Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Right to reproduce?

Rate this topic


Whispersessions

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And dare I ask what would happen if she was...?

I dare answer she is forced to abort the fetus should that be determined after a hearing reviewing the facts. Alternatively, she has a sentence imposed for violating the injunction in much the same way sentences are already imposed for violating terms of probation or parole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an actual and currently used analogy.
What, you didn't like the mad (w00t) scientist? The "gun injunction" is a better analogy, but I was trying to address a specific concern: viz., the idea that the law could not create an injunction if the possible victim was not yet born.

The more I think about it, the less problem I have with the injunction idea in certain circumstances.
I don't know if this type of injunction would really be required; but, was merely trying to point out that it is compatible with the idea of individual rights.

Practically, I would guess that some charitable organizations would volunteer to stand ready to assume liability for all babies that parents wanted to give up. So, it would be relatively simple to give up a baby... just as it is today. In such a scenario, we're only talking about the very few people who callously abandon their kids in dumpsters and such. Even in really poor cultures, that type of behavior is a very rare exception...the least a mother does is leave the kid inside a church or some such place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]the idea that the law could not create an injunction if the possible victim was not yet born.

Only possible thing I could ever see happening is that if the woman did go through delivery and had a baby, and she was somehow deemed unfit, or had a child or children taken away from her before, and the situation is the same or the mother is the same or worse, only then could something be done upon birth of baby. I do not see her being forced to have an abortion, as RB dared to answer, just forced into the severe consequences of her actions upon delivering yet another child into the world. I doubt the woman would even want to go through with it, there'd be no point unless adoption was the way she was going to go upon baby's birth, or baby's daddy's going to take full custody of it, etc. Again, I just see nothing stopping or preventing a woman from pregnancy and carrying it to term if she wants to. You bear children, you must bear all the consequences responsibilities obligations that follow along with it.

I don't know if this type of injunction would really be required; but, was merely trying to point out that it is compatible with the idea of individual rights.

I don't see it being required at all, seeing what could possibly happen to an offender the first time, and I also don't see it being compatible with individual rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see her being forced to have an abortion, as RB dared to answer, just forced into the severe consequences of her actions upon delivering yet another child into the world.

I know you don't "see" it, but I'm looking for the reasoning behind that. You have yet to provide any reasoning for why an injunction against pregnancy is worse than an injunction against liberty AND pregnancy. You just keep saying it is immoral and not right but you don't provide the reasoning behind that. That's what I'm trying to understand from your perspective. It just doesn't seem right isn't enough for me.

I don't see it being required at all, seeing what could possibly happen to an offender the first time, and I also don't see it being compatible with individual rights.

No punishment is "compatible with individual rights". That's what punishment is; a deprivation of individual rights for a violation of individual rights. If your argument is that the punishment does not fit the crime, or is excessive for the crime committed, please make that argument then.

However, I do agree with sNerd that voluntary agencies becoming involved is more likely and a more preferable outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, you didn't like the mad (w00t) scientist?

Well I did like it, I just wanted to add one that was better. :)

In such a scenario, we're only talking about the very few people who callously abandon their kids in dumpsters and such.

Agreed. I'm talking someone who has a child with no intent to care for it, to seek out someone to care for it, and recklessly, perhaps homicidally, abandons the child as in cases you mention. I hear about cases like that 3-4 times a year.

I also agree that private organizations willing to intercede and help the child are preferable.

Alternatively, perhaps in lesser cases, the punishment could be an ultimatun given to the defendant, either serve X years in prison OR undergo voluntary sterilization. I think this is already done in rape cases in some jurisdictions, serve time or get castrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you don't "see" it, but I'm looking for the reasoning behind that. You have yet to provide any reasoning for why an injunction against pregnancy is worse than an injunction against liberty AND pregnancy.

I think it is excessive punishment and an immoral one to boot. What you are doing is punishing the first time offender for what she did and forcing a reproduction injunction on her which is excessive and immoral, especially if she violates that reproduction injunction. I do not see why she can't be told exactly what will happen if she repeats the first offense again (which could have/should have even more severe consequences), by having another child, unless she or her situation changes, because she is willfully bringing one into that situation again, but it has to be born in order for that to happen. It would be excessive and immoral to force her either to abort, or have any restrictions on pregnancy. At very very best (this is as far as I can possibly go with my perspective), they could handcuff her as soon as another baby is born, but can't touch her beforehand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've asked why enough that I don't think asking again will be fruitful. Suffice to say, I think it is moral and proportionate to the crime.

What's this about first offender? What if she's a second offender? Third offender? Does that alter your argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's this about first offender? What if she's a second offender? Third offender? Does that alter your argument?

No, not at all. No reproductive injunctions period.

Alternatively, perhaps in lesser cases, the punishment could be an ultimatun given to the defendant, either serve X years in prison OR undergo voluntary sterilization. I think this is already done in rape cases in some jurisdictions, serve time or get castrated.

I'm wondering is if this can be applied to any of our situations. Ultimatums. Let me revisit your parole officer: perhaps the officer would say: "Either abort, give the baby up for adoption, give up custody to baby's daddy or to family/friends/charity org, or this will happen upon birth of baby...?" But I'm not sure there should be such an officer... I'm just borrowing that example...

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not at all. No reproductive injunctions period.

We'll have to remain in disagreement then. So to summarize my viewpoint, I think it is unconscionable and heinous (for example) to go through with having a baby knowing that when you do so you will then dump it in the local McDonald's toilet or dumpster. Preventing further childbirth for that individual is a lesser punishment than putting her in jail AND preventing her from having children so I see no logical reasoning why that should be taken off the table as a possible punishment for such offense. I think such injunction should generally be time limited and appealable.

I don't ever really expect to see it happen so this is more a thought exercise than anything.

But I'm not sure there should be such an officer...

Should such ultimatum exist, it would rightly start with a judge (as opposed to a PO) pursuant to a conviction for some previous offense. Probation and parole officers exist now and I'm not aware of any reason that they would not have a proper role in an Objectivist society as well. The PO's role would only be to "violate" (report to the court) the offender if they did not adhere to conditions that allowed them to avoid incarceration in the first place. So well before she became pregnant again, she would already have been advised of the consequences of giving birth to another child. Knowing that, I can't think of many ways that you could snub your nose at a court than carrying to term a 9 month pregnancy when you were ordered not to do.

It could not rightly fall solely into the hands of the executive branch of government to take it upon themselves to issue such ultimatum as it would be a violation of due process.

Just as a point of reference, some of which you may agree with or not, there is precedence for court ordered invasions of an individual's body. Most are relatively less invasive (hair, blood, DNA, etc.), but one is quite extreme; death.

I don't know your opinion on the death penalty, but for the sake of argument, if a woman knowingly dumps her newborn baby into a toilet and the baby dies as a result, can you see the death penalty as a possible punishment? Life imprisonment? What if she's done it multiple times (like a serial dumper for lack of a better term)?

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After consideration of the fine points, I'm not certain that an injunction is the proper way to go about this, except in a certain kind of case. What is (probably) required is a better-define law on child abandonment with stronger penalties, and actual enforcement of the law. Child abandonment is morally in the murder class of offenses, but it is not so treated. The Ohio law, as far as I can tell, is way too generic and fails to distinguish throwing your baby in the dumpster from hiring a 17 year old to pose nude, and from what I can tell improperly classes leaving your children inside the house unattended while you go the the stor with shoving your baby in a dumpster. With a repaired law that imposes a mandatory and actual (parole-inelligible) 20 year prison term on child abandoners, I would be satisfied that this both make repeat offense highly unlikely and also largely makes injunctions unnecessary (and I agree with the premise that prior restraint is not the first option one should go for). RB is right that an injunction is a lesser punishment than jail: but I don't see that a lesser punishment is a good thing, as long as the law makes a difference between slovenly parenting and actual abandonment.

The basic but defeasible assumption that the law should make is that the parent will in fact fulfill their duties to their child, and that it is only in the face of clear proof that this is untrue that the law can consider intervening. I cannot imagine what such a proof would look like unless it was actual prior child abandonment, in which case the criminal would be in prison for 20 years anyhow. Even if a woman declared repeatedly "I plan to get pregnant, carry the child to term, and then secretly dump it in the toilet", I think we would only have evidence that the woman was an annoying idiot or an attorney for the ACLU, hoping to create a test case. So barring evidence of past actual behavior, I question whether evidence objectively justifying an injunction could be accumulated.

Given a serious punishment for child abandonment, what kind of facts would tell a judge that the prior offender was still likely to repeat the offense? If we conclude that child abandonment is like child molestation, and that child abandoners are actually incapable of living in society without repeatedly doing wrong, then perhaps that indicates that the 20 year term was too short. At any rate, I don't see what kind of facts could be added to the prior offense to lead to the type of certainty of recidivism that would justify an injunction. Maybe I'm not being creative enough about the perversity of evil people.

However, on the related by separate topic of injunctions in general, I still hold that injunctions are proper responses by the law to the acts of people; I just don't see how in this kind of case evidence could exist apart from a prior act, and I don't see the argument for being forgiving of a prior act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After consideration of the fine points, I'm not certain that an injunction is the proper way to go about this, except in a certain kind of case. What is (probably) required is a better-define law on child abandonment with stronger penalties, and actual enforcement of the law.
(bold mine)

For me, not in any of the cases with no exceptions. But I think the sole focus should be on the latter sentence there, as it always should have been in this, instead of adding this reproduction injunction, which is in my eyes actually is superfluous in a way, besides being excessive and immoral (to me).

With a repaired law that imposes a mandatory and actual (parole-inelligible) 20 year prison term on child abandoners, I would be satisfied that this both make repeat offense highly unlikely and also largely makes injunctions unnecessary (and I agree with the premise that prior restraint is not the first option one should go for).

And that's where I get superfluous from, in that sense of it...

So barring evidence of past actual behavior, I question whether evidence objectively justifying an injunction could be accumulated.

I still question it even in the *rare* or very uncommon case of a repeat offender (due to the initial punishment/consequences in the first offending).

At any rate, I don't see what kind of facts could be added to the prior offense to lead to the type of certainty of recidivism that would justify an injunction.

I don't see it either.

However, on the related by separate topic of injunctions in general, I still hold that injunctions are proper responses by the law to the acts of people;

I still firmly hold that such injunctions on reproduction are immoral, improper, excessive, and superfluous (to me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given a serious punishment for child abandonment, what kind of facts would tell a judge that the prior offender was still likely to repeat the offense?

(snip)

Maybe I'm not being creative enough about the perversity of evil people.

First let me say that if a more severe punishment is appropriate, then the more sever punishment should be imposed. I've simply been considering that I didn't think that the "injunction" idea not be taken out of the picture. Certainly individual facts and circumstances may call for different punishments. But lest your imagination fall short, there are plenty of types of perversity out there.

Let's consider women who suffer (allegedly?) from Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome. I would imagine that the most probable outcome should still be incarceration (either in jail or a mental facility), but this could satisfy your question of the kind of facts that may indicate future recidivism.

Here's one of the worst cases to my knowledge. There is also Marybeth Tinning. Not to be facetious, but I can't find myself rallying around these women's reproductive rights. This is not exactly your "dumping the baby in the dumpster" scenario, but it's definitely a case of "this woman should be prevented from having children" by some means or another. Clearly in these cases more serious punishment was appropriate.

Edited by RationalBiker
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...