points of agreement

[bclanton at WRF.COM]

Jim Dywer wrote:

"Thus, I not only consider it
incoherent to say that my rights are violated when my child is harmed, but
I
also consider it morally repugnant to say that I have a right, that I am
entitled, to control my child's life."

Query why it is not "morally repugnant" for the state to "control" a
child's life?  Unless Mr. Dwyer believes we ought to lie babies down on the
ground the moment they are born and let them have their freedom, he must
concede that someone must and ought to "control" their lives in many
respects.  Thus, all of this talk about the child's liberty is really just
a smoke screen for Mr. Dwyer's view that the state, not parents, should
have absolute control over the lives of children, right?


To:       RELIGIONLAW @ listserv.ucla.edu
cc:        (bcc: Brad Clanton/WRF)
From:     JDwyer @ UWYO.EDU @ SMTP
Date:     12/09/98 04:54:25 PM MST
Subject:  Re: points of agreement





        -----Original Message-----
        From:   richard duncan [SMTP:rduncan at UNLINFO.UNL.EDU]
         [I believe children have a right to receive a parental upbringing,
a right to have parents decide what is in the best educational and health
and spiritual interest of the child. Thus, the right of parents to direct
the upbringing of their children is completely consistent with the right of
the child to receive a parental upbringing. Children have a right to have
their "best interests" provided only in the sense that they have a right to
have their best interests determined by their parents (rather than by the
state). The state can intervene in extreme cases involving abuse, but in
all
cases within the range of reasonable disagreement children have a right to
parental direction and the state must respect this right by refraining from
interfering with the concomitant right of parents to provide this direction
to their children.]

                I think I've asked enough times for people who invoke
"reasonable disagreement" to define the term that we can assume that really
hasn't been thought through.
                Another point I haven't emphasized too much, but which
really motivates my opposition to parental rights: the notion of a right to
control another person's life is presumptively morally and legally
offensive, and so requires strong justification.  This is clear not only
from the 13th Amendment and from the modern condemnation of traditional
coverture rights of husbands, but also from areas of the law dealing with
incompetent adults, including those who were never competent.  It is also
clear from the abortion debates, where both sides assiduously avoid
characterizing the rights involved as other than self-determining.  Rights
in our culture protect self-determination and personal integrity, which is
understood to extend to our property.  Rights over slaves and over wives
were justified by denying the personhood, in the former case, or separate
personhood, in the latter case, of the humans as to whom others had rights
of control.  Parental rights were in their origin in western civilization
rights of property, and Barbara Woodhouse has written that the Pierce and
Meyer decisions can best be understood as based on a notion of children as
property.  Today we are increasingly recognizing children as persons, and
as
persons distinct from their parents, but we still have this legal vestige
of
a time when they were not regarded as such.  Absent good reason, we should
eradicate it.  Because I believe an appropriate set of children's rights
would be adequate to protect children's interests, I don't think there is a
good reason for retaining parental rights.  Thus, I not only consider it
incoherent to say that my rights are violated when my child is harmed, but
I
also consider it morally repugnant to say that I have a right, that I am
entitled, to control my child's life.
                Jim Dwyer