Minors: Rights And Children

[hunterrose]

Boy, this topic really gets around

1)Rights protect the action you must take to support your life. You must always think of rights as describing action:

2) a child has a right to act

3) it cannot, so someone must act on the child’s behalf

4) we cannot force anyone to be that actor

5) someone must freely choose to be the actor

6) once you have chosen to be the actor it is your responsibility to act

7) failing to act in support of the child’s life violates the rights you chose to exercise on their behalf

I took the liberty of numbering the premises of this part of the argument.

My major problem with that is with 3) and 7).

3) - Why must someone act on the child's behalf, and why isn't any dependent afforded this "must?"

7) - On what basis has the mother chosen to exercise rights on the behalf of the child?

Likely some of this is rehash, I haven't been here in a while

[AisA]

Boy, this topic really gets around

I took the liberty of numbering the premises of this part of the argument.

My major problem with that is with 3) and 7).

3) - Why must someone act on the child's behalf, and why isn't any dependent afforded this "must?"

Let me rephrase your questions and see if it suggests any answers.

Why must anyone accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions? If you crash your car into someone else's car, destroying it and injuring the driver in the process, why must you accept responsibility for this and compensate the other party? Why can't you just walk away and let him deal with it?

And why is there any difference between a dependent who is dependent by his very nature and has no choice in the matter, versus one who is not dependent by nature and does have a choice in the matter?

7) - On what basis has the mother chosen to exercise rights on the behalf of the child?

On what basis does anyone choose to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions?

[Marc K.]

You wanted to know my position on the principle that "rights are rights to actions, but not to objects". My position is that the principle applies to a certain context, but not necessarily to every context.

So your position is that when Ayn Rand says: “Rights pertain only to action” what she really meant was: Rights pertain only to action, but not necessarily only to action???????????????

And that: “There are no rights to objects” really means: There are no rights to objects, except when there are?????????????????

That besides axioms any definitive statement made by Ayn Rand should be taken with a grain of salt?????????????

Perhaps you can point me to other instances in which Ayn Rand was so imprecise in her usage???????

The principle of rights, [...] cannot necessarily be invoked outside this context. [Animals] are not the entities whose nature formed the basis for deriving rights.

Doesn’t this position negate your previous one that a child’s rights are being violated. Or perhaps what you mean to say (as you do here):

If one considers situations other than "relationships, under normal conditions, between rational, adult human beings", then one cannot automatically assume that the same rights apply.

is that children have “special rights”.

This too is contradicted by Ayn Rand directly when she says: “there are no “rights” of special groups [like] the young.”

You really need to rethink your position on rights and responsibility. This conflict is not going away -- it has already infected your conceptualization in at least one other area.

[hunterrose]

Why must anyone accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions? If you crash your car into someone else's car, destroying it and injuring the driver in the process, why must you accept responsibility for this and compensate the other party? Why can't you just walk away and let him deal with it?

But here you speak of an agreed-upon violation of rights. Which of the child's rights is violated by being birthed, thus creating "consequences?"

And why is there any difference between a dependent who is dependent by his very nature and has no choice in the matter, versus one who is not dependent by nature and does have a choice in the matter?

I draw a blank here, as I see little reason to distinguish between "natural" dependents and circumstantial dependents anyway.

On what basis does anyone choose to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions?

It would seem to be the unquestioned consensus that there are consequences for birthing the child, and that the only question is whether one chooses to accept the (assumed?) consequences.

Obviously there are biological consequences, but I assume it is also meant that there are/should be ethical/legal consequences in addition.

...but, if being birthed into the world is not a violation of the child's rights, then what is the basis for these ethical/legal consequences?

[AisA]

So your position is that when Ayn Rand says: “Rights pertain only to action” what she really meant was: Rights pertain only to action, but not necessarily only to action???????????????

And that: “There are no rights to objects” really means: There are no rights to objects, except when there are?????????????????

That besides axioms any definitive statement made by Ayn Rand should be taken with a grain of salt?????????????

Are you familiar with the Objectivist principle that knowledge is contextual?

Let me give you another example. Are you aware that there is a context, a situation, in which the Objectivist ethics do not apply? From "Ayn Rand Answers", page 114:

"But formally, as a moral philosopher, I'd say that in such emergency situations (she is referring to life under a dictatorship) no one could prescribe what action is appropriate. That's my answer to all lifeboat questions. Moral rules cannot be prescribed for these situations, because only life is the basis on which to establish a moral code. Whatever a man chooses in such cases is right, subjectively."

Thus, the Objectivist morality applies in a certain context: when men are able to choose freely. Again quoting Miss Rand: "Morality ends where a gun begins."

So, Marc, do you think this means we should take everything Miss Rand said about morality "with a grain of salt"?

Actually, I think you are applying different rules to the child's situation. Consider:

If different rules cannot apply in different contexts, then on what basis does a child have a right to (to use your terms) the act of guardianship on the part of his parents? The right to action means the right to one's own action, not a claim that others must act for you. No adult has such a right. Why, if all rights are identical in all contexts, does a child have such a right?

If we apply all of Miss Rand's statements about rights literally to the child, then the child has only the right to action, his own action and nothing more. After all, that is all Miss Rand has said about rights.

You really need to rethink your position on rights and responsibility. This conflict is not going away -- it has already infected your conceptualization in at least one other area.

Because, frankly, this part of your argument is completely irrational. I didn’t explicitly state this before in order to be kind.

You really should listen to the chorus. It is a good idea, when trying to understand Objectivist principle, to study what Ayn Rand had to say on the subject.

Just FYI, statements like these do not persuade or influence me.

[Marc K.]

Are you aware that there is a context, a situation, in which the Objectivist ethics do not apply? From "Ayn Rand Answers", page 114:

"But formally, as a moral philosopher, I'd say that in such emergency situations (she is referring to life under a dictatorship) no one could prescribe what action is appropriate. That's my answer to all lifeboat questions. Moral rules cannot be prescribed for these situations, because only life is the basis on which to establish a moral code. Whatever a man chooses in such cases is right, subjectively."

Oh no. Please don’t tell me you are retreating to the charlatan’s stronghold of the emergency situation???????????? (you know you are defeated when you resort to these tactics.)

So you think that childhood (something every adult must go through) is an emergency situation????????..... Completely absurd.

I’m not sure why you are objecting to anyone’s conception of rights as applied to children. If this issue can be decided “subjectively” then all of us are correct, right????????????

then on what basis does a child have a right to (to use your terms) the act of guardianship on the part of his parents? The right to action means the right to one's own action, not a claim that others must act for you.

Since you are unwilling to reconsider your position and apparently unwilling to consider mine (as evidenced by your continued misrepresentation of it), I will not reiterate it for a sixth or seventh time. If you ever decide to honestly consider this issue my position is completely contained within this thread.

I will give you a hint though by quoting you: “the Objectivist morality applies in a certain context: when men are able to choose freely.” Which mirrors what I have said previously: “The only way the inability of a child to support itself is overcome is by free voluntary choice.”

Just FYI, statements like these do not persuade or influence me. [:]

You really need to rethink your position on rights and responsibility. This conflict is not going away -- it has already infected your conceptualization in at least one other area.

[...]

Because, frankly, this part of your argument is completely irrational. I didn’t explicitly state this before in order to be kind.

[...]

You really should listen to the chorus. It is a good idea, when trying to understand Objectivist principle, to study what Ayn Rand had to say on the subject.

These statements were not intended to persuade, they were intended to inform.

And it should at least give you pause when your argument is shown to be irrational and in direct contradiction of Ayn Rand.

[AisA]

Oh no. Please don’t tell me you are retreating to the charlatan’s stronghold of the emergency situation???????????? (you know you are defeated when you resort to these tactics.)

So you think that childhood (something every adult must go through) is an emergency situation????????..... Completely absurd.

I’m not sure why you are objecting to anyone’s conception of rights as applied to children. If this issue can be decided “subjectively” then all of us are correct, right????????????

Marc, you are being ridiculous. I merely gave you an example to illustrate the importance of context in applying the principles of Objectivism. Surely you know that this does not mean that I consider childhood to be an emergency.

Is it your position that knowledge is not contextual?

Since you are unwilling to reconsider your position and apparently unwilling to consider mine (as evidenced by your continued misrepresentation of it), I will not reiterate it for a sixth or seventh time. If you ever decide to honestly consider this issue my position is completely contained within this thread.

I will give you a hint though by quoting you: “the Objectivist morality applies in a certain context: when men are able to choose freely.” Which mirrors what I have said previously: “The only way the inability of a child to support itself is overcome is by free voluntary choice.”

Your argument contains a fundamental contradiction you have not been able to resolve. If all rational beings possess identical rights and all rights are strictly rights to actions and nothing else, then a child cannot invoke any right to the "agreement to provide support" you claim is present from birth. And if a child doesn't have a right to that agreement, then there is no basis for making it a legal requirement.

You can certainly make a good case that agreeing to provide support is the moral thing for the parent to do. But unless the child has a right to that agreement, then there is no rights violation when the parent says, "No, I don't agree that giving birth means I have agreed to provide support".

If all rights are identical, child abandonment is fine, because no child can claim a right that is not also possessed by everyone else.

[Marc K.]

Marc, you are being ridiculous. I merely gave you an example to illustrate the importance of context in applying the principles of Objectivism. Surely you know that this does not mean that I consider childhood to be an emergency.

Is it your position that knowledge is not contextual?

All knowledge is contextual and hierarchical; this is a central principle of Objectivism. (Oh look, another definitive statement. Perhaps this statement is contextual also.)

But don’t evade the question we were working on: You were trying to come up with a context in which the principle that “rights pertain only to action” did not apply. If you didn’t intend to further the discussion of how an emergency situation applies then why bring it up? Because it is the only one you can think of.

Since rights are moral principles, you cannot come up with another context (except an amoral one) in which rights is divorced from the universal moral principle from which it was derived: that the only thing that sustains your life is action.

In other words: rights are derived directly from the moral principle that in order to survive we must act. You can’t then turn around and say that rights pertain to anything but action. Rights say to society: it is good for me to act this way, leave me alone so I can do it.

Your argument contains a fundamental contradiction you have not been able to resolve. If all rational beings possess identical rights and all rights are strictly rights to actions and nothing else, then a child cannot invoke any right to the "agreement to provide support" you claim is present from birth. And if a child doesn't have a right to that agreement, then there is no basis for making it a legal requirement.

No sir, all of the contradictions are yours. I have pointed them out every time with a quote, perhaps you would be so kind as to do the same.

First of all a child cannot “invoke” anything, it does not have the ability or knowledge. The agreement is made by you, it is a promise saying that you will take all the actions entitled this child, by right, in order to sustain its life and prepare it for adulthood. The government will enforce this agreement because the child cannot.

And please, lets not argue whether a parent implicitly agrees to be responsible for a child when she doesn’t take any of the other avenues open to her, like: don’t have sex, use the pill, use a condom, get an abortion, give the child up for adoption. This is central to any argument based on responsibility, which was the argument you were making (remember the TON article?). And if that doesn’t convince you, just remember who it was in this thread that was promoting that same idea.

[IAmMetaphysical]

I think an important part, possibly the most important part, of this discussion is the nature of "rights". And I think I may have noticed the basic misunderstanding that either you all have, or that I have. But I think the resolution of this "problem" lies in figuring out and coming to an agreement about what rights are, then we can decide who has them, and what the right entitles them to.

Rights are not derived strictly from metaphysics. They are derived from ethics, the ethics of a volitonal being, because a volitional being is the only thing in need of a code of ethics, automatons don't need guidance. The reason that volition is so important is because in order for man to live qua man, i.e. morally, he must be able to excercise his volition, i.e. he must make choices. "Morality ends when a gun begins" means that man would be unable to be moral, to live his life, if he was not free to make the choices involved in his self sustaining action. It is not the fact of his possessing rationality, but of the fact of his possessing volition. Being "free" in this sense means being without restraints, without coercion. "Living" while being unable to excercise free choice would not be living as a man. This is why it is "right" for man to be free from the initiation of force, it is right for him to live as his nature dictates; to live as a volitional being. This is not to say then that "rights" can be derived strictly from a being's nature (by the way, the concept "being" is not that it is a seperate entity. A being is anything that "Be"s and acts, in other words "anything that is" and "does" or "is and lives" for only living things can be said to "do" things, non-living matter just "is". Being separately viable is a characteristic of some beings, but it is not necessary, nor fundamental. In fact most living beings are dependant on the lives of other living beings, except I guess for those algea(sp?) or plants that only get sustenance from photosynthesis. Being physically attached to something, does not take away the status of a being, just as conjoined twins are two beings. A human being, is a living thing that is human. A rational being is a living thing that possesses rationality, or that is rational, not merely has the potential of becoming rational. Even if "being" strictly meant being separate, this would still not have an effect on "rights") If "rights" were derived from the fact(metaphysics) of being rational, than only rational men would have rights, which would mean only those that choose certain things would have the free choice of those things, and as we all know having one choice is not a choice. If it were derived from the potential of becoming rational in the future, then fetuses and zygotes would then have the right to freedom from coercion (I would say then that force feeding it, through an umbilical cord, would be a violation then of its rights)

The right to life (of man, the rational, volitional animal) is the right to be free to live his life the way he so chooses, it is a right to choose actions (as long as those actions don't interfere with other's rights), not to things. It is the right to be free from other people, not free to other people or their products. The right to a product of another man is slavery, no matter who is the master and serf. The new born's "Identity" as a helpless being does not give it a claim to the product of the parents or anyone else. It simply means that it IS helpless, not that I, or anyone else, SHOULD feed it. Is it desirable for it to recieve sustenance? Yes. Is it a right? Should people be forced by the government to provide said sustenance? No. Free formula for some means slavery for the rest( :P)

There are no conflicts of valid rights. If you think there is, check your premises.

Now this does not mean that there isn't an issue of when a person agrees to be a gaurdian and then renegs. I think that is where the issue then is, if we all agree on the derivation of rights. Some have said that the simple act of giving birth is an agreement of gaurdianship, some have said it isn't. I am undecided.

{{Edited for an add on of the concept of "being".}}

Edited January 3, 2006 by IAmMetaphysical

[AisA]

All knowledge is contextual and hierarchical; this is a central principle of Objectivism. (Oh look, another definitive statement. Perhaps this statement is contextual also.)

It is indeed contextual. The context is the nature, and needs, of a rational being of volitional consciousness.

But don’t evade the question we were working on: You were trying to come up with a context in which the principle that “rights pertain only to action” did not apply. If you didn’t intend to further the discussion of how an emergency situation applies then why bring it up? Because it is the only one you can think of.

You are dropping context here and I am rapidly losing interest in expending the effort to remind you of the context. The example of the emergency situation was not brought up as an example of a situation in which rights can be rights to objects. It was brought up as an example of the principle that context matters in implementing Objectivist principles. Are you incapable of grasping the distinction between those two things?

You asked for my view of the principle that rights are only rights to actions and not to objects. I answered that since that principle is a derivative, it cannot be applied acontextually, i.e. it cannot be applied while ignoring the context in which it was derived; and that context was the normal interaction of adults coexisting in a given area. The relationship between parent and child is fundamentally different; hence different rights apply.

So, I did identify a context in which rights are rights to objects, not just to actions: namely, the relationship between parent and child.

You then went off the deep end with responses like this:

So your position is that when Ayn Rand says: “Rights pertain only to action” what she really meant was: Rights pertain only to action, but not necessarily only to action???????????????

This was, essentially, a denial that context can ever matter. It is the assertion that whatever Miss Rand says is true, is always true no matter what the situation.

So I responded by giving you another example of how context affects the application of Objectivist principles. I gave you Miss Rand's own words in which she basically says that the entire Objectivist ethics goes out the window in certain situations, because its derivation rests on a certain context.

But rather than admit that this example proves the principle, you try to make it appear that I am making the foolish claims that childhood is an emergency and that an emergency is the context in which rights are something other than rights to actions. But this will not work, because I do not forget my own argument from one post to the next.

Since rights are moral principles, you cannot come up with another context (except an amoral one) in which rights is divorced from the universal moral principle from which it was derived: that the only thing that sustains your life is action.

Children are a special case with special rights and limitations. This remains true, no matter how you try to twist it. Even if we grant your (erroneous) interpretation of the article in the The Objectivist Newsletter, that is, even if we grant that what that article says is that children only have a right to the act of support from the parents, that is clearly an example of a right not possessed by any adult. You are obviously treating the child's rights differently.

In other words: rights are derived directly from the moral principle that in order to survive we must act. You can’t then turn around and say that rights pertain to anything but action. Rights say to society: it is good for me to act this way, leave me alone so I can do it.

No sir, all of the contradictions are yours. I have pointed them out every time with a quote, perhaps you would be so kind as to do the same.

First of all a child cannot “invoke” anything, it does not have the ability or knowledge. The agreement is made by you, it is a promise saying that you will take all the actions entitled this child, by right, in order to sustain its life and prepare it for adulthood. The government will enforce this agreement because the child cannot.

If all rational beings possess the same rights, then a child cannot be said to have a right to have his parent's act on his behalf. If he does not have this right, then there is no violation of his rights when parents fail to take such action. I see no way around this fundamental contradiction in your position.

You cannot simultaneously declare that parent and child have identical rights but government can force one to act on behalf of the other. That simply does not make sense.

As far as you pointing out contradictions in my position, other than repeatedly quoting Ayn Rand while ignoring the context of her statements, I can only recall one thing: your claim that the inherent helpless of an infant rational being cannot be a source of rights because such a state is not exclusive to human beings. I then pointed out that if some animal were discovered to be capable of reason, reason would then no longer be exclusive to man, yet this would not mean the man's rights would disappear. So "exclusivity to man" cannot be a requirement for deriving rights.

You never responded to this except to claim, many posts later, that it was so irrational that pointing it out would be "unkind". That, howeve, is merely an unsupported assertion. The burden is on you to prove that ""exclusivity to man" is a defining factor in determining which of man's characteristics are a proper basis for deriving rights. Until you do, my argument stands and there is no contradiction.

[Inspector]

There seems to be a lot of confusion here around the definition of the term “right.”

When a man has a contract, he has the right to have this contract fulfilled by the other party, provided that he keeps up his end of the bargain.

This is not to say that the word is used there in the exact same sense as in the statement, “Man has the right to his own life.”

In the former sense, this right depends on a series of choices by the parties involved and antecedent rights to make it true. This is a right derived from former rights, rather than a starting point that is an absolute; derived from man’s nature.

The child’s right to the care of his parents is also not an absolute, derived directly from man’s nature, but rather more like the contract: dependant upon antecedent rights. There does not exist any “right to care,” as much as there exists the fact that man must be responsible for his actions in order to survive in a society of rational beings. Only because the parents are responsible for the child’s existence and condition are they required to care for it. The child, per se does not have some “right,” which exists floating in a vacuum, to be cared for, based on its nature as a helpless rational being.

If, for example, a rational being evolved somewhere in the universe such that it did not have parent rational beings (a “missing link”), then it would have no “right to care,” even though it might possess all of the attributes (i.e. rationality, helplessness) which give rise to this “right” in an infant human.

To put it another way, the rights of an infant are not “inherent in the child,” but rather a consequence of the actions of the parents combined with the nature of the child.

Mark’s criticisms seem to be based on his belief that AisA has declared that a child has rights due to its very nature as a rational, helpless being. (and, therefore, these rights exist outside of the context of the actions of the parents)

I don’t think that AisA has said that, but I will let him speak for himself.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Inspector: Why then can't the same be said of a fetus? If the parents, through the act of fornication, cause the fetus' situation, why aren't they held responsible for making sure it grows into a rational being capable of sustaining itself?

Edited January 4, 2006 by IAmMetaphysical

[RationalBiker]

Inspector: Why then can't the same be said of a fetus? If the parents, through the act of fornication, cause the fetus' situation, why aren't they held responsible for making sure it grows into a rational being capable of sustaining itself?

This thread is distinctly (and purposefully) separate from the abortion thread. I'm fairly certain this ground has also already been covered in the other thread. Please keep abortion-related discussions in the other thread.

[Edit - Spelling - RC]

Edited January 4, 2006 by RationalCop

[IAmMetaphysical]

Sorry, it was a hypothetical question used to show that causing a condition in this sense is a dropping of context, the context being: being held responible in situations where choice is not an option. What I mean by this is being held responisible for the condition of a new born when said condition (helplessness) is the only way in which to create a new born. Since it is impossible to cause any other different condition, being held responsible for that condition is a mockery of justice. Where no choice exists, no morality exists.

It is impossible to create a newborn with any other condition but helplessness and the positing of the "abortion" alternative is not an adequate one. Non-creation of a newborn is not an action toward a newborn, it is essentially "non-action." Holding someone responsible for the nature of a newborn then is to hold them responsible for not taking a non-action. The analogy of a car accident victim does not hold. You are responsible, in the event of a car accident, for the positive actions you commited against the victim, the initiation of force against them. Simple creation is not an initiation because before creation the "acted upon" party is non existent. Making a being exist, i.e. making them able to be acted upon, is not an act upon them. This is not to say that the unavoidable consequences of an action are not to be dealt with, only that additional invented consequences are not valid.

What this all seems to be, is that people don't like the idea of people simply abandoning their babies to die. They don't want this to happen so they want to use the force of the government to force people to take care of other people. This is exactly the same mentality behind welfare, and other social safety net programs. its ana appeal to emotionalism, and ignores the proper function of government.

[Inspector]

Sorry, it was a hypothetical question used to show that causing a condition in this sense is a dropping of context, the context being: being held responible in situations where choice is not an option. What I mean by this is being held responisible for the condition of a new born when said condition (helplessness) is the only way in which to create a new born.

The choice still exists to abort or otherwise choose not to have a child.

You complaint amounts to the fact that one can’t have their cake and eat it too; one can’t have a child and not have it be helpless… in other words, one can’t expect to make the choice of having children, and escape the consequence that they need care.

The parent is being held responsible for their choice to create a helpless rational being. Their choice is either to create a helpless rational being and be responsible for it (at least long enough to put it up for adoption), or do not create a helpless rational being (i.e. use birth control, or if necessary, abortion).

The rest of your post rests on this first claim of yours, so does not bear a response.

[IAmMetaphysical]

in other words, one can’t expect to make the choice of having children, and escape the consequence that they need care.

Are you saying that their "need" then is what entitles them to your care? Another person's need can never be the consequence of someone else's actions. The need of a newborn, or anyone for that matter is a consequence of their nature, not the choice to create. A person has a need for food, for air, for water and for shelter, not a need for those things to be provided for them. A need is something which is needed to sustain life, not the automatic attainment of those things. A child therefore can not have even a need for care just because they are unable to do it themselves. They need food. Getting it from someone else is a priviledge, not a right.

Creating a needy child is the natural consequences of choosing to carry a baby to term, but the simple fact of their neediness is not a direct consequence of that choice. No one can choose another's nature, it is ummm.. natural.. it is not a matter of having your cake and eating it to, it is about being held responsible for things that are out of your control, being held responsible for another's need, to things that their nature requires of them. Would you then say that retarded grown ups have a right to monetary damages or a lifetime of care because their parent's created them retarded?? Being given life, and all the conditions thereof, is not a claim check on the work or life of another, ever. If that were the case then all children would have the right to have their entire life provided for, because they need food, and their parents caused this need in them, so then the parents are responsible for provided it for them.

I am not saying that it is good for people to have babies and then abandon them. I am only saying that the government should not be in the business of forcing people to take care of another person, if the condition of that person is not a direct consequence of their actions. It is not the duty of anyone to ensure the survival of any other person just because of their nature or inability to provide for themselves. it is every one's duty, a duty dictated by their nature, to ensure their own survival.

[Inspector]

Are you saying that their "need" then is what entitles them to your care?

Who said anything about my care? I don’t have children.

A child is entitled to the guardianship of the parent (and therefore care) because the parent is responsible for creating the child and is therefore responsible for the helpless condition that the child is born with. It is not simply “need,” as “need” is not a claim on anything, by itself.

Creating a needy child is the natural consequences of choosing to carry a baby to term, but the simple fact of their neediness is not a direct consequence of that choice.

Yes, it is. Just because an outcome is a “natural consequence” of a choice does not absolve someone who chose to engage in that action of the responsibilities of that consequence.

Allow me to fill in the blanks of what you have said:

“Death is the natural consequences of choosing to point a gun at a man’s head and pull the trigger, but the simple fact of their death is not a direct consequence of that choice.”

No one can choose another's nature, it is ummm.. natural…

One can choose to NOT have the child.

it is about being held responsible for things that are out of your control, being held responsible for another's need, to things that their nature requires of them.

You are most certainly in control of your choice to have a child. If for example you were not in control of this choice (say someone stole your genetic material and created a test-tube child), then you would not be responsible for the consequences.

Would you then say that retarded grown ups have a right to monetary damages or a lifetime of care because their parent's created them retarded??

This was already answered in this thread!

Abnormal and unexpected consequences such as birth defects fall into a different category. It is precisely because helplessness is natural that it is the responsibility of the parent.

The rest of your argument is a straw man, and does not merit reply.

[IAmMetaphysical]

You keep making this assertion that child is entitled to gaurdianship, but give no support except that the parent's are the ones who caused the child's condition of being helpless. You are missing my point about causing. I do not mean to say that "direct" consequences of action are not the actor's responsibility. I am saying that the correlation between punitive damages, which is what your whole argument rests on, and the nature of an infant is invalid.

The way I am seeing your argument is this:

A-The parents choose to create a child, even if their intentions were not to do that. (Choosing not to abort is not choosing to create, the act of creation has happened. Choosing not to abort is choosing not to take action, it is not an action. Bringing a child to term is a natural process of the body. It is non-volitional, just as fertilization is.)

B-The child has to be created with a certain nature.

C-the parents are responsible for this nature.

D-this nature includes the inability to sustain itself.

E-the parents are responsible for sustaining it in it's stead.

I have contended to part A as you can see in the parentheses. I contend part C as well as I don't see how any human can be responsible for the nature of humans, it seems to me that evolution would be responsible for a human infant's helplessness. that is my point. You are saying (or am I misunderstanding you as saying) that the parents are at fault for the infant being unable to support itself, therefore it has a right, a claim on the life of the parents. You have not shown how the parent's are at fault for its helplessness, only that they caused it's existence with the knowledge of its helplessness beforehand. but this could also be stated as follows:

The parents cause the exisence of a child they know full to be in need of food for the rest of its life, therefore they are responsible for providing for this need for however long this being lives.

If I have mistated your position then clarify. Don't simply accuse me of attacking a straw man. You are the one making a positive assertion, the onus is on you to prove to me. You keep asserting that the parent's are responsible for the infant's helplessness, but I only see the parent's responsible for the infants existence. Nature is responsible for the infant's helplessness.

[softwareNerd]

I have two points to make:

1. This thread of over 350 posts and the abortion threads of similar length have explored the issue from every which way. I know it is tiring to read the entire thread, so members are tempted to just add their own twist on at the end. However, one reason why they may not get responses is because the point has already been argued earlier. For those new to the discussion: if this issue is of interest, take the time to read the thread.
   
2. I'd also like to remind everyone who is still in the discussion to keep it civil. A few posts have been excessively condescending. From what I know, most of those still standing are committed Objectivists. So, disagreement shouldn't be interpreted as someone being obstinate or purposely evasive. (As an aside: I cannot see how those who have been in the discussion since the start are going to come to an agreement if they've not been able to do so in the first 300 post. It might be time to simply clearly state the remaining points of difference, and agree to disagree; but, that's just a suggestion.)
   

[Inspector]

The way I am seeing your argument is this:

A-The parents choose to create a child, even if their intentions were not to do that. (Choosing not to abort is not choosing to create, the act of creation has happened. Choosing not to abort is choosing not to take action, it is not an action. Bringing a child to term is a natural process of the body. It is non-volitional, just as fertilization is.)

It does not matter if a particular process is volitional or not. When one pulls the trigger of a gun, one’s volition does not impact the ignition of the cartridge, nor of the movement of the bullet. These things are the inevitable consequence, however, of something that one does choose to do (i.e. pull the trigger).

Using your argument, you could claim that a man isn’t responsible for killing someone if he points a gun at him and pulls the trigger. After all, death from a gunshot wound is “a natural process of the body.”

I contend part C as well as I don't see how any human can be responsible for the nature of humans, it seems to me that evolution would be responsible for a human infant's helplessness.

He is not responsible for the nature of humans any more than the man pulling the trigger is responsible for the various laws of physics which mean that his bullet will kill a man.

But he is responsible for the consequences of his actions which are based on those laws of physics, just as a parent is responsible for the consequences of his actions vis a vis the facts of biology.

In other words: The man pulling the trigger needn’t have been responsible for the laws of physics in order to be responsible for killing the poor fellow that he pointed his gun at… And the parents who choose to become parents by birthing a child don’t have to be responsible for the laws of biology in order to be responsible for creating a helpless rational being.

You have not shown how the parent's are at fault for its helplessness, only that they caused it's existence with the knowledge of its helplessness beforehand.

Those two things are one in the same. To take an action, knowing that consequence “x” will result, is to be at fault for consequence “x.” (assuming some other volitional act is not a factor in consequence “x.”)

The parents cause the exisence of a child they know full to be in need of food for the rest of its life, therefore they are responsible for providing for this need for however long this being lives.

Your statement implicitly assumes that the nature of an adult man requires the support of others to live qua man. To show that this is false, I direct you to the Objectivist ethics.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Inspector

[IAmMetaphysical]

The comparison between shooting someone and creating someone does not hold. Creating someone is not an act toward someone, in order to act against someone they must exist prior to your action. Creating someone necessitates that they don;t exist before the action of creation. You are stealing the concept of "cause a condition". In order to be responsible for someone's condition, they must have existed in a prior condition. this is why a person is responsible for reparations when they injure someone and incapacitate them; they are responsible for returning the victim to as close a state as before the injury as possible.

You keep simply stating that the parents are responsible for feeding the child just because they created it with the inability to feed itself, but never give support for this, only invalid analogies to other situations that don't fit in this context. Your defense is that they "know" of its condition beforehand, and therefore are responsible for feeding it.

You must show how they are responsible for feeding the child.

You say since they made the child, and since the child is in a helpless state, then they are responsible for feeding it. This is not a valid argument.

Once again, I understand the natural consequences of actions and that shooting someone carries with it certain repercussions. What I am saying is that "being responsible for a child's care" is not a natural or causal consequence of birthing a helpless child. This is your assertion. It is your job to show us all that it is. I believe that thus far you have failed.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your position. If I am then please clarify as I am not engaged in this discussion to "win" an argument but to gain understanding. Objectivism is about using your mind to understand the world around you and your place in it. I do not mean to imply that my mind is not up to the task, but I find it much more productive to discuss issues with others in order to come to an understanding. To me, in certain situations, two minds are better than one, as another's perspective can be useful is testing your own ideas out. WHen I think in my mind, I always have little debates with myself, looking at the issue from all different perspectives. This is what i am trying to do with you, so please help me out. I will state what I believe is your argument, if it is inaccurate then please clarify.

Premise1- Parents choose to birth a child.

Premise2- the child is in a helpless state and won't survive unless provided for.

Premise3- the parents, being responsible for the child's existence, are also responsible for its condition.

Conclusion- the parents, being responsible for the condition of the child, are responsible for providing for it.

Is that it? Or am I missing something?

[IAmMetaphysical]

Softwarenerd: I have read the entire thread.

I can understand your point about not coming to an agreement in 300 posts, but I thought that if we are all thinking objectively then we should all be able to come to an agreement. It seems to me that if there is no chance of agreement then there is no chance of man understaing the world, isn't that in direct conflict with Objectivist epistemology?

it really despresses me if that really is the case. If we can't agree on existence then we can't know existence. I can't accept that.

[Inspector]

Premise1- Parents choose to birth a child.

Premise2- the child is in a helpless state and won't survive unless provided for.

Premise3- the parents, being responsible for the child's existence, are also responsible for its condition.

Conclusion- the parents, being responsible for the condition of the child, are responsible for providing for it.

Is that it? Or am I missing something?

There is a missing part of #3… One of the key reasons why they are responsible for the child’s condition is because they know in advance that the condition of helplessness will be a result. (This was enumerated quite well by RationalCop when someone asked if the parents were liable for a child having birth defects)

Other than that, it does appear that you have accurately shown the structure of my argument.

Think of it this way: if a scientist were to engineer some sort of horrible monster, knowing in advance that it would wreak havoc upon civilization, would he not be responsible for the destruction it causes? Would he not be responsible for the consequences of the nature of the thing he creates… and also therefore for the consequences of that nature (providing that he knows it in advance)?

If you simply think that #3 is a non-sequitur, and that people are not responsible for the conditions that result from their actions when they know full well that those conditions will occur… then you must have a different idea of responsibility than I do.

If this is simply that you are afraid of some kind of “slippery slope,” then I am positive that there is none.

[Marc K.]

You are stealing the concept of "cause a condition". In order to be responsible for someone's condition, they must have existed in a prior condition.

Are you saying that men and women having sex is not the cause of pregnancy??? This is simple biology.

You say since they made the child, and since the child is in a helpless state, then they are responsible for feeding it. This is not a valid argument.

The only thing individuals are responsible for are their freely chosen actions, this is the part you seem to be missing. If you choose to have sex, you know a child may result. If your choice is not to have a baby, then you should use birth control. If the birth control fails you are still responsible for having sex in the first place but there are still choices open to you, abortion or adoption. With all of these choices available to you if you choose to raise the child, then you are responsible to raise the child.

[hunterrose]

Thanks a lot, IAmMetaphysical, you've got me wasting time reading this post again

This thread of over 350 posts and the abortion threads of similar length have explored the issue from every which way.

I cannot see how those who have been in the discussion since the start are going to come to an agreement if they've not been able to do so in the first 300 post. It might be time to simply clearly state the remaining points of difference, and agree to disagree; but, that's just a suggestion.

It is quite long, but the argument is actually changing.

The pro-care argument has gone from

infants have rights to care via their nature as (infant) man, to

a mother chooses to be responsible for her child in "choosing" to bear the child, to

infants are entitled to some amount of parental care because of the mother's "choice" to bear the helpless child. That may be a simplication, but there has been progress (or at least movement ) in the topic's arguments.

Edited January 6, 2006 by hunterrose