What is the O'ist view on childbirth?

[AwakeAndFree]

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

Marotta, abandoning a child after bringing it to life tantamounts to murder.

This is not the case of an abortion, where the embryo is not yet fully human. This is A CHILD - and giving him/her birth is an obligation of the highest order.

I find your reaction to dondigitalia absolutely outrageous. In fact, the more I think about it the more you look like a troll to me.

Ad hominem (replacing personal attacks for rational arguments) are not tolerated in this forum. Consider yourself warned.

[oaktree]

It was not intended as an "answer." It was "dondigitalia's" (proper) emotional response ...

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

dondigitalia's answer was 2 parts

part 1

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 send no money to Sudan and so child dies in Sudan

Am I bad? I let the Sudanese childs HIGHEST value die. The one upon which all value depend.

part 2

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.

this is not an answer

erandror says

Ad hominem (replacing personal attacks for rational arguments) are not tolerated in this forum. Consider yourself warned.

but think of this

Mr X says "Proposition 1"

Mr Y says "That is evil because reason 1 reason 2 "

this is argument good

but

Mr Z says "This is evil"

Mr Z is doing ad hominem calling names not giving reason

Mr Z says "Consider yourself warned"

known as argument from intimidation

[stephen_speicher]

dondigitalia's answer was 2 parts

part 1

I send no money to Sudan and so child dies in Sudan

Am I bad? I let the Sudanese childs HIGHEST value die. The one upon which all value depend.

Please pay attention to the context. It was already established, in prior posts, that the issue depends on the responsibility of the parent because the parent created the child!. This was assumed in "dondigitalia's" repsponse, and ignored in the absurdity of your Sudanese child scenario.

[oaktree]

It was already established, in prior posts, that the issue depends on the responsibility of the parent because the parent created the child!.

you are right that this was mentioned in the thread

This was assumed in "dondigitalia's" repsponse, and ignored in the absurdity of your Sudanese child scenario.

really? i see no reference in donodigitali's sentence which was

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.

Please pay attention to the context.

ok

[stephen_speicher]

really? i see no reference in donodigitali's sentence ...

Try a dictionary: assume -- to take as granted or true.

In regard to a parent of a child I noted earlier that "she is morally and legally responsible for her actions, and such responsibilities are codified ethically in a proper philosophy, and codified legally within proper law." This is what was assumed. In fact, it is really pathetic that I even had to state it explicitly even once, since any Objectivist would take that fact as granted in a discussion.

I see no point, and no relevant content, to your continued criticism of others. The word "Objectivist" is meant as one who understands and accepts the philosophy of Ayn Rand, not as one who arbitrarily "objects."

[oaktree]

The word "Objectivist" is meant as one who understands and accepts the philosophy of Ayn Rand, not as one who arbitrarily "objects."

i read this 3 times but then realized it is a good joke.

i mean object / ivism

i apologise if i was arbitrary

i did not want to object arbitrarily

each post of mine was serious to point out what i thought

if i should assume all objectivism is right then i should not discuss it

i discuss to learn from asking about my doubts

i do not always find reasons given

in the meanwhile i still believe in objectivism

please understand i do not agree with killing children

it is disgusting

i even said this in previous post

if i know someone who does that i will ensure they go to jail for many years

so my point is i agree completely with all the conclusions

but only on my belief

i feel it is disgusting to even talk of such things

but want better reasoning

that is why i said "disgusting not an answer"

i will try to explain better next time about my belief in objectivism

to only ask for reasons to support my belief

[Carla]

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.

<SNIP>

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

Marotta, the problem is that you're confusing the woman's lack of self-interest in having the child with some kind of all-consuming whim-worship with no regard for anything or anyone else. I'm not suggesting selflessness or anything, but the fact remains that once a human life is in this world, you have to give it the respect it deserves (unless it proves itself unworthy by conscious action, e.g. terrorists). Just as I can't kill my neighbor because he keeps bothering me with requests for cups of sugar, I can't abandon my unwanted child (once it is born) simply because I don't want to raise a child. But I'm not saddled with the child for the rest of my life, either; as alluded to by others in this thread, the obligation I have to the child is to ensure that she gets proper care, which I can easily do by putting her up for adoption.

The point is that it's not a sacrifice for me to spend a couple days ensuring that the child goes to the right agency instead of taking off for Hawaii immediately after cutting the umbilical cord; I have a respect for human life and a desire to take care of the innocent life in front of me. The obligation would be the same, by the way, if (for example) the mother died during labor, and the father didn't want the baby. He would be responsible for ensuring that it is cared for in the best possible way; after that, he is completely free to live the life he wants to, as a mother would be.

Of course it's a sad fact that, in the case of a deadbeat guy, the woman bears a much greater amount of the responsibility for the child. But that's an unavoidable consequence of biology, and thus must be accepted or provided for (by the woman taking BCPs, etc.).

*edited to change "selfishness" to "whim-worship."

[AwakeAndFree]

erandror says

but think of this

Mr X says "Proposition 1"

Mr Y says "That is evil because reason 1 reason 2 "

this is argument good

but

Mr Z says "This is evil"

Mr Z is doing ad hominem calling names not giving reason

Mr Z says "Consider yourself warned"

known as argument from intimidation

First - I think we would all appreciate it if you wrote in complete sentences.

Second - Don't put words in my mouth.

Third - read the post before you write about them, and if you don't know what Ad hominem means - don't use this term. Ad hominem means offering a personal attack instead of trying to argue against an idea.

This is in fact what you and marrota just did, but not me or anyone else in this forum.

And finally - demanding marotta to refrain from putting personal attacks instead of ratioanl arguments is NOT an argument from intimidation. It is not an argument at all - it is an ultimatum. And it goes for you as well.

[stephen_speicher]

please understand i do not agree with killing children

Then you should be vigorously and vociferously condemning that immorality, instead of focusing on irrelevancies.

At best, your concerns are misguided. At worst, you lend support to child abandonment by shifting the focus away from it, and onto relative trivialities.

[dondigitalia]

Thank you, Stephen, for all of your posts. You defended my statements exactly as I would have.

edit: ...although much more eloquently than I could have managed.

[stephen_speicher]

Thank you, Stephen, for all of your posts. You defended my statements exactly as I would have.

edit: ...although much more eloquently than I could have managed.

You do fine by yourself, but you are most welcome.

The really sad part is that the issue of abandoning a child would even need to be discussed in the first place.

[knuckles]

oaktree said

if i should assume all objectivism is right then i should not discuss it

i discuss to learn from asking about my doubts

i do not always find reasons given

in the meanwhile i still believe in objectivism

This is wrong in so many ways that I do not know where to begin.

I'm not using "argument from intimidation". I am just exassperated.

Suppose we take you at your word about being honest in your questions.

We assume you want to ask honest questions. You must understand the context

of your questions. If you are studying objectivism you can ask about

the reasons why Ayn Rand said something. You cannot question the philosophy's fundamentals.

If you ask politely and in full sentences you will find much benevolence

on this forum and lots of answers. I joined yesterday but I have been a lurker before that

and have seen that you can learn a lot from seasoned posters like the

Speichers who have heard all the arguments before and can give you very good

reasons if you ask politely.

Do not say that you believe in Objectivism. That is insulting.

I'm not using "argument from intimidation". I am just exasperrated.

Believing is to use faith not logic. So study Rand's writing even if

you have to read things many times. Assimilate Rand's reasons in her

writing. There is no better source. Use forums to clarify doubts

about meaning. Do not to deny something that Rand clearly said.

please understand i do not agree with killing children

it is disgusting

You could have fooled me sir.

I'm not using "argument from intimidation". I am just exasperatted.

The idea of killing a child is so revolting. It ought to be obvious

that doing so is wrong. I find it very hard to believe that someone

who would think a thought like that is innocent or benevolent or

not dropping context or not arguing ad homenim. The same for Marota.

Asking certain questions is a clear sign of corruption. This is

very different from collectivists and statists who say that selfishness

is disgusting. It is very different because the idea of infanticide

is obviously evil on a perceptual level.

My advice is to do what I do by reading more and posting less.

I'm not using "argument from intimidation". This is the way you will

get the most from the forum and not be called a troll.

[AshRyan]

Marotta, the problem is that you're confusing the woman's lack of self-interest in having the child with some kind of all-consuming selfishness (I realize this is normally a positive term for O'ists, but I can't think of a better word) with no regard for anything or anyone else...

A better word would be "whim-worship." This kind of irrationality is certainly not in one's self-interest, and can't accurately be described as "selfishness."

[Carla]

A better word would be "whim-worship."  This kind of irrationality is certainly not in one's self-interest, and can't accurately be described as "selfishness."

Agreed. In fact, I just changed it in my post.

On a side note, do you think that "whim-worship" is a suitable term to cover all aspects of irrational selfishness? In this case, it fits the bill, but it seems to me that it doesn't really cover the full spectrum of possibilities. That is, someone could be deliberate (not whim-worshipping, per se) in their disregard for others. Or is that just another form of whim worship? On second though, perhaps "irrational" does that job just fine.

Language precision: one of my pet interests.

[AshRyan]

I think the phrase "irrational selfishness" is a contradiction in terms. If you are being irrational, then you are not in fact promoting your own self-interest. I understand what you're getting at though, and I would say that in most cases "whim-worship" works just fine to describe actions of which oneself is the intended beneficiary but which do not actually benefit oneself (excluding honest mistakes, of course). There may be cases in which "whim-worship" would be inexact or kind of stretched, but it's certainly better than continuing to use such confusing phrases as "irrational selfishness" or lumping Nietzschean "egoism" together with Ayn Rand's ethical theory of genuine egoism (as you can see, I'm also very interested in language precision). The only other option would be to coin a new concept for it, but until then I think "whim-worship" will do.

[Carla]

I think the phrase "irrational selfishness" is a contradiction in terms.  If you are being irrational, then you are not in fact promoting your own self-interest.

Yes, I think you're right. Since I rarely interact with other O'ists IRL (except for my brother), I think I'm also struggling to find a name for "bad selfishness," meaning that which an I might be accused of by someone who does not understand the true/objective meaning of the word. That is, if a family member is annoyed at me for acting "selfishly," and I know that "selfish" has a positive definition, they must be accusing me of something else...right? No, they are accusing me of acting selfishly, they just see the opposite--selflessness--as a value.

Not that I get accused of selfishness very often, or that my family members would see me that way--just an illustration of why I sometimes still struggle with that word. I guess it's time for me to go back to the drawing board and examine the essentials again...but I guess that's a topic for another thread.

[stephen_speicher]

I think I'm also struggling to find a name for "bad selfishness," ...

Perhaps the "bad selfishness" you are struggling to name is nothing more than sacrifice. Selfishness with the connotation of bad is usually a person who acts without regard for others (sacrificing others to himself), or a person who acts without regard to his hierarchy of values (sacrificing a higher value of his own, for a lower value).

[Carla]

Perhaps the "bad selfishness" you are struggling to name is nothing more than sacrifice. Selfishness with the connotation of bad is usually a person who acts without regard for others (sacrificing others to himself),

That's exactly it! Thank you!

[stephen_speicher]

That's exactly it! Thank you! 

You're welcome.

Now it's your turn for my next struggle.

[dondigitalia]

You do fine by yourself, but you are most welcome.

I think I do okay, too, but I was out of town for a few days and wasn't signing in to speak up. The thanks was for filling in.

[oaktree]

I think I do okay, too, but I was out of town for a few days and wasn't signing in to speak up. The thanks was for filling in.

Good job by both.

[AspiringObjectivist]

I believe that the question 'are you still responsible for the child if you were raped and could not have an abortion (perhaps because of your location?), are you still bound by contract' was asked.

I am currently thinking about it, and would like someone to provide an answer, unless one has already been provided and I missed it.

[stephen_speicher]

I believe that the question 'are you still responsible for the child if you were raped and could not have an abortion (perhaps because of your location?), are you still bound by contract' was asked.

I am currently thinking about it, and would like someone to provide an answer, unless one has already been provided and I missed it.

I do not like the use of the word "contract" here, unless it is used metaphorically. A contract is a legal agreement entered into by two or more parties, which obviously does not directly apply. The moral and legal tie is one of responsibility for one's actions, and though the raped woman is held blameless for becoming pregnant, she is responsible for bringing independent life to the child. Once the child is born, that child's continued survival is dependent on the woman exercising her responsibility. She cannot simply walk away and pronounce a death sentence on the child which she created.

I also think that the rapist (assuming he was caught) should be held financially responsible for that child. And, as a practical matter, if the woman really did not want the child, in today's world there would be a long line of willing adoptive parents. Regardless, until the child can be properly cared for, I think the woman is morally and legally responsible for the child.

[AwakeAndFree]

I agree with Stephen's last post completely.

[Colonel Rebel]

Recently a debate between a friend and I came to the flaws in objectivism. The first one we found, actually....the only one thus far, was the issue of childbirth and objectivism.

We believe that, if it is the rational being that conceives, and the unborn child, the fetus, is not rational, yet, then the act of childbirth is an altruistic action, and thus, morally wrong by Rand's standards.

But, childbirth could also be viewed as an act of selfishness (the woman laboured to have the child, it is the result of her caring for her body, and was created by her own will with a man), an act in her own interest and nobody else's. Thus, morally right.

I'm quite confidence that this debate has been discussed before on this board, by the simple knowledge of it's controversial nature. Was hoping one of you could clear this up.

Thanks in advance, and I look forward to your responses....