Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What is the O'ist view on childbirth?

Rate this topic


gabrielpm

Recommended Posts

Where does the money come for for the abortion in a situation where the Rapist nor the Rapee can directly afford?

In the real world, it comes from charities and organizations like Planned Parenthood.

There are also long lists of would-be parents willing to pay the pregnant woman to carry the baby to term so that they can adopt it. In our country, there is absolutely no reason for a woman who doesn't want to bear and/or raise a child to be forced to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Now that is an interesting question. I used to think that the act of refusing to get the abortion desired by the man, thereby made the woman assume full responsibility for the result. In re-thinking the issue, I am now beginning to consider that the initial sex act itself implied the possibility of a child -- knowing that condoms might fail, knowing that the choice of abortion is ultimately not his to make.

Yes I find that question interesting too...

I agree with your consideration, but add a clause (in italics)... If there is no contrary prior agreement between the prospective mother and father, than upon intercourse, the father agrees to deal with the consequences of that intercourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Chronological age and the child’s rights</span>

Some entries in this discussion have referred to hat the parents responsibility for the child is until the child is 18 years old.

This is the age when existing law defines a person as a grown-up, but existing laws aren’t always objective. So, why 18? The objectivistic view should be that the responsibilities of the parents for the child should be active whenever their child cannot take responsibility for himself, regardless of the child’s chronological age.

<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Having children as a risk of compromising one’s goodness </span>

A person have more power over oneself than over any other grown-up human being including his child. When a person chooses to have a child, he chooses to introduce a person to the world, which he has less power over than of himself. His child may live a life that is evil or good. Thus, the parent chooses to take the risk of contributing either goodness or evil to the world by having a child.

The risk-free choice is of course to never have a child - then you are guaranteed not to bring evil into the world. But could it nevertheless be rational to take the chance to have a child (assuming, for the sake of clarity, that you with a 100 % probably would be the most perfect parent ever lived)? I will try to answer that question now. The first step is to choose one of these two standards:

The child should during its lifespan be better than the parent

Under these circumstances, the child will under its lifespan not compromise its creators (the parent) goodness but enhance it.

When the child during its lifespan is more good than the average person but less good than the parent

Under these circumstances the child WILL compromise the parents intrinsic (that is, "in itself") goodness. However, the child will be more good during his lifespan than the average person, and in that sense the parent will have chosen to bring more good to the world when he decided to have the child.

Which one of these two standards is proper to the objectivist person?

Since a decision to have a child is this risk-taking one has to calculate the probability of having a child that will live its life proper to the parents chosen standard compared to the probability of having a child that will not live up to the chosen standard.

As a objectivist person you must choose the proper objectivistic standard, make that calculation and make the calculation right before deciding on having a child, otherwise you have become a lesser objectivist. One cannot just give in to ones screaming genes or the assumed pleasures of being a parent of a child - you have to think coldly and rationally about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the age when existing law defines a person as a grown-up, but existing laws aren’t always objectivistic. So, why 18? The objectivistic view should be that the responsibilities of the parents for the child should be active whenever their child can not take responsibility for himself, regardless of the child’s chronological age.

The law has to be objective -- clear and knowable to everyone in advance -- and that is why the age of majority is a definite number within a reasonable range (such as somewhere between 16 and 25). That way everybody can know when someone can make a legally binding contract, is eligible to vote, is legally liable for the harm he may do to others, etc.

Also the law allows for exceptions. An independent minor can file for "emancipation" and have the court declare him a legal adult before the age of majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oxygen, that was a very interesting post.

One cannot just give in to ones screaming genes or the assumed pleasures of being a parent of a child - you have to think coldly and rationally about this.
Most objectivists (and many other people) would agree that one should think rationally before having a child.

I disagree with what you offer as a major basis for such a calculation. You say:

The child should during its lifespan be more good than ...[average person / parents]

The odds are that a child will be more like its parents than the "average" person (in fundamental ways). If they do turn out worse than average, they might work against my interests, but the likelihood of that is low. The odds are that I am not bringing a Toohey into the world.

As for "more good than the parent"... why should that concern me?

The real calculation -- and this is a really difficult one -- is where one considers all the fun and value that a child will bring to one's life and weigh that against all the fun and values you'd have without a child.

Calculations of value don't have to be "cold" -- when I choose between which of two restaurants to visit tonight, I salivate at either prospect (oh, why does the day have just 24 hours!) And what better to warm the heart than the visions of a little kid or of a college senior who has 'blossomed' beyond all your expectations.

Yet, in a sense, the decision has to be "cold". Many parents feel it is ungraceful to dwell on the problems and frustrations of having children. Most parents never speak about the utter boredom of some aspects of parenting. Most advertisements and "public images" portray the positive side of parenthood. Even the advertisement where the baby spits in his mom's face is done so cutely... I almost wish he was spitting at me:rolleyes:

So, yes, be cold about gathering the facts. Be like a detective about understanding all the ways in which your life will have to change. Understand what you want out of life in absence of having a child. Will you be able to do all the things you want to do? Will you have the time to read the books you want to read? WIll you have the time to do the work you want to accomplish? Try to figure out what values are being 'displaced' by all the time you will spend with te new value (your child). Then, choose the set of values you want more.

Parenthood is an optional value.

And finally, if you do produce a Toohey, call him to your dying bed... whisper a curse in his ear...and as he turns to leave, pull the gun from under the pillow and shoot the rat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Betsy, I think you’re right.

Oxygen, that was a very interesting post.

Thank you. I found your post very interesting too and also much fun, Felicity.

<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>The three factors of an objectivists´ rational choice to have a baby or not</span>

<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Factor One - Bringing good or evil to the world?</span>

The odds are that a child will be more like its parents than the "average" person (in fundamental ways). If they do turn out worse than average, they might work against my interests, but the likelihood of that is low. The odds are that I am not bringing a Toohey into the world.

This is what you think, right? I think so too. As long as the odds are 50%+ on this one you got a green light on this "good or bad" factor.

As for "more good than the parent"... why should that concern me?
It shouldn´t. I was trying to give an pro argument to your question but I couldn’t find a good one. Now I will discard this rule of decision and keep only to the one above this - the other is the proper one to the objectivistic person. That’s a relieve.

<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Factor Two - Is it worthwhile for me?</span>

The real calculation -- and this is a really difficult one -- is where one considers all the fun and value that a child will bring to one's life and weigh that against all the fun and values you'd have without a child.

I´m not sure I agree this is "the real calculation". The factor I wrote above is very important too, as is the one below.

The considerations you wrote are all important to bring into the calculation, comparing the two alternatives´ pluses and minuses.

And finally, if you do produce a Toohey, call him to your dying bed... whisper a curse in his ear...and as he turns to leave, pull the gun from under the pillow and shoot the rat.
You’re high voltage, maam/miss! Well written, too.

Another consideration to include, which I think you brought up in this quote, is what your reaction will be if your offspring turns out a Toohey or a James Taggart. If you made all the the calculations of the factors I state here right you shouldn’t be crushed or at all react negatively if that happens - you did make a rational choice to have the child (assuming you did a great job raising the child). It's when you didn’t make the calculations or did them wrong your knees should feel weak for the rest of your life. You probably shouldn’t kill your Toohey offspring on your death-bed (although the timing is optimal) - or should you (where´s the right forum to discus a matter like this? I am responsible for my own actions but a reader might get irrationally triggered?)?

Hmm. About coldness, you should of course bring in your emotional responses of the scenarios into the decision-making. If you don’t find any emotions in you at all perhaps you won’t be a good parent, at all.

Even the advertisement where the baby spits in his mom's face is done so cutely... I almost wish he were spitting at me:rolleyes:

Hit me one more time!

Then, choose the set of values you want more.
That must be the way to go about it.

Parenthood is an optional value.

What do you mean?

<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Factor Three - Will the child be happy?</span>

You don’t want to bring a person into this world that is likely to suffer all it’s life - that’s just not who you are.

How about this factor?

If you’re unhappy your child might get unhappy two. You should be able to transfer the vision to your child that it can be great to live and having experienced that yourself is a prerequisite.

If your parenting is good the odds is that the child will be happy. Is this all that there is to it?

<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Comment</span>

The three are inter-related.

If you rationally decide to have a child the probability that the child will be happy increases because of the confidence your rational choice will bring you. Make an irrational choice and you’ll probably become a worrier or angry about things, which is bad for the child.

If the child probably will be happy, it probably won’t turn to evil to get its kicks.

<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Rule of decision</span>

"It´s time to get out of here!"

You should have a child if you get a "ok" on all three factors and you shouldn´t if you get only two or less "ok": s.

Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don´t ask the child of its approval to be created because you can´t ask somebody that has not been created.

In objectivism, non-violence or non-force is a vital principle. So how can you be an 100 % objectivist and choose to have a child?

Is the answer that if the child will be a happy person, it won´t be at the loosing end of the "project", and thus it´s a win-win situation?

Or is it none of the childs business why it was choosen to be created by its parents? If so, why is that so?

A child might ask its parents: "Why did you create me?"

The truthfull but maybe harmfull answer would be: "Because we expected you to enhance the lives of us, your father and mother"

Personally, I find that harsh and instrumental. Is that reason really objectivistic?

I mean, haven´t the child the right to live not for the sake of others but for its own sake? Is the answer that when the child is born, it does live for its own sake and not for its parents?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oxygen,

That's a very intriguing knot you seek to tie :lol:

What you're saying is since an objectivist says: "Live for yourself", then it is contradictory to say: "I'll create a human being for my sake and my pleasure". (Do I understand you right?)

I will need to think about this for a while before giving you an answer.

For now, all I can say (and I know this is inadequate): I look at my 5 year old and he lives only for himself. Any pleasure I derive from that is incidental to him.

All the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A child might ask its parents: "Why did you create me?"

The truthfull but maybe harmfull answer would be: "Because we expected you to enhance the lives of us, your father and mother"

Personally, I find that harsh and instrumental. Is that reason really objectivistic?

I am a parent and the way I would answer, honestly and selfishly, is "I enjoy the process of teaching you, helping and watching you grow, and sharing all the wonderful things in the world with you as you see them for the first time."

I mean, haven´t the child the right to live not for the sake of others but for its own sake? Is the answer that when the child is born, it does live for its own sake and not for its parents?

Of course. When a parent interacts with a child, hopefully they BOTH get values out of it, but they are not the SAME values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Felicity,

What you're saying is since an objectivist says: "Live for yourself", then it is contradictory to say: "I'll create a human being for my sake and my pleasure". (Do I understand you right?)
I remember the expression "Live for yourself" but don’t exactly know its meaning. But I guess it means "Don’t use force upon others, do everything by agreement. Be a businessman". If not, I’m interested to know its meaning - tell me if it is something else! If that is what it means though, you understand me right.

I will need to think about this for a while before giving you an answer.   

I am looking forward to your answer.

For now, all I can say (and I know this is inadequate): I look at my 5 year old and he lives only for himself. Any pleasure I derive from that is incidental to him.
I’m not sure that’s inadequate. Perhaps that idea or concept might turn out to be the answer to it all. I have a good feeling about it.

All the best.

I whish the same for you.

------------------

I am a parent and the way I would answer, honestly and selfishly, is "I enjoy the process of teaching you, helping and watching you grow, and sharing all the wonderful things in the world with you as you see them for the first time."

I liked this answer very much.

Of course. When a parent interacts with a child, hopefully they BOTH get values out of it, but they are not the SAME values.

This was valuable for me, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I´m not sure that´s inadequate. Perhaps that idea or concept might turn out to be the answer to it all. I have a good feeling about it.

I think you're right, but I would now express it as follows:

Nobody has ever given me something more fundamentally important than my existence. Regardless of what else they do, one's parents do one this great favor of creating you.

From my child's own selfish viewpoint, being born was great, to say the least!

Since having a child will always be in the child's selfish interest, the only issue to resolve is whether it is in your own selfish interest as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. The woman had a choice to make -- abort the fetus, or not. In your scenario you said she chose not to abort. That choice is what directly led to the birth of the child.

Many women in the world have no choice of abortion. Not being able to get an abortion should not obligate a women to 18 years of child support.

Why does an unwanted, perhaps unavoidable pregnancy obligate the mother to subjegate her wishes and dreams to a task that she judges is not in her self-interest.

Children should be had *only* because they are deemed to be in the self interest of the parents. Barring a prior agreement between the parents, neither parent should be required to stay and raise the child. That's why marriage vows were created, to provide a real contractual relationship between a man and women who wished to have a family.

Without a marriage relationship, neither party should be under any obligation to raise the children, and they should be able to be abandoned any time spending time and energy on them is deemed not to be in someone's self-interest.

The judgement about what good they may or may not bring into society as a whole is complete nonsense. We don't seek to bring good into the world except the good that stems from seeking our own self interest and our own values. The good that other's might receive from a child of mine is completely irrelevant to what is in my self interest in potentially raising the child.

If there are people who are interested in children not being abandoned by parents; and they value saving and raising abandoned children enough, the private markets will make it in the parent's self interest to not abandon their children, but rather give them into the care of such organizations.

If value is not lost by letting Hitler or an Islamafundamentalist drown, it isn't lost when a child who isn't wanted or doesn't fit with my values is abandonded and no longer supported. :D

Nothing is really lost if there are those who would value raising the child, and nothing is lost if there wasn't anyone who would value raising the child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many women in the world have no choice of abortion. Not being able to get an abortion should not obligate a women to 18 years of child support.

If they cannot be responsible for their actions, then they should refrain from having sex.

Without a marriage relationship, neither party should be under any obligation to raise the children, and they should be able to be abandoned any time spending time and energy on them is deemed not to be in someone's self-interest.... If value is not lost by letting Hitler or an Islamafundamentalist drown, it isn't lost when a child who isn't wanted or doesn't fit with my values is abandonded and no longer supported

Considering all the previous discussion, I cannot decide for sure whether you are joking around, of if you are serious. If the former, I do not find it funny. If the latter, then you advocate a monstrous immorality. In either case, I am not interested in any further discussion with you on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without a marriage relationship, neither party should be under any obligation to raise the children, and they should be able to be abandoned any time spending time and energy on them is deemed not to be in someone's self-interest.

<snip>

If there are people who are interested in children not being abandoned by parents; and they value saving and raising abandoned children enough, the private markets will make it in the parent's self interest to not abandon their children, but rather give them into the care of such organizations.

If value is not lost by letting Hitler or an Islamafundamentalist drown, it isn't lost when a child who isn't wanted or doesn't fit with my values is abandonded and no longer supported.  ;)

Nothing is really lost if there are those who would value raising the child, and nothing is lost if there wasn't anyone who would value raising the child.

That is disgusting.

Value is lost by letting a child die. The child's life; the child's HIGHEST value. The one upon which all other values depend.

I don't want children, but if I was ever irresponsible enough to conceive one by accident, I'll be damned if I'd sit back and let it die. And, frankly, I don't care to associate with someone who places innocent human life so low in their value hierarchy. Good day to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is disgusting.

Yes.

But on forum reason first.

Emotion second.

Can we abandon child? Legitimate question.

"Disgusting" not an answer.

Having child creates contract with child by estoppel.

Same law used so sadly to steal Fountainhead pages.

Legitimate law in some cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is disgusting.

Value is lost by letting a child die. The child's life; the child's HIGHEST value. The one upon which all other values depend.

I don't want children, but if I was ever irresponsible enough to conceive one by accident, I'll be damned if I'd sit back and let it die. And, frankly, I don't care to associate with someone who places innocent human life so low in their value hierarchy. Good day to you.

Wow, lots of misogyny in there. :D Imagine a Mother abandoning her child! That's disgusting. :) I guess you've never associated with dead beat Dads. :pimp: The hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

There are many of reasons to abandon a child. Perhaps the child is Downs or handicapped or retarded or perhaps the child is just driving the mother crazy. There are often two innocent lives in a pregnancy, and the mother is certainly free to abandon the child if it is not in her self-interest, and if the birth did not result from her actions. I would argue that the father is not able to plead innocence.

If your a guy, you can't readily conceive by accident, therefore you can't be innocent.

estoppel is a rule of law that when person A, by act or words, gives person B reason to believe a certain set of facts upon which person B takes action, person A cannot later, to his (or her) benefit, deny those facts or say that his (or her) earlier act was improper. A 1891 English court decision summarized estoppel as "a rule of evidence which precludes a person from denying the truth of some statement previously made by himself".

If the mother has, neither by act or word chosen the pregnancy and birth, then she has no responsibility to the child's welfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we abandon child? Legitimate question.

"Disgusting" not an answer.

This is not a question. It's a statement:

If value is not lost by letting Hitler or an Islamafundamentalist drown, it isn't lost when a child who isn't wanted or doesn't fit with my values is abandonded and no longer supported.

And it most certainly is disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody has ever given me something more fundamentally important than my existence. Regardless of what else they do, one's parents do one this great favor of creating you.

From my child's own selfish viewpoint, being born was great, to say the least!

Since having a child will always be in the child's selfish interest, the only issue to resolve is whether it is in your own selfish interest as well.

As I see it, when a person get "ok" on the three factors I wrote (but didn´t came up with alone) earlier in this discussion and with emotional certainty can "sign" "I agree" under the quote above in this post (Felicitys´ text) I think it´s morally ok to choose to create/make a child. Perhaps I will some day think some about how the relationship between the parents (if there´s two of them) should be and incorporate that.

This discussion and its results have been profoundly rewarding for me, and I would probably be a lesser of a man if I would forget about this discussion. I value at least higly the ideas that I got from others and myself in this discussion (and logically therefore the persons behind the ideas (?)).

Was this discussion rewarding for you guys-gals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Disgusting" not an answer.

It was not intended as an "answer." It was "dondigitalia's" (proper) emotional response to the horrific immorality of "marotta" attempting to justify the abandonment of a child as a rational act of selfishness.

An answer was provided by "dondigitalia" in what followed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good grief!  The fact is, there is no need to "abandon" a child in today's world, because you can place it in an adoption agency that has waiting lists of people who do want to be parents.

While what you say is true, that is simply a practical matter which pales in comparison to the evil crying out to be condemned. "marotta" is advocating the moral right to abandon a child regardless of the consequences which ensue. In any world, not just "today's world" where adoption is so prevalent, the act of abandoning a child is evil.

I must say, as I have been told by several others, that this "abandonment" issue is advanced by some libertarians. That position certainly underscores their inability to grasp the concept of rights, and further illustrates the distance between what they advocate, and Objectivist morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, and should have specified that in principle she is absolutely wrong.  My "good grief" reaction was simply that there is no reason why this should even come up.

Understood. I just wanted to make the issue explicit.

Frankly, I am just flabbergasted at actually meeting an advocate of this child abandonment idea. I think it would almost be easier for me to get inside the mind of a terrorist who kills innocent people for an idea, than to get into the mind of one willing to kill their child because of some distorted sense of rational self-interest. A truly unbelievable perversion.

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...