Abortion

[JMeganSnow]

By "normatively", I mean "ideally". 

Normative does not mean IDEAL, it means STANDARD, or establishing a STANDARD.

[JMeganSnow]

Is it gross obscenity to say a parent should decide certain things for a child? If sex and abortions should be an exception, make the case. If 17 year olds should be allowed to decide more than 13 year old I agree.

It is a gross obscenity to state that the law should dictate what parents should decide for their children, rather than letting the inviduals involved exercise their rights. Sex and all the derivatives of sex are something that NO ONE can decide for someone else. If a child has enough of a right to her body to have sex volitionally, then she should have enough of a right to decide whether to have an abortion or not, and to come to some kind of arrangement over how the child is going to be supported.

Given, that brings up the issue of statutory rape, and the fact that sex is considered legally non-volitional before a certain age. Is this a valid legal position? By the time I was capable of pregnancy I was certainly capable of deciding whether I wanted to have sex or not, and I understood what the results could be if I did.

I will continue my proposal that parenting methods (esp. irrationality on the part of the parents) are what leads to these situations in the first place.

In every discussion on abortion that I've ever seen children are viewed as some kind of enormous dragging weight of responsiblity, when, in fact, children are and should be considered a VALUE by anyone that wishes to have them.

As for it being "unworkable" or "immoral" or "contradictory" for parents to help a minor child take care of her child, let's consider another example; is it "unworkable", "immoral" or "contradictory" for parents to help support an ADULT child while that child is going to college? Of course not. Provided no one holds a gun to their head. The same principle is at work regarding a minor having a child, which is why there can not, in morality, be a law mandating a certain approach or lack of one.

Legality is only really an issue in this situation (as in others) when one of the parties attempts to use force to decide the issue. The parents are properly at a DISadvantage, because they have legal and moral obligations to provide for their minor children and take responsibility for the ACTIONS of their minor children, while not always being at liberty to DICTATE those actions. It's part of being a parent. If you don't like the responsibility, too damn bad. It's an obligation you took on voluntarily.

[TomL]

Normative does not mean IDEAL, it means STANDARD, or establishing a STANDARD.

Is there some standard we should be concerned about, other than the ideal one?

[TomL]

By the time I was capable of pregnancy I was certainly capable of deciding whether I wanted to have sex or not, and I understood what the results could be if I did.

I don't think so. You could not have understood all the results of that particular action over the course of your life at that age. There are results beyond "getting pregnant and having a baby" -- namely, the limitation of choices available to you later in life. Having a baby young will limit your educational options, your career options, and have a direct impact on the entire course of the rest of your life.

Were you fully aware of the scale of impact that having a baby would have when were first biologically able to get pregnant at 13/14ish? I don't see how that's possible.

[JMeganSnow]

I certainly was, TomL, I was taking care of my baby brothers by the time I was 10. I understood how pregnancy worked when I was 8.

I know 20 year old women that don't appreciate the scale/magnitude of the decision to get pregnant, or to get pregnant over and over. Everyone is different, and imagining that there is a one-size-fits-all legal solution is deluding yourself.

[plaintext]

Everyone is different, and imagining that there is a one-size-fits-all legal solution is deluding yourself.

It is true that people mature at different times. As I understand it, the law allows a judge to pronounce a "child" between 14 and 18 as being a legal adult.

[Bryan]

Is it gross obscenity to say a parent should decide certain things for a child? If sex and abortions should be an exception, make the case. If 17 year olds should be allowed to decide more than 13 year old I agree.

IMO, the objectively appropriate age for someone to decide whether or not to have an abortion is the same the legal age of consent. If 16 year olds can legally have sex, they can legally decide to abort a pregnancy.

[JMeganSnow]

It is true that people mature at different times. As I understand it, the law allows a judge to pronounce a "child" between 14 and 18 as being a legal adult.

I understand this fact. However, I don't think it is absolutely necessary to do this unless there is no way for the parents/child to come to an equitable solution on their own. (I.e. that this is a civil matter, not a criminal one.) This law exists, IIRC, to protect the rights of children in general in a number of situations, so it quite handily stretches to cover pregnant minors.

[TomL]

I certainly was, TomL, I was taking care of my baby brothers by the time I was 10.  I understood how pregnancy worked when I was 8.

Thanks for proving my point.

This goes to way more than knowing what it takes to take care of a baby or how pregnancy works. What I'm talking about is that a 10 year old, or 14 year old, or even an 18 year old generally has no friggin' clue how long a lifetime is, or what they plan to do with it. The proper context in which one should plan to have a baby is against all the other values one hopes to gain/keep over the course of one's entire life. How many 10/14/18 year-olds have you ever heard of that knew what their purpose in life was, had their priorities in order, their lives planned out, and were financially responsible enough to be prepared for that kind of commitment?

It is immoral to make a decision based on emotion, and in the lack of a proper context, that's the only means available to you.

[JMeganSnow]

I know 30-year-olds that don't understand how long a "lifetime" is, and still haven't decided what they're "going to do when they grow up". Tell me, what statements have I made based on emotions? Is it or is it not valid that no one can make these kinds of decisions for someone else?

Your stance is that it is PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE for the government to break tup families, consign people to surgical procedures, interfere in the personal and sex lives of individuals, forbid this, promote that, and generally assume the role of a dictator because people "should" behave a certain way.

Balderdash. There are already solutions in place for if the situation becomes completely untenable. It is the worst kind of presumptuousness to assume that the situation [of a minor becoming pregnant] is AUTOMATICALLY untenable. This is the attitude of congenital social workers, not rational men.

[TomL]

I know 30-year-olds that don't understand how long a "lifetime" is, and still haven't decided what they're "going to do when they grow up".

That doesn't alter the fact that a 10-18 year-old can't know. A 30 year-old could know.

Your stance is that it is PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE for the government to...

I never said the government should be entitled to do any such things. I said that a child should submit to the will of his parents on such an issue, because she cannot have the proper context in which to make a proper decision. Where in my statements have I said anything about the government?

It is the worst kind of presumptuousness to assume that the situation [of a minor becoming pregnant] is AUTOMATICALLY untenable.  This is the attitude of congenital social workers, not rational men.

It is the worst kind of presumptuousness to equivocate "rationality" with "agnosticism". Of course a rational man who has the facts and context available to him should draw a conclusion and stand by it.

There is no way a 10-18 year-old can rationally decide to have children.

It is untenable for the parents to be in a situation where they are obligated to raise both their children and grandchildren. The only way the "kids having kids" these days get away with it is out of society's altruistic demands on the parents.

In Washington state recently I had heard there was a bill that would make it illegal for parents to search the bedroom's of their children. They still have to pay for the rooms, of course, they just can't go in. Ugh. I don't know what the status of the bill is today.

Edited March 24, 2005 by TomL

[Bryan]

There is no way a 10-18 year-old can rationally decide to have children. 

This is simply not true. While it's true that most minors can not, there are some minors who can rationally decide to have children.

Based on your ideas, who has the final say on whether or not a pregnant 17 year old has an abortion? What happens if the girl and the parents are in disagreement?

edit: grammar

Edited March 24, 2005 by Bryan

[TomL]

This is simply not true.  While it's true that most minors can not, there are some minors who can rationally decide to have children.

Tell me what facts and context you think are necessary in order for a person -- any person -- to make a rational decision about having children, and I'll tell you the pieces you're missing.

Based on your ideas, who has the final say on whether or not a pregnant 17 year old has an abortion?  What happens if the girl and the parents are in disagreement?

The parents have the final say if the child is to remain legally a child. If the child wants to have the child anway, then the parents should be under no futher legal obligation to the 17 year-old -- that is, the courts should immediately emancipate the minor in order to protect the parents.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you are responsible and financially capable enough to be a parent, then you no longer require parents of your own to provide for your own survival. It is ludicrous to both teach and be a student of the same subject at the same time, or to be a captain and a sailor at the same time.

Edited March 24, 2005 by TomL

[JMeganSnow]

That doesn't alter the fact that a 10-18 year-old can't know.  A 30 year-old could know.

Bull. My personal evaluation of pregnancy when I was ELEVEN YEARS OLD was that it was a completely insupportable burden for ANYONE, and that I was NEVER going to have children. In recent years, with a re-evaluation of my personal capabilities, I've come to realize that it's not impossible, merely difficult. Also, do not generalize to female minors from males; females develop (in general) more rapidly than males do. A 18-year-old MALE may be fundamentally "incapable" of dealing with the idea of having children, but an 18-year-old FEMALE certainly is not.

When considering my declaration of my mental capabilities when I was 11 it MIGHT help you to realize that I've been physically an FULL GROWN ADULT since I was 11. Truly. Had you even HIT your growth spurt at that point? I was FINISHED growing. I have not grown so much as an inch since then. My mental faculties were developed; the only difference between then and now is that I have a greater bredth of INFORMATION now. I was better-educated and better-informed than many COLLEGE students when I was 11.

It is untenable for the parents to be in a situation where they are obligated to raise both their children and grandchildren.  The only way the "kids having kids" these days get away with it is out of society's altruistic demands on the parents.

In Washington state recently I had heard there was a bill that would make it illegal for parents to search the bedroom's of their children.  They still have to pay for the rooms, of course, they just can't go in.  Ugh.  I don't know what the status of the bill is today.

OBLIGATIONS are properly things that are undertaken VOLUNTARILY. I have said OVER AND OVER that it is a give-and-take exchange for the parents to work out with their children, resorting to such things as legal emancipation ONLY IF they are not able to come to an agreement. YOUR stance is that there is no give-and-take; the child has zero say and the parents have ALL the say. THAT is untenable, and impracticable until and UNLESS the government is prepared to step in and FORCE the child to adhere to their parents' will. THAT is why your stance is immoral.

To use your own example; parents certainly can go through their children's belongings. Are they then legally entitled to perform a forced cavity-search on their children whenever they deem it necessary? Force-feed them emetics so they can examine their stomach contents?

See the difference?

[Bryan]

Tell me what facts and context you think are necessary in order for a person -- any person -- to make a rational decision about having children, and I'll tell you the pieces you're missing.

Regardless of the necessary facts and context, it incorrect to say that ALL minors are incapable of making the decision. And how can you possibly imply that I'm not capable of making the decision?

The parents have the final say if the child is to remain legally a child.  If the child wants to have the child anway, then the parents should be under no futher legal obligation to the 17 year-old -- that is, the courts should immediately emancipate the minor in order to protect the parents. 

This seems reasonable, I just wanted to nail you down on a position .

[JMeganSnow]

The parents have the final say if the child is to remain legally a child.  If the child wants to have the child anway, then the parents should be under no futher legal obligation to the 17 year-old -- that is, the courts should immediately emancipate the minor in order to protect the parents. 

No, the parents and the child should go to the COURTS and say, "we can't come to a mutually satisfactory agreement, we need legal separation." It's not for the courts to intervene in the family, it's for the family to seek a legal solution.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.  If you are responsible and financially capable enough to be a parent, then you no longer require parents of your own to provide for your own survival.  It is ludicrous to both teach and be a student of the same subject at the same time, or to be a captain and a sailor at the same time.

That's funny, I remember quite frequently taking classes in college that were taught by Teaching Assistants . . . people who were STUDENTS of the subject they were teaching. They knew more than I did, though, so they were more than competant to teach ME the basics. A 17-year-old may not be able to be a parent to a 17-year old, but by the time their child is 17 they'll be 34, so it's a non-issue. A 17-year old is certainly competant to change diapers and assist in the development of basic motor and mental skills.

One of the best ways to demonstrate that you've really learned something (and to concretize and integrate it fully) is to teach it to someone else.

The "captain and sailor" analogy doesn't add up; a family isn't an organization that requires a clear chain of command, etc. It is a dynamic association towards specific goals. And, you can be the captain and sailor at the same time . . . on a 1-person boat.

[TomL]

Regardless of the necessary facts and context, it incorrect to say that ALL minors are incapable of making the decision.  And how can you possibly imply that I'm not capable of making the decision?

You cannot make an assertion and then ditch the necessary facts and context which lead to that conclusion. I have listed what I think a person needs to have in order to make that decision. Are you saying that a person does not need to have a plan for their lives in order to make the decision to have children? Are you saying that a person does not need to have the context of a lifetime in mind? Are you saying that the person does not need to have a career, the self-esteem that can only come from one, and demonstrated financial responsibility and stability, in order to guarantee the future well-being of their children?

In the abscence of any of these being affirmative, the decision is not rational, but rationalistic.

[TomL]

No, the parents and the child should go to the COURTS and say, "we can't come to a mutually satisfactory agreement, we need legal separation."  It's not for the courts to intervene in the family, it's for the family to seek a legal solution.

I agree. The courts shoud not get involved unless requested; I did not mean to imply that they should. But any court so requested should not have any grounds whatsoever to deny emancipation.

I submit that classes taught by teaching assistants are less than they should be. Any example utilizing the way things currently are in our society cannot be used as an argument for the way they ought to be.

One does not hand a student surgeon a knife and say "start cutting, we'll let you know after you've killed the patient what you did wrong." There is context to be considered in the student/teacher analogy, context you are blissfully dropping. Some things cannot be undone, and one of them is the time a child spends straightening himself out when his parents screw him up-- if he ever volitionally chooses to do so. Most don't. Raising a child prepares it for its life as a human being -- failure means, metaphysically, the death of the child qua man.

The "captain and sailor" analogy doesn't add up; a family isn't an organization that requires a clear chain of command, etc.

I would suggest that in general, currently a family is not such an organization. I am suggesting that in general it should be. But not in the sense that the parents are dogmatic dictators -- the child should be shown how the parents have more knowledge, a greater context, and thus are more qualified to make certain life-altering decisions. The child should choose to defer to the parents, and this is properly part of the challenge of being a parent -- something else that the child wanting to have a child doesn't have any inkling of.

Edited March 24, 2005 by TomL

[plaintext]

I don't think it is absolutely necessary to do this unless there is no way for the parents/child to come to an equitable solution on their own.  (I.e. that this is a civil matter, not a criminal one.) 

I agree. If the parents and child agree then the case would never be in court. Did someone contend otherwise?

[JMeganSnow]

I submit that classes taught by teaching assistants are less than they should be.  Any example utilizing the way things currently are in our society cannot be used as an argument for the way they ought to be. 

By what standard? And, you are misusing the term "should"; the PROPER term the way you are using it is "could". Given unlimited funds, an unlimited supply of professors, etc. Then, yes. Classes taught by TA's are less than they COULD be. Do those situations obtain? No. There is a finite supply of professors and every college has a finite budget. You offer the best services you can given the resources you are able to obtain. The class states clearly that it is taught by a TA. If you don't like it, go to a different university. If the class were truly less than it SHOULD be it would lose accreditation.

Same deal with families. Sure, given unlimited funds, unlimited amounts of time, and a perfect knowledge of parenting in all its respects (heck, why not include the ability to fortell the future, since we're speaking of theoretical impossibilities?) modern families (or ANY FAMILY under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES) are less than they COULD be.

The context that needs to be addressed here is not some theoretical perfect ideal, but the ACTUAL lives of ACTUAL men.

One does not hand a student surgeon a knife and say "start cutting, we'll let you know after you've killed the patient what you did wrong."  There is context to be considered in the student/teacher analogy, context you are blissfully dropping.  Some things cannot be undone, and one of them is the time a child spends straightening himself out when his parents screw him up-- if he ever volitionally chooses to do so.  Most don't.  Raising a child prepares it for its life as a human being -- failure means, metaphysically, the death of the child qua man.

So, any mistake and you've screwed your kids up completely? Not a chance. Everyone ultimately determines their OWN character. My parents put me through a WRINGER in many respects and I'm not "dead". I like it how your BASE ASSUMPTION is that young parent = abusive and destructive, as though youth is some sort of horrible mental neurosis.

I would suggest that in general, currently a family is not such an organization.  I am suggesting that in general it should be.

Reason save us from any such eventuality! I can't imagine a more thorough way to kill any vestige of rationality reaching kids today than the installation of an absolute legal patriarch in the family. It's been done.

[Bryan]

You cannot make an assertion and then ditch the necessary facts and context which lead to that conclusion.  I have listed what I think a person needs to have in order to make that decision.  Are you saying that a person does not need to have a plan for their lives in order to make the decision to have children?  Are you saying that a person does not need to have the context of a lifetime in mind?  Are you saying that the person does not need to have a career, the self-esteem that can only come from one, and demonstrated financial responsibility and stability, in order to guarantee the future well-being of their children?

In the abscence of any of these being affirmative, the decision is not rational, but rationalistic.

I did not make the assertion, you did. You asserted that "[t]here is no way a 10-18 year-old can rationally decide to have children," but have not provided any evidence to why this is true. You are presupposing that all of the requirements that you have listed above could not be satisfied by a minor. I am simply saying that some minors could satify them.

[TomL]

The context that needs to be addressed here is not some theoretical perfect ideal, but the ACTUAL lives of ACTUAL men.

Funny how this keeps coming up in threads I'm involved in. Please see Chapter 9 of OPAR, the section titled "Virtue as Practical", keeping in mind this statement you have made and why you made it. You are suffering from the practical/ideal false dichotomy.

A proper classroom taught by experts in the subject is not the same thing as a perpetual motion machine i.e. impossible. There are experts in a given field, and they could teach. Thus, it is possible, and therefore is the way classes ought to be taught. Similiarly, children should be raised by people who are experts in living as men. There are such people, and they could have children, so that is the way it ought to be done (if they choose to do so). Anything less is a compromise and a rejection of possible virtue -- and not the kind that exists only in fantasy land. The kind that really, actually, could be.

[TomL]

I am simply saying that some minors could satify them.

Yes, but you are not saying how that can possibly be. How can a minor have a plan for their entire life? How can a minor have a well-defined philosophy that will properly guide their decisions, and lead their children throughe example? How can a minor have an established career, self-esteem from success in their career --needed to demonstrate living as man qua man first-handedly-- and financial stability to guarantee provision for a child for ~18 years? All of these things are necessary if one is to rationally decide to have children.

I don't see how anyone of that age can possibly have all of those things. Careers and self-esteem take time to develop, time that a person of that age has not had available to them. Or are you proposing that its morally acceptable to be a hypocrite and tell's one child "do as I say, not as I do -- get a career and self-esteem?" Why wouldn't a child ask "you didn't do that -- why should I?"

Yes, I realize is possible to do both at the same time. But that is very risky If your career fails, or you have to make choices that limit your career because you have a child, then what? What are you then teaching your child?

[Bryan]

Yes, but you are not saying how that can possibly be.  How can a minor have a plan for their entire life?  How can a minor have a well-defined philosophy that will properly guide their decisions, and lead their children throughe example?  How can a minor have an established career, self-esteem from success in their career --needed to demonstrate living as man qua man first-handedly-- and financial stability to guarantee provision for a child for ~18 years?  All of these things are necessary if one is to rationally decide to have children. 

For a blanket statement like no minor can rationally decide to have children, it must be true for all cases, not just the general case. I would agree with you that, in general, minors are not capable of making proper decisions on things that will affect the rest of their lives.

Let's pretend a 17-year-old girl is married to a 21-year-old guy. The 21-year-old already has a successful career and the 17 year old is planning on staying home and raising the children. They have both been studying Objectivism since they were children and already have proper philosophies to guide their lives. Why can't she make the rational decision to have a kid?

[JMeganSnow]

A proper classroom taught by experts in the subject is not the same thing as a perpetual motion machine i.e. impossible.  There are experts in a given field, and they could teach.  Thus, it is possible, and therefore is the way classes ought to be taught.  Similiarly, children should be raised by people who are experts in living as men.  There are such people, and they could have children, so that is the way it ought to be done (if they choose to do so).  Anything less is a compromise and a rejection of possible virtue -- and not the kind that exists only in fantasy land.  The kind that really, actually, could be.

So, only Objectivists SHOULD have children? Gah, shoot me now.

Men COULD genetically purify themselves and eliminate inheritable diseases such as hemophilia. Heck, we could probably engage in a thorough eugenics program and eliminate such things as CROOKED TEETH. Let's sterilize everyone with bad genes, and have a scientifically calculated breeding program, where we eliminate the "culls". Problem solved.

After all, since men COULD be genetically "perfect" they SHOULD be genetically "perfect", right?

You are taking Dr. Peikoff's statement that virtues are achievable in the real world out of context. The context is that something that is NOT achievable is not a virtue, (i.e. the unreal "virtues" of altruism) not that EVERYTHING that isn't PERFECT is a VICE.

A man who, lacking any particular intelligence or capability, manages to raise six healthy children in a five-room house and set them out on their own to stand on their own two feet, has made a TREMENDOUS moral achievement. Minor errors don't destroy achievements. Achievements erase and wipe out errors.