I'm writing in English, which is strange in itself since I really love my own language, Finnish, and since I detest the power position that the English language has in global communucation... but I'd get way too many complaints from American friends if I didn't write in a language comprehensible to them.

Oct 14, 2010

Parent's rights, children's rights


Are you for parent's rights or children's rights?

Sometimes these two seem to be the same thing. Sometimes you can just talk about family values or similar. Surely it's best for the children that the government and everyone else supports parents in their duties in stead of the other way around, right? Right?

Here's the trick, though. All parents don't do what's best for their children. Really. They might think they do, or they just don't think at all. Honestly. I've heard the comments about "who should decide what's best for the children" and I say that sometimes it shouldn't be the parents. And if some parents aren't capable of it then there should be general rules. And that sort of means laws and regulations, and the government dictating at least some things parents can and can't do.

If not the government then who? Those who really want parents to have completely the right to decide over their children's lives need to admit that then there would be no laws against violence against children, or locking them in closets or similar atrocities. Most people feel these things should be forbidden, but are having hard times saying what else could or should be...

I'm for children's rights. I don't know in every case what would be in their best interest. But if parent's rights and children's rights do not meet, I'll go for the children.

6 comments:

  1. Usually going for children's rights means that there is an obscure 3rd party that outlines what's good for children.

    Nowadays it seems to be "social media". And it also enforces it. (It might be also government etc. enforcing it, but the source would probably be obscure).

    But yes, children's right should overcome parent's rights (and parent's right to have children).

    In Finland parent's right are so strong that taking children to custody happens always at too late stage. (Or by totally arbitrary decisions).

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would hate to have someone else decide what is best for my children. Violence against children is never OK, but I as a parent should be allowed to make medical, educational, religious and other decisions on my childrens behalf until they are old enough to choose for them selves.

    Kati

    ReplyDelete
  3. There are actually laws protecting children already in place. Parents who are not fit or are abusive do have their children taken away. They are often taught how to properly care for their children in the hopes that they can have their children back. Children should be protected, as you said, and parents are not always fit, it is true. But most parents are fit and want the best for their children. Consider how you would feel if your child were taken because you wanted him to go to church two times a week and some third party decided once was sufficient. Or, how would you like to be arrested because you did not want the school to teach your child about sex in kindergarten. These things are happening and those rights do need to be protected. Otherwise, family is nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Onneksi Suomessa on edes nimisuoja (jota esim. USAssa ei ole) että lapselle ei voi antaa ihan mitä tahansa nimeä. Kuten vaikka korvapuusti. Tosin mulla ei ole tietoa siitä et kuinka villiä nimeämismeininki siellä on. Ehkä ei sit käytännössä olekaan. Olis kiva kuulla mitä kaikkea mietit siellä, siis yksityiskohtaisemmin. Mitä muuta vanhemmat ei aina tee oikein, lapsen parhaaksi tai missä oikeudet ei kohtaa tai mitä lakeja tulis olla. Vai tarkoititko että vaikea sanoa sinun myös.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree and disagree. It is so very hard to draw the lines. It would need to be on individual bases, but it can't. It should be done by an objective 3rd party, but no 3rd party is ever objective. Seeing closely social workers and laws at work with a family in a custody situation I cannot but wonder why often in serious matters parent's rights override children's. It's unbelievable. It's totally wrong. But I would not want 3rd parties intervene more with families where things are actually ok, even though they might no seem like that. Hey, everyone knows us mormons indoctrinate our kids, right? That's what many even educated people think. They'd have a pretty good cause to make sure our kid's rights to live fully in this society are real... We'd be in trouble.

    Mirja

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for all your comments! I agree that this is a very difficult issue. Drawing the lines is hard. Even the religious education part is hard - there was a case in Minneapolis where parents had decided they wouldn't put their child to chemotherapy for ideological (religious) reasons, and the state disagreed. You could argue both for and against that. The most obvious things seem easy, but what about the twilight zone?

    I just hope I'll never get caught in twilight zone. I don't worry about kids being taught sex ed at school (I was, after all) but I agree with Anna that I'd get upset if someone decided how many times a week my kids should be going to church. If indeed at all.

    ReplyDelete