Children's Human's Rights vs Parental Decisons

[MommytoB]

I keep on thinking when people think some children don't have Rights .

Children have right to be fed if a parent decides to not feed the child they will lose the child

Children have the right to be cleaned as in bathed, clean clothes, diapers changed it can not be a parental decison to or not because if a parent decide not to keep a child clean the parent loses the child

Children have the right to not be 'abused' as in shaken, hit continously but as long as their are no Bruises or Marks on a Child a Parent Gets To Be Mean to the Child but as soon as a bruise or broken bones show up that's when a Parent Gets Into Trouble - not fair for lil ones .

But like here I talk about marks that are scars from circumcision it's like treated as Abuse with No Marks but they have Visible Scar Marks and other things so I don't get it ?

A parental decision we have to make is to Decide -what school fits for our kids and to see if it's up to their level of learning

We get to pick out our style of clothes for our kids til they get big enough to say i want this as they get older they will have a Right to Know Their Tastes

A parental decison is should this kid go to a 'sleepover or making a playdate to meet up with some friends you know ?

But sadly a parent can make 'bad decisons' like carseat stuff I seen kids up in front seat no seatbelt on at all as young as 4 but if she got spotted by a cop she would get a 100 dollar fine because it's a law all kids need to be buckled in and in a safety seat but as long they don't get caught they are allowed to do that even though it's not legal .

Same with letting kids riding with helmets, walking across in the street it's not safe if your letting young kids do that one lady in my apartment complex feels absolutely devastated for hitting a child who broke his leg/arm but he just darted right in front of her.

I know there are decisions we have to make for them as in forcing them to have to get to bed and to get up from bed if we didn't do that none of our kids would have any education.

[Claire and Boys]

Yeah, this is something I come up against a lot with online intactivism.

People say that they have the right to make decisions for their child, and they do not have to get consent, that they have the right to choose whatever they feel is in their child's best interests.

I feel that is fine, up to a point. But where does this end? To me, cutting off a healthy body part is most definitely crossing a line, and that's regardless of the alleged "benefits" that they tout. Because it's a HEALTHY body part, and circumcision is not necessary to the child's well being, therefore the decision should be left to the person who owns the body.

Sadly many parents do seem to view their child as a possession, theirs to do with as they see fit.

One that is brought up often in this vein is vaccination - vaccination is also a permanent alteration to someone else's body yet many of us who do not circ vaccinate. I personally do not, but because I feel the benefits do not outweigh the risks, not because I think it is a human rights violation as circ is.

[kiara7]

Parental rights stem from parental responsibilities. You have a responsibility to provide for the child, you have the right to put him in daycare and go to work.

You have the right to consent to medical treatment IF there is an ailment since you are responsible for your child's health.

Foreskin at birth is not infected and does not require any medical interventions. Therefore, parents don't have the right to consent to any surgery on healthy tissue/body part. Also, doctors don't have the right to amputate/operate on healthy tissue of anyone, child or adult.

I always tell people, if I, as an adult, went to a surgeon and asked them to cut my toe off just because I'm sick of it, the doc would send me to a psych. Even though I'm an adult, fully consenting. But newborn??

[Ron_Low]

Originally Posted by kiara7

You have the right to consent to medical treatment IF there is an ailment

In the film CUT - Slicing through the Myths of Circumcision, an ethicist defines very clearly when proxy consent for medical treatment is valid.

If the patient cannot be asked, and you need to assume they would wish to get or remain healthy and alive, AND there is no conservative treatment that could give satisfactory health until such time as the patient might be able to express his/her own wishes, THEN a caregiver can ethically choose on behalf of the patient.

Circumcision fails on every part of this test.

[bluetoes]

Two people I know who are pro-circ feel it's wrong to pierce a little girls ears until she asks and is old enough to care for them because she might not want them. Hypocrites or what?! The reality of it is that they see ear piercing as down-market because of their own biases against people of another culture rather than some ethical idea. (in my opinion anyway).

[RestoredIntactivst]

Originally Posted by MommytoB

Children have right to be fed...
Children have the right to be cleaned...
Children have the right to not be 'abused'....

The first and most basic one of all is that children have the right to live. Without this fundamental right in place for everyone, all other talk of "rights" and "choice" and "equal treatment" becomes moot. Think about it.

Originally Posted by Claire and Boys

Sadly many parents do seem to view their child as a possession, theirs to do with as they see fit.

I think this stems from the view that their child is an extension of their own body... Like if it is their body while inside, then logically when it comes out it is their possession.

Originally Posted by kiara7

Parental rights stem from parental responsibilities.

Very true, and unfortunately our current culture (in general) stays as far away as they can from any type of responsibility and personal accountability.