RoR: Forum

The 'mother' chose to 'birth' a human being. Such, if 'conscious', is a rational human being, merely more ignorant than adults (including DMG...I presume.) --- The birthing creates a 'dependent' which thereby has human rights (within the O'ist framework, for those interested.) Creating a 'dependent' which has rights gives it moral claim of obligation from the creator (ie: the mother) to caretake its needs either personally or delegatorally. A 'mother' who defaults on the obligation is to be penalized, one way or another, moral-chastisement/ostracism at the least; legally-enforced sterlization at the max...to prevent such happening to another infant.

LLAP
J:D

Post 121

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 1:28pm

So would Dean or anyone defend this brutal, murdering mother? Is there a difference between leaving a defenseless newborn hidden in the trash to die slowly as opposed to a quick "mercy" killing?
----

Updated at: 04/13/2007 12:40:09 PM

Bail set at $1 million for teen accused of baby murder

A 17-year-old stabbed her newborn baby 135 times and disposed of her body in a garbage can outside her home in Oakdale, authorities alleged Thursday.

Nicole Marie Beecroft was charged Thursday with first-degree murder. The charge carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. She was being held in a juvenile detention facility. Bail was set at $1 million on Friday afternoon.

"She kills the baby and now her life will be changed forever," Washington County Attorney Doug Johnson said.

The Tartan High School senior told police she was in a "panic state" after giving birth to the girl on the floor of the laundry room in her home around 3 a.m. Monday, according to the criminal complaint filed in Washington County District Court. She told police she had seen the baby's finger move, and admitted stabbing the child, the complaint said.

An autopsy determined the infant had been born alive, but suffered numerous puncture wounds in the chest area and bled to death from 135 sharp-force injuries, the complaint said.

"We don't know what motivated her," Johnson said.

Johnson noted that the state's safe harbor law allows mothers to leave infants at any hospital within 72 hours of birth with no legal consequences.
"She could have walked away and the baby would have been adopted by a family that wanted it. Instead she destroys two lives: her own and the baby's," he said.

Police said the baby's body was inside a trash bag that had been placed in the garbage can outside Beecroft's suburban home. Inside the trash bag, investigators also found a black-handled knife and some towels, according to the complaint.

Authorities were tipped off Tuesday when an anonymous caller told police that a cashier at a Cub Foods grocery store in St. Paul had given birth to a stillborn baby and threw it in the garbage at her home. The store manager confirmed Beecroft was an employee there, but said she had called in sick the past two days. Police went to her home. Her mother told officers her daughter had been sick in bed the past two days, but had gone to work that day, according to the complaint.

Beecroft's mother, Kari Beecroft, allowed the officers to look in her daughter's room, where they found a bag containing adult diapers. The mother told police her daughter had been using them because she had been experiencing a very heavy period, the complaint said. The officers found a blood-soaked sanitary napkin or diaper in the bathroom garbage can.

While police secured the scene Tuesday night, other officers found Nicole Beecroft at the store where she worked. They took her back to the Oakdale Police Department, where she acknowledged she had given birth the day before. She said she had gone to the bathroom, but something didn't feel right, so she went to the laundry room and put a towel on the floor, and gave birth there. She initially claimed the girl was stillborn, and admitted discarding the child in the garbage can, the complaint said.

Police then got a search warrant, and recovered the body from the garbage can early Wednesday. Beecroft confessed when officers later confronted her at a hospital, the complaint said.

The girl's mother told police she didn't know her overweight daughter was pregnant.

The Beecroft family does not have a listed phone number.
An attorney will be appointed for her and bail will be set at her first court appearance Friday, Johnson said.

Johnson said Beecroft has told police the name of the person she believes is the father.

Oakdale police officer Michelle Stark said no one else was expected to be charged in the baby's death.

"Some early intervention possibly could have helped," Stark said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Post 122

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 1:52pm

If someone (say, 'X') put them all in the same car with Susan Smith and sent it, as she sent her kids, into a deep lake to all drown...the prosecutor of 'X' would not want me on the jury.

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 4/13, 1:54pm)

Post 123

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 2:43pm

Glenn,

You wrote,

�What facts should someone look harder at to determine whether they should extend the negative rights adults have to positive rights for the child?�

And,

�The only contradiction I see so far is that between the Objectivist principle of negative rights and the suggestion that children have positive rights.�

I have not suggested that children have positive rights. And Joe has offered an argument substantiating this mother�s act as murder from a purely negative rights standpoint, (the argument assumes that infants have negative rights.)

Post 124

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 3:20pm

Jon,
You're absolutely right about Joe's argument in his Post #62; it doesn't require positive rights. You also said:

I have not suggested that children have positive rights.

I just went back over your posts in this thread (thankfully your posts are usually shorter than some) and, to be honest, I can't find any suggestions that you have made at all. At the risk of "thread-crossing", I went to the Individual Rights thread and found this in your Post #14:

Something like that is what I could go for. The standard Objectivist derivation of rights works for me, along with universal application. Rights must be applied differently to children for certain metaphysical reasons, but they�re not in any essential way different from adults, to children, etc. [Emphasis added.]

Until you specify what these differences are, I won't know if you are "sneaking in" positive rights. Sometimes I have a hard time telling whose "advocate" you are at any given time. : )
Thanks,
Glenn
[PS added in edit.]
PS: Jon, in your Post #69 you said:

She held responsible for the newborn�s needs those responsible for creating him/her. Quotes available upon request.

I'd be interested in knowing where she discussed this idea. Thanks.

(Edited by Glenn Fletcher on 4/13, 3:38pm)

Post 125

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 3:47pm

Hong,

You wrote, �And I have to admit that I never had a good grasp of those "positive" or "negative" rights stuff. I don't understand this language and can not talk it.�

�Negative rights� means the right to be left alone. These rights are the only real rights and they imply no obligation on others except to leave you alone.

�Positive rights� means the right to something from others.

In Objectivism, all rights are negative. And positive rights are anti-concepts that obliterate the only real rights, the negative ones.

Rand gave a good example for the right to free speech. This right means you can say what you want without interference. It is not the (positive) right to a microphone at a radio station where you are unwanted. This you could get only by obliterating the negative rights of the station owner.

The right to property means you must be left alone to build your house and grow your own potatoes and eat them. The welfare (positive) right to housing and food means someone must provide you with a house and some potatoes. This (in fact non-existent) positive right obliterates someone�s right to be left alone to keep his or her potatoes.

Does that clarify it?

Joe�s analogy of taking someone into the woods is an interesting spin on these concepts. The purpose of the analogy is to show that one has legitimate obligations that may APPEAR to be of the �positive right� sort, but really are not. It goes like this: You take another adult into the woods. You are the one with the food, supplies and knowledge of outdoor survival techniques. Once in the woods, you abandon him and he dies. That�s murder. Because you had the obligation to feed and protect him? Yes. But NOT because they have positive rights to be fed and protected, rather because you chose to place them in a situation where they needed you. You created the obligation.

He used that analogy because it parallels the obligation parents have to their children. Creating children (in our modern times) obligates the parents to either care for them or not interfere with those who are willing to care for them. The mother could have had an abortion, but she didn�t. Instead she created the newborn. This parallels that you could have refrained from taking someone who is outdoor-clueless into the woods, but you didn�t�you chose to take them there. In the same way that your obligation to your friend in the mountains is not to be construed as suggesting his possession of positive rights, so also the obligation of the mother to her unwanted infant does not suggest positive rights for the infant.

The existence of people willing to take over the care of unwanted newborns would parallel the existence of a �safety station� nearby in the woods. Dropping your friend there would save you from committing murder. Did you drop your outdoor-clueless friend at the safety station? No, you intentionally avoided the station. Likewise, a mother with an unwanted infant interferes with those willing to take over the care of the infant when she puts her baby in the trash can instead of at the firehouse.

All of this assumes that infants have negative rights, the demonstration of which is the challenge in the new General Forum thread that Steve started.

Post 126

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 4:35pm

Glenn,

You quoted me,

�Something like that is what I could go for. The standard Objectivist derivation of rights works for me, along with universal application. Rights must be applied differently to children for certain metaphysical reasons, but they�re not in any essential way different from adults, to children, etc.�

And you wrote, �Until you specify what these differences are, I won't know if you are "sneaking in" positive rights.�

Please do follow that thread and look out for me doing any �sneaking in.� And watch Joe also. His task is to perform a derivation of rights that covers unwanted infants and is separate from the one that covers the adult context. Not allowed in this derivation are any elements or conclusions gleaned from the adult derivation.

As for specifying what the differences are, I�d like to wait for Steve�s presentation, which he says he is working on. I�m not balking; I just think that since he started the thread, his upcoming presentation is the natural next step. I expect he will present a derivation of rights that applies to all human beings, implying there is no need to demonstrate rights for children separately. After that, I�m sure the conversation will move to the differences in exactly how universal rights get applied to the admittedly different examples of human beings. I�ll chime in, you�ll be watching Joe and I closely, and we can go from there.

Post 127

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 5:42pm

Glenn,

You quoted me,

�She held responsible for the newborn�s needs those responsible for creating him/her. Quotes available upon request.�

And you wrote, �I'd be interested in knowing where she discussed this idea.�

Perhaps someone can help to dig up the quote I have in mind, which goes pretty much exactly like what you quoted from me above.

For now, all I can find is the following, which works for now and has the benefit of touching on some of the �differences in application� that you referred to. This is the Ford Hall Forum, 1974, from Ayn Rand Answers.

Question: How do the rights of children differ from those of adults, particularly given a child�s need for parental support?

Answer: Both the adult and the child have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But these rights depend on one�s reason and knowledge. An infant can�t earn his own sustenance, nor can a child exercise his rights and know what the pursuit of happiness is, nor know what freedom is and how to use it. All human rights depend upon man�s nature as a rational being; therefore, a child must wait until he has developed his mind and acquired enough knowledge to be capable of the full independent exercise of his rights. WHILE HE�S A CHILD, HIS PARENTS MUST SUPPORT HIM. This is a fact of nature. Proclaiming some kind of children�s rights won�t make such �rights� real. Rights are a concept based on reality; therefore, A PARENT DOESN�T HAVE THE RIGHT TO STARVE HIS CHILD, NEGLECT HIM, INJURE HIM PHYSICALLY, OR KILL HIM. The government must protect the child, as it would any other citizen. But the child can�t claim for himself the rights of an adult, because he is not competent to exercise them. He must depend on his parents. If he doesn�t like them, he should leave home as early as he can earn his living by legal means. [Caps mine.]

Post 128

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 6:02pm

Jon:

Do you believe that there is rational justification for arguing that a 'mother' has a moral obligation to their previously-gestated but now-birthed infant? Such as, starting off, avoiding allowing the infant to be "in harm's way"?

I ask this because I believe that all of this thread's hoo-haw-ra fundamentally and basically comes down to this. She does...or...she does NOT have such a moral obligation. --- One's acceptance of either 'determines' the logic of all the other prosecutorial or defensive arguments one accepts.

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 4/13, 6:07pm)

Post 129

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 7:34pm

Glen,

This thread has dived into the nature of rights which is, professionally, outside of my scope. There is a very interesting article, Getting Rights Right�A Reply to Robert Bidinotto by Nikolas Dykes here: http://www.solopassion.com/node/2376 I like that man�s style of presentation very much.

It seems irrelevant for me to discus my personal views on Dean�s statements when Joe and Jon are directing the thread to formulate the nature of infant rights; and, so far, I defer to Jon.

If I were interested, in a serious way, to solve the infant rights issue I would then take a different approach than what I have seen here. (I mean that in a limited way, only what I read on this thread).

1. I would kindly ask Dr. Machan if he has addressed this or similar issues, and if he would be kind enough to give me a summary or direct me either to his works or other such relevant works that he knows of. Since philosophers do deal with the nature of man, it�s an excellent place to start.

2. I would check the philosophical and historic history of rights. Perhaps someone there had already solved the problem, or come close, or is quite wrong. That is nice overview to have.

3. I would then review the Objectivist�s stances on it. For example, Dykes article above. Though I know I would tend to focus on the philosophers that had a track record in fundamentals and ethics.

Then I would switch gears.

4. I would examine cultural situations in which they kill their infants. For example, when people are starving, under siege, primitive customs, etc. I am sure there were some times and situations, that letting the infant go was the best choice�no abortion available/known; starving under siege etc.

5. I would examine contemporary civilized societies, and see the options available.

6. I would study psychological studies on mothers who have killed their infants.

7. I would examine how successful families dealt with difficult choices regarding infants.

8. Then I would go back to digest the info I had gathered. I would compare and contrast the philosophical theories and how they matched up against real life situations.

9. After some research this way, I believe I would have quite a few more questions, and I would go back and double check things and look for relevant facts I might have missed or a nuance philosophical point that would be handy.

10. Then I would take a few ethics classes, and hopeful not feel that I had to study all of philosophy.

11. Along with all of this in the back of my mind I would examine my own reactions to infants, my infants if I have them, to how my close friends deal with infants.

12. At about this time I think I might be ready to have a summary and conclusion about the nature of infant rights. Hopefully, along this course their would be others that have done a brilliant job identifying the proper rights, which would make my effort superfluous. Also, I could run into the problem that I simply might not have the intelligence to reach such a normative abstraction. But, for the sake of argument let�s say I did.

By the time I did this I am sure I would have an excellent handle on the nature of infant rights.

Then...

13. I would try to do several things: Publish my findings in appropriate journals, and work to change the legal/political laws accordingly.
After all this I would feel I was an authority on the subject and I could feel pride that I didn�t just talk about it, but acted to change things for the better in real life.

This outlines the standards I would implement if I were primarily interested in rights, and this is the kind of standard I would respect in an "expert".

P.S. I just dashed this off, I am sure if I reflected more I could more issues that need to be addressed.

Guy

Post 130

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 8:56pm

John,

You asked, �Do you believe that there is rational justification for arguing that a 'mother' has a moral obligation to their previously-gestated but now-birthed infant? Such as, starting off, avoiding allowing the infant to be "in harm's way"?�

Yes, I do.

�She does...or...she does NOT have such a moral obligation. --- One's acceptance of either 'determines' the logic of all the other prosecutorial or defensive arguments one accepts.�

She does, and yes, it does.

Post 131

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 8:59pm

Jon,
The second half of your post #125 about children's right is very good. I like it very much.

As to the negative right of being left alone, the problem I have is that men never live alone. We all depend on each other. Let's say that the man in you example has the right to be left alone to build his house and grow his own potatoes and eat them. Then there's an armed bandit coming to take his possessions and harm him, or a fire/flood/drought that ruins his potatoes and destroys his house. Will he then still insists on being left alone?

Post 132

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 9:54pm

Hong,

Jon will correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that what he means by the phrase "be left alone" is to not have ones rights violated - to not be interfered with using force or fraud. It is an an American idiom.

That potato grower may still be eager to work with his neighbors, use police services to catch the thief, sell the potatoes he doesn't eat in the market, hire the services of someone to build a new room on his house for his growing family, etc. "To be left alone" in the political sense only means to not be regulated beyond the bare minimum. Perhaps it was a modifaction of laisse faire's literal translation.

When negative rights are fully recognized and observed we have a greater opportunity for productive and social interaction than under any other circumstance - nothing is as conducive to benevolent human interactions.

Negative rights allow people to form the widest range of arrangements - and that is where morally valid postive rights come from - contracts, agreements. If government will leave me alone I can make deals and contracts that will obligate me, but in exchange I will get the things I want from others.

Post 133

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 10:35pm

Hong,

�Left alone� finds it�s meaning in contrast to an obligation to provide something. Whereas a positive right implies the obligation that someone provide you with something, a negative right implies no obligation on anyone, except that they �leave you alone.�

It doesn�t literally mean that you want to be alone.

Men don�t live alone and they depend on each other, it�s true. For growing my own potatoes, I depend on the seed dealer. His negative right to be left alone means I cannot show up demanding free seeds, or steal his seeds. I must persuade him to trade me some seeds in exchange for something else. Stealing his seeds would violate his negative right to be left alone in possession of his seeds.

The armed bandit who comes to steal my potatoes is violating my negative right to be left alone in possession of my potatoes.

If my farm and home are ruined in a fire, flood, or drought, everyone else is still required to leave me alone if that�s still what I want. And I still don�t have the positive right to their potatoes. Will I still insist on being left alone? No. I will insist that I cost only three potatoes-per-day, I�m a steady worker, I can get us a good deal on seeds, you won�t regret this�

Post 134

Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 9:16am

Jon,
Thanks for the information. I appreciate it.

Guy,
Your approach in Post #129 is admirable. But, are you suggesting that anyone who hasn't "done his homework" in a way similar to what you outline would be rationalizing if he "pontificated" on a particular issue? I assume that you have a view on the rights of adults. Did you arrive at that view by an approach similar to what you outlined above?

I don't think anything that you itemized in your strategy is inconsistent with the Objectivist concept of rationality.

But, I do have a meta-question for you: did you arrive at this approach by your own method? Are you an expert on the best way to arrive at the level where you feel you are "an authority on the subject" and "could feel pride that [you] didn�t just talk about it, but acted to change things for the better in real life"?
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 135

Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 10:12am

Glen: "...are you suggesting that anyone who hasn't "done his homework" in a way similar to what you outline would be rationalizing if he "pontificated" on a particular issue?"

Sure, especially if they presume to be giving us a comprehensive view. Usually, intelligent people qualify their opinions, and will give us an idea of where they are coming from, such as where they are deficient, etc.

"I assume that you have a view on the rights of adults."

Yes and no. I have a personal view based on my experiences in life, and I use my sense of smell, i.e. when something smells rotten, I might examine it. But, I don�t have a professional view of rights, as I outlined in my previous post�and I have no interest in it.

"I don't think anything that you itemized in your strategy is inconsistent with the Objectivist concept of rationality."

Of course not. I hope I didn�t implied the contrary.

"But, I do have a meta-question for you: did you arrive at this approach by your own method?"

Yes. Yet, I enjoy analyzing the works of people I admire�I am sure I picked up pointers from that.

"Are you an expert on the best way to arrive at the level where you feel you are "an authority on the subject" and "could feel pride that [you] didn�t just talk about it, but acted to change things for the better in real life"?

Yes.

Guy

(Edited by Guy Stanton on 4/14, 10:13am)

Post 136

Monday, April 16, 2007 - 9:13am

Steve and Jon,
Thanks for your help. I just find this "leave me alone" negative right is too abstract and hard to grasp. Since our own existence is so much intertwined with others, I think there is some sort of obligation that our own act at least shouldn't be destructive to the surrounding supporting society.

Post 137

Monday, April 16, 2007 - 10:16am

Hong, I believe that this a crucial area - the crucial area for politics. Nothing is as important in politics as moral right - justification in the use of power. And the only moral protection for the individual is the concept of rights.

Because of its importance it there have been so many fraudulent moral explanations. When our current politicians cry out the need for "national security" to justify the destruction of probable cause. Or when a conservative claims that "law and order" requires that we jail people in absence of probable cause - same thing. Or that the country needs to be protected from smut peddlers or drug dealers.

Liberals attack industrialists and big business on behalf of the poor and burden us all with a mish-mash of harmful regulations. For every law passed they had what passed for moral justification.

I point all this out to show how important it is to stand firm on the principle of objective moral rights. If a person can't rationally show that a right can be derived from man's life qua man, or from a voluntary contractual agreement, then it must be throw out.

I think that the freedom that flows from being able to do anything that doesn't constitute a violation of anothers rights is the most eloquent and effective way to live in society and the more complex and intertwined our support of one another, the greater the need for this concept and less likely it is that arbitrary "rights" would be to work.

We haven't been talking about them in this thread, but property rights are key ingredients in the structuring of a complex society. They establish order naturally. For example: A person buys stock in Chrysler corporation in hopes of it being a good investment, the company gets the funds for capital investment. They make a car that is sold on a special arrangement to a dealer. The dealer sells it at a discount to a local fellow that is starting a small car rental company. His manager comes in and picks up the car and ends up renting it to a tourist. In this very limited, simplistic scenario the flow of rights is easily handled and almost automatic. The money from stockholders goes to Chrysler, but the stockholders have stock detailing their share of the corporation. Chrysler sells a car to the dealer on a special discount and he gets the right to sell the car but not to create another one -Chrysler retained the design rights. The dealer resells the car and he cannot sell the design rights because he doesn't have them. The manager picks up the car, but the owner of the car rental place is the owner of the car even if he has never seen it. He has the property rights and the manager is able to act as his delegate to take possession and drive the car - but not to sell it. The tourist rents the car (which is equivalent to being able to hold the property rights that pertain to driving the car, but not selling and not renting to others and only temporarily).

Do you have areas where you suspect this concept of negative rights, property rights and contractual rights would fall short or problems you imagine they would fail to handle?

Post 138

Monday, April 16, 2007 - 7:12pm

Lets hope Dean doesn`t end up in an old folks home.

Post 139

Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 10:38am