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

[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.