Ethics of Child Care

[RationalBiker 0]

Incidental to an intense debate on another forum, I'd like to get some ideas from folks here regarding child care.

What started out as a discussion on abortion, evolved into a question over what, if any, obligation exists for a parent (or at least specifically the mother) to care for a child once born, or at the very least find a wiling party to provide such care for the child.

One position states, essentially, that no obligation exists unless explicitly agreed to by the parent. This position assumes that no choice (implied or otherwise) has been made merely by the birthing of the child. The parent could literally refuse any and all aid to the child if the parent is "dissatisfied" with the child for virtually any reason.

Another position states that because it is the nature of every newborn rational being to be unable to sustain itself, and thus develop it's capacity to be self-sustaining, it has a right to minimal assistance from the parent at least until such time as it can be self-sustaining.

These are very brief summations of the two more prominent opposing arguments. I will try to supply more information if needed or requested.

Mr. Andrew Bernstein broaches this topic in an interview on the Bernie Mac show (at around the 11 minute mark for those interested).

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7289

He essentially states such obligation does exist, and that it is appropriate for the government to be involved (in at least some contexts) to enforce this obligation on the parents, and even to act as a guardian if necessary to find other willing parties to assume the child care. However, he does not really go into any ethical or moral reasoning behind that position.

I support this position based on grounds that I think there is an implied choice (and subsequent obligation) on the part of the parent(s) to allow the child to be born, as opposed to aborting the child prior to birth if the child is not wanted. Additionally, I see some merit to the idea of considering the nature of the child in determining a "right" which is required for it's survival and ability to reach a state in which it can be self-sustaining. However, on it's face, and perhaps wholly, this flies in the face of idea that "one has a right to life, but one does not have a right to have life provided for them". My thought at this point is that no true right to life exists for a newobrn if since it born helpless, no right or obligation exists that will allow it to reach a state where it could be self-sustaining.

What do you guys think? What is wrong (if anything) with my position? The opposing position?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

This is all a simple matter of parents being responsible for their actions. By choosing to create a human life which, by its nature, is unable to independently survive as a human for some time to come, the parents have assumed the responsibility for protecting the child and assisting the child in developing what it will need to survive and flourish as an adult being.

As to the child's right to life, when he is born he is born with every right due a human being, but because he cannot exercise his rights his parents act as guardians, as custodians of the child's rights.

[dondigitalia 0]

This is all a simple matter of parents being responsible for their actions.

←

This was the intial argument made, which was rejected by the other side.

I will quote my contribution to the discussion:

A mother who carries a child to term (assuming abortion is legal and available in her country), does so with the full knowledge that this child is unable to care for itself. In carrying the child to term, she is obligating herself to provide that care. This isn't because a child has more rights than anyone else, it's because the mother is the one who put the child in the position of needing any support at all. If a woman knows that a child will not be taken care of, and gives birth anyway, then it is tantamount to murder. Because of this, if she has a child and does not make arrangements for someone else to be the caretaker, she is doing one of two things: intending to commit murder by abandonment, or implicitly agreeing to be the child's caretaker.

Any defects the child has are irrelevant. A parent has a chosen obligation (even if they don't recognize the choice, it's implicit) to be the caretaker of his/her child.

Now, if a parent agrees to be the child's caretaker, and then later abandons it in the woods, he is defaulting on his previous agreement to take care of the child. Knowing that this default will necessarily lead to the death of the child makes it murder. The parents actions have directly led to the death of the child.

I will not comment on what's wrong with the other position. I find the opposite position so unspeakably horrible, that I have a great deal of trouble not bringing my emotions into a rebuttal.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

A mother who carries a child to term (assuming abortion is legal and available in her country), does so with the full knowledge that this child is unable to care for itself.

I agree with most all that you say, but I do not understand the parenthetical qualification. In what way would the parent's responsibility differ if abortion was not legal and available?

I find the opposite position so unspeakably horrible, that I have a great deal of trouble not bringing my emotions into a rebuttal.

Over the years I too have heard views in regard to children that were almost unbearably horrible, most often from libertarian types who have little in the way of fundamentally correct moral and political principles. As Amse pointed out in a recent post in a different thread, political ideas are derivative from an ethical base

[dondigitalia 0]

I agree with most all that you say, but I do not understand the parenthetical qualification. In what way would the parent's responsibility differ if abortion was not legal and available?

←

I'm not certain that it would differ, but I can see where it might. It's not something I've explored too much. I do recognize, however, that the illegality of abortion gives rise to a different context regarding any choice on the mother's behalf. Of course, there is always the intial choice to have sex (which any normal adult knows might lead to pregnancy), so I don't know for sure that the new context is relevant to the overall issue. I included the parenthetical, not to imply that those circumstances necessarily change parental obligations, but to limit my statement to a context about which I am certain.

One could take the "no abortion" context even further: Suppose a woman gets pregnant when she is raped, and there are no abortions in her country. Is she making any implicit agreement in that case? It's not something I've really taken the time to think about before, since we do have abortion here in America.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

One could take the "no abortion" context even further: Suppose a woman gets pregnant when she is raped, and there are no abortions in her country. Is she making any implicit agreement in that case?

If a woman has sex by choice then she is responsible for the consequences. Rape is not a choice.

It's not something I've really taken the time to think about before, since we do have abortion here in America.

←

That was not always the case.

[dondigitalia 0]

That was not always the case.

←

That's true, although I wasn't around to experience that situation first-hand.

[Lu Norton 0]

Mr. Andrew Bernstein broaches this topic in an interview on the Bernie Mac show (at around the 11 minute mark for those interested).

←

(Bold emphasis added)

I am sorry to break the ice . I noticed the name in the post. I think you mean Peter Mac.

[dondigitalia 0]

(Bold emphasis added)

I am sorry to break the ice  . I noticed the name in the post. I think you mean Peter Mac.

←

I thought the idea of Bernie Mac having Andrew Bernstein on his show sounded a little odd!

[RationalBiker 0]

(Bold emphasis added)

I am sorry to break the ice  . I noticed the name in the post. I think you mean Peter Mac.

←

DOH! You are correct, it was the Peter Mac show. Thanks for pointing that out!

[Gilliatt 0]

I'm new here (but not to Objectivism itself,) and this is a question I've pondered to no satisfactory solution so far. Hopefully, someone will be able to help me out with this.

This is all a simple matter of parents being responsible for their actions. By choosing to create a human life which, by its nature, is unable to independently survive as a human for some time to come, the parents have assumed the responsibility for protecting the child and assisting the child in developing what it will need to survive and flourish as an adult being.

←

As I understand it, the only legal responsibility a person has in a just society is to not initiate force against other men. Would violating this childcare responsibility be considered an initiation of force, or is there some other principle makes (the act of creating human life) a basis for legal responsibility?

In what way would the parent's responsibility differ if abortion was not legal and available?

If a woman has sex by choice then she is responsible for the consequences.

Does this mean that a mother, in not stopping her pregnancy, should be legally responsible:

*if she's raped, but has the legal option of abortion?

*if she chooses to have sex, but abortion is legally banned?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

This is all a simple matter of parents being responsible for their actions. By choosing to create a human life which, by its nature, is unable to independently survive as a human for some time to come, the parents have assumed the responsibility for protecting the child and assisting the child in developing what it will need to survive and flourish as an adult being.

←

As I understand it, the only legal responsibility a person has in a just society is to not initiate force against other men. Would violating this childcare responsibility be considered an initiation of force, or is there some other principle makes (the act of creating human life) a basis for legal responsibility?

A child has the right to life, but is not able to fully exercise that right on his own. Being deprived, then, of a custodian to exercise that right for his benefit, the child will die. The parent, by definition, is that custodian -- a consequence of the parent's actions -- so to abandon an infant or a child is to initiate force, to violate that child's right to life.

In what way would the parent's responsibility differ if abortion was not legal and available?

If a woman has sex by choice then she is responsible for the consequences.

Does this mean that a mother, in not stopping her pregnancy, should be legally responsible:

*if she's raped, but has the legal option of abortion?

*if she chooses to have sex, but abortion is legally banned?

←

In the first case, if she is raped then clearly that is not "sex by choice." But not aborting is a choice, one with legal consequences.

In the second case, if abortion is not a legal option then the choice to have sex is made with the possibility of the outcome in mind. That is a choice with legal consequences.

[stellavision 0]

In the first case, if she is raped then clearly that is not "sex by choice." But not aborting is a choice, one with legal consequences.

In the second case, if abortion is not a legal option then the choice to have sex is made with the possibility of the outcome in mind. That is a choice with legal consequences.

Agreed with the first case, in which abortion would be a perfectly moral, and should be a perfectly legal, choice. However, is it proper to talk about the legality of taking care of a child if abortion is not legal, given that abortion *should* be legal? I do think that if a woman lives in a country where abortion is outlawed, and she becomes pregnant (and cannot travel to a country where she could get an abortion -- this is another option, where possible), then morally she has the obligation to care for the child, since she chose to have sex and knew, or should have known, the consequences. But legally? Legally the answer is "she should be able to have an abortion," rather than "legally, since she is not permitted to have an abortion, she must raise the child." (Of course, if she can have an abortion and chooses not to, she must raise the child, for reasons listed in previous posts.)

[Joss Delage 0]

All,

I realize this is an old thread, but while reading it I couldn't help asking myself: is it an initiation of violence for a woman to put her child up for adoption? Or to abandon them at birth? (It's an action which is legally protected in France for example). I suppose there could be a way for a mother to relinquish her responsibility to an orphanage or adopting parents, without this being an initiation of force.

Also, given that some children will be victims of such actions, what would be the moral course of action and the role of the government in it?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

However, is it proper to talk about the legality of taking care of a child if abortion is not legal, given that abortion *should* be legal?

←

An improper law does not absolve one of the consequences of choice. Granted that the government should not build and operate roadways, you still cannot expect to go 150 mph on a freeway and not have to pay the ticket. Here the ticket is a human life, something of incomparably greater value. And, more importantly, that human life that you created has rights, regardless of the state ban on abortion.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

... is it an initiation of violence for a woman to put her child up for adoption?  Or to abandon them at birth?

Adoption and abandonment are fundamentally different acts. Adoption effects the legal transfer of custodianship of a child's rights to a willing party, whereas abandonment is unilateral relinquishment of responsibility, without knowledge of or surety for the life of the child. The former is entirely proper under many circumstances, while the latter is evil and revolting.

Also, given that some children will be victims of such actions, what would be the moral course of action and the role of the government in it?

←

The government protects the rights of the child and legally establishes a proper guardian.

[Joss Delage 0]

Thanks Stephen.

The government protects the rights of the child and legally establishes a proper guardian.

←

If I may, what do you mean by that? That the adoption services and orphanages should be financed & controlled by the government? Who takes on the responsibility of exercising the child's rights on their behalf between the time they're abandoned and the time they're adopted (or become adult).

Also, do you think the government should have a more involved oversight in the case of the adopted child than in the case of the "natural" child? (I'm talking post adoption here.)

[Stephen Speicher 0]

The government protects the rights of the child and legally establishes a proper guardian.

←

If I may, what do you mean by that? That the adoption services and orphanages should be financed & controlled by the government? Who takes on the responsibility of exercising the child's rights on their behalf between the time they're abandoned and the time they're adopted (or become adult).

I mean that the government establishes and administers the laws to properly enable transfer of guardianship of the child. In the interim, the government acts as custodian of the child's rights, ensuring that such rights are fully protected. The details of how this is accomplished I leave to those more knowledgeable of the law than I. I do note, however, that in a proper society I would assume the cost would be borne mostly by charities acting in the child's behalf, and also by no deficit of couples seeking to adopt. Regardless, the main point is that government must act to protect the child's rights.

Also, do you think the government should have a more involved oversight in the case of the adopted child than in the case of the "natural" child?  (I'm talking post adoption here.)

←

I would assume that once the proper guardians are found, the government's job is done. Afterwards, any rights violations of children would be handled no differently whether the child is adopted or not.

[Gilliatt 0]

A child has the right to life, but is not able to fully exercise that right on his own. Being deprived, then, of a custodian to exercise that right for his benefit, the child will die. The parent, by definition, is that custodian -- a consequence of the parent's actions -- so to abandon an infant or a child is to initiate force, to violate that child's right to life.

←

I agree that the parent is responsible - if they are the custodian. But to me, there seems to be similar situations that would improperly make a person a custodian.

E.g. A good samaritan might shoot a bear that is attacking a stranger. If this stranger is unable to independently survive, would this and the fact that the samaritan chose to help, mean that the samaritan should be legally obligated to assume responsibility/custodianship?

[stellavision 0]

I agree that the parent is responsible - if they are the custodian. But to me, there seems to be similar situations that would improperly make a person a custodian.

E.g. A good samaritan might shoot a bear that is attacking a stranger. If this stranger is unable to independently survive, would this and the fact that the samaritan chose to help, mean that the samaritan should be legally obligated to assume responsibility/custodianship?

←

No -- the "Samaritan" owes the stranger nothing. He did not bring a helpless person into the world, as is the case with a parent -- the parent's obligation stems from the fact that the parent caused the existence of the child. Merely happening upon a helpless person does not imply an obligation.

[Paul's Here 0]

-----------

If this stranger is unable to independently survive,--------------

←

What does that mean to you?

[Gilliatt 0]

No -- the "Samaritan" owes the stranger nothing. He did not bring a helpless person into the world, as is the case with a parent -- the parent's obligation stems from the fact that the parent caused the existence of the child. Merely happening upon a helpless person does not imply an obligation.

←

So preserving another's existence doesn't create obligations, but creating another's existence does? What here is the ethical difference between creating and preserving another person?

To perhaps further my thought, in the aforementioned rape victim's case, she did not cause her circumstance. Despite the fact that she has not caused this, should she be legally obligated to either have surgery performed on herself or be responsible for the child?

What does that mean to you?

←

I'm not sure I'm getting your question, but for example, if the stranger has severly injured his arms and legs, or falls into a coma immediately after he's saved by the samaritan.

[Paul's Here 0]

------

I'm not sure I'm getting your question, but for example, if the stranger has severly injured his arms and legs, or falls into a coma immediately after he's saved by the samaritan.

←

I still don't know what you mean. Are you saying that if I save a drowning person who suffers from severe frostbite on his limbs and then falls into a coma, what is my obligation to him? Do I just walk away and leave him to die or is there a moral/legal obligation to help him? Is that what you mean?

[stellavision 0]

So preserving another's existence doesn't create obligations, but creating another's existence does? What here is the ethical difference between creating and preserving another person?

The element of choice.

To perhaps further my thought, in the aforementioned rape victim's case, she did not cause her circumstance. Despite the fact that she has not caused this, should she be legally obligated to either have surgery performed on herself or be responsible for the child?

Yes. While it was not her choice to have been raped, it is her choice what she does afterward, and she can choose to abort.

[Gilliatt 0]

Are you saying that if I save a drowning person who suffers from severe frostbite on his limbs and then falls into a coma... is there a moral/legal obligation to help him?  Is that what you mean?

←

Yes, and of equal importance, why/why not.

While it was not her choice to have been raped, it is her choice what she does afterward, and she can choose to abort.

←

If the element of choice means having alternative actions, then the samaritan also has the element of choice. If that's not the proper meaning, what element of choice does the mother possess that the samaritan does not?