Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Responsibilities and Privileges of Parenting

Rate this topic


Starling

Recommended Posts

What laws should regulate parenting? To what extent and until what age(s) can parents use physical force against their children? This would include questions like corporal punishment, "brain washing" and "psychological abuse," sex, pregnancy, inflicting physical harm, preventing physical harm, medical care obligations, circumcision, "alternative" medicines, education (or lack thereof), etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What laws should regulate parenting?
None, specifically, in the statutory sense of "law". Parents have what could be seen as a "fiduciary" obligation, which relates to the fact that they are custodians of the rights of their children (BTW the legal questions are about the "custodial parent of guardian", hence a biological parent has no special higher status and an adoptive parent has no special lower status). From this is follows that a parent cannot refuse to feed a child because they aren't bringing home enough cash, they can't confiscate a child's inheritance for their own enrichment. Their actions should be judged according to "the interest of the child" as the standard.

Generally speaking, parents should be given wide latitude to act in the best interests of the child. After all, they are held responsible for the welfare of the child, thus they can't just kick their 1 year old out the door and say "You're on your own". This could include for example shodding the child with big, clunky boots because the kid drags his feet, and the parent has no obligation to buy something more stylish but likely to wear out quickly. Unfortunately, this also means teaching a value system to the child (no problem there) which can include Scientology or Baptistology (ruh roh). We can draw a line between religious teaching versus syphoning blood off of the child, treating the child as a crop to be harvested. Good old common sense will tell you that the latter is prohibited by law, although I imagine there is no statute that specifically addresses this. Since we have courts with wise judges who apply common sense, there should be no problem. (Yikes, do I hear snorting and laughing from Qwertz?). Well, in principle there is no problem.

Common sense no longer applies to spankings. In a number of countries, spanking is actually statutorily prohibited, for example Norway (however, they do not rely on common sense, they actually have a book -- amusingly called "Norges Lover" -- where all of this stuff is written down). The situation with spankings in school is pretty chaotic in the US. I am not a fan of spanking -- the point is that common sense would tell you that of course spanking is okay and of course teachers can stand in loco parentis. The law, however, tells you something different.

Although I strongly support the concept of objective law especially the codification of enforceable principles in explicit law that can be understood by anyone (i.e. common law sucks), I do not see any practical way to specify exactly what "the best interest of the child" is, in statutory terms. Case in point, it's stupid to not immunize a child against polio. But it is also wrong to have a law that forces parents to immunize their children against polio or be sent to prison. There is a risk associated with the vaccine, and an individual must decide whether that risk is offset by the risk of not being vaccinated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I strongly support the concept of objective law especially the codification of enforceable principles in explicit law that can be understood by anyone (i.e. common law sucks), I do not see any practical way to specify exactly what "the best interest of the child" is, in statutory terms. Case in point, it's stupid to not immunize a child against polio. But it is also wrong to have a law that forces parents to immunize their children against polio or be sent to prison. There is a risk associated with the vaccine, and an individual must decide whether that risk is offset by the risk of not being vaccinated.

Objectively, if a parent's action or inaction results in a child's death, and it could be proven that the parents were not being rational, the parents should be sent to prison. This doesn't mean statuatory immunization but rather individual consideration of whether or not said vaccination was in the individual child's interest. If the child is not allergic to the vaccine nor is the child at risk of getting polio, or if the child is BOTH allergic to the vaccine AND at risk of getting polio, then the question of whether or not the immunization is in the child's interest is hazy. However, it would be illegal to give an allergic child the vaccine or to not give an at-risk child the vaccine, not in a de jure sense of the obligation, but in a de facto sense. Of course if there are no methods existing to test the child for being allergic or at risk, or if the parents are otherwise unable to do so, then they should be acquitted. However this too depends on context. If the parents have a lot of property that they don't want to sell that if they did they could pay the costs, they should be held to responsibility, even though the consideration of threat of jail time puts on them a severe burden. The argument that "It's too hard to do what's right for my child" should be taken as an inidcation that the parent does NOT deserve the child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectively, if a parent's action or inaction results in a child's death, and it could be proven that the parents were not being rational, the parents should be sent to prison.
Okay, butter those parsnips. Describe this situation -- what are the facts which prove felonious irrationality? Is there a distinction between felonious irrationality and felonious error of knowledge? Is irrationality generally a felony, or only in certain specific instances? For example, is irrationality in exercising ordinary fiduciary obligation (as would exist between broker and customer) a felony; how about the case of other guardian relationships such as child to elderly parent, spouse to Alzheimers-riddled spouse, etc? Would you generally advocate a return to the traditional concept of a common law crime, where it is not possible to say in advance whether a given act of punishable by a fine or prison term. Are you rejecting the concept of objective law in general, or only for matters of parenting? (If the latter, I would want to know your justification). I'm looking for a semblance of a principle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Ideally, how should court rooms go about defining parent obligations objectively?

I know objectivists agree that there needs to be an arbitrary age of adulthood, and that a child does not have all of the same rights as an adult. However, a child is also not an adult's property

- Would parents be allowed to circumcise their children?

- Would parents be obligated to provide an education of some form? Another person in this forum brought that up, that there would need to be an objective definiton of education, and the parent would be obligated to provide that definition. Is it really the government's duty to make sure that all kids are educated?

- Are there any penalties that should be placed on parents, other than physically abusing children?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- Would parents be allowed to circumcise their children?

Circumcision is an irrational act of brutality, and child abuse if performed on a child. Surely, de-skinning any other part of a child's body would be considered immoral, so why not circumcision? It is not a legitimate medical procedure as it has no positive effect on the child and cannot be a cure to any ailment.

- Would parents be obligated to provide an education of some form? Another person in this forum brought that up, that there would need to be an objective definiton of education, and the parent would be obligated to provide that definition. Is it really the government's duty to make sure that all kids are educated?

Having the government force parents to raise their children with a traditional education seems a bit collectivist to me. The role of government is to protect individual rights, not to enforce a subjective viewpoint on the best way to raise a child. Though I would say that good parents would put their children through a traditional education and allow them to learn as much as possible, a parent's passivity with regard to his/her child's education is not an example of aggressive force, nor negligence, on the part of the parent. It significant disadvantages any child, but if the child really wants to learn, as Ayn Rand says, all you need to do is get out of its way.

- Are there any penalties that should be placed on parents, other than physically abusing children?

Though I am not a fan of Christopher Hitchens, he wrote a very powerful entry in his book "God is Not Great" regarding religion and child abuse. His claim essentially boiled down to: The vicious lies of religion, paired with the manner in which it is pummeled into a child's head - day after day, year after year - is certainly a good candidate for the very definition of mental abuse. Obviously this type of claim requires a lot of context in support, but I'd safely say this statement could accurately reflect the nature of a significant amount of parents residing in the Bible Belt region of the US. My point is that I think mental abuse is just as prevalent, if not more so, than physical abuse is, when it comes to parenting, considering the popularity of religion (particularly the Falwell-flavored versions).

I'd like to hear from more seasoned O'ists how a moral government could handle such an issue, if this issue is deemed to be abusive in nature. Having read the sides of Hitchens/Dawkins and the opposing viewpoints of The Christian Post and "God and Science.org" (a remarkably funny website, actually, though I'm sure it's unintentional on the part of its creators), I can safely say that I find the atheistic reasoning rather sound, and the opposing viewpoints to be wholly unscientific in nature. The God and Science website even tries to disprove Hitchens' notion by looking at theistic children vs. atheistic children, and their relative test scores, drop-out rates, etc. - as if these things were the objective measurements of whether or not a child has been abused.

Edited by Andrew Grathwohl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Circumcision is an irrational act of brutality, and child abuse if performed on a child. Surely, de-skinning any other part of a child's body would be considered immoral, so why not circumcision? It is not a legitimate medical procedure as it has no positive effect on the child and cannot be a cure to any ailment.

Please read the following:

http://www.circinfo.net/conclusion.html

This site has medical references showing several benefits to circumcision.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me the only benefits that circumcision provides is not having to wear a condom. But that still doesn't solve a lot of problems.

But let's say a male does not want to be mutilated. Let's say he's okay with his foreskin, he turns out. His parents used force on him to affect him permanently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.circinfo.net/what_caused_many_c..._remove_it.html

Another compelling explanation referred to earlier involves the ritualization of circumcision's prophylactic effects, especially as many different human groups and cultures that live in desert or other hot environments have adopted it as part of their customs. Infections, initiated by the aggravation of dirt and sand under the foreskin, are not uncommon under such conditions and have even crippled whole armies, where it is difficult to achieve sanitation during prolonged battle.

A US Army report by General John Patton stated that in World War II 150,000 soldiers were hospitalized for foreskin problems due to inadequate hygiene, leading to the statements: “Time and money could have been saved had prophylactic circumcision been performed before the men were shipped overseas” and “Because keeping the foreskin clean was very difficult in the field, many soldiers with only a minimal tendency toward phimosis were likely to develop balanoposthitis [Patton, 1987b]. Army urologists stated “Had these patients been circumcised before induction [into the Army] this total would have been close to zero”. In the Second World War Australia had to send urologists to circumcise all of its troops fighting in the North African campaign who were not already circumcised [short, 2006]. Similarly sand was a problem for uncircumcised men during the Gulf War in Iraq (“Desert Storm”) in the early 1990s [Gardner, 1991; Schoen, 2007e].

Circumcision: The Soldier's Cut. Don't ever say it has no purpose or justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please read the following:

http://www.circinfo.net/conclusion.html

No, you please read the following:

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index...=view&id=30

It is time that the "sand myth" was laid firmly to rest. Common sense tells us that in the North African combat theatre surgical resources were limited, and already fully committed to treating, first, the wounded, and secondly serious illnesses; army medics in those desperate times were not scratching around for work. On top of that, the omnipresence of desert dust would dictate that surgical procedures be kept to a minimum, since dust in wounds would have far more serious effects than it could ever have under the foreskin. These intuitions are confirmed by the official war histories. If there had been an "epidemic" of balanitis, one would expect it to have left some sign in the records and to have been noticed by the official historians, yet none of the many medical volumes published by Britain, Australia and New Zealand so much as mentions it.

Official medical histories do not mention circumcision

The British History of the Second World War identifies the main medical problems in the Middle East and North Africa as hepatitis, diarrhoea, dysentery, tonsillitis, accidental injuries, burns, malaria, sandfly fever and "desert sores". The last sound promising, but no location is specified, and the condition was not treated surgically. [27, 28]

Neither sand nor balanitis are among the "clinical problems of war" discussed by Allan Walker in Australia’s official history, though acne gets a couple of pages, and "desert sores" turn out to be small sores arising from cuts, grazes and insect bites which became infected with either Staph or Streptococcus. [29] The menace of the foreskin also seems to have escaped his attention in the volume devoted to medical issues in the Middle East and North Africa. As among the British troops, the main health problems encountered were gastric diseases such as diarrhoea, dysentery and hepatitis. These certainly emphasised the need for hygiene, but not specifically of the penis; it referred to the construction of latrines, correct toilet procedures and the control of flies. Interestingly enough, Walker remarks that "conjunctivitis was remarkably uncommon, in spite of dust and glare and paucity of convenience for washing": if the blowing sand was rarely able to inflame the exposed and vulnerable eyeball, it seems highly unlikely that it could do much to harm to the concealed and (in uncircumcised men) well protected glans penis. [30]

The New Zealand history similarly states that skin inflammations were a hazard of desert warfare, and that they were exacerbated by fine sand, but it makes no mention of the foreskin as a problem site, nor of circumcision as a treatment, and goes on to comment that every effort was made to minimise cuts to the skin, and to avoid surgery unless it was "urgent or else offered the prospect of permanent relief of symptoms sufficient to enable men to be retained in useful employment overseas." [31, 32] In none of the thousands of pages contained in these volumes do the words balanitis, circumcision or foreskin make a single appearance.

An urban myth

Because the sand myth has never been seriously argued for or substantiated, nobody has regarded it as sufficiently important to warrant refutation. As a result it continues to enjoy a subterranean existence as a kind of medical urban myth, popping up in surprising places with odd variations. [33-35] One of the most peculiar is the claim by a correspondent in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine that "a German surgeon" had told him that Africa Corps troops had "suffered in the same way", and had similarly been circumcised. [36] Although the writer conceded that the recommendation was "understandably unofficial", the idea that a German under the rule of Nazism would have submitted to an operation which could have identified him as a Jew, or that anybody in authority would have recommended such a course, is preposterous. To check this point, Mr Hugh Young wrote to Manfred Rommel, son of the German commander, whose courteous reply concluded: "I have never heard that soldiers in the Africa Corps were circumcised. The veterans I could contact have not either". [37]

You can't just go by whatever some website claims. Most crackpots cite all sorts of fancy sounding references, that doesn't make them true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you please read the following:

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index...=view&id=30

You can't just go by whatever some website claims. Most crackpots cite all sorts of fancy sounding references, that doesn't make them true.

Holy shit, your right. I found the Gardner reference here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P...00123-0069b.pdf

It is not an article, it is a damned letter to the editor with speculations in it. Written from a Priory.

Apologies to all for casually spreading lies.

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...