RoR: Forum

AR: "Don't bother to examine a folly, ask yourself only what it accomplishes."

What is the motive for justifying, in principal, doing away with an unwanted, non-intelligent, non-productive, non-secure human life? How is it a threat to anyone?
Dean, did you get a girl pregnant, and you are getting roped into taking care of the baby–which will affect your future? And the solution of eliminating it will solve your issue? Perhaps making it into a principled policy of rights is the way to go–simply eliminated all unwanted, non-unproductive people, a kind of simple hecatomb.

(Edited, to be more clear.)

(Edited by Guy Stanton on 4/10, 11:24am)

Post 41

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 10:58am

Nowhere have I seen it suggested it might have been stillborn - rather, it has been assumed it wasn't....

Post 42

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 11:13am

Just a couple of quick distinctions that have been lost here (regarding this particular case):

The mother in question did not murder her child---technically. She did not bash its head in, she did not strap it into a car seat and send her car into a lake, she did not drown it in the bathtub. If she wanted to guarantee its death, she could've done any of these things.

Instead, she left it in a garbage can, in the cold. Some infants actually survive this. Hers did not. Either way, she would be facing charges.

The point of my earlier post was, why not leave it at a safe haven, where it would be rescued and cared for? (If for no other reason than to AVOID ARREST?)

This discussion has turned into an infanticide discussion (a la Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, etc.) There is some distinction, however slight, between women who want
their situation to just "go away", and abandon babies in places where their survival is unlikely, and those who outright murder their children in cold blood. Just wanted to point that out.

The "lynching" of Dean Gores began after Dean felt sympathy for the mother, saying basically, that she shouldn't be punished because she didn't want to be a mother after giving birth.

The STATE agrees with that sentiment. (As do I.) The safe haven laws already bend over backwards to allow women to abandon their newborns legally, no questions asked.
Must the laws include garbage dumpsters as acceptable locations in order to "be fair to the rights of the poor, scared mommy who doesn't want to be one?" Is this the actual argument?

When the law already generously accommodates my acting like an asshole (because leaving an infant unattended even in front of a firehouse is a still shitty thing to do, when you think about it) and I still manage to find a way to screw it up and break the law...I deserve no sympathy. Not from the courts, not from Dean Gores, not from anyone. (Even if my child somehow survived the ordeal.)

That was my only major point.

Erica
(not part of the lynch mob)

P.S. to the Rev:

The stillborn argument crossed my mind, too. The police, according to the article, are working on the assumption that the child was left to die in the garbage.

Post 43

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 11:27am

"Erica
(not part of the lynch mob)"

Of course you are dear.

Post 44

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 12:02pm

If it was cold outside then a rational person can assume the mother to know that leaving the child outside would likely kill the baby, just as we can assume she would know that pulling the trigger of a gun pointed at the baby would likely be fatal. If the woman had taken the baby to a fire station she would have been caring for it. Putting it in the garbage can was killing it.

The issue here is about individual rights. Dean is clearly not working from a concept of individual rights that matches Objectivism. In Objectivism one has a full set of individual rights upon birth. The mother violated the baby's right to live.

Dean makes it clear that he is on a different page than Objectivists with different statements he has made in this thread:
Post #3, where you can see that somehow "value" is replacing the concept of individual rights. (Jon noticed the same thing and mentioned it in post #4)

I value a full grown woman's privacy (her privacy of knowledge that she was/is pregnant, and the chance of such being discovered) more than a unwanted (unwanted by the mother) newborn's life. Sorry, but at this stage of human development I don't value such a human child any more than another's unwanted cat or dog.

Then look at post #5. Here is a statement of rights as conditional.

The qualities of an adult human that make me desire an adult to have human rights are not present in such a child. Wonderful things like productiveness, intelligence, and security.

And then (in the same post) there is also an implication that "value" is a subjective thing - if someone has a desire for something, that gives it value, and that can convey the rights. That appears to be Deans position on individual rights.

I still think it is very much a crime, murder, to kill a child that is wanted by the mother or depending, the father.

This is confirmed in post #22,

If the mother wants the kid, and someone else kills the kid, then the other person committed murder.

And again in post #25,

Are humans intrinsically valuable, or are the valuable by what they do for a particular value holder?

M. Ericson appears to take the same position where, referring to unwanted children, in post #36, he says,

Their potentials may be more on the order of a Jeffrey Dahmer.

In post #39 Dean is explicit in stating that a child has no rights because of their lack of knowledge and intelligence,

I am concerned about the parent's parental rights, not non-existent rights of a practically knowledge-less unintelligent child.

And in the same post,

When is the child so far developed that one should treat the child as a thing with human rights? Things to consider might be the child's learning ability, knowledge, problem solving ability, emotions, physical ability, cuteness, what else?

In Objectivism, individual rights are absolute, not conditional and apply for every entity:

That is a human being,
That is alive and has been born (as opposed to still being a fetus)
That has not volitionally violated the rights of others.

Apart from those requirements, one does not have to have any value to have rights.

Post 45

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 12:08pm

I'm not particularly interested in what Objectivism is or is not.

Post 46

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 12:15pm

Dean has laid out his position; rights arise when the child demonstrates “learning ability, knowledge, problem solving ability, emotions, physical ability, cuteness…”

How much learning ability, knowledge, etc. is required? Are thoroughly retarded three year olds good for the trash can but not mildly retarded ones? Would the state perform standardized tests and designate which three year olds are welcomed to humanity and which are cleared for the trash?

He argues for the woman’s right to carry full-term in secrecy, which presumably extends to a right to possess three year olds in the home in secrecy. When she trashes her three year old and assures us it was “like, totally retarded,” is her word good enough?

I would like to see Dean’s apologists engage him now. Do you agree with him? Work it out with him.

Post 47

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 12:26pm

My apologies for consuming Post #47.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 4/10, 12:32pm)

Post 48

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 12:36pm

In post 47, prior to editing, Dean quoted me, “He [Dean] argues for the woman’s right to carry full-term in secrecy, which presumably extends to a right to possess three year olds in the home in secrecy.” Then he wrote that my misrepresentation of him was astounding.

Here is Dean in post 3: “I value a full grown woman's privacy (her privacy of knowledge that she was/is pregnant, and the chance of such being discovered) more than a unwanted (unwanted by the mother) newborn's life.”

I’ll leave it to Dean and his apologists to chew and clarify what his position is.

Post 49

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 12:48pm

I wash my hands of this mess.

Ed
[former apologist]

Post 50

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 1:28pm

Since I am new here, y’all might not get my style, but in post #27 I made an analogy about creating a brawl. I believe that Dean was successful in this. There was a brawl and he got mauled. But, I am still curious about the motivation to get trounced...

Hong may have had a good point.

Ed,
Wise man.

Post 51

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 1:41pm

Dean needs to explain himself.

He says that he is okay with killing babies and he posts that here on this Objectivist forum and he says he doesn't particulary care what Objectivism is or is not.

If that is an accurate statement of his position - a position he is willing to stand by - then this is not a forum where he should be a member.

Post 52

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 2:20pm

The stillborn argument crossed my mind, too. The police, according to the article, are working on the assumption that the child was left to die in the garbage.

Thank you, Erica - the reason the point was raised was that it would be hard for the woman to prove unless witnesses were there - thus the obviousness of simply disposing to avoid the charge she is now subjected to...

Post 53

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 2:22pm

Steve, in a light most favorable to him, I'd imagine Dean is interested in the truth or the best answer, and not Objectivism per se. Sure, he's taken the dastardly minority side of the issue, but he's not being a jerk about it. This isn't worth revoking his membership. I'll betcha he still thinks A=A. :D

Erica, murder, technically, can occur through omission as well as through act. If the baby survives, then an attempted murder charge might stand.

Dean, the state decides whether to press charges in criminal cases. Particularly in a baby murder case, the mom isn't going to have much say one way or other.

Murder, because if wanted then within a short time-span the child will become a knowledgeable intelligent being.

In a short time frame a healthy fetus would also become a knowledgeable intelligent being. Murder is killing of persons, not potential persons. The question is whether the newborn counts as a person (i.e., a rights-bearing entity.)

As I understand it, Objectivism claims that only rational animals are persons. Do you challenge this? If not, the question then is whether newborns count as rational animals. If they do, then it doesn't matter whether the mom wants them. A person's right to live doesn't depend on whether someone else wants her/him to live.

Jordan

Post 54

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 3:27pm

I don't think the charge fits the crime. And I do think it's a crime, in this case of abandonment and child endangerment. Why? Because even if the baby is left alone it won't die from that, what it would have died from is starvation or assault by another person, so I think the severity of the crime is a difference of quality and not quantity. The child does have rights by virtue that we gift them to children by default to get the ball rolling for rights. Remember, there's no single faculty in the human body that automatically endorses nor assumes rights. Rights are very abstract principles, therefore require a well integrated mind to conceive and handle. A child and a savage don't have the inherent abilities to do either, so no rights are not inherent from the get go. They come either as gift because the alternative is worse, or as a consequence of rational development and interaction. So, in this case, the right of the child were violated in that it was abandoned and basically left at the risk of real danger to its existence since it has no ability to prevent either. This also follows in a similar vein to retarded persons or other persons who are partially or completely incompasitated.

What I'm driving at here is not to judge this case by feelings, but judge it by its facts. The women in question did commit a crime, just not the one they're being charged for.

-- Brede

Post 55

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 3:44pm

OK, let me waste a half hour of my time to lay my thinking out, not from any philosophical point of view but hopefully not contradictory with any rational theories and philosophies out there. ;-)

Infant is but a very special stage of a human’s life, where the livelihood of the infant is absolutely and 100% dependent on its parent. Therefore there is no option for the parents not to want their newborn/infant, or not to provide a livelihood for the child either by themselves or by giving it up for adoption. By the very act of bringing the fetus to full-term and give birth to it, parents implicitly enter into a contract with the child for whom they are now responsible for its very life. It doesn’t matter whether the infant is cute or ugly, intelligent or stupid, or whether he or she will grown up to be an Einstein or psychopathic serial killer. The parents are obliged to fulfill their contract to provide the infant food, shelter, etc., unless the parents’ very own life is at stake.

To go through the whole term of pregnancy and give birth to a child, but only to kill it afterward is utterly irrational.

Dean is apparently confused of this case of infanticide with abortion. I personally consider the option of abortion is only an emergency solution, when the mother’s life and her very basic welfare are at stake. When the mother is able to bring the fetus to full-term, it already indicates that this is not an emergency situation. By this time, there are many options here in US and very little effort required of the mother if she choices not to raise the child herself. And yet, this woman (and her sister) did the worst thing possible – they did not simply not to want the child, they intended the child to die and the child did die. When they forfeit their child life in such a mindless manner, it indicates to me that it is their life that is not worth living.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/10, 4:00pm)

Post 56

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 3:45pm

Bridget,

I think you are making a mistake when you say,

The child does have rights by virtue that we gift them to children by default to get the ball rolling for rights.

We don't gift rights - they adhere automatically when a child is born. A five year old has rights even though they don't fully understand them. A college professor that doesn't believe in any form of rights has them none the less. A savage has them as well.

You say,

Rights are very abstract principles, therefore require a well integrated mind to conceive and handle.

It is true that they are very abstract principles. It is true that a well integrated mind (to a degree) is needed to concieve and handle them. But that isn't a precondition of having rights. If it were, there would only be a small portion of us (mostly Objectivists and not all of them) that would have any rights at all.

Rights are inherent (exist) from the get go (birth). And they are absolute and unconditional. One does not have to perform any tricks or get to be a certain size or pass any special test of intellecual wherewithal to claim them.

To have individual rights you only have to be a human being that has made it past birth, are still alive and have not violated the rights of others.

Post 57

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 4:18pm

By the very act of bringing the fetus to full-term and give birth to it, parents implicitly enter into a contract with the child for whom they are now responsible for its very life.

Hong, you are brilliant. There's no "secret" from reality.

Edit: How ignorant does someone have to be not to know that the hospital could check her blood and discover tell tale hormones of her recent condition? She's too stupid to be a mother. Ever.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 4/10, 4:26pm)

Post 58

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 5:17pm

If I weren't an Objectivist, I'd lobby for a law that kept people from having kids until they could pass an intelligence test!

Post 59

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 5:37pm