Rights of the child Vs Rights of the parent

[Slytovhand]

hey gang.

I thought of this cos of Ped's circumcision thread.

In Plato's 'Republic', he proposes that children be taken away from the birth parents, and put together into a society where they are raised by those individuals best capable of rearing children for the benefit of society as a whole, and the individual. (that's a very quick and basic synopsis, obviously..)

And, given that of late, I've been hearing more and more cases of child neglect (in horrendous situations... caged up 6YO kids, locked in rooms for the first few years of their lives, etc), as well as the basic idea that many parents out there are more interested in either turning their kids into little clones of themselves, or don't really care enough about the future of the child, that no thought goes into what they do, I'm thinking that human breeding needs to be reduced - and given only as a privilege to those who can prove that they would make good parents. That they understand the concept of responsibility and commitment.

So - here's my thread on the subject.

I personally think that the rights of the child outweigh the rights of the parent.

Thus, if a parent is unable or unwilling to actually do what is required, tough... you lose your kid.

I'll go even further....

Your personal idea of "They're my kids, I'll raise them as I see fit" is a complete load of bollocks. Most humans have no reall brains to consider possibilities outside their own little worlds. Religion is a perfect example.

Thus - all kids should be given the best opportunities that society can give - and in such a way that gives said individual the most intelligent options later in life.

Which means, in reality, a lot of things that are currently 'acceptable' wouldn't be....


Please - flame away :p

[Greenday]

As it is, I believe the world is overpopulated as it is so reducing the amount of kids brought into this world always appeals to me.

I also believe a lot of people are having kids when they either can't take care of them or they are raising hellspawn. If you won't raise your kids even minutely properly, why should you have kids at all when there are plenty of people who actually COULD raise kids properly?

[Saydrah]

On reducing the number of kids brought into the world so as to prevent hypothetical kids from suffering abuse and neglect:

This is not my insight, stolen from someone who commented on a blog, but:

Is it better to live and suffer abuse, or to never have lived at all? The suicide rate of survivors of parental abuse and neglect is much less than 100%, so I believe the victims have already spoken.

Just a thought.

Also, I personally think that in MOST cases the rights of the parent outweigh the rights of the child. For example, freedom of speech. A parent can say something profane if they so desire, and nobody will do anything about it unless they say it to the wrong person and start a fight or get arrested for obscenity. A child cannot, if his parents say he is not permitted to use those words. If he does anyway, the parent has the right to discipline him (within reason and the law).

Why give all children the absolute best opportunities society has to offer, even if that means taking them from their parents? Not all children are above average. Not all children have the potential to grow up to cure cancer. Not all children have the ambition to WANT to do so. Some would be much happier staying with their parents, even if the parents are lazy and use the TV as a babysitter and cook unhealthy meals and don't help with homework, and as a result the kid drops out of school to work in construction.

As long as a parent loves a child, does their best by it, and isn't abusive, I think they do have a right to raise their child how they see fit. After all, the world needs garbagemen no less than it needs Nobel Prize winning scientists-- perhaps more! I could probably live without learning more about how the universe expands, but I'd get pretty frustrated pretty fast if the streets were covered in garbage. Not everyone needs or wants the most intelligent options later in life.

[Lachrymose]

Is it better to live and suffer abuse, or to never have lived at all? The suicide rate of survivors of parental abuse and neglect is much less than 100%, so I believe the victims have already spoken.


I see these as two completely separate ideas.

In one case you have someone who was never born therefore has never known suffering.

In the other you have someone who has endured suffering and decided (or not) to kill themselves.

In my opinion, not really comparable.

It's similar to when people say "Abortion is bad! If I were aborted I never
would have been born!"

Right. And you never would have known any differently.

[AdminAssistant]

I agree with Saydrah.

My mom was tough as hell on Big Sis and me. Of course, she was (is) a struggling housewife dealing with an alcoholic husband with a ton emotional and psychological issues. We were pressed HARD in school, because mom wanted my sister and me to be part of the minority who got good educations, good jobs, and moved the hell out of my tiny hometown. She wanted us to do more with our lives than marry a farmer and pop out babies.

A's were expected. An A- was a stern talking to. B's were groundable offenses. We weren't allowed to work during the school year. We were only allowed to participate in extra-curricular activities if our grades held. They sent us both to summer school for classes on how to take the ACT (we got a 30 and 31, respectively). They couldn't afford to send us to college, so they had this *shocking* idea that we should bust our asses in school so that we could get scholarships to pay for the local state university.

During the summers, Dad trotted our butts out to fields to help him, in a "if you don't go to school you get to do THIS for a living". (If any of you are looking to motivate a child to do well in school, I recommend a summer on a farm. Hard work in the hot sun can cure most anything.)

A lot of parents would vehemently disagree with their methods, say they were too strict, too focused on grades. There wasn't enough social interaction, enough 'real life' experience. Well, Big Sis is an accountant and doing very well. I'm working on my Ph.D. Mission Accomplished.

This "rights of the child" bullshit is what is leading to soft, pansy, overprotected children. Kids that don't play outside (at least not without full protective gear). Heaven forbid a kid scrape a knee. Growing up, I had to EARN my rights. Nothing's free in life, folks.

[Saydrah]

Yes, but you CAN argue that point-- that if someone had been aborted, their contributions to society would not have happened. In fact, you can argue it until you're quite blue in the face without changing anyone's mind. On abortion, the better argument is simply that nobody wants more abortions, everybody wants less abortions, abortions are sad and unfortunate, but the right to choose is an essential human right and to take it away from women would be a very bad thing.

[Lachrymose]

I don't think I was clear on my abortion analogy.

I mean it as coming from someone with a completely selfish point of view. "OMG I NEVER WOULD HAVE EXISTED! THE HORROR!" It's basically just because someone can't fathom their non-existance.

Know what I mean?

On the rest of your original post I completely agree by the way.

[Lace Neil Singer]

It's like when people shout, "OMG! That aborted fetus could have come up with the cure for cancer!", while ignoring the fact that the fetus could also have been Stalin reborn.

I will also say that even the most horribly abused and neglected children still have a chance to live a decent life, even if they are going to be permanently damaged by what happened to them. Check my "Feral Children" thread for one example.

[Slytovhand]

Ummm - getting a little away from my original meaning of the post... it's not about abortion.

It's about (basically) neglectful parenting (or even non-parenting) skills... sort of like as AA was indicating.

Which, btw, isn't about 'pandering' to children. It's not about discipline or strict - though perhaps is more about where that line is.

How about this for a much better example... (as against Pedersen's circumcision thread, which is also a pretty good example)... giving or receiving blood. As I'm sure we are well aware, there are certain religions that are forced upon a child due to their parents, that prohibit the receiving of blood transfusions, especially when in dire need (ie - medical emergency).

Thus, my post. Should the parents 'rights' (in this case, religious) override the child's rights (in this example, to life)? Now, I'm not focussing solely on religion, as there are enough other examples to use - this just happens to be really really obvious....

[AdminAssistant]

Ah, yes, where the life of the child is concerned then, yes, the rights of the child outweight the rights of the parents.

[anriana]

I don't agree that breeding should be limited only to a select few deemed worthy of passing on their genes and parenting, because that has such a HUGE potential for abuse. Who would decide that? A majority? America would be completely straight WASP in one or two generations.

I do agree that there should be more removal of children, but I don't think there would be enough "good" caretakers to take care of them.

[Pedersen]

Why give all children the absolute best opportunities society has to offer, even if that means taking them from their parents? Not all children are above average. Not all children have the potential to grow up to cure cancer. Not all children have the ambition to WANT to do so. Some would be much happier staying with their parents, even if the parents are lazy and use the TV as a babysitter and cook unhealthy meals and don't help with homework, and as a result the kid drops out of school to work in construction.

Well, simply to be fair to the child. It's entirely possible that any given child will grow up to be a garbageman and be happy with that life. But, for many people who get that job, it is not their first choice. It is not what they want. However, they had no other choice, since they had no other opportunities.

Every child deserves the best opportunities. What they do from there belongs only to them.

Ah, yes, where the life of the child is concerned then, yes, the rights of the child outweight the rights of the parents.

And a way that this might be turned on its head again, I present this scenario.

A person in the early to mid teen years is diagnosed with a nicely rare disease. This disease will kill the person. There are no ifs, no ands, no buts. This disease is a death sentence. No person who is diagnosed manages to live longer than two years, and that's with extremely intensive and painful therapy. Without those therapies, the prognosis is six months, and the pain is vastly reduced. The person understands this, and does not wish to go through the therapy.

Whose rights triumph then? The parents, or the person who will have to live through the pain every day?

Now, back to the original post: Slyt, this is a tough question to answer. As with so much of life, every possible choice involves tradeoffs.

To remove a child from that child's parents as a matter of policy removes the sense of continuity. There would be little connection between the generations, and the problems that would arise from there... I think that Plato is one of the better philosophical minds out there, but on this count, his ideas could wind up hurting humanity on the whole. We already have many issues with disconnect between social groups, and this would add another.

Stating that the rights of the child outweighs the rights of the parent, though, is even worse.

Rights are, at their most basic level, a bit of power. Stating that you have the right to free speech is stating that you have the power to speak your mind (for example).

With rights come responsibilities. Children are still learning what responsbibilities are. Telling them that they have rights before they understand responsibilities and consequences is a recipe for disaster. In fact, we are starting to see the fruits of doing just this right now.

Children are now aware that they hold a great deal of power over their parents. Stories abound of children saying "Do this, or I'll call Children & Youth and tell them you spank me every night." In many ways, this is the same as letting children say "I have a right to this. And if you don't make sure I get it, I'll get you in trouble."

But children, as a rule, don't understand responsibilities and/or consequences. And they especially don't understand what effects can come about from getting the legal system involved in their lives, and in their parents' lives. For a child, getting in trouble is pretty equal to "I might get grounded." And they tend to see jail as mom and dad getting grounded, without understanding what can happen after the fact.

No, stating that the rights of the children universally are more important than the rights of the parents allows children to permanently fuck the lives of people who are genuinely trying to care for the children. I have to heavily disagree with that statement.

It's important to protect the children, yes, but that's as far as I'll go with it.

[Norton]

How about this for a much better example... (as against Pedersen's circumcision thread, which is also a pretty good example)... giving or receiving blood. As I'm sure we are well aware, there are certain religions that are forced upon a child due to their parents, that prohibit the receiving of blood transfusions, especially when in dire need (ie - medical emergency).

Ah, yes, where the life of the child is concerned then, yes, the rights of the child outweight the rights of the parents.


But what of brain-washing? I was raised in that particular religion. The earliest I can remember being taught about the evils of blood transfusions was when I was 5. At 5 years old, if I had been taken to the hospital and knew I was getting a blood transfusion despite my parent's protests, I would have fought the doctors/nurses, kicked and screamed, and pulled the IV out of my arm. Thankfully I never had to deal with that situation, and I know better now... but what if? There are now many children who feel just the same as I did. They believe it is better to die than to sin against God by taking blood. A child has a right to life, but what if they insist on a right to death?

[katie kaboom]

A child has a right to life, but what if they insist on a right to death?

A child shouldn't be allowed to make that kind of decision. I'm not knocking kids, and i'm not saying we shouldn't respect them as people, because we absolutely should...but the parent needs to be able to do what it takes to keep the child alive so they can reach adulthood and at THAT point and that point only, they should have a right to death. I say this because by the time someone is an adult they have learned the value of human life. Children aren't sophisiticated enough to get that, and that's fine, because they're not supposed to be. But it is up to their parents to instill in them a will to live. What they do with that will when they reach adulthood is their decision. But to let a child decide on death over life would be an incredible tragedy.

[smileyeagle1021]

-snip-

playing the devil's advocate... what would have happened if they did do the transfusion... considering your beliefs it would have traumatized you and probably had life long effects... whether or not you later lost those beliefs.

[katie kaboom]

playing the devil's advocate... what would have happened if they did do the transfusion... considering your beliefs it would have traumatized you and probably had life long effects... whether or not you later lost those beliefs.

But rather than traumatizing him, couldn't it possibly make him believe that despite what his religion and/or his parents tell him that getting the transfusion was the best thing he could do for himself?

I know if i was in that situation and i did agree to a transfusion, which in turn saved my life, i would have to reconsider what the church and my parents believe....because what if those beliefs caused me to lose my life? Then can we say the church was responsible for that loss of life?

[Slytovhand]

Then can we say the church was responsible for that loss of life?

Already happened - hence part of the reason for the thread. Yes, kids have died because of a parent's beliefs and practices. So... why should those parents have the right to (effectively) kill a child for those beliefs, instead of being forced to wait until the child becomes an adult and is allowed to think freely as an adult?

Pedersen wants to take away the 'right' of a parent to have a male child circumcised, which I'm totally for. So... where's the line? Part of what Ped is saying there is (I think) that the parents' religion shouldn't dictate that they automatically have this right... and I'm saying that in general, perhaps there are a stack of other things as well.......

Oh - and no, I'm not trying to get into little kids trying to force their parents into blatantly stupid things, or holding it against them. I'm actually trying to make people a lot more responsible in general, and to realise that having kids isn't just a 'thing you do'... but that it means actually taking a look at yourself and thinking "Is this how I want my child to behave? Is this what I want from my kids when they are adults?" And I'm thinking, if people are going to be so blind and wilfully ignorant to not even consider such things, then maybe they shouldn't be having kids in the first place... (how harsh am I??? :p)

[Boozy]

There are some cases where the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. There are some that don't. There are thousands of variables in each and every one of those cases.

That's why we have social services for families, and a court system. Because we can't know every variable of every situation when we pass laws, we need to be sure that these systems are well-funded so that they can pay enough to attract and keep smart people, and lots of them. Then we need to rely on their good judgment.

[katie kaboom]

Yes, kids have died because of a parent's beliefs and practices. So... why should those parents have the right to (effectively) kill a child for those beliefs, instead of being forced to wait until the child becomes an adult and is allowed to think freely as an adult?



You've actually touched on one of my biggest pet peeves. On the contrary, i don't find you harsh, but very refreshing. It absolutely sickens me to hear about an innocent child losing their life because their parents refused life saving treatment, simply because the church they belong to tells them it's a bad idea...i would even go so far as to say that some religions consider things like a transfusion, to be a sin. Maybe that is an overly severe reaction on my part, but nothing infuriates me more than the injustice of a child losing their life, when in fact that life could have been saved if only the parents would have allowed the necessary medical treatment.

I'm sorry to say (and i hope i don't get slammed for this) parents who lose a child simply because they refuse to go against what their religion tells them should be banned from ever having any more children in the future. They obviously are not strong enough individuals to make decisions on their own and therefore will let their religion dictate their lives in an unreasonable and tragic way.

[smileyeagle1021]

Katie, I will have to respectfully disagree with you. One of the things that makes modern society great is the ability for people to freely practice religion. While I know a lot of people think those of us who practice religion still are just behind the times, but I refuse to believe that life is about nothing more than having sex and continueing the species, which is what most athiests tell me "the meaning" is. That said, I think meaningful sorrow is infitely better than meaningless joy. Assuming I am correct that there is a God up there somewhere, who are we to say that a particular child is sick and can't be cured following their parent's belief because they aren't supposed to be here? What if God knew that they turned into the next BTK or the next Zodiac killer? Or what if that child's death brings a community together? It may be a steep price to pay, but if it is that person's destiny who's to say that they pay that price gladly?
I know I'm going to make you all think I've gone off the deep end (ok, so probably most of you thought that before getting up to this point :p ) but I listen to CoasttoCoastAM, and one of the most memorable shows they had was a lady talking about spirits, and how before we are born we have already met all of the other people we will ever interact with, heard the plan for us, and agreed to it... yeah it sounds crazy, but what if it's true and we've now stepped in and said "we don't like that plan" ?

Ok, I'll stop before I make you all think I'm even crazier than I am.

[Slytovhand]

Hmmm - ok, firstly - Boozy... please stop putting arguments and suggestions that make sense - they just derail my crazy ideas! :D Isn't there that saying "All things in moderation - including moderators"? :p

Katie... Your last paragraph gets closer to the crux I'm aiming for (minds out of gutters please, I said "cruX"). If society can mandate on health issues, what about other issues. Say, parents say "Katie, you can't play with Smiley cos he's of a different religion to you"?

On the other hand... maybe, just maybe, that particular religion is right. Should parents follow the dictates of the law of the land, and go against those of the 'God'?

Smiley... you live in Utah, I wouldn't expect anything else other than craziness...:D

You reminded me of Babylon 5 right at the end when Sheridan told all those ancient races that were interferring in the younger races evolution "Get the hell out of our universe". Thus, so what if we don't like that plan. What's wrong with making a new one?? (and, if they were that good, they'd already know that...)

But as for 'God's' plan... who can really say...oh, that's right, someone wrote a book about it...which brings us back full circle - do parents get to control what religion a child is forced to be a part of (and all that that entails).

[smileyeagle1021]

Smiley... you live in Utah, I wouldn't expect anything else other than craziness...:D

You reminded me of Babylon 5 right at the end when Sheridan told all those ancient races that were interferring in the younger races evolution "Get the hell out of our universe". Thus, so what if we don't like that plan. What's wrong with making a new one?? (and, if they were that good, they'd already know that...)



first... this craziness started when I lived in Nevada, it only got worse once I moved to Utah :D

second, speaking of Babylon 5, this thread actually reminds me of the episode where there is a child from (actually, I don't recall the race)... this race believed that if their skin was ever punctured their soul would escape and their body would be nothing but an empty shell. And basically the whole episode was a debate between Franklin and (I can't remember if this was season 1 or not and whether it was Sinclair or Sheridan, I think it was Sinclair though) on whether or not to perform the surgery against the parent's will. You know... now I have to use netflix to find that episode again... it has a lot of good points that could be used in this thread.

[Rapscallion]

From memory, it's called Believers. From my DVD case, it's Season one, Episode 10.

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

Katie, I will have to respectfully disagree with you. One of the things that makes modern society great is the ability for people to freely practice religion. While I know a lot of people think those of us who practice religion still are just behind the times, but I refuse to believe that life is about nothing more than having sex and continueing the species, which is what most athiests tell me "the meaning" is. That said, I think meaningful sorrow is infitely better than meaningless joy. Assuming I am correct that there is a God up there somewhere, who are we to say that a particular child is sick and can't be cured following their parent's belief because they aren't supposed to be here? What if God knew that they turned into the next BTK or the next Zodiac killer? Or what if that child's death brings a community together? It may be a steep price to pay, but if it is that person's destiny who's to say that they pay that price gladly?
I know I'm going to make you all think I've gone off the deep end (ok, so probably most of you thought that before getting up to this point :p ) but I listen to CoasttoCoastAM, and one of the most memorable shows they had was a lady talking about spirits, and how before we are born we have already met all of the other people we will ever interact with, heard the plan for us, and agreed to it... yeah it sounds crazy, but what if it's true and we've now stepped in and said "we don't like that plan" ?

Ok, I'll stop before I make you all think I'm even crazier than I am.

For starters, not all athiests believe the same, and many think you can find meaning in one's life without having to worry about a hereafter. But, that's a topic for another thread.

It would be fine if the parent's beliefs were based on something that could be pointed to as rational, but the particular thing we're discussing (blood transfusions) isn't really even backed up biblically, so why should society support that belief? Why should that not fall under the jurisdiction of social services?
I lump that in with the nutball faith healers in my state who have let children die of easily treated conditions and infections simply because they stood by and did nothing. Maybe parents should take an oath to "first, do no harm" after they deliver.
As for male circumcision, if I ever have a male child, I will probably let him stay intact, as most of the reasons against I find to be pretty reactionary. While I don't think the lack of it inhibits sexual function much at all (especially when it's done so early in life that's all a boy knows), it's still an organ that's there for a reason.

[smileyeagle1021]

From memory, it's called Believers. From my DVD case, it's Season one, Episode 10.

Rapscallion

raps, you scare me... in a good way... but still scary...

too bad you are on the other side of the planet... otherwise I would so be stopping by to bum those DVDs off of you.

and AP, I agree with you on the issue of blood transfusions, I just fear the precedent that would be set if we start saying "that belief is wrong and will be overridden, but that one is ok and we'll let it happen"

[Shangri-laschild]

Just a thought, but if children were taken away from their parents to be raised in a good environment and taught and such...who would be in charge of it? The government? Too tempting not to try to turn it into some sort of training camp where they were taught based on whoever is in charge's governmental ideals (yes to some extent this is going to happen no matter who's teaching the child). Churches? That already seems to be not looked on all that well. Who then?

[Rapscallion]

Define good.

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

second, speaking of Babylon 5

There's an episode of NCIS (Season 5...can't remember the title). Ducky (the ME) refuses to do an autopsy on a Muslim Marine. Lots of similar issues get brought up in that episode - rights of the gov't vs. freedom of religion.

[AFPheonix]

raps, you scare me... in a good way... but still scary...

too bad you are on the other side of the planet... otherwise I would so be stopping by to bum those DVDs off of you.

and AP, I agree with you on the issue of blood transfusions, I just fear the precedent that would be set if we start saying "that belief is wrong and will be overridden, but that one is ok and we'll let it happen"
I think if you make the exception to be that if it causes a person in your care who is not able to give consent physical harm, then it is a bad belief. If one chooses that self harm once they are of age to give consent, then more power to that person.

[IDrinkaRum]

I might have missed it in all the posts, but at what age do we take the children away from their parents? At birth? That would be an easier for the children to grow up but what about the parents? To have their children removed so quickly? So early? And would the parents even be given updates on their children?