This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The Rights of Children

edited July 2007 in Flamewars
This topic was inevitable. Time for a battle between the old fogeys and the punk kids.

What rights should children have, and what responsibilities should they have? What rights should parents have, and what responsibilities should they have? Should these rights and responsibilities change? If they should, then how should they change, and under what circumstances?
«1

Comments

  • Is this discussion somewhat in response to my thread?
  • I think that children should have all of the rights that adults have. We are citizens of America and should be treated as such. I can understand some of the rights that are denied to us though. I agree with drinking and smoking laws and to voting laws (just because of the fact that I know that some parents would use their children to try to get their politician of choice into office).
  • edited July 2007
    Children have no rights.

    To have rights you must also bear the legal responsibility associated with those rights. Until you turn 18 (or are emancipated) your parents (or legal guardian) bear the responsibility of your actions.

    Children are a protected class.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • I think that children should have all of the rights that adults have.
    Young children often can't make sound decisions.  What young child would go to school if he didn't have to? 
  • I can understand that law, and I completely forgot about that when I was typing the post. Kids should have more rights though.
  • edited July 2007
    On one hand, I think its rather hypocritical to say "all men are created equal" then say "except our kids." On the other hand, children see things through a filter of inexperience. I always suck at making black and white decisions, I can always see the grey...
    One think I do know in black and white, though, is that age is not a true indicator of maturity.
    Post edited by Neito on
  • edited July 2007
    I do not think that children should have the full rights of an adult automatically. However, neither do I think they should have no rights. It takes a lot of time and learning before children are able to care for themselves let alone make sound decisions for themselves. However, I find it cruel that until emancipation children are basically slaves to their parents. No person should be slave to any other.

    If you want your child to live a certain way, you should raise them in a fashion that will result in them wanting to do those things. If you properly parent them, they will turn into responsible adults on their own, and you will never have to force them to make good decisions. If your child does not make good decisions, you should not be able to infringe upon their basic human rights as a form of punishment. If your children are indeed making poor decisions, and they refuse to listen to their parents advice, then let them suffer the consequences of their actions. They will learn their lesson faster by being forced to take personal responsibility for their own actions than by anything parents will do.

    I think of parenting like gardening. If the plant doesn't grow the way you want, you can't fix it by locking it inside for a day, or denying it water. That only makes things worse across the board. You simply have to change your watering schedule, the type of food, or the amount of sunlight to get the plant to grow in a different direction. Mistakes made early in the growing process will have long, often irreparable, effects later on. That's just something you have to deal with.

    I also think that any child who asks for emancipation should receive it unconditionally. However, the children must be made completely aware of what they are getting into. They have to be made to realize that they have basically decided, in most cases, to become homeless bums. They will be entire responsible for themselves and their actions in all ways. Their parents will no longer be obligated to provide anything for them. If a child is made fully aware of the consequences of becoming totally self-reliant, and they choose to do so anyway, that is their basic human right to be allowed to make that decision. If it was the wrong decision to make, they will find out soon enough.

    Parents should be forced to take responsibility for the children they bring into the world, but that does not mean those children should not be granted the same rights as all other human beings. Just because they are new people does not mean they are lesser people. If any person decides that they would like to take their destiny into their own hands, that is a right that must be granted.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • I whole heartedly agree.
  • edited July 2007
    Maybe it should be emancipation should be given if the child has a place set forth to allow themselves to pay and take care of themselves. If it were unconditional, I can easily image tons of kids that even though they were told of the consequences, would still choose to leave their parents and then end of as homeless bums. Then you'd be faced with all the lawsuit form the government suing those parents, for being "irresponsible" and not taking them back in when their kids fall on their face.
    Post edited by Tasel on

  • I think of parenting like gardening. If the plant doesn't grow the way you want, you can't fix it by locking it inside for a day, or denying it water. That only makes things worse across the board. You simply have to change your watering schedule, the type of food, or the amount of sunlight to get the plant to grow in a different direction. Mistakes made early in the growing process will have long, often irreparable, effects later on. That's just something you have to deal with.
    Do you believe in the practice of pruning?
  • Perhaps, Scott, you should list the rights you believe are inalienable to children. That would greatly help to clarify your argument.
  • I think Scott was talking about denial of rights in general.
  • edited July 2007
    IIt takes a lot of time and learning before children are able to care for themselves let alone make sound decisions for themselves.
    This is true. This is why children cannot enter into contracts, consent to sex, vote, smoke, drink, drive, enlist in the army, and so forth.
    I also think that any child who asks for emancipation should receive it unconditionally. However, the children must be made completely aware of what they are getting into. They have to be made to realize that they have basically decided, in most cases, to become homeless bums. They will be entire responsible for themselves and their actions in all ways. Their parents will no longer be obligated to provide anything for them. If a child is made fully aware of the consequences of becoming totally self-reliant, and they choose to do so anyway, that is their basic human right to be allowed to make that decision. If it was the wrong decision to make, they will find out soon enough.
    If a legislature allowed this, a whole generation of children would end up as homeless bums. They would all opt for emancipation, thinking that they could deal with it. Some of them might be successful, but most would be in deep trouble, because of your observation above that they cannot make sound decisions for themselves.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on

  • I think of parenting like gardening. If the plant doesn't grow the way you want, you can't fix it by locking it inside for a day, or denying it water. That only makes things worse across the board. You simply have to change your watering schedule, the type of food, or the amount of sunlight to get the plant to grow in a different direction. Mistakes made early in the growing process will have long, often irreparable, effects later on. That's just something you have to deal with.
    Hey Scott, would you elaborate more on this analogy? I can't see the correlation between that and raising a child.
  • In the context of our society, children have few rights, but I suppose we lack a better system to use in the place of our current one.

    Obviously, "fairness" is out of the question for the following obvious reasons:
    1. Children don't decide who their parents are.
    2. Parents don't decide who their children are

    As much as I'd like to take the parent side of the debate and say that kids should be forced to do what the parents with as long as the parents are feeding, clothing, and housing them, I won't. Ideally, kids should be able to up and leave whenever they wish as long as they understand that they're forfeiting their home. The problem is that our society isn't structured to be able to deal with such a situation primarily due to age-based laws such as child labour laws.
  • Ok, I'll enumerate the rights children should have according to me.

    1. Freedom of speech.
    2. Freedom of press.
    3. Freedom of religion.
    4. Right to assemble and petition.
    5. Fair trial, due process, etc.
    6. Freedom to travel.
    7. Right to own property.
    8. Right to an education.
    9. Freedom from slavery/indentured servitude
    10. Right to live.
    11. Right to release parents from their obligation.

    In addition, parents and guardians should have the following responsibilities and obligations to their children.
    1. Provide food, shelter, water and other necessities to dependent children.
    2. Must not deny dependent children any of the above rights.

    As always, there are some which I probably have forgotten to list. I'm sure these lists will grow and shrink as discussion continues.
  • Perhaps we could have proper government-owned establishments that would provide shelter, work ,and maybe an education to children who left/don't have parents as opposed to our current orphanages . . .
  • Ok, I'll enumerate the rights children should have according to me.

    1. Freedom of speech.
    Children are just as free as everyone else when it comes to speech. Many just don't like being responsible for the reactions their speech gets.

    2. Freedom of press.
    Elaborate please.

    3. Freedom of religion.
    Parents that choose to teach their children about religion have only the child's best interests in mind.

    4. Right to assemble and petition.
    To who?

    5. Fair trial, due process, etc.
    Is there not due process in juvenile court?

    6. Freedom to travel.
    Elaborate please.

    7. Right to own property.
    If you buy it with your money it is yours.

    8. Right to an education.
    A right? Going a bit far with this one.

    9. Freedom from slavery/indentured servitude
    You have just insulted slaves and indentured servants world-wide.

    10. Right to live.
    So you are anti-abortion?

    11. Right to release parents from their obligation.
    Emancipation?

    In addition, parents and guardians should have the following responsibilities and obligations to their children.
    1. Provide food, shelter, water and other necessities to dependent children.
    DCS

    2. Must not deny dependent children any of the above rights.
    Hah!

    As always, there are some which I probably have forgotten to list. I'm sure these lists will grow and shrink as discussion continues.
    Do you even understand what it means to be a parent? Do you know how many kids I knew growing up that swore they would never do all those mean things their parents did to them? Do you know how many later confided in me that they were stupidly naive as a child to even make those statements?

    I'm not going to go the, "if you are not a parent, you can't talk" route but I will say this. At one age do you think a child becomes mature enough to be an adult?
  • I guess about the only thing I can add is that growing up I was always told: My house, my rules, if you don't like them leave.

    Guess what...I decided on my own that those rules weren't really all that bad after all. It was better, and more economical, to let my parents bear the burden of feeding, clothing, and sheltering me. As I got older and got a job and such I was able to relieve some of those burdens and in turn (without realizing it) some of the "rules" they placed on me were relieved.

    It's sort of funny as I think about it...my parents were apparently far more awesome than I have until now given them credit for. Pretty much every time I stood my ground I found that I no longer had a task or chore or whatever. For instance I was "forced" to go to church with them until a year or two into college...until one morning when I just refused to get out of bed...I decided that sleep made better sense than going to church and I wasn't going...what're you gonna do? My mom was pissed but she got over it and recognized that it was far better to just let me do my thing than to "force" it on me. Until that time it had never occurred to me that it was even an option...
  • 5. Fair trial, due process, etc.
    They don't have the right to trial by jury unless they're tried as adults; and they don't want that.
  • edited July 2007

    8. Right to an education.
    A right? Going a bit far with this one.
    Of all of the rights that Scott mentioned this is the second most important (the first not being a slave). Every child has to right to a free, effective, comprehensive, secular education. This way everyone has the same opportunity and if done people will teach basic rules and nature of life. This is the only way that children can become effective and beneficial members of society.
    Post edited by ZakoSoldier on
  • @HMTK

    1. Kids don't currently have the same freedom of speech adults do. Will they get punished at public school for telling a teacher to fuck off? Public school is the government. Kids don't have the same freedom of speech that they should.

    2. Many student newspapers in public schools have been censored. That's bullshit.

    3. Homeopathy people and culty scientologists also have good intentions in mind. Kids should be allowed to believe whatever they want, and nobody should be able to punish or persecute them for it. If a parent punishes their kid for say, atheism, I consider that a hate crime.

    4. Right to assemble period. If kids want to protest, awesome. Right to petition any part of the government.

    5. I don't know much about juvenile court, but I do know that a lot of kids never make it to court. They get expelled from school without any sort of fair trial or anything. Kids are punished all the time due to the automatic invocation of policy. That is not cool. If you want to say, expel a kid from school for a crime, you better give them a fair trial first. None of this zero tolerance bs.

    6. If a kid wants to go somewhere without trespassing, they can go. If they have their own money to say, buy a plane ticket to visit Disney World, they should not need anyone's permission to go. If your kid wants to walk down the street to the grocery, you can't forcibly prevent them from going.

    7. If a 16 year old buys a cellphone with their own money, a teacher can confiscate it and never give it back. If your kid bought a DS with their own money, parents can take it away from them and not give it back. This doesn't sound like right to property to me.

    8. State of Connecticut constitution guarantees it, and it seems to work nicely.

    9. I don't see how. Every human being should be in control of their own destiny. Period.

    10. If you are biologically independent of another human, then you are good to go. As long as you are still in the womb, I consider you to be a part of the mother's body.

    11. Emancipation is too difficult, and it can be denied. The idea is good, the system just needs to change.
  • edited July 2007
    I think the rights of minors in the US are acceptable the way they are. I think the problem is that adults don't understand or respect them enough for the rights function properly.
    Post edited by Sail on
  • One thing I've noticed in this debate is some of the fogies say something along the lines of "parents must do such and such," or "parents have to, for their children." You must or else what? Why is there a NEED to take disciplinary action for a perceived "wrong" act? If the act was truly wrong, then the ramifications of the act aren't enough? If there are no bad results, then why was the act wrong?
  • @HMTK

    1. Kids don't currently have the same freedom of speech adults do. Will they get punished at public school for telling a teacher to fuck off? Public school is the government. Kids don't have the same freedom of speech that they should.
    What happens if you tell your boss to fuck off? You get fired. Hmm. If you told a cop to fuck off? Sounds like your freedom of speech is impugned upon. If a student chooses to do the same at school, he must realize there are consequences to how he addresses authority figures.
    2. Many student newspapers in public schools have been censored. That's bullshit.
    Student newspapers are owned by the school and the school is legally responsible for content. If students want a completely uncensored newspaper, they are free to start their own without school funding or distribution.
    3. Homeopathy people and culty scientologists also have good intentions in mind. Kids should be allowed to believe whatever they want, and nobody should be able to punish or persecute them for it. If a parent punishes their kid for say, atheism, I consider that a hate crime.
    Well, I don't have too much to say about this one. I plan to raise my children Catholic, because my religion is an important part of my and my family's life. If - in an informed choice - my child chooses to follow a different or no religion later, I will support them.
    4. Right to assemble period. If kids want to protest, awesome. Right to petition any part of the government.
    Sure, this one doesn't cause many problems. Same rules as adults though.
    5. I don't know much about juvenile court, but I do know that a lot of kids never make it to court. They get expelled from school without any sort of fair trial or anything. Kids are punished all the time due to the automatic invocation of policy. That is not cool. If you want to say, expel a kid from school for a crime, you better give them a fair trial first. None of this zero tolerance bs.
    Zero tolerance is a whole nother can of worms. Depending on the place and situation, these things vary. They shouldn't though. Actually, many places have too much red tape when a kid needs to be expelled. We had a student attack a teacher (250 lb male student, 150 lb female teacher) and it took 6 weeks to get the kid expelled. After the mandatory maximum 10-day suspension, the kid was allowed back into the building - by law - until the entire process was complete. The teacher needed to file a restraining order and criminal charges against the student after he threatened her with further violence. The school could not even protect its own.
    6. If a kid wants to go somewhere without trespassing, they can go. If they have their own money to say, buy a plane ticket to visit Disney World, they should not need anyone's permission to go. If your kid wants to walk down the street to the grocery, you can't forcibly prevent them from going.
    So, parents have no responsibility for their child's whereabouts? We can trust kids to make good decisions on their own? I know a number of kids who would be quite dead if they could just go anywhere without parental guidance.
    7. If a 16 year old buys a cellphone with their own money, a teacher can confiscate it and never give it back. If your kid bought a DS with their own money, parents can take it away from them and not give it back. This doesn't sound like right to property to me.
    Not true. A teacher may confiscate an item used as a classroom disturbance, but must give it back via the individual school's policies. Our school kept them for a week and only returned them to the parents. And there's an element of ownership you're not considering here. Again, the parents are responsible for the child;s well-being by law. If taking away the DS is in the best interest of the child, the parent has the right to take it. If the DS keeps the kid from his responsibilities, then away it goes.
    8. State of Connecticut constitution guarantees it, and it seems to work nicely.
    While I believe we are privileged to have free and public education, it is not a right. It is not something given, it is earned.
    9. I don't see how. Every human being should be in control of their own destiny. Period.
    Can't disagree here.
    10. If you are biologically independent of another human, then you are good to go. As long as you are still in the womb, I consider you to be a part of the mother's body.
    Yeah, this one starts a rough argument, even by FRC standards.
    11. Emancipation is too difficult, and it can be denied. The idea is good, the system just needs to change.
    Of course it can be denied! For the most part, kids are dumb! I was dumb when I was a kid and so were all of you. At least I was smart enough to realize that my home with my family following their rules was what was best for me.
  • whole nother
    Regardless of the content of your post, with which I mostly agree, this construction always makes me laugh :P
  • Comes from living in the South too long. I have friends who say "Use-ta-could." Try and parse that one.
  • If they have their own money to say, buy a plane ticket to visit Disney World, they should not need anyone's permission to go.
    The child molesters thank you for adopting this position.
  • I think the problem comes from balancing protecting children (what age group you might decide that to be) and their freedom and rights as people.

    Something that makes it even more complicated is that it is assumed that when one turns 18 one can take care of themselves. Given the way children are treated these days that is vary rarely the case. I know many adults that should still only have the rights of children, and children that should probably have the rights of adults.
  • I say we let em' all loose and let the weak weed themselves out . . .
Sign In or Register to comment.