Controversial Surgery

[BaseballGenius]

Yes, though some of them may need to be implemented through an adult on behalf of a contract, for example the right to make a contract.

Isnt that a violation of the childs rights if they need permission to make some decisions? That would also mean "mans rights" dont apply to all humans, because adults would have a right to choose any legal action they wished as opposed to the children needing permission.

[DavidOdden]

Isnt that a violation of the childs rights if they need permission to make some decisions? That would also mean "mans rights" dont apply to all humans, because adults would have a right to choose any legal action they wished as opposed to the children needing permission.

No, because they're not being restricted from making a decision, they are just being prevented from entering into a certain kind of relationship with others. The restriction is actually on you. What it concretely means is that if you make a contract with a child, the child may receive whatever goodies from you that he asks if you are nutty enough to give the goods away, and you cannot enforce your claim against his money or candy stash. The main issue (in any dealing between people) is establishing consent. The restriction is not on what the child may do, but on what you may do with respect to the child. Thus you may not bind a child in a contract, and you cannot have sex with a child, because the child cannot grasp the offer and its consequences, and you cannot satisfy a reasonable standard of proof to the effect that the child has consented. It's well known that uttering the word "Yes" does not actually constitute consenting, when it comes to dealing with children.

Here, I'm talking about children and not minors. The distinction lies in the problem of stating objective laws, so some minors are very adult and should be treated as such, and some adults are very child-like and should be treated as such. However, under the law, the presumption is that when you're 18, contracts are binding, even if you're an idiot (unless you are actually provably mentally incapacitated, not just dumber than wheat). I don't know any 8 year olds whose behavior can objectively be deemed "rational, informed consent" to a contract or a sex act. Thus such a contract is non-binding, and such a sex act is rape.

[DavidOdden]

1) All relationships are voluntary. A child chooses to live with his parents or run away - but if he chooses to live with his parents, he must accept whatever their terms are.

Which does not mean that those terms are unrestricted in nature, i.e. it can't be "Term 1: you must cut off a finger every month".

Raising a child you don't want to raise is self-sacrificial and altruistic; I don't see how any conception of parents having a duty to raise their children can be reconciled with Objectivism.

We need to insert the abortion thread in here somewhere. By not aborting the fetus and choosing to let it grown to fruition, the parents have made a commitment of some kind. From a moral point of view, the parents should therefore face reality, and deal with their evil spawn. If they did not know, with moral certainty, that they would be able to do what is necessary to be proper custodians of the rights of the child, they should have scraped it or used a condom to prevent conception in the first place. Thus I think that parents taking care of their children falls squarely in the territory "taking responsibility for your actions", which is a central concept of Objectivism. There might very rarely be extreme circumstances where you really are faced with "my life or his", but nothing that falls within the scope of "don't want to raise", that is, a loss of interest. So the parents should morally take responsibility for their actions.

The child doesn't have a right to things, like food, any more than a man does. So, to sum up, a child has surrendered the rights a man has (to his parents), and never had the rights that moochers claim.

I think that the right way to look at the issue is that the child has the rights of any human, and that the parents are the custodians of those rights. This primarily means that the parent may rightfully correct the bad judgment of their child, and if necessary enforce that correction. Adults have the right to act to their own end, and the judgment as to what that end is, is their own to make (as long as it doesn't involve violating another man's rights). A parent has the responsibility to make those judgments according to the interest of the child -- not the interest of the adult, but the interest of the child. So the parent's right to act for their own sake is different, and broader, than the parent's right to act for their child's sake. The parents also have the responsibility to feed and shelter the child while he is incapable of doing so for himself. It's dubious whether a person can actually surrender their rights, and for ordinary (non-criminal) people, you don't surrender a right when you enter into a contract, you gain a right (to an object, for example) under the condition that you perform an act (paint a fence, for example).

2) Under the same line of reasoning, the government has no responsibility to care for children who are abandoned, etc, just as it has no responsibility to care for a jobless 50-year-old.

That's correct. It is therefore possible that an irresponsible parent will shirk their responsibility to take care of the child, perhaps because they just feel bored and don't want to deal with the consequences of their earlier unprotected sex act. It's another matter, and not a trivial one IMO, to what extent the government should compel parents to care for their offspring. Fortunately, there are private charities who will take up the slack.

[BaseballGenius]

The main issue (in any dealing between people) is establishing consent. The restriction is not on what the child may do, but on what you may do with respect to the child. Thus you may not bind a child in a contract, and you cannot have sex with a child, because the child cannot grasp the offer and its consequences, and you cannot satisfy a reasonable standard of proof to the effect that the child has consented. It's well known that uttering the word "Yes" does not actually constitute consenting, when it comes to dealing with children.

Since its impossible for the child to understand the situation enough to give consent, and without consent the other party involved in the contract or relationship of this kind would be violating the childs rights. Is that what you mean? What about two unconsenting people having sex with each other? Do they both get charged for rape, even without a consenter involved?

The distinction lies in the problem of stating objective laws, so some minors are very adult and should be treated as such, and some adults are very child-like and should be treated as such.

Whats your proposal on how the courts should handle such cases of consent? For instance with people under the age of 18 who have sex with adults. Should the court judge by each individual case or do you like the current law that says you must be 18 or older?

[JMeganSnow]

If you want to go into the issue of sexual consent (or contractual consent) for minors, Baseball Genius, start a new thread, that's getting way too far from the topic, which is whether parents have the right to make decisions about life-altering surgery for their incapacitated young.

[BaseballGenius]

If you want to go into the issue of sexual consent (or contractual consent) for minors, Baseball Genius, start a new thread, that's getting way too far from the topic, which is whether parents have the right to make decisions about life-altering surgery for their incapacitated young.

It does deal with the thread. Im talking about rights of children and mentally handicapped, which is exactly what the thread is about. Im hitting it at the base level.

[DavidOdden]

Since its impossible for the child to understand the situation enough to give consent, and without consent the other party involved in the contract or relationship of this kind would be violating the childs rights. Is that what you mean?

No, this is not what I mean. There is something that the cases have in common, but it's not reflected in that conflation. The first is that sexual intercourse without consent is rape, and a child cannot give consent. Thus sex with a child violates the child's rights. The second is that a contract does not exist without consent, which the child cannot give. Therefore it is impossible to violate the rights of a child with a contract (because there is no such thing).

Whats your proposal on how the courts should handle such cases of consent?

Pretty much the way it is, with minor modifications. Check your local sex law, and they will probably show how sex with minors should be handled. I would favor 16 as the standard age for contracts and financial responsibility, or at least require parental liability. But if a moron is literally incapable of grasping the concept "obligation", that's already covered by contract law (and there are laws about sex with morons). In the same way, that child was incapable of making a choice, of exercising her own judgment, so the custodians of her rights acted on her behalf.