Does mere biological parenthood grant any inalienable rights? That is, are there any rights that a biological parent has regardless of how unfit the parent is or how damaging his or her influence would be on a child?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Not to my mind.
Why?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Only one I can think of, to have knowledge that the child exists.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shan: Not to my mind.
Why?
I'm working on a story, actually, and one of my characters asserts that there are no inherent rights granted by simple biological parenthood. I'm hoping if there are obvious holes in that assertion someone at Hatrack will point them out. I can't think of any.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
To have the option to try to raise the child. They can blow it, but they get first dibs.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
What about sperm donors? They're biological parents, but I don't think anyone would give them any of the rights mentioned.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: To have the option to try to raise the child. They can blow it, but they get first dibs.
I don't know. I think a person's past should be taken into consideration. Or even something as simple as their age.
For example, if a 13 year old gets pregnant and has the child. Letting her try to raise the child would potentially ruin two lives.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There's always a risk, though. I would highly encourage the 13-year-old to allow the baby to have parents who are prepared for it, but I think that if she's bound and determined to do it, to take the child away would be wrong. I think she gets to try.
For sperm donors, don't they sign away their rights? They did have dibs, but they gave them up. So, not then.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I this isn't a direct answer, but it relates.
I have heard* that in some Polynesian cultures, traditionally, the mothers and fathers of underage pregnancies had no parental rights or authority at all. The child was raised by the girl's parents as a sibling of that girl. It's not that people would hide the biological truth from anybody, but the relationship between biological mother and child would be that of sibling in every way except for biology. The biomom would have no more say in how the child was raised than a sibling.
*here. Take this grain of salt. You might need it.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Would the biomom in that society nurse the child? If so I can't see how they could help but develop a bond beyond that of siblings.
Edit--I love the term "biomom" for some reason.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think so, but that would probably be the extent of it. You are right that it probably produces a closer bond, but the biomom would still be left with zero authority. After weaning, I think it would develop into a relationship virtually identical to that of blood siblings, although possibly very close ones.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
That makes sense.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Have you, by chance, read "Scherzo with Tyrannosaur" by Michael Swanwick?
*****SPOILERS FOR "Scherzo with Tyrannosaur" by Michael Swanwick *****
In it a girl gets pregnant, and her baby is sent back in time to be raised as her close (in age) younger brother.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Nope, haven't read it, but it sounds interesting.
Kat, I don't think the right to "try" comes inherently from biology, but from a whole host of other factors, at least in an enlightened society. Your 13 year old is a good example. 13 year olds are bound and determined to do a lot of things (including sometimes getting pregnant when they are far too irresponsible to adequately raise a child). I wouldn't make a blanket statement that no 13 year old could make an adequate parent, but I think the exception proves the rule in US culture at least.
Should a severely mentally retarded person be allowed to "try"? How about the clinically insane? If the answers to either of those is 'no' then it must be something other than pure biological parentage that we are using to make a determination even if we agree that the 13 year old should be able to "try", no?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
When I was thirteen I was positive I was ready to get married (not to anyone in particular, mind you, in general) and was incredibly upset at society for not letting me. At 21, I know how completly unprepared to get married I am.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
And the question is, how more likely is the child of a 13 year old to go and have a child of their own at very young? Or make other mistakes in their life because of their raising.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Nope, haven't read it, but it sounds interesting.
It's quite a good story, but that's just a tiny part of it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Does anyone really have any inherent rights at all?
I can't think of one that is given in every case without exception.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Nope, haven't read it, but it sounds interesting.
It's quite a good story, but that's just a tiny part of it.
Yeah, I love this one. I'd say that it's one of the best stories you've exposed me to, Porter.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm thinking of using it as installment #1 in our little venture (which I posted about, BTW, which you'll be able to see when you get home).
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
My girls' biological parents arguably did not get the right to attempt to raise them. The biodad could not keep from beating the biomom even while she was pregnant, and his beatings eventually caused premature labor (and developmental delays). Both babies were taken from their custody immediately at the hospital, and never spent a night with their biological parents.
Not sure this proves anything; just thought I'd share.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
um, currently you have the right to abort your baby before it's born, if you're the mother. Not what you're looking for, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: um, currently you have the right to abort your baby before it's born, if you're the mother. Not what you're looking for, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
Wouldn't say it's a right so much as the government allows it to happen as it cannot decide if it ought to intervene.
Or if you don't accept that, in some states an underage woman cannot get an abortion without consent of her parents, if memory serves.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Does anyone really have any inherent rights at all?
I can't think of one that is given in every case without exception.
Well, that's really a separate question. There are certain rights, for instance, that one gets simply by being a citizen of the US. I'd say those were inherent rights of citizenship. My question isn't about exceptions, but more precisely from whence comes parental rights at all, and what rights are those, exactly.
Posted by Nellie Bly (Member # 9129) on :
A coworker of mine adopted a baby girl when she was two weeks old. Neither the mother or the father or any other blood relative to the baby wanter her. Now three years later, the father decided he wanted his daughter, and the court granted him custody. Two weeks ago, she was taken from the only family she has ever known and given to the father.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Somebody must have screwed up when the original adoption was done. The father's rights must not have been terminated.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nellie Bly: A coworker of mine adopted a baby girl when she was two weeks old. Neither the mother or the father or any other blood relative to the baby wanter her. Now three years later, the father decided he wanted his daughter, and the court granted him custody. Two weeks ago, she was taken from the only family she has ever known and given to the father.
That's pretty disgusting.
I wonder if he changed his mind or got free babysitting for three years.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I had a client who was 13 and a mother, and very, very defiant about it. Nobody was trying to take the baby away. I think the fact that the mother has possession of the child from before birth counts for something in our society. I'm not sure if you'd call it a right, exactly, but we have to have a better reason than age in order to take a child away from its biological parents.
I also kind of think that people should be told if they have biological children. You could have half-siblings marrying and not even knowing it, otherwise. I know it isn't legally required, though.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I know someone whose mother was 14 when she was born. She didn't have a perfect childhood, but her mother finished high school (in 3 years), went to junior college, got a job, and supported her, and loved her and cared for her besides. It helped that she had a mother who supported her in this. And a high school that accomodated her. Her mother gave advice but made her make the tough decisions for her daughter-- and she stepped up. I'd think that's the exception, not the rule, though.
I think that unless that right is waived (as a sperm or egg donor might), the right to know the child exists is an important one. However, there might be allowances for not letting the father know-- if he has abused the mother and other children in the past, for instance, maybe he has lost that right.
Really, I can't think of any inalienable rights; everything I can think of, there's an exception for.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The right to experience life as long as events allows you to?
Thats all I got.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The right to experience life as long as events allows you to?
Thats all I got.
That depends strongly upon your definition of "as long as events allow". Taken to one extreme, this isn't a right so much as a self evident fact. Everyone lives until the point where they die,and whatever finally ended your life could be said to be "as long as events allowed" no matter what fashion you end. At the other end of the spectrum, this would prevent us from ever deliberately taking life, even in clear cases of self defense.
So really, this runs into the same problem of defining exceptions that any "inherent right" runs into.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Not really, even if something should or should not happen its going to result in an, "event."
I can ignore right and wrong in this situation, but I agree it feels more like a self evident fact rather then a right.
I'm still trying to come up with an inherent right that is a right under any circumstance.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I have to agree with BlackBlade, there are no inalienable, inherent rights. All "rights" that are protected by the constitution are upheld by society, and by upheld by hard work and not always upheld, perfectly or at all.
The right to life? How can the US government uphold that? Every single American that has ever lived has or will die.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
This is an interesting question. Where do my rights end and my children's begin? Where do my rights end and their father's begin? Where do they overlap? Where are they in conflict?
(And I promise, Karl, I have not forgotten about you!)
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
@ Sharpie
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: @ Sharpie
Why are you slapping your own head repeatedly while smiling Karl? Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
I don't think it's a question of rights as much as responsibilities. It's the parents' fault that the kid's been born in the first place. If we're to have them raise the kids to deal with the consequences, it seems only reasonable to give them the ability to do so.
If they can find a societally sanctioned way of getting out of any responsibilities, then there'd be no need for any rights to go along with them.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I don't think it's about the parents at all, really. I think it's terrible to couch the welfare of a child in terms of whose "fault" he was as if he were justfied punishment for someone else's mistake.
I think it's much more about what's best for the child. For the most part, at least in our society, the family unit is the most efficient way to provide for the basic necessities of a child's life. Since we (society) are unlikely to agree on anything more than what those basic necessities are, there's a lot of leeway in how children are raised provided the basics are met. If a parent cannot or will not provide those basics, however, to what degree do they get to risk the welfare of the child in honor of their "right" to raise their own child. Does such a right actually exist in and of itself? If so, how and when does it end, if it ever does?
I'm all for people owning up to their responsibilities, but it's clear that many people can't and many people simply don't. Does not society have a responsibility to pick up the slack at least to some degree in these cases? If society is called upon to take (or takes upon itself) the responsibility for providing for a child, what rights, if any, are retained by the birth parents simply because they are the birth parents?
(For the record, I've gotten what I needed, storywise, but I think the discussion is interesting and I'd like to see where it goes.)
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"I'm all for people owning up to their responsibilities, but it's clear that many people can't and many people simply don't. Does not society have a responsibility to pick up the slack at least to some degree in these cases?"
Society doesn't have a responsibility for anything, thank you very much.
"Does such a right actually exist in and of itself?"
Biologically speaking? The answer is resounding YES if you look at the natural world - although not as clear as to what parent it is or how many others are involved. When a parent doesn't follow through on their care and responsibility, the right of the parent isn't taken away. The life of the child is.
[ November 29, 2006, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote:"I'm all for people owning up to their responsibilities, but it's clear that many people can't and many people simply don't. Does not society have a responsibility to pick up the slack at least to some degree in these cases?"
Society doesn't have a responsibility for anything, thank you very much.
I'm hoping that I'm radically misinterpreting this. Or that your society is a different one than mine. Care to elaborate a bit? Why doesn't society have that responsibility- at least morally if not legally?
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I think it's terrible to couch the welfare of a child in terms of whose "fault" he was as if he were justfied punishment for someone else's mistake.
Terrible but accurate, I think. (Not so much "punishment," though, which smacks of retribution rather than responsibility. "Doom" might be a better choice.)
On the other hand, I will cheerfully grant that it can also be couched in terms of society's fault, inasmuch as the existing generations of a society have generally done their best to keep the pyramid scheme going.
Yes, I'm cynical on the subject.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Because society is what we say it is, and not what it happens to actually be. As such society has no responsibilities what-so-ever.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Occasional, I don't think human rights are necessarily based on biology, and just because a cat can do what it pleases to its litter doesn't inform my reasoning on whether human parents have inalienable jurisdiction over their children.
I'm very much divided on this issue. I'm no socialist, but I find it reprehensible that children's potential for full and happy future lives are regularly squandered by negligent parents.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional:
Because society is what we say it is, and not what it happens to actually be.
What?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
IIRC, Occasional is a Libertarian (or possibly an Anarchist?)
In case that helps.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I am not saying that society can't have responsibilities (a political position), but that it doesn't have to other than what it gives itself. I was just answering the questions put forward according to the original question.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Society is a very large group of individuals. We would do well do dispatch with the postmodern-ish notion that society is a nebulous concept who's needs are our obligation.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: To have the option to try to raise the child. They can blow it, but they get first dibs.
Hmmm. I don't know about that. I was sitting behind a couple of gentleman on our local transit that were talking to each other about their methadone treatment program, their federal prison time from bank robberies, and quite obviously reeking of long-term significant alcohol consumption.
One of their talking points had to do with the first gentleman saying that he really wanted to have a child, that that was the only job he hadn't tried his hand at yet, and that he believed he'd feel more fulfilled and complete in life if he had the opportunity to raise a child.
Not so sure he should get first dibs . . . really. Or anyone else in that situation. Despite the fact that there are children born to parents with precisely those on-going issues.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: @ Sharpie
Why are you slapping your own head repeatedly while smiling Karl?
I have this effect on people.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
You have the inalienable right to think what you think, while you're alive.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Afterward you don't?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Of course not.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
@ Sharpie ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)