Recently the debate over vaccinations, and the possibility of the US government mandating them onto every person in the country, has been played out over the airwaves across the country and political figures and pundits have fueled the debate. Politically, scientifically and morally, points have been made for and against the idea of it all. But instead of questioning the effects of or validity of these points it left me with a string of questions. Questions that deal directly with the idea of self ownership and of our inherent right to not have our bodies violated by any outside person or entity. This issue doesn't just pertain to the vaccine debate, it includes all acts which introduce foreign substances into the body of another and the permanent alteration of a person's body without consent. It deals with children, their own rights of self ownership and the idea that parents are allowed to violate the body of another based on DNA similarities.
"When do rights start?" At what point in a human's evolution do the rights of the individual start to take effect? Are there any points in a person's life that their rights should be abridged or abolished, under what conditions and who decides these conditions, who decides when these conditions are met?
I conclude, for myself, that basic human rights begin at the beginning of life itself, the definition of that aspect remains in constant debate and we will assume that whatever degree in the biological chain of development you believe to be true is the starting point of what we will be discussing here.
First we should start by saying that the terms "Parent's rights" or "Children's rights" are in fact erroneous, there are only individual rights. The individual rights precludes any specialized terms used to differentiate groups or classes of people by regions, sex, martial status, sexual orientation, wealth, location, age or any other divisive term. When we speak of rights they are in the inherent nature of man's existence and are inalienable.
If an argument is made that an alteration of a child's body is for cosmetic reasons, it can be taken as a whole that any operation that altered the physical appearance of the body can and should be allowed. This is seen in the issue of child circumcision. For those that contend this point is true we can then point to tattoos, piercing, scarring, branding, bindings, implants, coloration or discoloration of any body part or the whole of the body and any other form of mutilation that subjectively enhances the appearance of the child to the parent as allowable operations as well under continuity of the argument.
If the argument is that an alteration of the child's body is for religious practice or observance, every religion should share the same immunity from violations no matter the extent of the alterations made. If one person's religious practice were to remove the external parts or portions of extremities (this is seen in the idea of circumcision as well) and another's did not, no form of abhorrence or abolition of that practice should take place. Where as some religions believe in the circumcision of females or of binding certain parts of the body, it is not a shared view that these practices should take place around the world.
If an argument can be made that alterations to the child's body be made based on medical reasons than all opinions and prescriptions made by the personal doctor of the individual, regardless of it being traditional medically, homeopathic, or any other alternative medical procedure or product. As we see right now some products than certain doctors have readily described as beneficial to fighting diseases and conditions are illegal under varying "state laws".
Parents and children share a unique relationship in life and dynamics of what boundaries can be placed on an individual and the abdication of a monarchical home structure. Advocates of "parental rights" that outweigh the child's individual rights often use the fact that children cannot make some decisions early in life as their hinge argument that parents of the child are able to violate the basic ownership rights of their offspring. Children are, in the easiest term to relate to, small versions of their future self, they will grow as other humans do and are born with the same inherent rights as all other humans are. These rights include the right of self ownership, the ability and function to do whatever they wish to their own body so long as it does not interfere with the rights of any other person. The issues arise in that children do not possess the capability to protect themselves or their rights from the intrusion by their creators or any others.
The child had no choice in the matter of birth, of placement in the family or the dynamics of such a system. The child then does not automatically become contracted unwillingly to, in a more widely known term, the "social contract" of the home or family. Since a child who, by admission, does not possess the capability to discern or decide on their well being they then do not possess the capability to discern or decide on who should be able to make those decisions for them or if those decisions should be made at all. The parent is in one instance the creator of life but not the owner of it, they are also not in possession of the capability to discern what can be construed as "best" for the life they have created, since what is seen as best in one man's eyes can be seen as harmful to another. Some that use the argument that the child, not being at it's fullest capability to rationally comprehend the affects of decisions, whether positive or negative, propose that the parent who is the "legal" guardian should step in to make those decisions. Contention can be made that any "legal rights" can be forfeited, relinquished, absolved, rescinded and seized by legal procedure and should not be a basis to measure who has responsibility to provide for any other person. If we look deep enough into the matter we can see that what is called natural law is in conflict to laws made by governance of majorities (what we will call state law for ease). A moral and non coercive ideal dictates that all interactions between people should be voluntary, that all relations should be made freely and association with others volitional. But in the "state legal" way by measure the child is not free to associate. The child is by "legal" definition a captive of the home and conscripted to the persons who created them. Though that bond can be broken through various means the state law gives parents the ability to violate the body of their own children for ambiguous and varied reasons and stipulations.
John Locke approached this issue in this way,"Children I confess are not born in this full state of equality (of right to their natural freedom), though they are born to it. Their parents have a sort of rule and jurisdiction over them when they come into the world, and for some time after, but 'tis but a temporary one. The bonds of this subjection are like the swaddling clothes they are wrapt up in, and supported by, in the weakness of their infancy. Age and reason as they grow up, loosen them till at length they drop quite off, and leave a man at his own free disposal." Two Treatises on Government, p. 322
Under this Lockean theory children are subjected to any violation of their person at the will of the parent based solely on the lack of experience in reason and result. This theory, if subscribed to, would allow any person who has more experience with a certain act to subject any others to violations against their own wills. This would then allow a government to force any number of medical procedures and vaccinations on the people based on the experience of doctors contracted to the government for their recommendation.
Murray Rothbard, leaves a legacy of the most brutally honest in his interpretation of this. Rothbard makes the case that a child, even though (s)he has not chosen the situation is guest to the property owned or rented by their parent(s). This property right to the parent allows, just as it allows every other property owner to decide on conditions and rules for sharing the space they own with any guest. "The child lives either in a house owned by his parents or in an apartment rented by them. Therefore, as in the case of any other “guest” living on someone else’s property, he must obey the rules set down by the property owners for remaining on that property. In short, the parents have the perfect legal and moral right to lay down rules for their children, just as they would have the right to lay down rules for the behavior of their longstanding house guest, Uncle Ezra. Furthermore, there is nothing morally wrong with laying down such rules. On the contrary, any property owner is bound to lay down rules for the use of his property." While the child is guest to the property owned by the parent(s) they are to abide by the conditions of being a guest laid out by the owner. This then gives another issue that may come as a negative to parents. "The focus on property rights also provides us with the solution to the thorny problem of when the child can own and regulate himself. The answer is: when he leaves his parents’ household. When he gets out of his parents’ property, he then removes himself from his parents’ property jurisdiction. But this means that the child must always have, regardless of age, the absolute freedom to run away, to get out from under. It is grotesque to think that the parents can actually own the child’s body as well as physical property; it is advocating slavery and denying the fundamental right of self-ownership to permit such ownership of others, regardless of age. Therefore, the child must always be free to run away; he then becomes a self-owner whenever he chooses to exercise his right to run-away freedom."
This unabashed approach to the freedom of the individual to freely associate or disassociate from others is a hinge argument for the case of individual freedom. In Rothbard's case I agree that children should have the capability to extinguish their association and conscription to their bearers. This taking into account the vulnerability of the child and the risk taken in doing so. The idea that a person may be subject to any other for reason of age or experience leads to progression of these ideas to all other people. Rothbard's position that children can only own themselves when they leave the place of their parent's, negates his argument for 100% self ownership. The rules set down by the property owners, the parents, may dictate actions that are or are not allowed , the child retains the ownership of his person and can choose to leave or remain under the regulations set down for as long as he wishes.
Walter Block, noted libertarian and Austrian Economist, Chair of the Economics Department at Loyola University writes in a 2013 article ,"In order to ferret out the libertarian perspective, we must get back to basics. Children occupy an intermediate ground between that of animals and other adult human beings. (I know, I know, this sounds a bit weird, but hear me out.) The former can be owned and disposed of at will. The latter, apart from voluntary slavery, cannot be the private property of anyone else. Children, in sharp contrast to both, may be controlled by parents, under a very different type of legal provision, not ownership, of course, but, rather, attainment and retention of guardianship rights. This means that as long as the parent is properly guarding, safe-guarding, caring for, bringing up, the child, he maintains his right to continue to do so."
Again he states,"For it is the biological parents who own these guardianship rights; the right to bring up their children as they wish, provided only that they continue to nurture and care for them, and do not engage in child abuse."
Block's position then is that a child is not property of the parent but the parent holds certain guardianship responsibility. That responsibility is to determine what is in the best interest of the child for health and it's future. Block also lays out a case that the guardianship role can be absolved if the parent(s) fail to act in the best interest of the child.
He says,"However, guardianship over children is not a sometime thing. Once the parent fails to fulfill this ownership obligation, he loses it. Entirely." This I wholly agree with.
Without laying out a clear definition, because one definition is not suitable for all people the next question is what constitutes appropriate standards of care for the child? It leaves the issue completely subjective and open for any sort of possible definition to be applied in various cases. According to state law certain definitions are applied to the appropriate level of care and wellness children should receive or be removed from the home by authorities and placed into the care of another.
Under the premise of Block’s statement, “...it is the biological parents who own these guardianship rights; the right to bring up their children as they wish, provided only that they continue to nurture and care for them, and do not engage in child abuse”, this would end the “ownership” of what he calls now the guardianship rights, what I will call responsibility, and would then place new guardianship responsibilities on these interim or semi-permanent guardians.
All of this is in the philosophical standpoint. There is the drive to try and protect children from harm and to grow to fully autonomous beings, but that should not preclude the inalienability of their natural rights. In Block's position I agree that the parents have a more guardianship role rather than ownership or rights to violate another person's body. The role to protect the child should not include stipulated circumstances that allow the violation of the child.
Using a justification for the interference or violation of a person based on those guardianship responsibilities would also leave open the child to violate the parent's body if and when the parent gets to an level of age and cannot tend to their own safety or health. Under this partial ownership based on age or cognitive ability theory, this would indicate that the parent now has lost the right of self ownership and is at the will of the child on how to proceed with the care of the parent. This idea though does not come to bear when referring to the old age parent in the care of the child or transferred responsibility to another through contract. In those cases where the child or hired caretaker has abused or mistreated the parent the state legal system recognizes the rights of self ownership of the parent over the wishes of the "child", in most cases.
To finish up I think is important for the idea of self ownership to take these contentions into account. If that ownership is temporary or limited in any way it opens the door for other possible transgressions against others. If the idea is held that the ownership of oneself is wholly unrestricted and unlimited to the stipulations of age, reasons of subjective value of benefits or of an as of yet unchosen religious custom, this idea expresses that the whole of the body of an individual is their own property and cannot be altered in any way without consent.
In the Rothbard tradition the child is the future autonomous individual, so self ownership is present even is self reliance or self regulation is not. Decisions to permanently alter another person’s body is a violation of the very basis of the idea of self ownership. Just as we should not perform these practices on other fully grown individuals we should not force small versions of the same individuals into any action of the same type.
The disconnection of this position in the parenting practice I think comes from the emotional senses and counters the belief in individual autonomy at certain points in the life span of humans. Again this can lead to other offenses against individuals in the name of safety, religion, and aesthetic enhancements.
No comments:
Post a Comment