Rights of Children and Mentally Handicapped?

Ed:

Rand's abortion argument was more subtle than that. The reason it's wrong to use the argument from potentiality in the case of abortion is that it pits the potential against the actual --

That's a good point Ed, but doesn't that also apply to a period of time after child-birth where we mandate a child must be cared for by the parents? Where the child has the potential to have the ability to reason, but is pitted against the parents, who have the actual ability to reason and the responsibility of taking care of a 'potential' reasoning human?

Post 41

Thursday, May 7, 2009 - 8:04pm

John,

Children are choices parents make, not something somehow pitted against them.

You're framing the issue like children are unchosen obligations or unchosen burdens. But that's not the issue (they're chosen burdens/obligations). It's almost like there's a "social contract" that parents sign, metaphorically-speaking, with their kids. Having signed a contract like that, parents are liable for their end of the deal. Folks have the choice to not have the burden of children in their life. But if they do choose to have kids, then they've chosen to have the burdens, too.

It's not unjust to punish parents for mistreating their (chosen) children.

Ed

Extra thought: Giving and taking life are two of the most important (most scary?) things that folks can do in this world.

Post 42

Thursday, May 7, 2009 - 10:59pm

Ok, so you're saying up until childbirth, there was no choice in carrying out the pregnancy up to and just before the last day of it? We're saying you can abort a fetus even in the 9th month of pregnancy, because if not, we are pitting a potential against an actual, yet I would be hard pressed to find a pregnant woman who is not fully aware of their pregnancy by the second trimester at least. If the line that is crossed is pitting a potential against an actual, and that conflict arises when the actual does not want to have a child, I would say once the mother knows she is pregnant, and once the fetus is developed enough to live on its own if taken out by Caesarean, and she hasn't decided yet at that point to abort, abortion beyond that point in the pregnancy according to your standard of evaluation should be outlawed. Because at that point, say sometime in the second trimester, the social contract has already been signed, right?

(Edited by John Armaos on 5/07, 11:00pm)

Post 43

Friday, May 8, 2009 - 7:11am

John: "That's a good point Ed, but doesn't that also apply to a period of time after child-birth where we mandate a child must be cared for by the parents? Where the child has the potential to have the ability to reason, but is pitted against the parents, who have the actual ability to reason and the responsibility of taking care of a 'potential' reasoning human?"

John, I think you're using the term "reason" too narrowly. Reason isn't only the use of conceptual logic. That's just the most advanced form of reason. As Ayn Rand said, reason is the faculty that "identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses." Even before they can speak, babies minds' struggle to identify facts of reality around them. The ability is very rudimentary, of course, but it still exists. Animals don't do that; they merely perceive and act on instinct. It's only until they learn bad ideas from other people (e.g., religious faith) that this human process often becomes corrupted.

Post 44

Friday, May 8, 2009 - 7:31am

Jon Trager,

Even before they can speak, babies minds' struggle to identify facts of reality around them. The ability is very rudimentary, of course, but it still exists.

I don't dispute that. But some species of primates have the same characteristics at this rudimentary level. Yet we wouldn't say a chimpanzee has rights, and we even conduct medical experiments on them. How do we reconcile that?

Post 45

Friday, May 8, 2009 - 10:31am

John: "I don't dispute that. But some species of primates have the same characteristics at this rudimentary level. Yet we wouldn't say a chimpanzee has rights, and we even conduct medical experiments on them. How do we reconcile that?"

Well, I don't reconcile it because I don't accept the premise. I don't believe that any other animal's brain struggles to form concepts, even first-level ones. Yes, some are capable (with human training) of performing perceptual associations. But they can't conceptualize, and I've seen no scientific evidence that proves they can.

By contrast, much of the first few years of a human's life is devoted to doing that or trying to do that. The human mind is generally active from birth, while an animal's mind is generally passive. An animal survives merely by sensing whatever exists in its immediate environment and acting instinctively. The difference in a baby human's brain and the brain of any other animal (even other primates), is a difference in kind, not in degree.
(Edited by Jon Trager on 5/08, 1:48pm)

Post 46

Friday, May 8, 2009 - 12:32pm

Jon Trager:

I don't believe that any other animal's brain struggles to form concepts, even first-level ones. Yes, some are capable (with human training) of performing perceptual associations. But they can't conceptualize, and I've seen no scientific evidence that proves they can.

Well first let me ask is this different for a newborn baby? Can they conceptualize? I've come to understand that chimps have a higher level of intelligence than even a two year old human. Chimps can make tools, they have complex group hunting strategies, they have some rudimentary analytical skills in the wild and in captivity. Am I wrong?

Post 47

Friday, May 8, 2009 - 1:30pm

I think you're generally right about chimp behavior, John. But I'd submit that anything that chimps do is done via instinct and rudimentary association, not via conceptual ability. I'm not a monkey researcher, but the research I've seen to date has been unimpressive as far as proving conceptual capability.

Can human babies form concepts? Not yet. But they can try. They can take immediate percepts and crudely attempt to integrate them. Conceptualization is a great feat of the human mind that takes a while to perform (it obviously takes even longer to relate those concepts to form meaningful, though simple propositions). Human babies mentally struggle to form these simple concepts before they're actually successful. It's only until they've already learned first-level or second-level words and basic sentence structures that some people stop trying to expand their range of awareness.

Post 48

Friday, May 8, 2009 - 1:39pm

The problem with chimp researchers, like Jane Goodall for instance, is that they after a time tend to anthromorphize with the animals....

Post 49

Friday, May 8, 2009 - 4:15pm

Well, I don't reconcile it because I don't accept the premise. I don't believe that any other animal's brain struggles to form concepts, even first-level ones. Yes, some are capable (with human training) of performing perceptual associations. But they can't conceptualize, and I've seen no scientific evidence that proves they can.

I think Jon T. is right about this, and I agree. One can witness conceptualization in children by watching an 18 month old "point" to something. Only human offspring do this pointing behaviour, and it's a clear indicator of making connections to a world separate from one's self, and of developing ideas. Not even adult chimpanzees "point" at things to show their fellows because they don't have "ideas" about the world around them.

Edit to say, I think the pointing behaviour in children happens even sooner than 18 months of age, and probably closer to 12 months. Language develops very early, even if we can't understand what a baby is saying. "Cooing" at 3 months old is an attempt to communicate, and is usually at the prompting of someone making direct eye and facial contact with the infant. Chimpanzees don't make this kind of eye contact ever in their whole lives, because it a threatening behaviour in lower species. I'm pretty sure only humans make eye contact the way we do.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 5/08, 4:26pm)

Post 50

Saturday, May 9, 2009 - 1:16am

Jon Letendre wrote,

You are happy to extend the benefit of the doubt to a newborn even though his capacity for reason is a mere potential and as much as five years away from actuality, on account of his having become �a separate human being.�

Then why not extend the benefit of the doubt to a fetus, due to be born in five days, on account of his having attained the actual capacity (unaided by fancy hospitals) to be a separate human being?

I'm just saying that somewhere between birth and five years old, the child reaches the capacity for reason -- the capacity for rational thought. A newborn baby doesn't yet possess it, and a five-year old clearly does.

Now we can argue about when precisely a given individual reaches that stage. But it could well differ for different children, so if we set the age at (say) two years, a precocious child below the age of two might have already attained that capacity.

For another thing, if we set the onset of rights at some age after birth, we would then have difficulty identifying when that age had been reached. If you look at a toddler, for example, can you tell precisely how old he or she is?

If rights begin at birth, it's easy to see who possesses them and who doesn't. This ease of identification avoids the moral hazard of violating a child's rights, because you've concluded incorrectly that he doesn't yet possess them.

Birth rights also have the advantage of allowing the mother to abort an unwanted fetus up to the point of its delivery, for there is no danger that doing so would violate its rights.

In my opinion, birth is the most practical standard for conferring rights upon a newly formed human being.

- Bill

Post 51

Saturday, May 9, 2009 - 5:21am

I think there is a slight error here on 'capacity to reason', as if in possessing it, it is an 'all or nothing' when it is an experience accumulative deal - namely the capacity exists at birth, just as the capacity to see, but the means of doing so has to be learned, the means of focusing needs be willed [in both cases], and the reasoning ability is a much more complex deal than just seeing [which is why it takes years to develop to a qualitative state of 'always there']... otherwise, one has to ask, as I did earlier, 'where does the capacity come from' if it is not there to begin with... capacity does not mean one knows how to use it, only that it is there to use when learned...

Further, regarding the issue of rights beginning at birth, which is something I've argued for years, many get the idea that at near birth time, all is developed in the fetus and it is merely 'sitting' there awaiting the requisite time to be released - not so... there is much in biological development which is ongoing which, in normal course of events, is needed for optimal viability, which is why it remains in the womb, even tho it seems 'ready to go'... nature as such is not frivolous - there is a 'waste not' involved, a 'cost-benefit' for survival of the individual, whatever the individual is, and it pertains as much to human development as to any other living organism... this is more noted in earlier stages of development, when 'aborted' and yet [with artificial help] viable - but with many developmental disabilities as consequence... just because with artificial help, an organism can survive does not make it as such 'normal'...
(Edited by robert malcom on 5/09, 5:32am)

Post 52

Saturday, May 9, 2009 - 8:35am

Bill,

Thanks for your response. You make good points in favor of the advantage the clear-cut, bright line of birth offers. I don�t see that you addressed my question directly but I can infer from what you wrote that it would be: �Because that would cause ambiguity as to when rights begin, whereas birth is unambiguous,� which is fair enough.

The point of my question is this: There is ambiguity (as you point out in your post) as to when reasoning begins, sometime between birth and 5 years. You resolve it by intentionally declaring rights EARLIER than reasoning begins. That is, even while you hold that a capacity to reason is required for rights, you are happy to recognize rights at birth, when there is no capacity to reason, and you indicated that being a separate human being is the hook. It seems to me that to be consistent, you may not shy away from an ambiguity that can be resolved in the same way. So, if a fetus, days away from �due date� can survive if simply removed, which it can, then it has the capacity to be a separate human being�the very same hook you made use of to justify granting rights to beings (newborns) even though they fall short of your requirement for rights (capacity to reason.)

As I see it, Roe v Wade gets it right by recognizing the advancement toward capacity to exist separately with growing restrictions as viability approaches.

Robert,

�many get the idea that at near birth time, all is developed in the fetus and it is merely 'sitting' there awaiting the requisite time to be released - not so�

Yes so. Hundreds of pre-scheduled C-sections are performed every day on fetuses that are �sitting there awaiting,� and they grow up just fine.

Post 53

Saturday, May 9, 2009 - 8:51am

Jon,

That is, even while you hold that a capacity to reason is required for rights, you are happy to recognize rights at birth, when there is no capacity to reason, and you indicated that being a separate human being is the hook.

But Jon, there's a capacity to reason at birth (like the Rev'rend said). There may not be a capability, but there is a capacity. This capacity is what it is that makes a human baby a "human."

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/09, 8:52am)

Post 54

Saturday, May 9, 2009 - 8:58am

OK, Ed. But I was adopting Bill�s take on it, which he expressed in the first paragraph of post 50. I happen to think he is right and you and the Rev� are wrong. I am not even sure what you mean when you write that a newborn has a capacity for something he is incapable of. I suspect that whatever that means, it also applies to fetuses near birth.

Post 55

Saturday, May 9, 2009 - 10:21am

Babies are humans and humans have human rights. Babies get their individual rights at birth because that is when they become individuals. The rational capacity referred to here is a statement about human nature - about man. We don't make rights conditional for an individual depending upon that particular individual being rational, or even conditional upon that individual possessing the capacity to reason (which could be lost due to trauma or birth defect or disease).

Babies don't have to be able to reason at birth to have rights - just be individual (born) and be human. The conceptual parent to "rights" is man in general (human nature) and not a particular man.

Post 56

Saturday, May 9, 2009 - 10:35am

Steve your argument strikes me as being circular. It essentially sounds like this to me:

-All humans have rights

-They have rights because they are human

What is the reason for humans having rights? You seem to think a reason is not needed beyond an appeal that we just have them because we are human.

Post 57

Saturday, May 9, 2009 - 10:41am

Steve,

Agreed, almost totally.

�Babies get their individual rights at birth because that is when they become individuals.�

I argue that they have rights earlier, when they attain the actual capability to be a separate individual. When they attain this capability is difficult to pin down�but they surely possess it in the days prior to due date, which we know because hundreds of thousands of them have been C-sectioned in the days prior to due date and have turned out just fine.

Post 58

Saturday, May 9, 2009 - 10:46am

Bill:

If rights begin at birth, it's easy to see who possesses them and who doesn't. This ease of identification avoids the moral hazard of violating a child's rights, because you've concluded incorrectly that he doesn't yet possess them.

Birth rights also have the advantage of allowing the mother to abort an unwanted fetus up to the point of its delivery, for there is no danger that doing so would violate its rights.

In my opinion, birth is the most practical standard for conferring rights upon a newly formed human being.

This is the part I don't understand. Why at child-birth and not after the third trimester of a pregnancy? That is just an easy a distinction as child-birth is. By that time, a mother has had 6 months to decide on abortion or not. It can be said the mother at that point has already signed the "social contract" that Ed had referred to in post 41. A fetus if taken out by Caesarian in the third trimester can survive independent from the mother, why not draw the line there? In the third trimester, the fetus' cerebral cortex is developed and has neurological activity.

Post 59

Saturday, May 9, 2009 - 10:58am