Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

11-year old girl refuses to have her child aborted

rated by 0 users
This post has 37 Replies | 12 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton Posted: Tue, Apr 27 2010 4:40 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/23/year-old-mexican-rape-victim-wants-baby/

Interesting case. There are a couple points that I find particularly interesting:

- The girl's feisty desire to keep and have the child despite the negative social connotations.

- The presumption on the part of doctors that her small size is necessarily a problem. It is difficult to believe that human evolution occurred sans early pregnancies (as early as biologically possible) and it seems to me that if the machinery is switched on, it's probably going to work.

While I think, along with most people, it is depraved for adults to sexually prey on children, I think the statutory definitions of what constitutes sexual predation are terribly superficial and not applicable to many real cases. Is there really a single, correct age after which young women should be permitted to get pregnant and, before which, it necessarily constitutes predation or exploitation? I doubt it. As always, the attempts of a central body to regulate such problems is capricious, arbitrary and superficial.

This girl is in the "way too young" category in my mind but, if she wants the child so bad, doesn't that count for something in a libertarian ethic? After all, it is her body. I am skeptical as to whether she really is fit to make such a decision but, then again, I cannot be certain nor do I have a vested interest in the case.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 65
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,209
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 4:51 PM

Amin to every word. I can only add: WTF is going on?! Friggin' 11?!

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Female
Posts 635
Points 13,150

While I think, along with most people, it is depraved for adults to sexually prey on children, I think the statutory definitions of what constitutes sexual predation are terribly superficial and not applicable to many real cases.

Agreed, although I don't think anything is 'depraved'.

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini
"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 4:54 PM

What is the law about things like this?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 370
Points 8,785

Liberte is my kind of woman. =p

This is apparently a Man Talk Forum:  No Women Allowed!

Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Female
Posts 635
Points 13,150

Liberte is my kind of woman

You couldn't handle me :P 

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini
"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 349
Points 5,915
Mtn Dew replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 8:19 PM

"Agreed, although I don't think anything is 'depraved'."

and "What is the law about this?" crack me up. Those quotes seem to really sum up those two particular posters.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

Liberte is my kind of woman.

Or your kind of man.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 370
Points 8,785
Telpeurion replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 10:15 PM

Well, as long as she/he looks like a woman. :p

This is apparently a Man Talk Forum:  No Women Allowed!

Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 10:19 PM

I don't think anything is 'depraved'

I suppose you also think nothing is ugly, unharmonious or distasteful. Damn moral nihilists, they're so confused.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,050
Moderator
Nitroadict replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 10:22 PM

ClaytonB:



I suppose you also think nothing is ugly, unharmonious or distasteful. Damn moral nihilists, they're so confused.


Beauty is relative?

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,050
Moderator
Nitroadict replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 10:24 PM

Caley McKibbin:


Or your kind of man.



Shh, let the people dare to dream.  

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 165
Points 1,730
cret replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 3:00 AM

i dont know if the story is true or not.  has it been confimed anywhere else??

i dont know how this area of mexico feels aobut rape....much less that of an 11 year old.

  i guess teh girl didnt wasn to have sex with her stepfather and she was viloently forced into having sex????

if she is pregnant to some extent nature made her body able to get pregnant at 11.

it seems from teh story that various family and community resources ahve stepped in to bring the child to term.

i expect that will continue after the childs birth.

 

from a family and community perspective (and i expect teh catholic church thet a rape of a child in ones paternal carewould likely involve severe consequences.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 165
Points 1,730
cret replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 3:04 AM

WTF is going on?! Friggin' 11?!


it was a rape right??  sadly it has probably happend elsewhere??

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 165
Points 1,730
cret replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 3:06 AM

call mexico.

http://www.nobelcom.com/nobelcom/jsp/productselection/productselection.jsp?gclid=CKKR99T3qKECFRkcawodshhOEg&from_country=1&to_country=182&x=182&y=23&AFFN=800100100&ovchn=GGL&ovcpn=Nobelcom0906NEWCaesar&ovcrn=mexico+calling+card&ovtac=PPC

you arent planning on.....are you???

 

 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 28
Points 630

"it was a rape right??'"

 

How are you defining the term "rape" in this context?  Do you mean a violent act of aggression? Or do you mean a  re-definition of the word 'willing' to mean 'not willing' -- as the state has redefined that term?

I don't accept the latter definition, so based on the news story , it's not clear whether or not a rape (in the real sense of the term) even took place.

Disclaimer: Layperson - don't assume anything I say  on economics is true.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 10:05 AM

How are you defining the term "rape" in this context?  Do you mean a violent act of aggression? Or do you mean a  re-definition of the word 'willing' to mean 'not willing' -- as the state has redefined that term?

I don't accept the latter definition, so based on the news story , it's not clear whether or not a rape (in the real sense of the term) even took place.

agreed. Also on topic, I think that if she really wants a child (given the fact, that she has all information about consequences etc.) then no one has a right stop her.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 3:58 PM

ClaytonB:


I suppose you also think nothing is ugly, unharmonious or distasteful. Damn moral nihilists, they're so confused.

Beauty is relative?

Yes but it is also not arbitrary nor is it subject to redefinition by cantankerous individuals.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 4:03 PM

agreed. Also on topic, I think that if she really wants a child (given the fact, that she has all information about consequences etc.) then no one has a right stop her.

But see, that's where I think egoistic libertarianism goes too far - it's not aggression for me to forcibly grab my 5-year old as he tries to run across the street, even though he knows full well that he could be run over by a car because I have told him in the past that could happen and I am currently yelling it at him, "Stop, you could be run over!" The rules of what constitutes aggression between adult peers do not automatically hold between a child and its relatives who have a stake in ensuring the child's survival and well-being.

But I do agree that the fact that she wants to keep the child counts for something. I think it's what makes this case interesting since I really don't think it's obvious what exactly is "The Right Thing(R)" in this case.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Female
Posts 635
Points 13,150

Yes but it is also not arbitrary

Wrong.

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini
"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 4:06 PM

@Liberte: There are reasons why humans find some things beautiful and other things ugly. Having a reason is the opposite of being arbitrary.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 13
Points 170
KOBALT replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 4:17 PM

errrr big conceptual misslead man!

"Liberty" is not having no rules at all... the reality test teach us that if you apply this to real world, it would rapidly degenerates as the domination of all under the reign of a little group.

"Liberty" is when nobody can restrict the rules of any others ! Read J J Rousseau man, he's a Swiss guy from the XVIIIth century, one of the fathers of Democracy and of Anarchism.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 4:23 PM

errrr big conceptual misslead man!

"Liberty" is not having no rules at all...

Of course. Where have I suggested otherwise?

the reality test teach us that if you apply this to real world, it would rapidly degenerates as the domination of all under the reign of a little group.

Is that not the state of affairs in which we currently exist?

"Liberty" is when nobody can restrict the rules of any others ! Read J J Rousseau man, he's a Swiss guy from the XVIIIth century, one of the fathers of Democracy and of Anarchism.

Yikes, Rousseau was a hardcore statist.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Female
Posts 635
Points 13,150

@Liberte: There are reasons why humans find some things beautiful and other things ugly.

Even if it were true that this were true of all human beings (and given the variation among subjects, I doubt this is so) it is not necessarily so of all teleological entities. The fact that all humans shared this would be mere coincidence, it would not gain argumentative validity thereby.

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini
"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 6:07 PM

@Liberte: There are reasons why humans find some things beautiful and other things ugly.

Even if it were true that this were true of all human beings (and given the variation among subjects, I doubt this is so) it is not necessarily so of all teleological entities.

So? The word "beautiful" is a part of natural language and it has a meaning which both you and I understand. "She looked beautiful in the gradient shades of sunset" conveys a meaning that is well understood and not arbitrary. That does not mean that you and I cannot disagree on the beauty of a particular object since beside the natural language meaning of beauty, there is the private-use meaning of beauty, the expression of one's own aesthetic assessment of something. Unlike the natural language use of "beauty", this assessment is observer-relative (subjective) but it is still not arbitrary. Even though it may not be possible to formalize rules describing the "algorithm", if you will, by which I assess the aesthetic appeal of things, there can be no doubt that my assessments are not random. I find art that is symmetrical, novel, insightful and surprising to be beautiful. Some art is infantile and stupid, it is not beautiful. Of course, my aesthetic judgments are my own so they have no relevance to your aesthetic judgments.

You used the word "necessarily" and I assume that you are driving towards the concept of logical necessity. Why have philosophers so extensively studied logical necessity? For the reason that if we can find truths that are necessarily true, then there is no need to worry that we may have made a mistake in our choice of axioms and deciding the matter of what is true or false is no longer an issue of personal judgment... all individuals who follow a method of strictly deducing the consequent propositions of necessary truths would all arrive at the same, necessarily true conclusions. We would be living in logical paradise. It turns out that the real world thwarts such utopian fantasies... there is not nor can there be any method which decides whether any given proposition is true or false. There is no mechanical method of evaluating true and false. That this is equally true of good and bad (ethics) should not be surprising.

The moral absolutists, of course, find this deeply disappointing. How convenient it would be if we could start from some necessary truth and the derive all the necessarily correct rules of behavior. Then, different people wouldn't come to different conclusions about what is good and bad, we could all come to the same necessarily true conclusions about ethical propositions by strictly deducing propositions from necessarily true ethical premises. Of course, if this goal is unattainable in logic, how much more so in ethics?

But just as the unattainability of logical certainty is no reason to throw our hands up in despair of understanding the basis of human aesthetic judgment, so it is no reason to throw up our hands on ethics. Ethical considerations are a great deal more important than aesthetic considerations but both have a lot in common so that discussing aesthetics can be very useful in allowing us to build a framework for reasonable discussion of ethics, minus the emotive component that inevitably attaches itself to ethical discussion. Human aesthetic and ethical judgments are not arbitrary. It is a matter of scientific study to understand the theoretical and biological bases for human aesthetic and ethical judgments. Understanding these bases can help me be better informed in choosing my own course of action and imposing expectations (rules of behavior) onto others.

The fact that all humans shared this would be mere coincidence, it would not gain argumentative validity thereby.

Of course. If everyone reported that they believed the Mona Lisa to be beautiful, that would not make it objectively beautiful because beauty is a subjective assessment, it is inherently observer-relative. What we mean by aesthetic judgment is an observer-relative (subjective) assessment of something's appeal to oneself, or the degree of pleasure that one derives from observing it. "This song is beautiful" means "I am deriving pleasure from hearing this song." Satisfaction of wants (pleasure) is inherently observer-relative since you do not experience my pleasure and I do not experience yours.

Ethical judgments are in the same category. But the things we derive pleasure from are not arbitrary. Poisonous plants are universally distasteful and this is not a coincidence, it is not random chance whether you will find a particular plant palatable or unpalatable. Ethics is not arbitrary - even though our individual ethical judgments are subjective - for similar reasons.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 6:39 PM

But see, that's where I think egoistic libertarianism goes too far - it's not aggression for me to forcibly grab my 5-year old as he tries to run across the street, even though he knows full well that he could be run over by a car because I have told him in the past that could happen and I am currently yelling it at him, "Stop, you could be run over!"

 

maybe this argument could work in other situation (she has curable deadly desease but chooses to die etc.). But this time it's not something horrific, in my humble opinion.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 176
Points 2,330
Jackson replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 7:24 PM

KOBALT:

errrr big conceptual misslead man!

"Liberty" is not having no rules at all... the reality test teach us that if you apply this to real world, it would rapidly degenerates as the domination of all under the reign of a little group.

"Liberty" is when nobody can restrict the rules of any others ! Read J J Rousseau man, he's a Swiss guy from the XVIIIth century, one of the fathers of Democracy and of Anarchism.

...what?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 554
Points 9,130
Praetyre replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 7:52 PM

Why are there so many Engrish speakers with all capital names?

Assuming KOBALT lives in the EU, his point about the "wonders" of European government 'education' are truly self refuting, given his English skills and belief that Rousseau was a founder of anarchism.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Female
Posts 635
Points 13,150

there can be no doubt that my assessments are not random

'Arbitrary' and 'random' are no the same thing. All judgments of value are arbitrary, as are all conventions as to the names and range of things (i.e., what a 'chair' is as opposed to a 'stool'). But nothing is random in an ontological sense. 'Random' is at best shorthand for events the sufficient conditions of which we do not know.

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini
"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Thu, Apr 29 2010 12:42 AM

'Arbitrary' and 'random' are no the same thing.

Not exactly the same thing but both are instances of irrationality, that is, absence of reason. If something is arbitrary, there is no reason why it is the way it is. If an event is random, there is no reason why it happened this way rather than that.

All judgments of value are arbitrary,

But they're not. There are reasons why people make value judgments. The preference for symmetry in art does have a rational basis. It's a complicated topic but read about "low-complexity art" to find out why.

That is not to say that value judgments are deterministic or follow some mathematical rule or equation that can be written down.

as are all conventions as to the names and range of things (i.e., what a 'chair' is as opposed to a 'stool').

I disagree that names are arbitrary. Yes, the particular phoneme is relatively unimportant to the problem of communication, so long as it is readily distinguishable from all others, but words do not correspond randomly to the world, there is a structure to the correlation between human language and the natural world. Steven Pinker has a fascinating lecture online where he discusses the "theory of physics" implicit in natural language. The ways in which we abstract about the world are built in to the very way we use words to describe the world.

But nothing is random in an ontological sense. 'Random' is at best shorthand for events the sufficient conditions of which we do not know.

The orthodox interpretation of quantum physics is that there are, in fact, "ontologically random" events. Of course, we're dealing in theology at that point but just the same, you can't know that there is nothing random in the ontological sense.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Thu, Apr 29 2010 12:50 AM

Have the grandparents decide.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Female
Posts 635
Points 13,150
Vichy Army replied on Thu, Apr 29 2010 12:52 PM

There are reasons why people make value judgments.

Ultimately there is no reason behind value judgments. They all reduce to simple facts, behind which there is no 'reason' whatsoever.

That is not to say that value judgments are deterministic or follow some mathematical rule or equation that can be written down.

While diversity and complexity probably prevents it from being 'written down', utlimately I don't think it's coherent to deny that everything is deterministic. I'm pretty sure Menger and Mises agreed with me on this.

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini
"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 468
Points 8,085
Wibee replied on Sat, May 1 2010 9:19 PM

My favorite part of the story was when abortion groups flew to mexico to "talk" with her.  To convince her to kill her child.  

You are questioning where she is fit to make the decision?  I would consider it is her choice alone to do what she wants with her body.  What if she is unfit to make the decision as you suggest?  Have the state of Mexico come in and slug her in the stomach a few times?  

That girl is a spokeswomen for freedom.  

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

My favorite part of the story was when abortion groups flew to mexico to "talk" with her.  To convince her to kill her child.

Where do they get the money for these airfare tickets?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sat, May 1 2010 10:40 PM

My favorite part of the story was when abortion groups flew to mexico to "talk" with her. To convince her to kill her child.

Where do they get the money for these airfare tickets?

Indeed.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 488
Points 8,140
LeeO replied on Tue, May 11 2010 1:08 AM

Clayton - this thread reminded me of another similar situation involving a 13 year old boy refusing chemotherapy: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/13/health/main5011247.shtml

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, May 11 2010 2:22 PM

Yeah, it's a sad situation when these things happen. I think the interests of children in this sort of situation would be greatly increased if it were other family members - rather than "the State" - coming to bat for them. I think it makes some sense to forcibly intervene on behalf of, say, the child's grandparents rather than the State. And, State subsidy of one side or the other in these kinds of disputes creates a legal imbalance. We need to leave people alone to settle their own disputes, rather than injecting these sanctimonious, busy-bodied, self-appointed spokespersons for the "interests" of the child who are in no way related to the child.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 13
Points 170
KOBALT replied on Wed, May 12 2010 12:24 PM

@Praetyre:

(1) "capital name": no particular reason so don't waste too much time thinking on it.               (1 bis) "EU gov education": please quote me? Where was it? You're trolling, and it's irrelevant in this chat and forum.                 (1  ter) "my English skills": thx for another irrelevant personal bashing. Sorry for not being as good as you... btw i speak more lenguages than you do but you won't see why it's a "plus"...

(2)... to answer your interesting comment : Yes, Rousseau was and is known to be one (among others, there are a lot) of the fathers of the modern concept of Liberty, Democracy and Anarchism. So sad that nobody told you. Please check by yourself, for example here : (i)  about Liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty)    (ii) about Anarchism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01452a.htm). Even the Catholic know it. And Just for fun: the first guy to call Rousseau an "anarchist" was ... F Nietzche, in the XIXth century ;)

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (38 items) | RSS