBiker that you have caused harm to a child if you accept a custodial position and then don't fulfil the responsibilities. This could rightfully be considered identical to armed assault, meaning you should go to jail for 15-20 years, MINIMUM. (I'm in favor of extremely high prison sentences in a rational country committed to the principles of justice . . . it's only unfair to have sentences like this when it's difficult to avoid breaking the law.)

By the time the theoretical crack whore has served her prison sentence, she won't be ABLE to have children any more. So, her ability to reproduce would be controlled as a side-effect of her punishment for her actions, it wouldn't BE the punishment for her actions.

However, now you have the problem of determining, objectively, just how much care a parent/custodian is legally liable for. Are you violating a child's rights if you lock them in a dog kennel and don't feed them? Certainly. How about if you confine them to their room? Are you required to teach your children to read and write? Are you required to teach them to speak?

What you can do is define some very basic (and objective) adequate care: food, clothing, shelter, maybe exercise, the lack of which will cause immediate, permanent, irreparable physical damage or death, and then prosecute people if they *prevent* a child from obtaining those basic necessities or physically force the child into a situation where the provisions are inadequate (such as turfing the kid out into a blizzard without a coat). If there exists ONE charitable organization that takes care of children or ONE couple that will take care of a child, if you don't turn the child over to those people, guess what, you're liable.

[softwareNerd]

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

Sure; but there is no contradiction between what David O. said and what I said.

• The government would be right to insist that the person pay up. This would be the sensible remedy.
  
• Also, the government would typically not be justified in a harsh punishment if this was a first time offence.
  
• If the person had planned to take care of their kid, but fell on hard times and could not support the kid, they should at least make an earnest effort to give the kid up for adoption, or have it otherwise taken care of.
  

I wasn't addressing those situations, but was speaking of a repeat-offending deadbeat. At some level of deadbeat-ness and repetition, we can assume a level of negligence or malicious intent that makes the action criminal. So, the context is not someone who has fallen on bad times, nor someone who has never done this before. At some level of criminality, jail may be suitable, both as a punishment and to stop the offender from re-offending.

Putting such a person in jail is effectively also a ban on reproduction. Compared to that, giving them an injunction that they are not to get pregnant again unless they can meet some type of standard of financial ability, is a mild punishment.

BTW, I'm not saying that this is the way the law should be, just that there is no good philosophical reason to exclude such an injunction.

OTOH, if the law were to require something other than an objective financial test -- say a test of "good morals" or an education-level test or some ideological standard, then it would be bad law.

[DavidOdden]

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.

I seriously doubt presumption 2. If we start from the principle that a parent does not have an automatic right to abandon their child and that it is going to be extremely rare that the total reprobate parents will be utterly incapable of caring for the child, then I see no evidence at all that charitable resources would be limited. The hundreds of billions of dollars (yes) that are given to charities annually could easily cover a few such desparate-need cases. (And yes, (3) is not an option). Option (1) is imaginable, but not worth considering seriously because it simply would never happen.

[intellectualammo]

Putting such a person in jail is effectively also a ban on reproduction.

I agree with it, if it is only the indirect result of that jail time, and not the reason for it. Exactly along this line in Jenni's reply:

So, her ability to reproduce would be controlled as a side-effect of her punishment for her actions, it wouldn't BE the punishment for her actions.

And why I thought there was a contradiction before, which I didn't exactly find the correct quotes to show that, is that I definately I do not think there should be any ban on reproduction period, or restriction, limitation, restraint whatsoever "repeat-offending deadbeats" included. Why? On principle: that of individual rights.

Edited November 1, 2007 by intellectualammo

[Mathlete]

Option (1) is imaginable, but not worth considering seriously because it simply would never happen.

To say that it is completly unimaginable that an abandoned child would die on the street in a society that dispises non-profit activities because a non-profit organisation would care for it seems to me to be a contradiction.

The mere concept of giving or receiving charity is viewed as unethical (but still legal) according to Ayn Rand (see Galt's Gultch). Thus if you were to imagine the scenario (deadbeat child scenario) taking place in an objectivist state you would have to imagine there would be very few if any NPOs (non-profit is almost a curse word to an objectivist).

An objectivist society would create the most morally and ethical sound and even the most prosperous and happy society but to take the view that simply nothing bad could possibly happen in such a place would be cause for some serious utopian delusions (the favourite slur that is so often thrown our way). Building a succesful society means being able to anticipate and plan for the good and the bad and not simply brush what we don't like under the rug to do so would be denying reality the very principle on which this philosophy is founded.

Edited November 1, 2007 by softwareNerd
No actual editing has been performed to this post

[intellectualammo]

To say that it is completly unimaginable that an abandoned child would die on the street in a society that dispises non-profit activities because a non-profit organisation would care for it seems to me to be a contradiction.

Where do you get a "society that despises non-profit activities" from??

The mere concept of giving or receiving charity is viewed as unethical (but still legal) according to Ayn Rand (see Galt's Gultch).

No. You are totally misrepresenting not only Ayn Rand, but also her philosophy known as Objectivism. And please capitalize the "O" in Objectivist or in Objectivism.

Edited November 1, 2007 by softwareNerd
No actual editing has been performed to this post

[RationalBiker]

The mere concept of giving or receiving charity is viewed as unethical (but still legal) according to Ayn Rand (see Galt's Gultch).

As iammo points out, you have an incorrect understanding of the Objectivist position on charity. Types of charity that would be condemned would be sacrificial charity where the giver gives away greater value than he/she receives or reasonably expect to receive in return or forced "charity" where the government makes the individual "donate" for the common good.

But if a person voluntarily gives something to a charity because it supports something of value to that person, that can be perfectly moral. Donations made to further certain types of research could be one example. Trying to help keep starving kids off the street can be another example. I can see some benefit to me personally not having a bunch of little urchins running around the city or neighborhood where I live.

Iammo is also right in pointing out that Objectivism should be capitalized. It is a proper name denoting a specific philosophy and as such should be capitalized.

Edited November 1, 2007 by RationalBiker

[softwareNerd]

... I definately I do not think there should be any ban on reproduction period, or restriction, limitation, restraint whatsoever "repeat-offending deadbeats" included. Why? On principle: that of individual rights.

Yes, I understand that this is what you think, but the only reason you've offered is "individual rights". That is a fine principle, but one cannot get from that principle to the more detailed one that is implicit in what you're saying: that jail is a punishment that is compatible with rights, but this one specific type of injunction is not." You have not made the case.

[DavidOdden]

To say that it is completly unimaginable that an abandoned child would die on the street in a society that dispises non-profit activities because a non-profit organisation would care for it seems to me to be a contradiction.

To imply that I said it would be completely unimaginable when I just said and you quoted me saying "it is imagimable" is worse than a contradiction. It is imaginable, and totally not worth the mental effort to imagine, becuse it is excruciatingly unrealistic.

[Mathlete]

To imply that I said it would be completely unimaginable when I just said and you quoted me saying "it is imagimable" is worse than a contradiction. It is imaginable, and totally not worth the mental effort to imagine, becuse it is excruciatingly unrealistic.

Okay David you got me there. Unimaginable was a bad choice of word. Simply replace it with "unrealistic".

[Mathlete]

But if a person voluntarily gives something to a charity because it supports something of value to that person, that can be perfectly moral. Donations made to further certain types of research could be one example. Trying to help keep starving kids off the street can be another example. I can see some benefit to me personally not having a bunch of little urchins running around the city or neighborhood where I live.

First regarding the capitalization of "Objectivism" and "Objectivist" I'm a novice for a reason and will make an effort to improve my grammer. To be honest Biker I had exactly the same idea as the Objectivist version of how charitable organisations would receive funding as you do. When it comes to efforts such as cancer research for example I can see a lot of incentive for people to invest in such research. However when it comes to investing in childrens charities I do not believe that people would contribute the money's required if there only incentive is to get every urchant off the streets they live. Even if we suppose that people would support such an initiative in order to improve property values and/or the apperance of their neighborhoods the same cannot be said for districts with lower incomes. Such residence would prioritize spending on basic neccesities rather than to give to charities.

Now I believe that Objectivism would create a highly prosperous economy where such instances would be far lower then some welfare state that makes goals such as eliminating street kids priority one. I know I'm really off topic here and reading the things I've written I realize that the question I want answered is:

Given Ayn Rand made distinctions between better and lesser abled members society (as is reality) must we as Objectivist accept that there will be a number (noticable but not not neccesarily significant) of people in such a society that must skulk off and die quietly in a corner somewhere given the emphasis on self reliance?

[KendallJ]

Given Ayn Rand made distinctions between better and lesser abled members society (as is reality) must we as Objectivist accept that there will be a number (noticable but not not neccesarily significant) of people in such a society that must skulk off and die quietly in a corner somewhere given the emphasis on self reliance?

I'd like to see that question reworded since the allusion to skulking off flies in the face fo the concept of self-reliance.

Everybody lives by their own ability. Either by exercising it directly, trading value for value, or relying on the un-obligated charity of others. That is Objectivism's stance. The corrollary is that everyone dies by their own failure to secure their own life. That is, everyone "skulks off" to die at some point in their lives. At some point the cost to you, given your abilities of maintaining your life, outweighs the resources you have or the knowledge that is available that you can trade for. That's how it happens today. Sometimes, it happens when you're 20, or 30 or 60 or 104, but everyone "skulks".

My question to you is why should someone of lesser ability be exempt from this principle?

[softwareNerd]

... to take the view that simply nothing bad could possibly happen in such a place would be cause for some serious utopian delusions (the favourite slur that is so often thrown our way). Building a succesful society means being able to anticipate and plan for the good and the bad and not simply brush what we don't like under the rug to do so would be denying reality the very principle on which this philosophy is founded.

One must expect a certain number of moochers and crooks, along with some who are so disabled that they are really unable to provide for their basic existence. This will be true in any society, Capitalist or otherwise. I wouldn't even predicate politics upon a significant change in the proportion of people who want to be moochers; though, I'd argue that, in absence of incentives to mooch, fewer will be able to do so. So, for the sake of argument, let's assume the proportions do not change.

... must we as Objectivist accept that there will be a number (noticable but not not neccesarily significant) of people in such a society that must skulk off and die quietly in a corner ...

I think all we must accept is that such people would be supported by private, voluntary charity rather than by government-enforced taxation.

You speak of the possibility that people may still help the poor, just to get them off the streets, and ensure cleaner neighborhoods. This would be one incentive, yes. However, it is far more likely that people will contribute to help people whom they consider to be in a bad situation despite themselves. There is value to this, but you have to think of abstract, "spiritual" values like the value of human life and one's refusal to let nature win against a human being. If lots of people agree with Objectivism, some types of charity might dry up. However, outside some type of disaster or dystopia, I cannot imagine a situation where kids die on the streets and people simply do not care.

Based on some remarks in a previous post, I think you really need to introspect upon the various motivations one might have for charity. For instance, as an Objectivist, let's say you see a baby clearly abandoned in the street (in today's context). Would you pick it up and call the cops? I bet you would. Now, just because you pick it up does not mean you would want to take care of this baby until he's 18. Let's say you call the authorities and they say they will come take the baby off your hands. Now, assume something more: say that (for whatever reason) they ask you to keep the baby for the night and bring it in the next afternoon. You have no pressing engagements, except your regular work, and would have to take a day off. [Let's also assume you aren't traumatized by the thought of taking care of a baby for a day. ] Would it be against your principles to do so: either to pick up the baby in the first place, or to keep it for a day, perhaps parting with a little food, some of your time, and old blanket?

I think you should start by asking yourself this smaller question: whether you would be willing to provide a little bit of charity of this type, and why or why not. The answer will address the fundamental issue of values and motivation. Once you have this answered, only then tackle the question: "but who will take care of the baby till he's 18"? I think the second question is the simpler one.

[RationalBiker]

First regarding the capitalization of "Objectivism" and "Objectivist" I'm a novice for a reason and will make an effort to improve my grammer.

That's fine, that's why we informed you.

However when it comes to investing in childrens charities I do not believe that people would contribute the money's required if there only incentive is to get every urchant off the streets they live.

I gave one reason for me. That would not be the only reason other people might value aiding poor children so you shouldn't limit all the possible reasons people would help because I only gave one. Now if your view of the kindness of rational men is so bleak, I can't help you there. There are plenty of people who find value in helping other human beings for a variety of rational reasons.

Given Ayn Rand made distinctions between better and lesser abled members society (as is reality) must we as Objectivist accept that there will be a number (noticable but not not neccesarily significant) of people in such a society that must skulk off and die quietly in a corner somewhere given the emphasis on self reliance?

Do you accept that that happens now given all the charity that is out there now and the forced government charity called social security? Do you think you are the only person who would be concerned that other human beings might need help in a different kind of society? Is such a concern so great in you that you would offer to help other human beings in need because you find some value in helping people?

I think you underestimate the creativity and kindness that rational men are capable of when they aren't stifled by a government who takes away their resources and puts them to poor, less effective use.

[DavidOdden]

Sure; but there is no contradiction between what David O. said and what I said.

• The government would be right to insist that the person pay up. This would be the sensible remedy.
  
• Also, the government would typically not be justified in a harsh punishment if this was a first time offence.
  
• If the person had planned to take care of their kid, but fell on hard times and could not support the kid, they should at least make an earnest effort to give the kid up for adoption, or have it otherwise taken care of.
  

I wasn't addressing those situations, but was speaking of a repeat-offending deadbeat.

So back to the original topic, which isn't charities but the absolute right to reproduce, all of the available evidence unequivocally indicates that we agree. A person has the right to have sex and to bear a child as a result of having sex (or the other way, but why not stick with tradition). A person also incurs an obligation, when they decide to not abort the embryo; but like other obligations, it is not an absolute "to the point of your own death" obligation. In allowing a person to shrug off an obligation (such as through bankrupcy), the court has a duty to ascertain that fulfilling the obligation is completely impossible for the person. The court also has a duty to protect against the person's future misdeeds, which means, judging whether the deadbeat is a profoundly defective person, lacking in a grasp of the concept "responsibility". The whole notion of people having rights is predicated on the individual also understanding that there are limits on what you may rightly do, i.e. that you have responsibilities. The person who, it turns out, can't manage to take care of the child is entirely different from the person who doesn't even try to take care of the child, even if the bottom line of not taking care of the child is the same. The latter is an instance of the concept "evil".

It is probably very hard to know in advance whether Jones is going to recklessly abandon her child, but we can use the fact that Jones did recklessly abandon her child to reach the conclusion that she is likely to do the same think in the future. That doesn't mean she is guaranteed to, but you would demand some evidence that something has changed so that we can reasonably conclude that in the future, Jones will take care of her child. I think it would be right for the government to use some kind of injunctive power against an actual two-time offender.

[intellectualammo]

Yes, I understand that this is what you think, but the only reason you've offered is "individual rights". That is a fine principle, but one cannot get from that principle to the more detailed one that is implicit in what you're saying: that jail is a punishment that is compatible with rights, but this one specific type of injunction is not." You have not made the case.

I don't think that I am the one that's in the postion of making a case, because I'm not the one presenting such an injunction on reproduction in the first place. I do not see any reason to have one in place, if the proper punishment is given to the offender, in the sense that Jenni had commented on a while back, though the proper punishment as such is still a question too, but I do not think it involves any direct/explicit injunction. It could only act or be a "side-effect" of the punishment, as Jenni had said.

I think it would be right for the government to use some kind of injunctive power against an actual two-time offender.

I don't agree with you or sNerd with this type of injunction.

[RationalBiker]

I don't agree with you or sNerd with this type of injunction.

I'm not sure I agree or disagree with the idea of an injunction at this point, but I would ask you this; what is it about denying a person their right to procreate that bothers you more than denying a person their right to their liberty overall? For instance, would you oppose a life imprisonment sentence for a crime because the government is absolutely taking away the freedom of the individual? If the "side effect" is still the same, they can't procreate, why is that worse than depriving them of their liberty AND their right to procreate?

Keep in mind that ALL punishments are a denial or violation of some right a person has but they are done so with just cause.

Edited November 1, 2007 by RationalBiker

[DavidOdden]

I don't agree with you or sNerd with this type of injunction.

Well, do you agree that a person who knowingly and freely carries a fetus to term has an obligation to be the rights custodian for that infant, until the infant matures to the point of being able to exercise their faculty of reason? And that it is proper for the government to use force, if necessary, to perform on that obligation, just as it is right for the government to use force, if necessary to make good on a contractual obligation or to take responsibility for tortious conduct that results in damages?

If you agree that certain acts are wrong, then the next question is whether you think that government should oly be involved in post-hoc punishment and never involved in prevention. At the level of national defense, that would reduce to waiting until the enemy bombs have landed, before acting. At a domestic level, that would mean that e.g. "conspiracy to commit murder" is not a proper crime, unless the murder does take place. A restraining order that prevents an assailant from repeatedly beating his victim would be improper, and the only proper action would be to imprison the person after the beating. In other words, I'm asking if you object generally to all forms of prior restraint.

[intellectualammo]

I'm not sure I agree or disagree with the idea of an injunction at this point, but I would ask you this; what is it about denying a person their right to procreate that bothers you more than denying a person their right to their liberty overall? For instance, would you oppose a life imprisonment sentence for a crime because the government is absolutely taking away the freedom of the individual? If the "side effect" is still the same, they can't procreate, why is that worse than depriving them of their liberty AND their right to procreate?

(bold mine)

Why? Essentially because whatever the offender did, it happened after birth of baby. You punish her for what she did by depriving her of her liberty, but you do not place direct injunctions on her reproductively as punishment/ or part of the punishment. I think it is immoral to restrict her reproductively but definately not immoral to punish her for the crime she did commit. I'm having a bit of trouble articulating this, but I am still in disagreement with Dave and sNerd, and only in agreement with what Jenni had said in that line of hers I had quoted.

Keep in mind that ALL punishments are a denial or violation of some right a person has but they are done so with just cause.

(bold mine)

I don't see it as a violation though, but yes, I do understand that. When I think of violation, I think of it happening without just cause.

[intellectualammo]

If you agree that certain acts are wrong, then the next question is whether you think that government should oly be involved in post-hoc punishment and never involved in prevention. At the level of national defense, that would reduce to waiting until the enemy bombs have landed, before acting. At a domestic level, that would mean that e.g. "conspiracy to commit murder" is not a proper crime, unless the murder does take place. A restraining order that prevents an assailant from repeatedly beating his victim would be improper, and the only proper action would be to imprison the person after the beating. In other words, I'm asking if you object generally to all forms of prior restraint.

Yes, but before I say more let me say this since I'm in a hurry: In those cases we are talking about actuals, and of preventative measures against actuals. A fetus is not an actual until birth. A woman can lose the right or temporarily lose the right to bear arms, but not to bear children. She can lose them only after birth, and only after or upon birth can the government step in...imo.

Edited November 1, 2007 by intellectualammo

[softwareNerd]

So, you're saying that that acceptable injunctions would restrain action against some currently living person, whereas this (reproduction) injunction would restrain action against someone not yet in existence. Is that the crux of it?

The (reproduction) injunction is valid because it involves an attempt to stop a crime. The action will be a crime because when it is committed it will be against a specific individual.

It's tough to think of a good analogy, but here's one: a "mad scientist" designs a rocket that he is going to shoot into space. It will return 200 year years from now and explode high above the ground, releasing a gas that will kill everyone within 1 mile. No property damage will directly occur. Since none of the people who will be killed are alive today, can he be restrained? If so, is the lives of the currently-alive ancestors the basis of the restraint, in that he is foiling their intentions of having heirs? Or would the reasoning be the property damage that might occur when people fall dead doing stuff? I don't think those are fundamentals. At root, the intended crime is murder. Preventing his plan is the prevention of murder, even if the victims are unspecified and not yet born.

[intellectualammo]

The (reproduction) injunction is valid because it involves an attempt to stop a crime. The action will be a crime because when it is committed it will be against a specific individual.

IMO, pregnancy should never be able to be considered a potential for a crime in any way for whatever reason. There should never be any injunctions to prevent a woman from pregnancy or carrying the potential to term or to giving birth. Only afterwards can any cases be made, imo.

[DavidOdden]

IMO, pregnancy should never be able to be considered a potential for a crime in any way for whatever reason. There should never be any injunctions to prevent a woman from pregnancy or carrying the potential to term or to giving birth. Only afterwards can any cases be made, imo.

So here's a proposal. A woman who abandons her child will be sentenced to a period in prison from 10 to 40 years, based on her age at the time of conviction, the target being "for the rest of her likely reproductive life". Would that be correct, from your perspective?

[intellectualammo]

So here's a proposal. A woman who abandons her child will be sentenced to a period in prison from 10 to 40 years, based on her age at the time of conviction, the target being "for the rest of her likely reproductive life". Would that be correct, from your perspective?

From my perspective this part could be correct: "A woman who abandons her child will be sentenced to a period in prison from 10 to 40 years", but not for the target you have in that proposal. My target/reason for sentencing would have to be only because of the crime she had commited, period. Let the punishment fit the crime, and whatever "side-effects" that follow from it, follow from that sentencing.

Edited November 1, 2007 by intellectualammo

[RationalBiker]

It's tough to think of a good analogy,

Here's an actual and currently used analogy.

A man buys a gun, then he goes and robs a liquor store. As part of his sentencing, he receives a jail sentence and as a convicted felon he can no longer possess a firearm. This is an effective injunction against his future ability to buy and own a firearm. Even though he committed no crime buying the firearm, he committed one after buying the firearm.

The more I think about it, the less problem I have with the injunction idea in certain circumstances. I see that the injunction is less punishing than a prison sentence where both reproduction AND liberty are deprived. I was kind of hoping that intellectualammo could give me some reasoning why the former is worse than the latter but I don't see it.

I don't think the injunction is the same as saying that she cannot have sex, merely that they cannot have babies. I suppose she would have to check with a parole/probation officer and have to be subject to testing should pregnancy be suspected. I would have put a time limit on it, not an indefinite period, and I would make it subject to appeal at any time during the sentence should the woman be able to demonstrate that she's change her ability and desire to care for a child.