Do Children have rights?

[JimDude]

Where do our rights or civil liberties come from? This question is related to whether or not kids have rights.

After seeing this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkSHg3JV_V8

It made me think because the video states that our rights originate out of force and are born on the battlefield. It says for example, that our Founders fought for their rights by defeating the british. ANd that the only reason we have Rights is that our Founders passed it down as a gift to the next generation. If you disagree with this premise, then tell me what you think.

This relates to kids, because the logic seems to suggest that we get our rights from our Parents, which if true, means our parents can take away our rights.

Im confused by this whole thing and if someone could explain why I wrote this, that would be great.

I would also like to Respond to the constitution, although I didnt mention the constiution, someone might bring it up. The constitution simply says the Government's Role will be to protect people's rights, it doesnt grant them, it says our are rights are inherit or are given by "god". The constitution clearly says it will protect our rights, to life, liberty and property, my question is do these rights apply to children.
If children are equal citizens, why is a mother or father obligated to take care of them.

For example lets say a mother abandons her child, what would be wrong with that? We wouldnt force a person to take care of another person, so whats the deal? I would like to understand what the reasoning behind this is.

I believe a person is a person, no matter the age, for example, a 8 year old would have the same rights as a 8-month-old..or would they? And the same goes, for the unborn, a 6-month old baby would have the same rights as a unborn fetus, and by this logic, a mother couldnt kill her Baby via abortion, because the fetus is a real person, and the only difference between a child and fetus, is that its just in a different stage of development. And if you believe a mother should be able to have abortion, why not give her the ability to kill her 3-year old as well?

Maybe im sounding crazy, I dont know, you tell me, but I am just confused at what kids are? Are they people, or are they property of their parents? If kids are people, why aren't they free to own guns drink alcohol and do all the things adults can do? Do we just do this because its convient? But what happens when mothers stop taking responsiblity? Like when they abandon their kids or in the case of when that mother drowned her three kids in the bath tub? Most people would agree these mothers committed a crime, but if my logic is correct, than woman shouldnt be allowed to have abortions, right?

 

[revolutionist]

Join

http://www.youthrights.org

 

[Raditude]

I am a supporter of youth rights. I think that we are all equal regardless of age, and should be treated equally in all endeavors. I get a lot of criticism for my beliefs, but I remain unwavered.

 

[kojirodensetsu]

Well for me kids are kind of a gray area. The reason being they are developing and still learning morals. Would you really want 10 year olds voting? Would you want 10 year olds driving? Would you want 10 year olds caring guns?

Abandoning a child could lead to their death. Which would be murder.

Maybe though in general the rules are too strict. However due to biology/puberty/all that not-so-fun stuff, I don't think kids and adults should have the exact same rights.

 

[noxagol]

Without responsibility you cannot have rights. Kids do not have rights until they can be responsible for what they do with them which requires them to understand the consequences of their actions. Once they understand this, then they can have full fledged rights. It just so happens that the easiest way is to set an age limit instead of trying to consider each individuals maturity level.

 

[Kludge]

Without responsibility you cannot have rights. Kids do not have rights until they can be responsible for what they do with them which requires them to understand the consequences of their actions. Once they understand this, then they can have full fledged rights. It just so happens that the easiest way is to set an age limit instead of trying to consider each individuals maturity level.

+1. If children have rights, you have to also grant them the rights to enter into contracts that may not be in their best interest. I'd prefer the age of citizenship (oh yes, CITIZENSHIP!) be pushed forward to the age of 20-23.

But then, maybe this slowness to grow up (yeah, the media likes to tell us that kids are "growing up" at an earlier and earlier age, but they're just learning of sex, drugs and violence earlier.) is due to how public education is run. You get a group of children to sit in a class 6-8 hours a day listening to adults give them orders to follow and information to repeat. Public education does not teach, it informs.

We're given vocabulary definitions to recite, book opinions to accept as fact and memorization techniques to apply. When that rare teacher comes along and asks aloud for a definition in the student's own words, the silence is deafening. There is no transition to adulthood resulting from public education in its current form, it comes from experiences off-campus, whether to the benefit of the students or not.

 

[Conza88]

What RIGHTS are you talking about?

They obviously have a right to life, liberty and property. Do they not?

Natural Law is what the US Constitution is based on.

 

[Kludge]

What RIGHTS are you talking about?

What is a "right" if not guaranteed?

What "rights" do you have in anarchy?

The only valid rights are those recognized and agreed upon by society.

Obviously there was disagreement over where rights come from by the Founding Fathers or else they wouldn't have added the Bill of Rights.

 

[tmosley]

I would agree with the premise that rights are born on the battlefield. If the right isn't worth fighting and dying for, it's not a natural right. We're talking bill of rights type stuff here, not consumer rights, etc. Those types of rights are financial rights and come from the free market, ie they are rights that are forced on us by government but would come about naturally in a free market, due to a sort of financial "force of arms".

Children too young to take up arms naturally cede (most of) their rights to their parents, who would take up arms on their behalf.

The legal system is a formalized system of retribution which minimizes the needs of individuals to kill each other to protect their rights, where the government decides what rights they have and defends them by fiat. Of course, this can easily lead to tyranny and injustice. I would imagine that a large component of Anarchy would be the removal of that artificial system of justice.

Of course, courts are needed to protect the rights of the weak, and I, for one, generally believe in the principle of the strong defending the weak, and the court system is one of the highest examples of that. We just need to be aware and root out sources of injustice.

 

[Conza88]

What is a "right" if not guaranteed?
What "rights" do you have in anarchy?

The only valid rights are those recognized and agreed upon by society.

Obviously there was disagreement over where rights come from by the Founding Fathers or else they wouldn't have added the Bill of Rights.

Guaranteed by who? NOT the government / state that's for sure.

That's the whole purpose of NATURAL Law. They're guaranteed by nature.

Natural Law exists in anarchy mate.

"The only valid rights are those recognized and agreed upon by society."

Wow... that's what a socialist would say. Or someone from athens living in a direct democracy; aka mob rule... you know, the one that put to death Socrates! It would seem "society" will soon contend that you have no right to private property, OH well - sorry Kludge; there goes your rights....

Obviously you don't understand the foundations for the Constitution, which I find mildly astonishing.

History
Natural law was discovered (not invented, not created, discovered) by the stoic philosophers. This was the answer (not their answer, the answer) to the logical problems raised by Socrates. The doctrines of the stoics were demonstrated successfully by experiment, but political circumstances (the Alexandrine empire and then the Roman empire) prevented a clear and decisive experiment.

Frequently politicians or revolutionaries use natural law theory, or some competing theory to create institutions. Such cases provide a powerful and direct test of theories. Advances in our understanding of natural law have come primarily from such experiments, and from the very common experience of the breakdown or forcible destruction of state imposed order.

The bloody and unsuccessful experiment of Socrates disciple, Critias, showed that the rule of law, not men, was correct. This renewed the question “What law, who's law.” Not all laws are arbitrary, there must be laws universally applicable, because of the universal nature of man. Laws governing human affairs, or at least some of those laws, must derive from some objective and external reality, not subject to the arbitrary will of the ruler or the people. If this was not so, then it would be impossible to make an unlawful law. Any law duly decreed by a legitimate ruling body, such as the Athenian assembly, would necessarily be lawful, yet history shows that this was obviously false. Some laws are clearly unlawful. Proof by contradiction.

“There is in fact a true law - namely, right reason - which is in accordance with nature, applies to all men, and is unchangeable and eternal.” (Cicero) Cicero successfully argued before a Roman court that one of the laws of Rome was unlawful, being contrary to natural law, creating a legal precedent that held throughout the western world for two thousand years. Although it was frequently violated, it was rarely openly rejected in the West until the twentieth century.

The arguments and reasoning of the Stoics were generally accepted, but not thoroughly put into practice and therefore not vigorously tested, for over a thousand years.

A philosopher can choose to disbelieve in Newton's laws, but this will not enable him to fly. He can disbelieve in natural law, but political and social institutions built on false law will fail, just as a bridge built on false physical law will fall, just as the deer that does not notice the tiger gets eaten, just as the Marxist philosophers who voluntarily returned to Cambodia to aid the revolution were for the most part murdered or tortured to death by the revolutionaries. The most extreme failure in recent times was the attempt of the Cambodian government to increase the rice harvest by central direction of irrigation, also known as “the Cambodian Autogenocide”.

During the dark ages, the knowledge of natural law, like much other ancient knowledge, was kept alive by the church. This knowledge proved very useful. Hordes of armed refugees wandered this way and that, thus tribal and customary law was often inadequate for resolving disputes. Sometimes a king would rise up and impose his peoples customary law on everyone around, but such kings came and went, and their laws and institutions faded swiftly.

In those days the church persistently and rightly claimed that natural law was above customary law, and that customary law was above tribal law and the law of the kings (fiat law). Natural law was taught in the great Universities of Oxford, Salamanca, Prague, and Krakow, and in many other places.

In England the theory of natural law led to the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, the declaration of right, and the English Enlightenment. It was the basis for the US revolution and the US bill of rights.

Cont. Natural Law and Natural Rights
Natural Law by Lysander Spooner

 

[Kludge]

Guaranteed by who? NOT the government / state that's for sure.

That's the whole purpose of NATURAL Law. They're guaranteed by nature.

Natural Law exists in anarchy mate.Wow... that's what a socialist would say. Or someone from athens living in a direct democracy; aka mob rule... you know, the one that put to death Socrates! It would seem "society" will soon contend that you have no right to private property, OH well - sorry Kludge; there goes your rights....

Obviously you don't understand the foundations for the Constitution, which I find mildly astonishing.

If what you say is true, the Bill of Rights should never have existed and should be abolished as it contradicts the idea that "rights" are granted by "nature".

If society does not believe in property rights, then it is so. Hopefully, there will be another society around that DOES believe in property rights. Currently, there is no nation (that I know of, at least) that grants the right to own (absolutely) property.

The only possible outcome of a society believing in natural rights is anarchy.

 

[BuddyRey]

Of course young people have rights. I'm in favor of legislative attempts to recognize a lot more rights for young people as well. I'm in favor of lowering the voting age to 16, and making age of consent issues (namely, sex and drinking) customizable by individual young people's parents and families instead of distant bureaucrats.

The only thing I'd like to see change that could be considered unfavorable to youth rights would be a raise in the driving age to 18, like in Egypt, Morocco, Costa Ricca, and other countries. In my opinion, the USA has driving vs. drinking ages completely bass-ackwards. European countries have the right idea and usually let teens get acquainted with alcohol and learn their limits long before they get behind the wheel of an automobile.

I'd feel much safer with my 15-year-old sister experimenting with alcohol in the safety of her own home where she feels no peer pressure to "chug" and sees alcohol more as an accepted and occasional household custom than in a car full of inexperienced teen drivers who don't know how to imbibe judiciously and are drinking just for the sake of doing something edgy and rebellious (the forbidden fruit effect).

 

[angelatc]

Where do our rights or civil liberties come from? This question is related to whether or not kids have rights.

I'm not a big believer in "civil liberties" but I believe that the Constitution says we are born with our rights, so I'm going with that.

I think that the parents have more rights than the children, in that children belong to the parents (and not the village, community or government) and the family.

 

[angelatc]

Well for me kids are kind of a gray area. The reason being they are developing and still learning morals. Would you really want 10 year olds voting? Would you want 10 year olds driving? Would you want 10 year olds caring guns?

In rural America, it isn't at all uncommon for 10 year olds to drive and handle weapons.

 

[Dr.3D]

I think that the parents have more rights than the children, in that children belong to the parents (and not the village, community or government) and the family.

Oh how I wish that message would get through to the government.

 

[Raditude]

I drove when I was 14, (legal age is 16 in Indiana), go-carted off road before that. I handled BB Guns when I was probably 8 or 9. I fired a 22 and a 410 when I was 14 or so.

I think kids need to have the same rights as adults. It should be up to the parent to determine what their kids do.

Why charge someone who is out hanging out late at night for a curfew violation, when he hasn't committed a crime? If he vandalizes something, steals something or causes trouble, then charge him with that, not for being out late.

If the parents would educate the kids, and instill morals into them, then there wouldn't be trouble. Laws that discriminate based on age are wrong, and I believe they are unconstitutional.

Everyone should have the right to drink, smoke, and use drugs if they so choose. It should be up to the parents to tell give the kids advice on what's good and what's bad.

Everyone should be able to drive once they reach a certain height requirement, and can pass a written and driving test.

Everyone should have the right to decide what they do with their bodies - piercings, tattoos, sexual activity. It should be up to the parents to instill morals into the youth.

Everyone should have the right to get married, without government regulation.

And when I say everyone, I don't mean those who are 18 and over, I mean everyone no matter their age.

 

[micahnelson]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

This isn't some blind copy/paste of wikipedia. The foundation of this, or any, legitimate government is that it stems from the consent of the governed. We understand that the rights of the individual must be protected, and for that single purpose- we establish Governments.

The only role of government, therefore, is to protect our rights. The unhindered exercise of our rights is known as freedom.

Children absolutely and certainly have rights. They do not have freedom. Few laws are established to protect the rights of children, because it would interfere with the right of a parent to raise his child as he sees fit. Only the basic laws, legal recourse in cases of violence for example, protect the child.

While congress cannot make laws that limit a child's speech, assembly, etc- a parent can deny a child the freedom to carry out such activity. While this may stifle the child's ability to interact- it is necessary for a parent to guide the child's morals, education, and growth.

Disallowing a child from buying a violent rap cd is a violation of property rights.
Keeping a child from attending a KKK meeting would be a violation of expression and assembly. A parent must teach a child to make good choices, because when they are older, they will be free to do as they wish.

It is the responsibility of the parents to make their children moral, so that our free society can last.

America is great because it is good. When people cease to be good, we will cease to be great. We have freedom to do terrible things and live terrible lives. The freedom isn't the problem, its the morality.

(As an unconstitutional undeclared preemptive response- I'm talking about morality, not government sponsored religiousity. )

 

[Conza88]

If what you say is true, the Bill of Rights should never have existed and should be abolished as it contradicts the idea that "rights" are granted by "nature".

OH explain that logic to me... Please, I beg you.

In Congress, July 4, 1776

THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF THE THIRTEEN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of t

 

[SeanEdwards]

It's kind of interesting question about children, and the answer has not been consistent over time. The very idea of childhood is a relatively recent social construct. Not too many years ago, children worked adult jobs and were treated by the courts essentially the same as adults. And the treatment of children under law is not consistent across national borders. For instance children as young as 13 years old can purchase hard liquor in France.

I think pretty much all western countries reject the idea of considering children to be the property of their parents, but I suspect that other legal traditions (like sharia) may take a different view. The question of abortion seems to turn on the idea of where life begins, or a judgment that the fully-formed and present mother has more "rights" than the mere potential future human in her womb.

The concept of children in a way is the natural route for libertarian society to morph into something more authoritarian. It always starts with protecting somebody else's children. Maybe at first it's relatively benign, along the lines of denying parents the right to destroy their children, but before long the government has everyone donating 50% of their time to the government's utopian projects that are intended to benefit the children of tomorrow. And who can say no to helping the children?

"We need more prisons to keep the children safe." Or, "We need more money spent building schools to educate our future." Or, "We need to build this bridge so that the children of tomorrow will have a robust economy." Or, "We need to take over and administrate this foreign colony so that we can make sure our children continue to have access to oil."

Maybe children are the root of all evil. Mandatory retroactive abortions for all may be the answer.

 

[klamath]

Every person is born absolutely free and remains that way his or her entire life. If you are arrested you are still free. A police officer maybe forcing your arms and legs to move but in your mind you are still free. If someone inflicts pain on you in the form of torture to force you to do something it is still your free will to chose the path that causes less pain. If you are shot while breaking a law you were never denied your freedom, you died with it. All laws regulation and social customs are put into place by different societies and you can chose to live you life by the easy route of following them or the hard way of not following them. I chose a government that makes life easier to be free.