Do children have rights?

[Pure]

The UN and lots of countries say yes, and list them at

summary of UN convention on the rights of the child

http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf

there are twenty-some basic rights of all children.

Some people say 'no,' essentially because children aren't in position to assert them. In fact, many children don't know what a 'right' is, or understand what it would mean.

Almost all who say 'no' deal with protection of children, an agreed goal, in a number of ways. For example, perhaps it's parents who have rights NOT to have their children abused. Or perhaps parents and others simply have DUTIES or obligations, e.g. NOT to harm children, although the child, technically, may NOT be said to have any right to be free from harm.

 

[Liar]

3rd option is kind of correct. But I do think children have rights. Just not the same ones as adults.

Children are born into a kind of communism.

Excended rights to life, security and commodities.
Limited rights to freedom, power and autonomy.

As they grow, they make a series of trade-offs towards more freedom and less security.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

You're dancing with the abortion question here, and i won't dance.

 

[Liar]

Nah, I don't think that's it. We can talk about childrens' rights (or lack of) without having to quibble over when a child becomes one. If you think it's at conception, then fine. If you think it's at five years old, fine. Same questions pretty much apply.

What I wanna know is what you all think parent's rights and priviliges are. Apparently they have the right to excert power and control over their offspring for two decades, to macro manage and micro manage their lives. To what extent? And why are they the default owners of this right? Because they boinked little Bobby into being?

 

[Pure]

dear doc

i'm actually dancing with a bonobo.

thanks anyway.

j.


doc You're dancing with the abortion question here, and i won't dance.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

i'm actually dancing with a bonobo.

thanks anyway.

j.


doc You're dancing with the abortion question here, and i won't dance.

I know what you mean.

My girl gives me one of those when we dance too.

-KC

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

As annoying, bordering on silly, these "rights" things have been, it has helped remind me, at least, to appreciate how meaningless these declarations of rights can be.

I would be curious to see the list of nations which have signed onto this charter... chuck full of loopholes and ambiguities that it is... it does contain a number of pretty proscriptive articles which damn few countries in the UN can possibly be realistically recogninzing. I am confident most of them do not believe that the provisions actually apply to them.....

Article 2: "..........No child should be treated un-fairly on any basis"

Article 9: "Children have a right to live with their parents unless it is bad for them."

Anyone care to drive a semi-tractor trailer through that lanquage?

-KC

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I know what you mean.

My girl gives me one of those when we dance too.

-KC

 

[TE999]

Parents need to ride herd on their offspring until they turn 18, lengthening the leash as the children age to teach them responsibility and independence. Then it's 'fly little bird'. If they haven't learned anything by now they never will. The toughest thing for a parent to do is let go. Some never figure that out, unfortunately.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Nah, I don't think that's it. We can talk about childrens' rights (or lack of) without having to quibble over when a child becomes one. If you think it's at conception, then fine. If you think it's at five years old, fine. Same questions pretty much apply.

Well here's what I'm worried about. Pure's trying to get at this idea of whether children have inalienable rights by virtue of their being human (which he believes and which we all give lip service to) so he can then apply it to his growing bonobo problem, or are they granted them by us in a de facto manner, which makes us all hypocrites, but which is, in fact, the truth. Rights are granted on a de facto basis. (There really are no such things as "rights". It's an abstract concept and like everything, serves the needs of our emotional demands).

If they have them as an inalienable consequence of being human, however, which is what we tell ourselves, when do you draw the line for a fetus? When is a fetus human and protected by these rights? You can't tell legally or biologically. Therefore, abortion is murder and a violation of human rights.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DOC

You got it!

PURE is gonna make the case for criminalizing abortion by making monkeys our brudders.

 

[LordMithras]

No, tots don't have rights. They have privileges and legal protections. I think that adolescents should have some....as they prove responsible. In this day and age, that may take an eternity.

Then again, one could argue from a historical viewpoint that it's oversheltering and protecting of youth that makes them irresponsible to a large extent. Centuries ago, youth were expected to take care of themselves at much earlier ages. I doubt that they had the luxury of being jackals like modern youth.

 

[cantdog]

Our US Supreme Court rules pretty consistently that minors do not have the free speech rights and so on that we grown humans are still supposed, somewhere beyond the endless wars on terror and drugs, to have.

One day this might go by the boards, as the Dred Scott decision by Justice Taney did. He ruled in no uncertain terms that a black man had no rights which anyone was bound to respect, but he was overruled by amendment.

On a de facto basis, children can't be sold, and the parents are not free, by action or inaction, to allow them to come to harm. But they lack freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion, security from search and seizure, and so forth.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

You're dancing with the abortion question here, and i won't dance.

It could lead there, I suppose. It will, when Amicus reads the thread...

I'm more concerned with the "protection" offered in lieu of "rights." Whether it's an abstract concept or not, it's an important one, and our society leans toward the former. While it seems like a good idea in theory, the practice sucks bonobo butts.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

It could lead there, I suppose. It will, when Amicus reads the thread...

I'm more concerned with the "protection" offered in lieu of "rights." Whether it's an abstract concept or not, it's an important one, and our society leans toward the former. While it seems like a good idea in theory, the practice sucks bonobo butts.

[I am enjoying your Av, Selena. I feel like we should combine our two.]

Pure's trying to establish that the great apes are entitled to rights to life and liberty by drawing an analogy between them and children, which is pretty clever. Like apes, children have limited consciousness and reasoning powers and a limited sense of table manners.

What this is probably going to come down to, though, is a semantic argument about "rights" vs. "protection" and what are your rights concerning having rights, and I'm not looking forward to that.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LORDMITHRAS

In the 19th Century most people were poor and rural. An adolecents choices were help work the farm or leave home. There wasnt any in-between, and no such thing as juvenile justice. I've always asserted that the chief appeal of the Civil War, for most boys, was a break from farming. About the worst deed country kids did was play hookee from school.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

[I am enjoying your Av, Selena. I feel like we should combine our two.]

...

What this is probably going to come down to, though, is a semantic argument about "rights" vs. "protection" and what are your rights concerning having rights, and I'm not looking forward to that.

On the latter point, yes, I know. I'd rather talk about what rights the gov't should have (or not) when it comes to children. Or apes.

As to the former... hey, we can always abandon the discussion and go somewhere to combine our AV's...

 

[Pure]

question

at first thought, one thinks that children do bear rights that consist of basic human rights PLUS special children's rights.

yet the picture is more complicated. children do possess a right of liberty: you can't just lock them in cages. BUT clearly they don't get to wander about. there are curfew laws, etc. further, the basic liberty of deciding where to live is NOT in the hands of children. so we have to say, 'yes' there is a child's right of liberty, but restricted (roughly) proportionate, inversely, to the age of the child. [I don't see 'liberty' given in the Convention as a child's right]

free speech has been mentioned above, but i don't have a clear sense of the US situation. it *seems* to me that h s students have won some 'free speech' cases. otoh, i have heard of expulsions of students who post ridicule of a teacher, on the 'net. further, i don't know of a case, but *within* a family, there are often restrictions on speech of minors; your parents may not allow indecent language, swearing, etc. Article 13 of the Convention asserts a child's right to freedom of expression.

the sexuality of children is usually under some restrictions. a right to have sex--not in public-- with just about anyone you please does not exist. i see no sex (practice) related rights stated in the Convention (wonder why!); there is mention of free access to information, however.

so the question is: which adult 'human rights' do children possess, rightfully, but to a lesser degree?

it's hard to figure how to resolve the rights v. protections issue. as i've said, if you write enough 'protiections' into the law, you will have a de facto right in force for the subject category of person. here is one point however. some say a right is a claim that, ordinarily, the bearer must claim (i.e. except when he's unconsicious), and even take steps to exercize.

so in the case of women, clearly a set of 'protections' against various 'discriminations' is not quite enough. a woman would want an assertable 'right,' a basis of action. (clearly this approach failed in the US: the ERA).

if *assertion* is a criterion, then clearly children over say, 8 or 10 clearly *should* be said to have rights. they are capable of claiming those rights, and they may take steps, by phonecalls, to enlist lawyers and police and secure them. and they probably cannot, legally, be prevented from making those calls (or contacts).

another question for discussion: the Convention asserts a right of privacy? what do you say? can you enter a child's room and rummage in their drawers?

===

note: i don't have the intentions dr m attributes to me, regarding turning the discussion towards abortion. there are plenty of issues within 'children's rights,' limiting the discussion to those little persons who can roll, crawl, or walk around.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Well, the Second Amendment sure doesn't apply to minors, so I'm inclined to doubt that they can actually have many of the others, either.

 

[Pure]

vm

iow, rights flow from the barrel of a gun.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Whose rights take precedence though? Parents' or children's'? Parents', obviously, so children's right exist by grace of parental dispensation. Children's rights are by and large therefore granted on a de facto basis, and no charter of Children's Rights has any legal weight.

For example: the children of Jehovah's Witnesses can be denied blood transfusions by their parents based on their parents' religious beliefs, thereby dooming the children to certain death. So no freedom of life.

A 12-year old child can be sent to boarding school against his or her will. Therefore: no liberty or freedom from unlawful confinement.

A child can be forbidden by parents from seeing or speaking to anyone. No freedom of speech.

Etc. etc.

Parental control over a child is pretty much despotic.

 

[Guest]

As I'm fond of teasing my students over, children have no rights until they are 18.

They can drive at an earlier age, of course, but they can't vote or buy cigarettes or liquor, they cannot quit school without their parent's permission, if they run away from home one quick phone call will have them in juvenvile hall.

Unless they are abused or neglected they are not really considered people until they are 18.

They're almost like pets.

 

[Pure]

reply to doc

doc's comments about children's rights are wildly inaccurate.

both doc and others seem to believe that the BR does not apply to children, nor the 14 amendment.

http://www.adoptionattorneys.org/information/children_rights.htm

It has long been recognized that children are persons with rights protected by the United States Constitution. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 74 (1976) ("Constitutional rights do not mature and come into being magically only when one attains the state-defined age of majority."); In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 13 (1967) (stating that "neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone"). The realm of personal family life is a fundamental interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982) (there is an "historical recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment"); Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 845 (1977); Smith v. City of Fontana, 818 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that a child's interest in continued companionship and society of parents is a cognizable liberty interest); Spielman v. Hildebrand, 873 F.2d 1377 (10th Cir. 1989) (adoptive parents, like biological parents, have a fundamental liberty interest in the familial relation). This fundamental right belonging to both parents and children also has been explicitly recognized by states other than California. See, e.g., Reist v. Bay Circuit Judge, 241 N.W.2d 55, 62 (Mich. 1976) (holding that the rights of parent and child in their "fundamental human relationship" are encompassed within the term "liberty"); Espinoza v. O'Dell, 633 P.2d 455 (Colo. 1981) (recognizing liberty interest in mutual relationship between child and parent).

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Of course they have rights because they're human beings (which brings us to that pesky fetus problem again). But a parents' rights take precedence so a child's rights aren't absolute, they're granted by Parental indlugence.

Can or cannot a parent send a child to school where the parent wishes or confine the child to the house without a trial? If so, then the child has no right to liberty or to justice by a fair and impartial trial.

Can or cannot a parent withhold medical treatment from a child on the basis of that parent's religion? If so, the child has no right to life.

Can or cannot a parent censor a child's reading material and what that child says? If so, a child has no right to free speech.

Etc. etc.

So once again you have a case where a declaration of rights speaks in grand, sweeping generalities, but is superseded by the hard facts of the law, which is why declaration of rights are usually so toothless.

 

[Pure]

sorry, you missed the point, doc. the merits of a particular 'declaration' are one thing, the basic question is quite another; it was 'do children have rights.'

you say 'no'. the laws of the US say 'yes.'

obviously declarations have to be implemented in laws; they are intended to inspire them.