One interesting article addressed the inadequacies of the charter of children's rights that was adopted during the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989. The author of WFPC's article offers a revised charter which he entitles "What Children Really Need."
What do you all think of the charter? What do you think of the author's justification for the revision? Below, the ten articles of the charter are quoted.
Article I: Each Child Has the Right to a Mother
Article II: Each Child Has the Right to a Father
Article III: Each Child Has the Right to a Home Built on Marriage
Article IV: Each Child Has the Right to Siblings
Article V: Each Child Has the Right to Ancestors
Article VI: Each Child Has the Right to a Posterity
Article VII: Each Child Has the Right to Religious Faith
Article VIII: Each Child Has the Right to Live in a Healthy Community
Article IX: Each Child Shall Have a Right to Innocence
Article X: Each Child Has the Right to a Tradition
Article II: Each Child Has the Right to a Father
Article III: Each Child Has the Right to a Home Built on Marriage
Article IV: Each Child Has the Right to Siblings
Article V: Each Child Has the Right to Ancestors
Article VI: Each Child Has the Right to a Posterity
Article VII: Each Child Has the Right to Religious Faith
Article VIII: Each Child Has the Right to Live in a Healthy Community
Article IX: Each Child Shall Have a Right to Innocence
Article X: Each Child Has the Right to a Tradition
As a person very interested in human development, I would say that the articles above have been shown by one study or another to have major impact on an individual's development. The question would then arise of whether the child 'needs' each of these things in order to have a typical development. I think that a child should have availability to these rights but it is up to them whether they take part. As an example, Article VI: Each Child has the right to a posterity. I believe each person should have that right, but it is completely up to them whether they take part in that right. I can see where there would be issues concerning many of the articles. Personally, I support these rights. But I also support others in their freedoms to choose for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI followed the link to the site and found it very interesting. I note that the foundation is based at BYU. At any rate, I think that all of those items termed 'rights' are, without any reservations, wonderful and worthy of all approbation. Where would I be without ancestors, for instance? However, I am uncertain as to what he means by calling them 'rights'--and visiting the site did little to clear up my confusion. A link appears to be down or something, keeping me from accessing the full text. Does he mean that every child must be provided with a father or mother by law, for instance? In cases of a lack of one or both parents, does this mean the government is bound to assign parents to fulfil this 'right'? If so, I hope there is a grace period for parents who have lost a spouse through death or divorce to find one of their own choosing before recieving one of government issue. I doubt that is what is meant, and I doubt anyone would think that is what is meant, but the wording as it stands now is a bit misleading. I have many questions as to the intents and definitions of this list.
ReplyDeleteIf, on the other hand, he means that government cannot take any action that would infringe on that which the author has listed, I must agree--with reservations. For example, declaring war has bereaved many children of fathers and mothers, yet war is sometimes the lesser of two evils, or rather many evils. At any rate, I must say that I am gratified to hear that there are laws that have been accepted by the UN to protect children and that there are those who are involved in the issue of child and family rights. I happen to belong to a family myself, and think that families are swell. Many of my best friends have been or are children. I think children and families should have rights. I thank the author of this post for his stimulating contribution and hope that the admittedly facetious aspects of my comment will not offend anyone.
OH this is going to be fun!
ReplyDeleteAs I read this list of Articles the word "rights" did not stump me to much. However, I don't question things very often and I'm glad that I get to work on that. A "right" for me does not take away choice. Just as Shawnee said, the child still gets to choose whether he or she has children in the future. An example of this is our right to vote. In the Bill of Rights there are many amendments that have to do with voting and the "right" that citizens have to vote. At the same time citizens do not have to vote, they may choose not to.
In thinking of Alex's awesome example,the issuing of fathers, I thought about the fact that as Citizens, thanks to the 2nd Amendment we have the right to bear arms. This right, however, does not come with the issuing of an arm or gun. So we have the right, we can choose, and if we do want to, this will not be provided in the event that we cannot purchase or lose one.
The wording in the Bill of Rights states, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The word "right" is used in pretty much the same way. I looked up the word "right" online at the Merriam-Webster site, they have the it as an adjective, a noun, and an adverb, then when you correctly choose noun - they present 9 definition descriptions. So I think that here lies our problem. We need to conceptualize the word "right." How would you do that? Another option is to pick another word. So...what should it be? Privilege? Prerogative?
Mark, I'd like to see the full text alluded to in the statement by the World Family Policy author. It would also be helpful to see the document he/she is critiquing for comparison purposes. If you have time, would you post the hypertext links to both documents for our perusal? I want more info before I weigh in on this important topic.
ReplyDeleteThe full text of Carlson's document can be found here.
ReplyDeleteThe text of the UN document from 1989 can be found here.
I believe that our concerns regarding the meaning of "rights" completely miss the point that Carlson intends to make with his revised charter. As he states regarding the UN document, "When I read the Convention on the Rights of the Child, I find it inadequate: not so much wrong, as poorly focused. It contains many fine sentiments and worthy ideas, but it misses larger truths about children and their needs." In other words, Carlson doesn't disagree with any of the "rights" specified in the UN charter at all. Instead, in drafting his new charter, he seeks "to engage... in a small fantasy" of his by pointing his audience back in the direction of what children really need--hence, the name of his article.
I might be mistaken, but I certainly don't suppose that Carlson would ever intend to have his charter reviewed and accepted in some great legislative body. In fact, I think that the exact opposite is true. The thought of so many is that governments are capable of and wholly responsible for solving the world's problems and preserving the well-being of children. Maybe even some of you feel that way. Instead, as the WFPC author explains, the solution to the ills of the world lies right within the walls of our homes. I think Carlson is saying in response to the UN treaty, "You're missing the mark! What children really need are a stable home and a loving and good family--and then all of these numberless problems that you are trying to solve would solve themselves."
I think that Carlson would agree with these statements.
“Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.” -Walter Williams
"The social and spiritual sum of our political, educational, and economic institutions is usually not sufficient to offset the deficits in the home....
"We have far too many lonely humans foraging on deficient 'homesteads' and too many governmental programs which attempt abortively to substitute a less efficient system of helping humans than the home; it is the home that we must rescue, repair, and sustain. Only when homes are full of truth, warmth, and trust, can our other institutions perform their tasks, and when too many homes are defective, then the deterioration becomes contagiously interinstitutional, affecting schools and governments.
"The eternalism approach of the gospel of Jesus Christ lays great stress... on the innocence of the newborn and on the importance of helping that individual 'streamlet,' nearest its source, so it can achieve identity and maintain purity. Secularism, on the other hand, tends to become fascinated with building vast purification plants downstream...."
-Neal A. Maxwell
I think it is this secularist approach to solving children's problems that Carlson is seeking to address and correct--not the particular rights outlined in the document itself.
The quotation from Neal A. Maxwell comes from an address given on January 15, 1974, at BYU. The address is entitled, "Family Perspectives." I recommend it to anyone. It's excellent.
ReplyDelete