You trying to tell me how to raise my child?!

[luislsacc]

*Cue 3 fingersnaps, "nuh-huh-huh", "you tell 'em" and/or "oh no you didn't!*

I brought up this topic because I didn't want to de-rail this thread.

So how much do you all think a person should be able to influence their child's upbringing? I have a few thoughts on this.

*Warning, I have gone into a massive rant and I think I lost the purpose of what I had originally meant to say, so avoid reading until you see another sign like this if you don't want to read me vent!*

When studying International Public Law ( the workings of international relations, the UN, that kind of stuff), I used a situation similar to this, as a parallell to why emerging nations couldn't escape ius cogens (general international law, e.g. the regulations on nuclear weapons and war in general). The emerging nation A would argue that those regulations wouldn't apply to them because they were neither present in their inception nor had signed their agreement to them, as to which the opposite argument was that a newborn child could not live outside the rules and laws of society, and couldn't define a new set of rules for themselves, so the same should be applied to a new country. So now, I'll relate this to the topic at hand - as it works out in most countries, the ability to raise your child according to your specific beliefs and practices is seen as a fundamental right, much like States are recognised to be able to decide the broad strokes of the lives of their citizens, and the international community ( the State to which States are citizens to) can decide some policies and rules of vital aspects of the States therein.
Still, does this mean that a child should have to bear with the negative consequences of their parents' actions? I'd say yes, and I'll go back to the State example. I live in Portugal, meaning my country is facing immense debt that it couldn't sustain by itself, so it therefore needed to ask for help to international institutions ( and gain a few more hundreds of millions in debts to those institutions by doing it). I had zero input in those decisions, as I was not one of the members of government who spent that money, and at the time the debt was gained I was not old enough to have voted the people responsible for gaining said debt into office. And yet I have to pay close to 10% more on almost everything than I had to 6 years ago. Is this fair? The IMF and the EU sure seem to think so, heck, they wish (and request) that the numbers were bigger, and yet I had no responsibility or weight in these events.

*We should be alright from here.*

It seems that as a part of the collective of human civilization the notion that the child must bear their parents problems and the outcomes of their decisions is something deeply ingrained. One religious example would date back to Genesis, in the idea that all people born after Adam and Eve still carry the "original sin". One civil example lies in the simple fact that upon a parent's death a child inherits their goods, or in many cases that being born to a parent from country A means they inherit their nationality.
Should that mean that a child has to suffer from avoidable diseases because of their parents beliefs? I don't know, and that's what I want you to discuss. My beliefs are that such a parent is an idiot, but I don't know if I would remove the ability to make that decision from their scope of action.

[Horizon]

The problem is not the system. The problem is some of the people in it. I'd like to say that the majority of parents are competent, but I can't because I have nothing to back that up. I personally don't know of any parents who are awful in that way(denial of medical treatment to their children, that sort of thing.), but I don't know a lot of people. Overall, my point is that to solve the problem of bad parenting, we should probably do something about the people who become bad parents. Like enforce a parenting class which can be opted out of if a pre-test is completed with 90% accuracy. Or fix our broken-ass culture.

[Alex Starkiller]

I'm pretty pessimistic when it comes to humanity, and I'd be surprised if most of the world's parents WEREN'T incompetent. Add that to an ineffective system and I don't see a lot of good in any of this.

[crayzz]

I'll tell you how to raise your child all I want.

The parallel with government debt is interesting, but not wholly applicable. You (ostensibly) receive many services from a government that require taxes to fund, but none of those taxes (except in the most libertarian of worldviews) are violations of personal rights (i.e. being allowed to receive medication you need to live).

Still, does this mean that a child should have to bear with the negative consequences of their parents' actions? I'd say yes, and I'll go back to the State example.

The reasoning here seems fallacious. You seem to be saying that because this is the way it is in analogous situations (never mind that I don't think it's really analogous), this is the way it should be.

One civil example lies in the simple fact that upon a parent's death a child inherits their goods, or in many cases that being born to a parent from country A means they inherit their nationality.

Well, in most cases you can opt out of the inheritance, or just donate everything. Ownership is fluid. Bodily mutilation (such as circumcision) and damage from medical problems are not.

[Horizon]

Bodily mutilation (such as circumcision)

Yeah, I'm still kinda pissed about that. I mean, where was I going to store cashews with that operation? My navel?

[crayzz]

Bodily mutilation (such as circumcision)

Yeah, I'm still kinda pissed about that. I mean, where was I going to store cashews with that operation? My navel?

Totally harmless. Yep.

On male circumcision, yeah, it's relatively safe. It's still a pointless medical procedure with some risk and permanent effects that the infant has no choice over.

[RyukaTana]

I've struggled with this in parallel to why I struggle with a lot of societal problems, like government (which is a fine parallel I think). In the end, we haven't found a system that's particularly reasonable. The problem lies with the fact that humans are flawed and stupid* and that's why we need certain structures in the first place. However, those structures are broken because humans are flawed and stupid.

To the point, I don't think parents should be the last word in a child's rearing, being able to bear children is not remotely enough to deem someone capable of acceptably raising the child. However, I definitely don't think it should be in the hand's of the government/society either. So, where to turn, I don't know.




*Note: I'm not debating this in this thread, I'd rather not debate it at all. It's a fact of my position. So far, I haven't had anyone provide an argument for why I'm wrong that didn't at least tacitly insist I lower my standards, and as far as I'm concerned, telling me to lower my standards is part of why humans are stupid.

[Alex Starkiller]

Imagine a world where "You trying to tell me how to raise my child?!" would never be uttered by a parent, and instead we get "That's an interesting point, and while I disagree, it's definitely worth thinking about." Haha, if only.

Ryuka, you really don't have to worry about that. I can't imagine you'll find much argument to saying people are stupid and flawed.

[RyukaTana]

I have, hence the notation. Honestly, it is a preferable world where any proposition is met with: 'That is interesting and worth thinking about...'

[Alex Starkiller]

I meant, here. Not violent argument, at least.
And of course.