Friday, 26 February 2010

Who's/Whose to Choose?

As another convert to the cause 'gets it', home educators are once again stunned by the "unyeilding, arrogant, we-know-what's-best-for-your-child attitude" of  those who seek control of our childrens educations, thoughts & futures.

Much has been made today of this agendist piece by the BBC, which implies that the Badman recommendations are somehow relevant in the case of Birmingham Social Services failure to prevent the abuse & subsequent death of yet another vulnerable child, even though social workers had been informed of the child's plight many months before she died.
We see here an inkling of the depths that people in positions of power will sink to in order to weild power over both the CHILD & PARENTS, as they try to piggyback the CSF Bill onto this tragic story. The heavily biased BBC piece quotes the odious & discredited Mr.Bad Man as saying "What we cannot do is ascribe rights to parents that deny the rights to the child".

Thus we enter the muddy waters of WHOSE the child IS... & WHO gets to decide upon & impose these 'rights' so often spoken of?
"Children are not possessions": 

Yes they are!...And this IS the crux of the debate... They ARE OUR children NOT YOUR children... & by 'OUR' I mean in the first instance THE PARENT'S; secondly THE FAMILY'S;  and only after those ties have been somehow severed, do those children become the responsibility of OTHERS.

You would think the matter would be a simple one.
PARENT/S *HAVE* CHILDREN.... without PARENT/S, CHILDREN cannot be. Therefore until a 'CHILD' becomes an 'ADULT' it is generally assumed that the PARENTS will be the ones who care for, nurture & take responsibility for the CHILD.
(Obviously there may be occasions when the parents are unable/unfit to look after the child... in which case is is assumed that a guardian should be appointed instead & in most societies, the world over, it is considered preferable that in the first instance a suitable guardian should be sought within the FAMILY!)

as Blogdial so correctly observes...
"...children are a special form of property. You need to accept this principle as one of absolute truth. They are either your property, or the property of the state."
This is not just true in law... but in life. If you do not take possession of your children then someone else will... & they may not have the best interests of the child at heart... they certainly won't have the same motivations as the parents!

 In another thought provoking article on the subject Blogdial states:

"When a child is born however, it becomes a human being with all the natural rights that human beings are born with. It cannot fend for itself in any way; it needs special care and nurturing. Since it is the creation of two people, those parents are, naturally, the people with the responsibility of caring for that child; the child is the ward of the parents.

Being a ward in this way is a special form of property. While you are in the care of your parents, they have total responsibility for you and can have procedures performed on you that they feel are for your benefit..."
"But children have rights too":

Sanitation; healthcare; education; food; shelter; land; positive sexual relations; water; knowledge; clean air; comfort & love... may sound like things we all have a natural, inalienable 'right' to... But the fact of the matter is they are all things which we have to rely upon others to ALLOW us to have... They are also all things which people can make excuse to DENY others.

"Rights, are only right, when the right person says so." Susanna Rogers

When we demand our 'rights'.... Or what we think is 'rightful'... We are asking for the consideration of other human beings. Rights are not something we are born with which then have the potential to be taken away... they are something which we are either given by others or take for ourselves from the moment we are born... or sometimes even from conception. 

It is in this knowledge that the term 'Fight for your rights' has arisen.

Some believe that many of our 'rights', whether in LAW or in LIFE, are commodities which must be won & protected.
However others subscribe to the idea that 'rights' are a natural part of existence which should be afforded to each at their whim, or believe that 'rights' are something which can or should only be granted at the whim of others.

I'm guessing that most people are of the opinion that abusing & exploiting a child is morally abhorrent & that a child has the 'right' (as should we all) to live peacably without violence or harrassment, thus Laws have been made to protect those in society who are naturally & legally acknowledged as vulnerable & unable to protect themselves.
However, the very concept of 'rights' (for that is all it is) is highly subjective. In my opinion there are no 'inalienable rights'... just 'rights' in Law... & agenda driven assertions based on individual principles...

  • I may think YOUR child has the right to attend school in order to mix with lots of other people their own age.
  • YOU may think MY child has the right to stay at home with THEIR natural care giver rather than be handed over to the care of strangers for 6 hours a day.

  • I may think YOUR child has the right to be vaccinated against all communicable diseases as and when such vaccines come onto the market.
  • YOU may think MY child has the right not to be injected with substances which they may be too young and uninformed to understand the potential ill effects of. 

  • The government may think that all of our children have the right to be freed of the opinions & constrains of their parents.
  • YOUNG PEOPLE may think they have the right to be freed from the opinions & constraints of all ADULTS.

    "I didn't give life to MY 3 children for THEIR lives to be subsequently governed & directed by YOU!... Whoever they hell YOU may be... and whatever common purpose YOU 'believe' we should ALL be heading toward!!!" (Me. Specialist Expert on the subjects of 'MY life' & 'MY children')
    Unless the PARENT is the perpetrator of abuse serious enough to warrant the removal of the CHILD from them, then it should be considered de facto that PARENTS retain ownership of & responsibility for the child's PERSON, until that child is old enough, both in LAW & in LIFE, to assert THEIR own ideas about 'rights'.
    • Stumble This
    • Fav This With Technorati
    • Add To
    • Digg This
    • Add To Facebook
    • Add To Yahoo


    Post a Comment

    Copyright 2010 Learning Liberty
    Designed by Loubeeloo and Introblogger