About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 2:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As far as adoption goes, the biggest myth which hinders the fullness of this is the one of 'buying and selling children', when in fact what is bought or sold is the guardianship - there is no less the legalities of protection of children welfare than with original guardians, the biological parents...

Post 1

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 6:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Criminals are deprived of all manner of liberties, why is the freedom to procreate not one of them?  Why is this such a 'barbaric' idea?  I wonder if it is not an long outmoded Victorian attitude toward women.

Post 2

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 7:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That doesn't seem where most if even many of those children come from - criminals - so while such an idea may fall into a valid deprivation, doubt be of much consequentalness...

Post 3

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 9:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In my more statist moods, I always think of the "No Choice" option - no children unless you meet a minimum capability to take care of them.  Yes, rather statist in that it would probably require mandatory birth control and/or abortions...  Yet it is amazing how many people who would condemn such as fascist, which it rather is, don't also recognize it is similarly fascist/communist/statist/collectivist to require others to support the children.

As a thought, isn't it an "initiation of force" to create a life and leave it to fend for itself with little or no support available?


Post 4

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 2:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert D:

Except for conjugal visits, incarcerated criminals are in fact deprived of the freedom to procreate. Are you suggesting that former criminals be likewise prohibited?

Also, are you implying that only men are criminals?

Kurt:

The answer to your question is "No".

Post 5

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 3:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kurt-

Creating the life and then intentionally holding it captive in a closet to starve to death would be initiating force. However, putting it in a basket in your front yard with a sign reading "Free baby!" seems perfectly legit.


Post 6

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 4:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick,

No I was really talking about women.  The penalty for child abuse of any kind for whatever reason should be sterization.


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 7:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Why don't we just do this, why don't we hold THEM accountable.  If they have a child and fail to support it, it's neglect and abuse and we come up with some harsh sentencing to deal with that kind of shit.  Any other forms of neglect and abuse are punished, why not punish bringing a child into the world without the means to take care of it.  Put the child up for adoption or in a privately funded foster home.  Stop rewarding bad behavior through the pilfering of those with ability, and instead start punishing it.  Then we might see condom sales increase.

Post 8

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 9:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"What (to do) about the Children (who are thoughtlessly brought into the world)?"

Well, clearly nothing's going to guarantee that all their needs for growth be met; not even a benevolent dictatorship, regardless what 'punishment' their careless parents are held accountable to.

My answer is: if one, personally, has the time, energy, necessary teacher-orientation, and, most especially, the MOTIVATION to be a child-raiser of random, anonymous, up-to-17yr-old 'children' to ADD to one's life...go for it! --- That's the ONLY proper thing to do (beyond being a crusader for others to 'adopt', if crusading is one's personal bent.)

LLAP
J:D


Post 9

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 9:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kurt, that's impossible. How can you be assured that a given person is incapable of raising a child? You can't. You have to give them the freedom to try, and only if they fail, and are guilty of neglect, can you bring charges against them.

Post 10

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 10:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tibor,

Thank goodness there are people like you on the pro-liberty side who ask sane questions like the following:
How can this problem [cutting the size and scope of the government] be faced in a way that does not put innocent children at grave risk?
The fact that you do not have a facile answer attests to the seriousness of your thinking and the goodness of your soul.

Bonk.

Jody,

I kinda like your idea, but I get real uneasy when I think about who will set the standards and who will enforce them and under which conditions. You proposal would need a GREAT DEAL of careful thought and definition.

Michael



Post 11

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 10:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
By the logic of the current welfare state and practically speaking, people who have kids should very possibly be required to get a license -- no matter how bizarre and tyrannical this seems at first glance. At the very least, some obviously poor future parents should be legally forbidden to raise kids in our one-man-falls-every-man-bleeds welfare state. (Incidentally, this practice would also raise human genetic quality. Anybody care to discuss this issue? ;-) ) 

Once kids come into existence with seemingly good prospective parents, but get severely abused or neglected anyhow, the kids should then be taken away by the state, the kids put up for adoption, and the parents put in jail. Child abuse is often a horrific crime, and this is the salient issue here. It's the job of government to protect the kids' individual rights. Possibly the jail terms for the abusive parents could be cut dramatically if they agree to sterilization or forfeiting their future parenting rights.

(Incidentally, brain-washing and psychologically torturing your kids with religion is also almost certainly a crime and form of child abuse which merits a long jail term. Anybody care to discuss this issue? ;-) )


Post 12

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 10:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Number one: In a truly free society, where people are not offered state protection from the consequences of their actions, peoples behaviour would change. The welfare state condones, even encourages irresponsible behaviour, so I believe ending that alone would lower the numbers of unwanted, uncared for babies.

Two: Women are entirely responsible for contraception, and unless there is a contract to have and raise a child, all responsibility, financial or otherwise, for an unwanted pregnancy falls upon them (this is not to say that I support irresponsiblity in males. It's just that it's her body therefore her responsibity, from a legal standpoint). Faced with such law it would lead to women, in general, being much more discerning in their relationships and sexual activities, which would also lead to less unwanted, uncared for babies.

My two cents worth for the moment.


Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 10:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
TOTALLY OFF TOPIC [and angry]

Richard, wow you have it all figured out. Its all so simple! For men anyway.

~Men are free to do as they please. All the unwanted children of the world? That is the fault of us silly women. Lock us up -- guilty as charged. Throw a chastity belt on me before I con a poor defenseless man into procreating!~

If the entire responsibility of conception and contraception lies on the woman then how can you even say this? Seems pretty contradictory to me.

"...this is not to say that I support irresponsiblity in males"


A man beter know what he is doing and understand all the RISKS involved, which obviously includes conception. If he isnt willing to take responsibility for the consequences of SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, which by nature may result in a BABY then he shouldnt be having sex, and the same goes for women. The responsiblity, ehthical, financial, etc is EQUAL. The nature of sex makes it so.

Handwaving all the moral responsibility of sex onto women is irrational and more than a little viscious. This won't solve anything.

Post 14

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 10:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just in case it wasn't obvious, I was not seriously proposing that as a solution. 

It is kind of an exercise in throwing a wedge into the pro and anti abortion factions by pissing them both off.


Post 15

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 10:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Two: Women are entirely responsible for contraception, and unless there is a contract to have and raise a child, all responsibility, financial or otherwise, for an unwanted pregnancy falls upon them 
LOL!!!   Lemme see if I got this straight...  If you're about to boink someone, and you know she's not using any of the usual methods of contraception, you'd simply proceed and let her worry about the outcome?

this is not to say that I support irresponsiblity in males.

Wait a minute here... didn't you just say males bore no responsibility for conception?  How can they behave irresponsibly if the responsibility wasn't theirs to begin with?

Just curious...

SmS


Post 16

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 10:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
TOTALLY OFF TOPIC [and angry]

Richard, wow you have it all figured out. Its all so simple! For men anyway.

 
I knew that would make someone angry :-) but I have (what I think is) good reason for saying it. I've thought it through carefully and it's based on the fact that a woman wholly owns her body. I'm heading to work now, but I'll be back to argue my case.

Richard




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 11:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
LOL!!!   Lemme see if I got this straight...  If you're about to boink someone, and you know she's not using any of the usual methods of contraception, you'd simply proceed and let her worry about the outcome?

I like that you laughed, Summer. If I was more at home here I'd bonk you just for that. It would be a responsible bonk, though, because I think from my mind and not my mouse clicking finger. Anyway, to answer your question:

No, I wouldn't simply proceed and let her worry about the outcome. Many men do though

this is not to say that I support irresponsiblity in males.

Wait a minute here... didn't you just say males bore no responsibility for conception?  How can they behave irresponsibly if the responsibility wasn't theirs to begin with?

I didn't say it wasn't irresponsible for a man to have sex with someone he doesn't care about, and then to walk away and leave them to it when/if they get pregnant. I said that a women is entirely responsible for ensuring she doesn't get pregnant if that's not what she wants. A women is entirely responsible for how she allows her body to be used and for what she allows or doesn't allow into it. Passing one iota of that responsibility off onto men is to renege on your responsibility to yourself. Men can be equally irresponsible here, but the consequences for them are not the same as the consequences for a woman. Men can simply walk away; a woman cannot.

Richard

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 12:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
TOTALLY OFF TOPIC [and angry]
Hi Marnee, perhaps I can calm your anger. I'll try anyway.

 
Richard, wow you have it all figured out. Its all so simple! For men anyway
It is relatively more simple for men. They can just walk away.


If the entire responsibility of conception and contraception lies on the woman then how can you even say this? Seems pretty contradictory to me.

"...this is not to say that I support irresponsiblity in males"
I can say that because irresponsibility on the males part does not equal the same liability, or obligation even, that rests with a woman. If a woman owns her body and has the right to terminate or not terminate at her will, regardless of anything the man might say or do, think or feel, then a man has no liabilities or obligations in regards to any pregnancy that might arise, outside of a contract for that. Unless there is a contract for pregnancy (and sexual intercourse does not constitute such a contract) then it's entirely out of his hands and he has no right in the matter.

A man beter know what he is doing and understand all the RISKS involved, which obviously includes conception. If he isnt willing to take responsibility for the consequences of SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, which by nature may result in a BABY then he shouldnt be having sex
Yes, and an irresponsible man might know all the risks involved, but still, he goes ahead and simply walks away. That is one of the risks of conception that a woman must take into account, i.e.  is this man a responsible ethical man, or not?

, and the same goes for women. The responsiblity, ehthical, financial, etc is EQUAL. The nature of sex makes it so.

Having sex with someone does not make them obligated to you,  no more than sharing a coffee does.

 
The nature of sex doesn't make it so.Handwaving all the moral responsibility of sex onto women is irrational and more than a little viscious. This won't solve anything

I'm not handwaving all the moral responsiblity of sex onto women. I"m saying that each woman and each man, individually, are fully responsible for their own bodies. If a man wants to raise a child with someone, then he better find a responsible and moral woman, and vice versa.

Richard


Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 4:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Handwaving all the moral responsibility of sex onto women is irrational and more than a little viscious. This won't solve anything."

Think about it, Marnee. Women hold ALL the cards when it comes to having children. The "responsibility" factor for men comes into play only because the government steps in and forces it upon them. Is that okay with you? A women who cannot raise a child alone, yet uses the force of government to make a fertilizing male a slave for the outcome of her sexual whims for 20 years is neither moral, nor rational.  Now that's vicious.

If a male wants nothing to do with a pregnancy, there's plenty a woman can do about it other than forcing him into government conscripted support slavery. There are choices that exist for women that simply do not exist for men. In other words, there are more rights for women then for men. Something seems terribly wrong with that picture.

Maybe you like the idea of holding an ax over a man's head, but it kinda makes me sick, and I don't mind saying it. 

I'm still waiting for an a good argument that concludes a male is responsible for the choices of a female. None is forthcoming so far, but I'm perfectly willing to change my stand if one should be made available.

Government has an interesting way of imposing standards onto a culture, as it seems to have done here with your thinking. A man who knows he cannot raise a child is not immoral or irrational to suggest that a women he's made pregnant get an abortion. A women who refuses this option, as well as adoption is the irrational one, unless she's able to parent all by herself. Thems the facts of a "free" society.

Teresa 


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.