When There Is No Good Choice

[TastyWheat]

I would provide a link but I couldn't find an online version of this article. It comes from the June 2008 issue of Self magazine. Basically, it mentions a few stories (real ones I assume) of pregnant women being forced to choose between an abortion and having a stillborn infant. These cases are extremely rare I'm sure, but it's not inconceivable to think that an unborn child could die painfully in the womb or shortly after birth.

In my opinion it's more of a euthanasia debate than an abortion debate, but should pro-life legislation allow for exceptions like this?

[wild03]

I would provide a link but I couldn't find an online version of this article. It comes from the June 2008 issue of Self magazine. Basically, it mentions a few stories (real ones I assume) of pregnant women being forced to choose between an abortion and having a stillborn infant. These cases are extremely rare I'm sure, but it's not inconceivable to think that an unborn child could die painfully in the womb or shortly after birth.

In my opinion it's more of a euthanasia debate than an abortion debate, but should pro-life legislation allow for exceptions like this?

Nah, Since there shouldn't be any pro-life legislation at all.

[therealjjj77]

I would provide a link but I couldn't find an online version of this article. It comes from the June 2008 issue of Self magazine. Basically, it mentions a few stories (real ones I assume) of pregnant women being forced to choose between an abortion and having a stillborn infant. These cases are extremely rare I'm sure, but it's not inconceivable to think that an unborn child could die painfully in the womb or shortly after birth.

In my opinion it's more of a euthanasia debate than an abortion debate, but should pro-life legislation allow for exceptions like this?

It's really hard to answer your question with some blanket statement.

The Constitution says, "establish Justice... to ourselves and our Posterity,".

From the government's standpoint, the question really should come down to whether or not Justice needs to be served. Was there murder of a life(that falls under the classes of "ourselves and our Posterity")? The intent of the murder is irrelevant. "our Posterity" would be any living thing(male/female/other) that has a hereditary link to "ourselves". Life is defined as any single celled or multicellular organism with DNA(Viruses are not life but bacteria is). At the point of conception, these elements are both true.

So from these facts, does your case represent murder or not?

[wild03]

It's really hard to answer your question with some blanket statement.

The Constitution says, "establish Justice... to ourselves and our Posterity,".

From the government's standpoint, the question really should come down to whether or not Justice needs to be served. Was there murder of a life(that falls under the classes of "ourselves and our Posterity")? The intent of the murder is irrelevant. "our Posterity" would be any living thing(male/female/other) that has a hereditary link to "ourselves". Life is defined as any single celled or multicellular organism with DNA(Viruses are not life but bacteria is). At the point of conception, these elements are both true.

So from these facts, does your case represent murder or not?

An individual that is dependent on another as a parasite cannot claim any rights. This can be viewed as an issue of property rights. The mother has property rights over her body and has the right to evict.
If you invite a person into your home and after a while you decide to kick them out, Should you not have the right to do so even if they claim that their life is in danger outside?

[pinkmandy]

But Wild, can an unborn baby claim anything at all? They have no voice.

That aside, I agree that this is a euthanasia issue.

[TurtleBurger]

If you invite a person into your home and after a while you decide to kick them out, Should you not have the right to do so even if they claim that their life is in danger outside?

Not if that person is your (biological or adopted) child. If you decide to evict your 3-year-old from your home without making arrangements for her care, you are rightfully guilty of criminal child neglect.

[WRellim]

Nah, Since there shouldn't be any pro-life legislation at all.

So anyone should be able to simply murder anyone they don't like or want around ...and that would be perfectly OK with you?

That is the essence of what you just said.

[therealjjj77]

An individual that is dependent on another as a parasite cannot claim any rights. This can be viewed as an issue of property rights. The mother has property rights over her body and has the right to evict.
If you invite a person into your home and after a while you decide to kick them out, Should you not have the right to do so even if they claim that their life is in danger outside?

I'll tell that to your doctor when he pulls your IV from you right after a major surgery and you die.

I mean you were on the hospitals property.

Someone being on someone else's property does not give them the right to kill. And the amount of cells is irrelevant, it is a unique human organism.

Also, to make the comparison of a parasite and a baby is like me making a comparison to teens and bacteria and my right to disinfect my house by killing them. That's not going to fly in court. Posterity is posterity and deserves justice.

[Truth Warrior]

Good choice?

Abortion issue solution: Prevent unwanted pregnancies! It's merely THE responsible thing to do.

[wild03]

So anyone should be able to simply murder anyone they don't like or want around ...and that would be perfectly OK with you?

That is the essence of what you just said.

WHAT!?! when did I said that? You should be able to do as you please as long as you do not step over another individual's rights.

[wild03]

I'll tell that to your doctor when he pulls your IV from you right after a major surgery and you die.

I mean you were on the hospitals property.

Someone being on someone else's property does not give them the right to kill. And the amount of cells is irrelevant, it is a unique human organism.

Also, to make the comparison of a parasite and a baby is like me making a comparison to teens and bacteria and my right to disinfect my house by killing them. That's not going to fly in court. Posterity is posterity and deserves justice.

Ha! good one, Let's assume that the so called doctor owns the hospital,

The doctor and patient/relatives would have a contract for the hospital to provide the care. The IV would have been paid for and therefore be the patient's property. This would be murder and a breach of contract (no different than pulling someone's heart out). The doctor could however refuse further care and pay the penalties for breaking the contract. I would then be moved to another hospital.

I'm not talking about the right to kill, Just the right to evict. Yes for a fetus this is fatal, but this is for the mother to live with.

I'm not saying it is the moral thing to do, Just that the MOTHER, OWNER OF HER BODY! is the only one that can decide. Society has no business telling her what to do.

Give society a finger, and you'll loose your whole hand.

[therealjjj77]

Ha! good one, Let's assume that the so called doctor owns the hospital,

The doctor and patient/relatives would have a contract for the hospital to provide the care. The IV would have been paid for and therefore be the patient's property. This would be murder and a breach of contract (no different than pulling someone's heart out). The doctor could however refuse further care and pay the penalties for breaking the contract. I would then be moved to another hospital.

I'm not talking about the right to kill, Just the right to evict. Yes for a fetus this is fatal, but this is for the mother to live with.

I'm not saying it is the moral thing to do, Just that the MOTHER, OWNER OF HER BODY! is the only one that can decide. Society has no business telling her what to do.

Give society a finger, and you'll loose your whole hand.

So I can evict my 8 month old child? Wow...



...but this is for the mother to live with.
Yeah, she gets to live while the innocent dies.

[Mini-Me]

Ha! good one, Let's assume that the so called doctor owns the hospital,

The doctor and patient/relatives would have a contract for the hospital to provide the care. The IV would have been paid for and therefore be the patient's property. This would be murder and a breach of contract (no different than pulling someone's heart out). The doctor could however refuse further care and pay the penalties for breaking the contract. I would then be moved to another hospital.

I'm not talking about the right to kill, Just the right to evict. Yes for a fetus this is fatal, but this is for the mother to live with.

I'm not saying it is the moral thing to do, Just that the MOTHER, OWNER OF HER BODY! is the only one that can decide. Society has no business telling her what to do.

Give society a finger, and you'll loose your whole hand.

You may evict a guest from your household, but you may not chop them into itty bitty pieces first before evicting them. If the mother merely "evicted" the baby, that would be considering giving birth, not aborting.

Plus, newborn infants out of the womb and children of any age are also dependent upon parents - do you believe that parents should be permitted to evict them as well, at any time, for any reason?

Regardless of your abortion stance, your arguments are flawed when you take them to their natural conclusion.

[wild03]

You may evict a guest from your household, but you may not chop them into itty bitty pieces first before evicting them. If the mother merely "evicted" the baby, that would be considering giving birth, not aborting.

Plus, newborn infants out of the womb and children of any age are also dependent upon parents - do you believe that parents should be permitted to evict them as well, at any time, for any reason?

Regardless of your abortion stance, your arguments are flawed when you take them to their natural conclusion.

I'm talking of evicting at any stage of pregnancy. What difference does it make to the fetus if the is taken out in pieces or taken out whole?
Maybe in the future, technology might make it possible for these fetuses to survive outside the mother and be adopted by people that want them.

Yes I agree on parents having the right to evict their children as well. It is called "giving them up for adoption"

Please point me to this so called flaws. I wouldn't call this "my argument" either, I'm just pointing out the rational conclusion of believing on the right of the individual to life and property. You can arrive at these conclusions following rational arguments. And many libertarians have argued this same point. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you surrender some rights to society expect not to be able to claim them in the future. Allow society to say what is best for your children and you'll have them taken away when society thinks you are not doing a good job as a parent.

[Mini-Me]

I'm talking of evicting at any stage of pregnancy. What difference does it make to the fetus if the is taken out in pieces or taken out whole?


Because "evicting" does not encompass the act of killing and then mutilating whatever you're evicting? When you evict someone from your home, does it make a difference if you evict them or cut them into pieces first and then evict them? Yes, it does - if you evict them first, then maybe they'll survive, maybe they won't (depending on how capable they are of surviving outside of your home). If you chop them into pieces first, you're deliberately killing them, and THEN evicting them.

Regardless of your view on whether a fetus is a "live human baby," it's still technically a living thing by any definition of the term, and deliberately killing it before evicting it constitutes a completely separate act. Therefore, cutting it into pieces first definitely makes a big difference.



Maybe in the future, technology might make it possible for these fetuses to survive outside the mother and be adopted by people that want them.


Indeed. In fact, technology aside, many aborted fetuses can survive outside the mother today. If nothing else, consider partial birth abortions - the abortionist kills the baby as it's being birthed, because that's a way of avoiding having to directly face the unpleasant fact that it really would survive if not outright killed. It's an absurd way to rely on semantics to avoid the responsibility of actually giving the viable baby up for adoption.



Yes I agree on parents having the right to evict their children as well. It is called "giving them up for adoption"


Giving children up for adoption is a very different process from kicking them out on the curb or throwing them into a garbage can without warning (unceremoniously evicting). Can you not see the difference?



Please point me to this so called flaws. I wouldn't call this "my argument" either, I'm just pointing out the rational conclusion of believing on the right of the individual to life and property. You can arrive at these conclusions following rational arguments. And many libertarians have argued this same point.

Your argument (or whatever you want to call it) presupposes that the fetus is property, rather than an individual with rights. It rests entirely upon the unproven assumption that physical dependence implies status as property and lack of individual rights. However, consider: What if you're wrong in this assumption? In that case, the argument completely changes around. When it really comes down to it, this is the primary difference of opinion that the whole abortion debate rests upon.

Furthermore, with the issue debatable, is it not safer to err on the side that the fetus does in fact have individual rights that should not be infringed? After all, consider the following scenario. It's contrived, but it gets the point across: Suppose someone places a very heavy black box on your property that you can't remove yourself (heck, it was probably you AND another person, but let's assume it was completely NOT your fault). It will take nine months for someone to remove it for you, and the cost will be enormous - you're going to be making payments for 18 years on it (which you actually wouldn't have to do if you gave a baby up for adoption, but I digress). However, you have another option. You have a bazooka, and if you blow the box up, you won't have to keep it on your property for nine months, and you won't have to pay for 18 years. However, you're told that there might be a living child inside (and he actually enjoys being in there, etc., and will eventually come out in nine months). You can't see inside, and you can't hear inside. There's really no way for you to tell for sure whether or not a living human child is inside the box. Is it acceptable for you to blow it up with a bazooka to get it off your property and avoid the ambition-crushing inconvenience of payments?

I'm hoping you would say no. In this case, if it turned out there really was a child inside, you'd be charged with manslaughter, and rightly so (ignoring the fact that the other person would be charged with kidnapping, trespassing, etc. - as I said, the analogy is contrived and unrealistic). Obviously, in the abortion scenario, there's no way to concretely determine after the fact whether or not it was really a living human child. The question is always up in the air.

The point is...if we can't agree on whether the fetus is a living human baby with rights or merely a blob of property, isn't it safer to err on the side of protecting its right to life over protecting the mother's right to property? In terms of order of importance, there seems to be no contest.



You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you surrender some rights to society expect not to be able to claim them in the future. Allow society to say what is best for your children and you'll have them taken away when society thinks you are not doing a good job as a parent.


Sorry, but I'm not making the connection here. There's a difference between allowing society to control your parenting practices and allowing society to protect the rights of your children from direct infringement by others (the same way it protects your own rights from direct infringement by others). For example, if you throw your three year old into a wood chipper, you can and should be tried for murder just as if anyone else threw your three year old into a wood chipper.

Were you trying to equate parenting rights with having carte blanche to do whatever you want to your children (including throwing them into a wood chipper), or were you saying something else?

[nickcoons]

Furthermore, with the issue debatable, is it not safer to err on the side that the fetus does in fact have individual rights that should not be infringed?

This is the basis of the entire debate, as you've pointed out. If a fetus has no rights, then it is purely property and can be removed at any time by the mother. If the fetus has a right to life, then the mother has a responsibility to avoid taking action that would directly kill it. Most people have a belief one way or the other, and that is the basis for their conclusion.

So the real question is, does a fetus have rights? When do you humans obtain their rights? And going back further, where do rights come from? If rights are God-given, then they probably exist at conception. I don't know of anything that would indicate God has separated the creation of human life from the right to life. But this whole area gets sticky, because then you have to ask, in the context of God, what are rights? That depends on your religion. You may have the right to life, but not the right to consume caffeine on Sundays.

I like Ayn Rand's and Objectivism's explanation of rights, who has them, and where they come from. Rather than taking up a ton of forum space here elaborating on it, I'll mention briefly that our right to our life comes from the conclusion that our lives must be owned by someone. If my life is not owned by me, then it is owned by someone else. Ownership of my life extends to the ability to take measures to sustain my life (my freedom), and to property (the product of what I have chosen to do with my life). These rights come from the ability of the reasoning mind to exercise them. That is, I have the right to sustain my life, but I don't have a right to force anyone else to sustain it for me, even if the lack thereof would mean that I lose my life. My right to life means that no one should be allowed to take it from me.

In regards to abortion, it would mean that the practice of abortion would have to be limited to a simple removal of the fetus (or "evicting", as has been used in this thread) without actually destroying it. This would give the fetus a chance to survive. Abortion should be allowed at any point during the pregnancy, so long as the fetus is not directly harmed (for instance, no "chopping into pieces").

From an Objectivist standpoint though, there are some unresolved bits here. If the mother has an abortion at seven months, and the removed fetus survives, does she have a responsibility to care for it? If so, how can that be legitimately imposed upon her?

This is an area I haven't completely resolved yet. I'm meeting with a group of Objectivists this evening. Perhaps one of them will field this question for me.

[therealjjj77]

The word fetus is from the Latin fetus, meaning offspring, bringing forth, hatching of young.[4] It has Indo-European roots related to sucking or suckling.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus


Let's quit using latin words to describe "offspring".

Does the government have the responsibility to establish justice for our posterity? There's the real question. Refer to the Preamble of the Constitution please.

[wild03]

Because "evicting" does not encompass the act of killing

I think nick explained it correctly, It just happens that if the (embryo or fetus) is removed and has 0 chances of survival then either way the result is the same.



Giving children up for adoption is a very different process from kicking them out on the curb or throwing them into a garbage can without warning (unceremoniously evicting). Can you not see the difference?
...
I'm hoping you would say no. In this case, if it turned out there really was a child inside, you'd be charged with manslaughter, and rightly so (ignoring the fact that the other person would be charged with kidnapping, trespassing, etc. - as I said, the analogy is contrived and unrealistic). Obviously, in the abortion scenario, there's no way to concretely determine after the fact whether or not it was really a living human child. The question is always up in the air.


Yes I see a difference, But I'm making a distinction between what is morally right and what is forced on the individual. Obviously the person that blows up your so called black box might be of poor moral character if say there is little harm on letting the box be for 9 months. But governments should not be in the business of morality. Only other individuals can pass their moral judgments on this act and sanction this person (without the use of force).

I'll give you another analogy, Say you are on an airplane accident, When you wake up on the hospital you have another individual attached to you. The doctors explain that they thought he was a close relative and that in order to save his life they attached him to you for you to perform some important bodily function for him. Detaching means certain death for the individual. Should you be forced by Law to keep this person attached to you? should you have the right to disconnect this person if you wanted to? Who owns your body?

[wild03]

Let's quit using latin words to describe "offspring".


Huh? fetus is the term used to describe a developing mammal between the embryonic stage and before birth. "offspring" does not convey this meaning and encompasses a much longer time frame, you and I are offspring.

Why does this bother you again?


Does the government have the responsibility to establish justice for our posterity? There's the real question. Refer to the Preamble of the Constitution please.

The Preamble states what the Constitution was created for certain reasons. It does not say that a certain law guarantees such reasons.

[wild03]

From an Objectivist standpoint though, there are some unresolved bits here. If the mother has an abortion at seven months, and the removed fetus survives, does she have a responsibility to care for it? If so, how can that be legitimately imposed upon her?

This is an area I haven't completely resolved yet. I'm meeting with a group of Objectivists this evening. Perhaps one of them will field this question for me.

great reply as always, I would have to say no. then again I could be wrong ;)

I'll like to hear what your fellow Objectivists think of this.

[therealjjj77]

The Preamble states what the Constitution was created for certain reasons. It does not say that a certain law guarantees such reasons.

The preamble, among other things, clarifies to whom the government is contracted to provide those things for. Establishing justice is later specified in Article 3, Section 2. One of the most basic laws of the land is the right to one's own life. It is one of the most basic responsibilities a government has. If it is to ourselves and our posterity, then our posterity, at the moment they become such, must have this right secured by the government.

At what point does that organism have a hereditary relationship with you? At what point is there a unique organism with DNA that's part yours?

[nickcoons]

I'll like to hear what your fellow Objectivists think of this.

I spoke with two of them last night, and they both admittedly had no clear answers for me. I emailed two others that weren't there, that have always been helpful in the past, so we'll see what they say. In the meantime, I found these two resources that have some interesting information:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5105
http://www.abortionisprolife.com/

[TastyWheat]

I knew this thread would get off topic. For those of you who support a woman's right to choose I can assume you have no problem with aborting a fetus for any reason. For those of you who feel the fetus has rights do you think (as suggested in my original post) the mother should be allowed to abort the fetus to spare it from suffering?

[OptionsTrader]

An individual that is dependent on another as a parasite cannot claim any rights.


Your manner of thinking is what perpetuated slavery on earth for thousands of years.

[therealjjj77]

I knew this thread would get off topic. For those of you who support a woman's right to choose I can assume you have no problem with aborting a fetus for any reason. For those of you who feel the fetus has rights do you think (as suggested in my original post) the mother should be allowed to abort the fetus to spare it from suffering?

Who is to define "suffering"? I just think in terms of what is lawful or not. Being it is an inalienable right(according to the Declaration of Independence), the right cannot be given to the mother to decide for that child.




Main Entry:
in·alien·able Listen to the pronunciation of inalienable
Pronunciation:
\(ˌ)i-ˈnāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈnā-lē-ə-nə-\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable
Date:
circa 1645

: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

[nickcoons]

Quote:
Originally Posted by wild03 View Post
An individual that is dependent on another as a parasite cannot claim any rights.

...

Your manner of thinking is what perpetuated slavery on earth for thousands of years.

Can you elaborate on that? How did the concept of being responsible for one's self perpetuate slavery?

[familydog]

Your manner of thinking is what perpetuated slavery on earth for thousands of years.

I agree.

Slave owners in the Americas stereotyped blacks to be lazy and weak people who depended on their masters for support. Thus, black people could not possibly be considered human beings and were denied the same rights as white land owners.

While the intention of that comment may not have been this, it certainly came across that way.

Besides, I think we are going down the wrong path comparing a fetus to a parasite. Generally, the mother is not harmed by the presence of the fetus which would be required in a parasitic relationship.

[wild03]

I agree.

Slave owners in the Americas stereotyped blacks to be lazy and weak people who depended on their masters for support. Thus, black people could not possibly be considered human beings and were denied the same rights as white land owners.

While the intention of that comment may not have been this, it certainly came across that way.

Besides, I think we are going down the wrong path comparing a fetus to a parasite. Generally, the mother is not harmed by the presence of the fetus which would be required in a parasitic relationship.

Please, read your nonsense again. Errors of logic and believes of slave owners do not constitute a good defense for your position. Wow, If anything the slave owners are the parasites.

These so called lazy Africans were surviving on their native land without the help of white people or the benefit of their technology for millennia.

You are kidding yourself if you think a mother-fetus relationship is symbiotic (mutual benefit) The fetus does get to benefit at the expense of the mother.

For your info, here's the definition since you didn't bother looking it up before posting:

par·a·site (păr'ə-sīt') pronunciation
n. 1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

[wild03]

The preamble, among other things, clarifies to whom the government is contracted to provide those things for. Establishing justice is later specified in Article 3, Section 2. One of the most basic laws of the land is the right to one's own life. It is one of the most basic responsibilities a government has. If it is to ourselves and our posterity, then our posterity, at the moment they become such, must have this right secured by the government.

At what point does that organism have a hereditary relationship with you? At what point is there a unique organism with DNA that's part yours?

And also an individual's rights stop where other individuals' rights begin, hence the current discussion.

[wild03]

I spoke with two of them last night, and they both admittedly had no clear answers for me. I emailed two others that weren't there, that have always been helpful in the past, so we'll see what they say. In the meantime, I found these two resources that have some interesting information:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5105
http://www.abortionisprolife.com/

Great articles, The idea that coercive rearing is also a violation of rights I believe must follow from the same argument as abortion. I cannot imagine what would compel a parent to abandon their child but the result of this use of force is not any better for the children. When a child that is no longer wanted is forced to stay with the people who least care for them they grow up in a crippling/abusive environment that sometimes results in death. When this happens the finger is pointed at the state for not taking steps sooner.

These children are better off being raised by people that care for them.

I agree the topic is a complex one and I'm looking forward to any further arguments you come across.

[therealjjj77]

Please, read your nonsense again. Errors of logic and believes of slave owners do not constitute a good defense for your position. Wow, If anything the slave owners are the parasites.

These so called lazy Africans were surviving on their native land without the help of white people or the benefit of their technology for millennia.

You are kidding yourself if you think a mother-fetus relationship is symbiotic (mutual benefit) The fetus does get to benefit at the expense of the mother.

For your info, here's the definition since you didn't bother looking it up before posting:

par·a·site (păr'ə-sīt') pronunciation
n. 1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Your own definition clearly makes the case that an unborn child is not a parasite. The definition says, "... a different organism...". Not "another" organism. It requires that the two be different organisms. A child is a not a different organism from the mother. They are the same kind of organism: human.

Anyway, regarding the rights issue, the child is not an aggressor or violent invader so self-defense is unreasonable. The child has not aggressively entered the mother. The mother made choices that invited the conception of the child, whether she intended it or not.

[familydog]

Please, read your nonsense again. Errors of logic and believes of slave owners do not constitute a good defense for your position. Wow, If anything the slave owners are the parasites.

These so called lazy Africans were surviving on their native land without the help of white people or the benefit of their technology for millennia.

You are kidding yourself if you think a mother-fetus relationship is symbiotic (mutual benefit) The fetus does get to benefit at the expense of the mother.

For your info, here's the definition since you didn't bother looking it up before posting:

par·a·site (păr'ə-sīt') pronunciation
n. 1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Surely you jest in your post. Before becoming so defensive, I think you need to relax. Take a deep breath, have a pint, and do some pilates.

First of all, I'm not sure what ragtag internet dictionary you got that definition from, but it is incorrect. I implore to read a wonderful book on the subject of parasites: The Art of Being a Parasite by Claude Combes. In it, he describes essentially two scenarios. The more traditional view of a parasite in which the invading organism feasts off the host, at the expense of the host. The other he presents is more mutual in nature. Generally, the mother is not physically harmed by the fetus living in her womb. At the same time, she is not physically benefitting from the fetus either. So you see, your application of the term "parasite" is incorrect in this regard. I urge you to rethink your usage of it. The again, I could be wrong. After all, it is quite possible that the dictionary you cite knows more about parasites than an acclaimed animal biologist.

I'd also like to point out, since you seem intent on going by strict definitions, that applying the term "parasite" to slave owners is incorrect as well. It is a biological term and could not possibly apply (correctly) to slave/master relationship which is not biological.

You do not have to accept my analogy, but it is certainly valid in logic. I understand that black people survived without the help of white men in their native land. I'm not sure what that has to do with my post. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did indeed read my post and digest the information before commenting on it. With that said, you should know that I wasn't quite clear on the meaning of your sentence to which I was referring. My analogy came based on what it appeared to mean. I made that quite clear. So when you state that a dependent does not have rights, I cited an example of slave owners who felt the same way. Thus, the agreement with OT's post.

[TastyWheat]

Who is to define "suffering"? I just think in terms of what is lawful or not. Being it is an inalienable right(according to the Declaration of Independence), the right cannot be given to the mother to decide for that child.
So, you would have a mother carry her child to full term and have her go through the agony of labor knowing full well that her child will never cry or open it's eyes? I'm not talking about a newborn with a small chance of living, I'm talking about one that has no chance of living outside the womb except for maybe a few minutes.

[tmosley]

I think of a fetus as a parasitic twin, which may or may not be capable of independent thought or feeling. If I, as the principle ambulatory being, wish to remove said parasitic twin for any reason, I should be able to, as I have first right to my body, and no government agency has any right to say that I must continue to carry that sac of flesh with me for the rest of my days.

A human being must be assured of first right to their bodies, or we don't have any freedom at all. If the government is going to break down my door and stop my wife from taking a morning after pill, then we don't really have any right to privacy. Hell, why not take those women who do such evil things and force them to have children in perpetuity until they can't bear children anymore?

Bringing a child to term is quite a grueling and draining process, and I don't think the government has any more right to force anyone to endure it than they do to infect us with disease against our will for some clandestine experiment.

[TurtleBurger]

In the case of a baby with 0% chance of survival, the best solution would be to deliver it early and to maximize the quality of its short life with pain killers and allowing it to experience its parents' love for as long as it has. Obviously there would be no benefit to the baby to complete the full 9 months in utero, so there would be nothing immoral about bringing it out early.

[therealjjj77]

So, you would have a mother carry her child to full term and have her go through the agony of labor knowing full well that her child will never cry or open it's eyes? I'm not talking about a newborn with a small chance of living, I'm talking about one that has no chance of living outside the womb except for maybe a few minutes.

It would be up to the jury to decide if the mother removed that child under the intent and knowledge of killing that child. If I hit someone's car and they died, I would be charged with manslaughter, even if it was accidental. That mother didn't accidentally remove such child from herself. It was on purpose. And she fully knew very well that it would kill the child.

[wild03]

Your own definition clearly makes the case that an unborn child is not a parasite. The definition says, "... a different organism...". Not "another" organism. It requires that the two be different organisms. A child is a not a different organism from the mother. They are the same kind of organism: human.

Anyway, regarding the rights issue, the child is not an aggressor or violent invader so self-defense is unreasonable. The child has not aggressively entered the mother. The mother made choices that invited the conception of the child, whether she intended it or not.

While we are sidetracking.

The word parasite comes from the greek word (parasītos) Which was originally applied to people.

Also another definition: One who depends on another for support without reciprocating

So, I wouldn't get to caught up on this.

As for aggressively entering, This is not an argument: I can invite you into my home, then later change my mind and ask you to leave. This is not a matter of self defense, but of property rights.

[wild03]

In the case of a baby with 0% chance of survival, the best solution would be to deliver it early and to maximize the quality of its short life with pain killers and allowing it to experience its parents' love for as long as it has. Obviously there would be no benefit to the baby to complete the full 9 months in utero, so there would be nothing immoral about bringing it out early.

Don't forget to mention that, the courts would decide how this process is to be accomplished and that the parents must pay for all the costs of keeping this baby alive, If the baby is brain dead but can be hooked to a feeding tube and be kept alive this way for a few years this must also be done and paid for by the parents. There should be no limit to the amounts of equipment used in the process.

In the unfortunate case that the parents cannot pay for all this, maybe we can either keep a special fund supported by a small tax (a fair tax)
If not there would be no other choice that to jail the parents for manslaughter.

[therealjjj77]

While we are sidetracking.

The word parasite comes from the greek word (parasītos) Which was originally applied to people.

Also another definition: One who depends on another for support without reciprocating

So, I wouldn't get to caught up on this.

As for aggressively entering, This is not an argument: I can invite you into my home, then later change my mind and ask you to leave. This is not a matter of self defense, but of property rights.

But forcing someone with little clothes to leave in 60 below weather is murder. Cutting them up and tossing them outside(or having someone else do it) is not only murder but also inhumane.

[therealjjj77]

Don't forget to mention that, the courts would decide how this process is to be accomplished and that the parents must pay for all the costs of keeping this baby alive, If the baby is brain dead but can be hooked to a feeding tube and be kept alive this way for a few years this must also be done and paid for by the parents. There should be no limit to the amounts of equipment used in the process.

In the unfortunate case that the parents cannot pay for all this, maybe we can either keep a special fund supported by a small tax (a fair tax)
If not there would be no other choice that to jail the parents for manslaughter.

The difference with machines taking care of a child is machines are unnatural and are not required to be used under natural laws. Otherwise those who lived centuries ago could be tried with murder because they didn't invent something to save their child. Or

[wild03]

But forcing someone with little clothes to leave in 60 below weather is murder. Cutting them up and tossing them outside(or having someone else do it) is not only murder but also inhumane.

The cutting up part has already been addressed on this thread, no sense on repeating it.

Exercising you property rights is not murder. Else, anyone can claim hardship and camp inside your home.

[wild03]

The difference with machines taking care of a child is machines are unnatural and are not required to be used under natural laws. Otherwise those who lived centuries ago could be tried with murder because they didn't invent something to save their child. Or

"unnatural and are not required to be used under natural laws"

Unnatural? You mean outside of nature? supernatural? Aren't we part of nature therefore everything we invent and build is natural?.
Required? says who?
Which natural laws?

Most people alive today have to thank these "unnatural" machines, for each one of us has required some sort of medical technology at one time or another.

Obviously there's a difference between current technology and future technology. How can you claim negligence for a technology that has not been invented yet? (Obviously, I was taking about current/available technology.)

[wild03]

I spoke with two of them last night, and they both admittedly had no clear answers for me. I emailed two others that weren't there, that have always been helpful in the past, so we'll see what they say. In the meantime, I found these two resources that have some interesting information:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5105
http://www.abortionisprolife.com/

Here's an interesting article on children's rights by Rothbard

http://mises.org/story/2568

[familydog]

Here's an interesting article on children's rights by Rothbard

http://mises.org/story/2568

Here is an excellent critique of that.

http://www.l4l.org/library/chilroth.html

[TurtleBurger]

Don't forget to mention that, the courts would decide how this process is to be accomplished and that the parents must pay for all the costs of keeping this baby alive, If the baby is brain dead but can be hooked to a feeding tube and be kept alive this way for a few years this must also be done and paid for by the parents. There should be no limit to the amounts of equipment used in the process.

In the unfortunate case that the parents cannot pay for all this, maybe we can either keep a special fund supported by a small tax (a fair tax)
If not there would be no other choice that to jail the parents for manslaughter.

You're no longer talking about abortion at this point. Whether people should be kept alive on feeding tubes is a whole different subject.

[TurtleBurger]

Here's an interesting article on children's rights by Rothbard

http://mises.org/story/2568

I wonder, was Rothbard ever a parent? This passage amused me:


For the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature — in short, when he leaves or "runs away" from home. Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to run away and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child's ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age.

So when my 2-year-old gets outside and starts heading down the road, I have to let him go and seek another family. Chasing him down, picking him up, and placing him back inside the house "by force" is a violation of his God-given rights.

[nickcoons]

I wonder, was Rothbard ever a parent?

I don't believe so (at least, I can't find any mention of this). But I don't believe the "he wasn't a parent, so he can't have an opinion" argument (if that's what you're saying) is a valid one.

My wife is from Canada, and we have the universal health care debate all the time (I, of course, am on the side against it, and she's for it). Her argument is, "Well you've never been in a situation where you needed it. If you were dying and had no insurance, you'd want some sort of safety net to make sure you were taken care of." And perhaps I would. If I were lying there with intense pain and nearing death, I might do all sorts of immoral things in order to save my own life, and if so it would be because I would be in a completely irrational state at that point. What I always try to argue is that we're not talking about what I would want, we're talking about what's right. Her comments that in a flash of irrationality for my own survival I would wish for a system of universal health care is not an argument for universal health care.

What it does show, however, is that people in certain situations can sometimes become clouded and make irrational conclusions. In the same way, I believe someone who is not a parent, statistically speaking, might be more qualified to come to an objective conclusion. Parents don't normally want to give up their children at a young age, and their personal desire clouds their conclusions.

All of this to say that I don't necessarily agree with Rothbard (I haven't come to my own conclusion on this yet). But rather, just because he isn't a parent doesn't mean that he's not qualified to come to a rational conclusion. He may in fact be more qualified because he's not a parent.


So when my 2-year-old gets outside and starts heading down the road, I have to let him go and seek another family. Chasing him down, picking him up, and placing him back inside the house "by force" is a violation of his God-given rights.

I can see where that meaning might be inferred from that paragraph, but I don't think that's what was intended. It would be difficult to imagine that a 2-year-old waddling down the street is attempting to exercise his rights of self-ownership. It's more likely that a toddler has no idea what he's doing. He has no concept of boundaries and isn't aware that he's "leaving". A parent would be completely justified in picking the child up and returning him home.

When a child wants to leave home specifically because they want to leave home, this is what is being referred to. Toddlers that get away are not actively trying to separate themselves from their parents.

[TurtleBurger]

I don't believe so (at least, I can't find any mention of this). But I don't believe the "he wasn't a parent, so he can't have an opinion" argument (if that's what you're saying) is a valid one.

My wife is from Canada, and we have the universal health care debate all the time (I, of course, am on the side against it, and she's for it). Her argument is, "Well you've never been in a situation where you needed it. If you were dying and had no insurance, you'd want some sort of safety net to make sure you were taken care of." And perhaps I would. If I were lying there with intense pain and nearing death, I might do all sorts of immoral things in order to save my own life, and if so it would be because I would be in a completely irrational state at that point. What I always try to argue is that we're not talking about what I would want, we're talking about what's right. Her comments that in a flash of irrationality for my own survival I would wish for a system of universal health care is not an argument for universal health care.

What it does show, however, is that people in certain situations can sometimes become clouded and make irrational conclusions. In the same way, I believe someone who is not a parent, statistically speaking, might be more qualified to come to an objective conclusion. Parents don't normally want to give up their children at a young age, and their personal desire clouds their conclusions.

All of this to say that I don't necessarily agree with Rothbard (I haven't come to my own conclusion on this yet). But rather, just because he isn't a parent doesn't mean that he's not qualified to come to a rational conclusion. He may in fact be more qualified because he's not a parent.



I can see where that meaning might be inferred from that paragraph, but I don't think that's what was intended. It would be difficult to imagine that a 2-year-old waddling down the street is attempting to exercise his rights of self-ownership. It's more likely that a toddler has no idea what he's doing. He has no concept of boundaries and isn't aware that he's "leaving". A parent would be completely justified in picking the child up and returning him home.

When a child wants to leave home specifically because they want to leave home, this is what is being referred to. Toddlers that get away are not actively trying to separate themselves from their parents.

To any parent, the quoted paragraph is completely ridiculous. Of course people who aren't parents can have valid opinions, but this one simply isn't. You may be right about the 2-year-old, but my 5-year-old does threaten to run away from home when things don't go exactly according to his plans; that child does meet Rothbard's description exactly. I feel no moral qualms about physically restraining him from doing so.

I think a problem with some libertarians is they want to take libertarian principles that rightly apply to the state, and apply them to families. A family is different from a state; it is a naturally occurring hierarchical structure that quite simply operates on different rules from society in general. Children are not just little adults, they are an entirely different type of entity. They are not inferior to adults, but they have a different set of rights and responsibilities that they can expect from life. A 5-year-old under ordinary circumstances should not expect to enjoy the same rights of free speech, choices of living arrangements, and other rights that adults should enjoy. It sounds good in theory, but in practice it is ludicrous.

It might look like I'm picking on one insignificant part of Rothbard's article, but I think this is the erroneous theme that runs through his own article. He thinks children are just small adults that can expect nothing more and nothing less than to be treated like adults. Children as such have special rights, such as to be taken care of and protected by their parents; they also lack certain rights, such as the right to move out on their own on a whim.

[nickcoons]

To any parent, the quoted paragraph is completely ridiculous.

You actually quoted six of my paragraphs, so you'll have to narrow down your criticism a little if you intend on anyone including what it is you're actually criticizing.


Of course people who aren't parents can have valid opinions, but this one simply isn't. You may be right about the 2-year-old, but my 5-year-old does threaten to run away from home when things don't go exactly according to his plans; that child does meet Rothbard's description exactly.

You know what happens when you let a five-year-old run away? They leave for half an hour, come back home, and learn from the experience that that's not really what they want. If your concern is that letter your child actually leave when he wants to means that he'll end up being lost in the world, you have nothing to worry about.


I feel no moral qualms about physically restraining him from doing so.

And this is exactly why I say that non-parents may be better qualified to come to objective conclusions. Your feelings on the situation are irrelevant. Similarly, people often don't feel that they've done a moral wrong when they advocate that their government take from one group of people to give to another, but the moral dilemma exists nonetheless.

Morals are not about feelings.


I think a problem with some libertarians is they want to take libertarian principles that rightly apply to the state, and apply them to families. A family is different from a state; it is a naturally occurring hierarchical structure that quite simply operates on different rules from society in general.

Libertarian principles don't apply to the state, they apply to individuals which extends to the state.


Children are not just little adults, they are an entirely different type of entity.

You're right that they are not little adults, but they are not an entirely different type of entity. They are a non-matured version of the same type of entity. That's an important distinction.


They are not inferior to adults, but they have a different set of rights and responsibilities that they can expect from life. A 5-year-old under ordinary circumstances should not expect to enjoy the same rights of free speech, choices of living arrangements, and other rights that adults should enjoy. It sounds good in theory, but in practice it is ludicrous.

It might look like I'm picking on one insignificant part of Rothbard's article, but I think this is the erroneous theme that runs through his own article. He thinks children are just small adults that can expect nothing more and nothing less than to be treated like adults. Children as such have special rights, such as to be taken care of and protected by their parents; they also lack certain rights, such as the right to move out on their own on a whim.

One cannot, by definition, have a right to be taken care of, because that right would impose on others' rights. Legitimate rights (to life, liberty, and property) are never in conflict with the rights of others. A supposed right that is in conflict with someone else's right is not truly a right.

If you want to draw the conclusion that parents have a responsibility to care for and protect their children, even perhaps against the will of the child or the parent, then that's okay, but I want to see the logic that brings you to that conclusion. The idea that any other conclusion is impractical, even if correct, is not a method of coming to a logical conclusion.

The state determines that a child has the rights of an adult when they turn 18 years of age, but as we both know, rights don't come from the state. Rights come from the reasoning mind of human beings. I conclude that one has full rights when they have demonstrated that they have the ability to exercise those rights. As we both agree, a two-year-old does not have the rights of freedom. Their minds are not nearly developed to demonstrate that they understand the concept. This happens at different times for different people, and not at a hard chronological age like 18 years.

I would agree that parents have the right to make decisions for their children (such as you forcibly placing your two-year-old back into the house), and the rights exists until the child demonstrates that it has rights by way of being able to exercise them. But how can it be argued that parents have a responsibility to their children, which would impose upon their rights as individuals?

You may think that I'm trying to trap you into a corner by locking the discussion down to a specific idea, invalidating practical and emotional pieces of it. That's partially true, but not because I'm looking to claim victory in a debate. While I find the discussion fascinating, I have a bit of an ulterior motive. As you can see by my signature, I'm running for Congress in two years. I'm fairly solid on my philosophy of individual rights. But the practicality of children's rights, as we've very much revealed in this thread, is quite the gray area. I need to polish this up a bit so that the philosophy is consistent, and the practical is, well... practical. So I'm probing for honest insight more than anything.

[wild03]

...

You may think that I'm trying to trap you into a corner by locking the discussion down to a specific idea, invalidating practical and emotional pieces of it. That's partially true, but not because I'm looking to claim victory in a debate. While I find the discussion fascinating, I have a bit of an ulterior motive. As you can see by my signature, I'm running for Congress in two years. I'm fairly solid on my philosophy of individual rights. But the practicality of children's rights, as we've very much revealed in this thread, is quite the gray area. I need to polish this up a bit so that the philosophy is consistent, and the practical is, well... practical. So I'm probing for honest insight more than anything.

Great arguments as always Nick, I was thinking the same thing about the 5 year old wanting to run away, I was going to suggest taking him/her to someone's house and leaving him/her there (a friend/relative of the family the child didn't know well) ;)

It'll be the last time he/she will use that intimidation tactic. There some Libertarian authors that suggest a different approach to child rearing than the "dictator" model that is mainstream now days (Alfie Kohn, Frances Kendall) I'm currently reading Kendall's book "Super Parents Super Children" and looking forward to Kohn's books next.

I found this article that critique both Rothbard's and Walker's views, You might find something there that can help you on your philosophical quest

http://www.alf.org/papers/abortion.shtml

Best of luck getting to Congress, Thanks for keeping the revolution going. I sure hope your constituents are as open minded as you are! :)

[AisA1787]

You are kidding yourself if you think a mother-fetus relationship is symbiotic (mutual benefit) The fetus does get to benefit at the expense of the mother.

For your info, here's the definition since you didn't bother looking it up before posting:

par·a·site (păr'ə-sīt') pronunciation
n. 1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

On what factual evidence do you base your assertion that the mother-fetus relationship is parasitic? There have been several reports in the scientific literature that suggest the exact opposite is true - that mothers live longer than women who have had no children. If true, this means the fetus contributes to the long-term survival of the mother and thus by definition is not parasitic. The responsible mechanisms for a mother's longer life are still suggestive and speculative, but the point is that the nature of the relationship between mother and fetus remains an open question. Quoting from one of these peer-reviewed articles:


K O’Donoghue et al. Vol 16. No 3. 2008 382-390 Reproductive BioMedicine Online

Finally, it has been suggested that acquisition of primitive fetal stem cells in adult life might explain why women live longer than men, and why pregnancy may protect against susceptibility to disease (O’Donoghue et al., 2004; Bianchi, 2007). Women with lung cancer have better survival rates than men; this cannot be easily explained by cancer stage, type or treatment (Henschke et al., 2006). Reproductive factors have been suggested as the reason for this disparity, but as nulliparous women have been shown to have a worse prognosis than those with children, (Skuladottir and Olsen, 2006) it is speculated that persistent fetal microchimeric cells might also play a role in survival.


Moving along to more philosophical questions...


I conclude that one has full rights when they have demonstrated that they have the ability to exercise those rights... This happens at different times for different people, and not at a hard chronological age like 18 years.

I agree it's fair to conclude that a human being has full rights when they have demonstrated they can exercise those rights. The practical problem is that there will never be an accurate, consistent method of determining when a given individual reaches this threshold of self understanding and can act on that understanding. Declaring all individuals to be adults with full rights at the arbitrary age of 18 years old isn't the perfect answer, but it is easy to measure and so it can be applied consistently.



I'm fairly solid on my philosophy of individual rights. But the practicality of children's rights, as we've very much revealed in this thread, is quite the gray area. I need to polish this up a bit so that the philosophy is consistent, and the practical is, well... practical. So I'm probing for honest insight more than anything.

Yes, children's rights are a very gray area. The apparent contradictions are not easy to resolve. If you leave your newborn baby to fend for itself, which it obviously cannot do, and it starves to death, are you responsible for that baby's death? Objectively, no. The child died without any positive action on your part.

...Or did it? The positive action on your part was giving birth to (or fathering) the child. It could not have died without being born. It was born by your actions. Therefore you did have a hand in your baby's death, which was only possible because it was alive, and it was only alive because of what you did. Where does your responsibility end and your child's begin?

One can imagine that your baby, had it been able to decide for itself, would not have desired to be conceived or born. Therefore you may have violated its "right" to non-existence by conceiving it. Or you may have violated its right to existence by aborting it or not providing for it in its infancy. Who knows which is the case? But this is the entire question.

The answer to this question will demonstrate that your responsibility doesn't end at your earliest convenience (abortion or birth); it ends when it rightfully should end. But when is this?

I would argue that your responsibility as a parent to your child ends when your child can decide for itself whether to exist or not exist, and has the ability to exist self-sufficiently or to end his or her existence by choice.

Your actions created this uncertain state of affairs in which a new human came into existence through no choice of its own. Therefore it is your responsibility to bring this new human to the state where it can make the choice for itself of whether to exist or perish.

I believe this is the only defensible criteria for determining the end of the parents' responsibility and the beginning of the child's responsibility. But we still have not answered the question of when these criteria are met, and for good reason: it's impossible to determine with complete accuracy when these criteria are met.

This is where practicality must come into consideration.

Applying these criteria from a practical point of view, we can generally say that parents are bound by their actions (producing a child without the child's consent) to do their best to teach that child, for an adequate amount of time, to be self-sufficient and self-aware. This time will vary. 18 years is definitely not the right amount of time for everyone. But it's measurable, objective, and can be applied consistently.

So there you have it. Practicality based on sound theory. However, if I were running for office, I'd stick to the practical side of the argument... it sounds less silly.

[wild03]

...Or did it? The positive action on your part was giving birth to (or fathering) the child. It could not have died without being born. It was born by your actions. Therefore you did have a hand in your baby's death, which was only possible because it was alive, and it was only alive because of what you did. Where does your responsibility end and your child's begin?

This will mean that absolutely anything that happens to the child is partly the responsibility of the parents.



One can imagine that your baby, had it been able to decide for itself, would not have desired to be conceived or born. Therefore you may have violated its "right" to non-existence by conceiving it. Or you may have violated its right to existence by aborting it or not providing for it in its infancy. Who knows which is the case? But this is the entire question.

You are joking right? How can something that doesn't exist have desires?



I would argue that your responsibility as a parent to your child ends when your child can decide for itself whether to exist or not exist, and has the ability to exist self-sufficiently or to end his or her existence by choice.

Your actions created this uncertain state of affairs in which a new human came into existence through no choice of its own. Therefore it is your responsibility to bring this new human to the state where it can make the choice for itself of whether to exist or perish.


Don't let kids know this secret or else parents will be doomed to years of servitude of any 30 year old claiming he is not ready for the world yet.



So there you have it. Practicality based on sound theory. However, if I were running for office, I'd stick to the practical side of the argument... it sounds less silly.

Yes Nick, Better compromise on your positions and tell everyone what they want to hear, After all Why follow Ron's Example, You will sound less silly. :rolleyes:

[AisA1787]

This will mean that absolutely anything that happens to the child is partly the responsibility of the parents.

Well, not exactly. Anything that happens to the child would not have happened to the child if it weren't for the parents who produced the child. That is not a question of responsibility, it's a matter of fact.

The responsibility of the parents is to do their best to help the child become self-sufficient within a reasonable amount of time, which for practical reasons should be a pre-determined period of time. At the end of that time, the parents' responsibility is finished. During this time, bad things may happen to the child that were not caused by the parents, and couldn't have been prevented by the parents. This does not mean the parents are responsible for those things. These things wouldn't have happened had the child not been born, which is a matter of fact, but this does not imply responsibility should be assigned to the parents.

Also, just to be clear, I was talking about death of an infant due to parental neglect. So yes, in that case it is the responsibility of the parents.


You are joking right? How can something that doesn't exist have desires?

No, not a joke. I never said a non-existent entity had desires. I said "one can imagine..." It was a hypothetical statement to emphasize the main point, which is that the child had no choice in the matter.


Don't let kids know this secret or else parents will be doomed to years of servitude of any 30 year old claiming he is not ready for the world yet.

I never said that the transfer of responsibility is predicated on the claims of one party or the other, so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. I said there is no way to know exactly when the right time for this transfer is, so setting an age of adulthood is a practical and measurable way to do it. You're just bull shitting now.


Yes Nick, Better compromise on your positions and tell everyone what they want to hear, After all Why follow Ron's Example, You will sound less silly. :rolleyes:

I never told Nick to tell people what they want to hear, and I never told him to compromise on his positions. I was just stating the obvious, which is that forthright and clear communication about practical things and the way they'll affect his constituents' lives is preferable to discussions about abstractions.

Also, almost all of what Ron Paul talks about is practical in nature. He's smart enough to realize that people relate better to the practical than the abstract. Just look at how he states his positions in the "Issues" on his website:



"Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us."

"It is now time to bring our troops home. We must return our focus to finding bin Laden and making sure that we can be prepared for any future threats against our national security."

"Today’s soldiers are our future veterans, and they should never be sent to war without clear objectives that serve definite American national security interests."

"Every VA disability dollar paid to a veteran is deducted from his retirement pay, effectively creating a “disabled veterans tax”. No other group of federal employees is subject to this unfair standard; in every other case, disability pay is viewed as distinct from standard retirement pay."

These are all very practical, reality-based statements. I don't see any abstract concepts. Do you?


I don't see what you're trying to do here, besides twist my words around and make sarcastic comments for no reason. What's your beef?

[nickcoons]

I agree it's fair to conclude that a human being has full rights when they have demonstrated they can exercise those rights. The practical problem is that there will never be an accurate, consistent method of determining when a given individual reaches this threshold of self understanding and can act on that understanding. Declaring all individuals to be adults with full rights at the arbitrary age of 18 years old isn't the perfect answer, but it is easy to measure and so it can be applied consistently.

I'm not sure that it's the responsibility of anyone to determine when someone else has reached this threshold. It's not like pursuing a PhD, where a board reviews your thesis to see if you're "ready." But rather, it would be when someone demonstrates their abilities, or makes the attempt. The example given a few messages back about the five-year-old is a good example. If your five-year-old leaves home, gets a job, and rents an apartment, then we must recognize his full rights as an individual. Though I don't see this as being very likely, as the five-year-old would leave home and quickly return after realizing just the beginning of what leaving home means.

But when wild03 brings up a good point about the 30-year-old living at home, which I'll discuss below.


Yes, children's rights are a very gray area. The apparent contradictions are not easy to resolve. If you leave your newborn baby to fend for itself, which it obviously cannot do, and it starves to death, are you responsible for that baby's death? Objectively, no. The child died without any positive action on your part.

...Or did it? The positive action on your part was giving birth to (or fathering) the child. It could not have died without being born. It was born by your actions. Therefore you did have a hand in your baby's death, which was only possible because it was alive, and it was only alive because of what you did. Where does your responsibility end and your child's begin?

I think that method of placing responsibility is very dangerous. It could happen that, after posting a response to me in these forums, you get into you car and are involved in a fatal car accident. If I never posted here, and therefore you didn't take time to respond, you would have gotten in you car sooner and not have been in the vicinity of the other vehicle and therefore never been involved in that accident. In the same sense, I would be responsible for you death because of my positive act of posting to these forums.


One can imagine that your baby, had it been able to decide for itself, would not have desired to be conceived or born. Therefore you may have violated its "right" to non-existence by conceiving it. Or you may have violated its right to existence by aborting it or not providing for it in its infancy. Who knows which is the case? But this is the entire question.

To have rights, you must exist. So one, in a non-existent state, does not have the right to decide whether or not they want to exist, and cannot assert that right. The closest thing to "the right of non-existence" is the right to take our lives at any point in time.


The answer to this question will demonstrate that your responsibility doesn't end at your earliest convenience (abortion or birth); it ends when it rightfully should end. But when is this?

I don't agree, because the right of a child to exist and the responsibility of a parent to car for a child are not tied together. A child can have a right to life without a parent having a responsibility to care for it, just as I have a right to life without anyone having a responsibility to care for me.


I would argue that your responsibility as a parent to your child ends when your child can decide for itself whether to exist or not exist, and has the ability to exist self-sufficiently or to end his or her existence by choice.

But by what reasoning can a parent become responsible in the first place?


Your actions created this uncertain state of affairs in which a new human came into existence through no choice of its own. Therefore it is your responsibility to bring this new human to the state where it can make the choice for itself of whether to exist or perish.

I'm not sure that I follow that the action of giving birth implies such a responsibility. The only responsibility that anyone has to anyone else is to right a wrong, or to hold up their end of a contract. If I cause damage to someone by breaking their window, I must make them whole again. If I enter into a contract, I must not breach that agreement. I know of no other conditions that can impose responsibility on to someone.

Based on that, the only arguments I can see that imply parental responsibility are that the parents have damaged the child by birthing it so they must right a wrong. Or that they entered into a contract with the child to have this responsibility. I don't know if either of those points can be argued.

This brings up the issue of the 30-year-old living at home that has never demonstrated his rights. However, if the child's rights are not tied to the parents' responsibilities, then this is easily solved. The parents may tell him at any time that he has to leave, whether or not he has ever asserted his rights.

From a political standpoint, I would say that if parents have any responsibility to their children, this responsibility should not be defined by the government. In a practical sense, creating laws that impose responsibility are ineffective at best, and harmful at worst. Just as laws prohibiting drugs do not stop drugs, but they in fact increase their abuse, this is most likely the case with laws that require unwilling parents to care for their children.

In the existence of such laws, an unwilling parent will go to great lengths to "lose" their child (i.e. hiding him in a dumpster hoping that no one ever finds him). In the absence of these laws, an unwilling parent may simply leave the child with anyone else that is more willing because there would be nothing prohibiting this. The overall outcome of the absence of these laws would probably result in fewer dumpster babies. But one thing is certain; such laws do not succeed in making sure that parents exercise their legally-imposed responsibilities to their children.

[AisA1787]

I'm not sure that it's the responsibility of anyone to determine when someone else has reached this threshold. It's not like pursuing a PhD, where a board reviews your thesis to see if you're "ready." But rather, it would be when someone demonstrates their abilities, or makes the attempt. The example given a few messages back about the five-year-old is a good example. If your five-year-old leaves home, gets a job, and rents an apartment, then we must recognize his full rights as an individual. Though I don't see this as being very likely, as the five-year-old would leave home and quickly return after realizing just the beginning of what leaving home means.

I agree, your logic is sound. Some five year olds can provide for themselves, although not many. There has even been a 16 year old professor. These are the exceptions not the rule, though.



I think that method of placing responsibility is very dangerous. It could happen that, after posting a response to me in these forums, you get into you car and are involved in a fatal car accident. If I never posted here, and therefore you didn't take time to respond, you would have gotten in you car sooner and not have been in the vicinity of the other vehicle and therefore never been involved in that accident. In the same sense, I would be responsible for you death because of my positive act of posting to these forums.

The difference between this situation and that of a parent bearing a child is that I had free choice to read the forums, respond to posts, and finish whenever I wished. It's my responsibility how I respond to the actions of others. If their action does not cause me direct harm, but my response to it puts me into a temporal or spatial position where I'm harmed, it is not others' responsibility that I am in that position. It is my responsibility, because my free choices led me there.

The child-parent relationship is fundamentally different because a child cannot avoid being born.



To have rights, you must exist. So one, in a non-existent state, does not have the right to decide whether or not they want to exist, and cannot assert that right. The closest thing to "the right of non-existence" is the right to take our lives at any point in time.

The right to take your own life is your right to non-existence. It's not the closest thing to it, it is it.



I don't agree, because the right of a child to exist and the responsibility of a parent to car for a child are not tied together. A child can have a right to life without a parent having a responsibility to care for it, just as I have a right to life without anyone having a responsibility to care for me.

But by what reasoning can a parent become responsible in the first place?

Once born, if not cared for, the child will die. The action of creating a child will inevitably and undeniably lead to that child's death if further action is not taken. The reasoning is that by not caring for a newborn baby, or finding someone who will care for it, the parents are responsible for the death of that baby.




I'm not sure that I follow that the action of giving birth implies such a responsibility. The only responsibility that anyone has to anyone else is to right a wrong, or to hold up their end of a contract. If I cause damage to someone by breaking their window, I must make them whole again. If I enter into a contract, I must not breach that agreement. I know of no other conditions that can impose responsibility on to someone.

Based on that, the only arguments I can see that imply parental responsibility are that the parents have damaged the child by birthing it so they must right a wrong. Or that they entered into a contract with the child to have this responsibility. I don't know if either of those points can be argued.

Yes, actually, I do think the responsibility a parent has falls into the category of "righting a wrong." Not because the child is defective or damaged by birth, but because the parents put a human being into a defenseless and helpless situation (newborn babyhood) where it couldn't care for itself, and this new human had no choice in the matter. This wrong can be righted by the parents rearing the child to fend for itself, or giving it to someone who will (adoption).



This brings up the issue of the 30-year-old living at home that has never demonstrated his rights. However, if the child's rights are not tied to the parents' responsibilities, then this is easily solved. The parents may tell him at any time that he has to leave, whether or not he has ever asserted his rights.

In a sense, although I don't totally agree with 18-year-old = adult laws, in this case those laws do protect the rights of the parents against ridiculous claims from their 30-year old son or daughter.



From a political standpoint, I would say that if parents have any responsibility to their children, this responsibility should not be defined by the government. In a practical sense, creating laws that impose responsibility are ineffective at best, and harmful at worst. Just as laws prohibiting drugs do not stop drugs, but they in fact increase their abuse, this is most likely the case with laws that require unwilling parents to care for their children.

In the existence of such laws, an unwilling parent will go to great lengths to "lose" their child (i.e. hiding him in a dumpster hoping that no one ever finds him). In the absence of these laws, an unwilling parent may simply leave the child with anyone else that is more willing because there would be nothing prohibiting this. The overall outcome of the absence of these laws would probably result in fewer dumpster babies. But one thing is certain; such laws do not succeed in making sure that parents exercise their legally-imposed responsibilities to their children.

I'm by no means an expert on the dumpster baby phenomenon. My understanding, though, is that rational thought about avoiding legal penalties isn't usually part of the process when a mom or dad throws their baby in a dumpster. Most cases I've heard are young women still living at home who are ashamed or scared of what their parents might do or what their friends might think.

I'm not sure I understand how today's parent-child laws prohibit parents from leaving their children with someone more willing to take care of them. Adoption, and giving your baby up for adoption, are both legal as far as I'm aware. Not easy, but legal. Maybe a good route of political action would be to break down legal barriers between parents who want to give their child up for adoption and people who want to adopt that child.

Finally, I agree that laws do not make people act responsibility. I disagree however, that parents' responsibility to their children is merely a legal construct. These responsibilities are imposed by the parents on themselves because they put a human being into a defenseless, helpless position. They need to right that wrong.

Thanks for the thoughtful response to my post. It seems that we just believe different things on this issue. Good luck with your Congressional run, I hope you do well.

[nickcoons]

I wanted to thank you for your responses, and I believe that this is the main point I was looking for:


The child-parent relationship is fundamentally different because a child cannot avoid being born.

I'll have to ponder on this for a bit, as it seems to be a valid point.


The right to take your own life is your right to non-existence. It's not the closest thing to it, it is it.

I guess we're distinguishing semantics here. I'm using the term "non-existence" to mean "to never have existed." Clearly, a right to non-existence in that context cannot exist, because one must exist to have rights. If one kills one's self, then he still exists, just not in a living state.


In a sense, although I don't totally agree with 18-year-old = adult laws, in this case those laws do protect the rights of the parents against ridiculous claims from their 30-year old son or daughter.

The problem, though, with parental responsibility existing is that we're still left with this dilemma. While our current legal system does protect parents from this, if the philosophical conclusion does not, then the laws are baseless and need to be abolished. With parental responsibility existing from birth until a child exerts his rights, what is to protect a parent from a 30-year-old "child" that never does?


I'm not sure I understand how today's parent-child laws prohibit parents from leaving their children with someone more willing to take care of them.

I'm referring to the ease of these laws, as you've alluded to. One can't take her baby to her neighbor and say, "Hey, want a baby? Here ya go." But she should be able to.


Maybe a good route of political action would be to break down legal barriers between parents who want to give their child up for adoption and people who want to adopt that child.

I would fully agree with that.