The Sophistry of Parents' Rights & The Importance of Children's Liberation

In this article I am going to talk about one of the most oppressed demographics of all time, A demographic who continues to be oppressed, enslaved and controlled under the guise of “taking care of” and “for their own good”. Arguments that I’m sure are familiar to any anti-racist, anti-sexist, and anti-oppression advocate for liberty. Though it seems no one is focused on the liberation of this demographic, it is ignored. Plenty of people advocate black rights, women's rights, queer rights, animal rights and even the bullshit “parents rights” but everyone forgets the children. Sure people love to scream “won’t somebody please think of the children” but no one seems interested in advocating for their rights as the autonomous agents that they are. Children are human beings and they ought be treated as such, and it’s about time someone talks about this demographic and the rights that they have been denied for too damn long.

    To start, let's talk about the bullshit that is “parents’ rights''. Now most of the time when liberty advocates advocate for the rights of a demographic, they will say that “this demographic has been denied rights that others have and they should too”. For instance advocates for black rights will tell you “blacks have been denied basic human rights for a long time and that they are just as entitled to these rights as anyone else ''. Advocates of women's rights will tell you that “women have been denied basic human rights for a long time and that they are just as entitled to them as anyone else ''. Same goes for advocates of queer rights and animal rights. They are not advocating extra rights but equal rights. It doesn't matter if you agree/disagree with these advocates' assertions, if you talk to them, that is what they will tell you. But talk to advocates of “parents rights'' ask what they mean and they won’t tell you “parents have been denied basic human rights for too long and that they are just as entitled to them as anyone else' '. No, instead they will say “parents should have the right to raise their kids the way that they see fit”. An idea that none of them will take to it’s fullest logical conclusion lest they end up defending child abuse like beatings or rapes. How could some one who beats or rapes their kid not just say “that is how I see fit to raise my kid and I have the right to raise my kid the way that I see fit”. And how could advocates of the so-called “parents rights'' respond? Just drawing some arbitrary line of “yes, but that’s too far”? Of course I will, without hesitation, respond “NO! Parents DO NOT have the right to raise their kids the way that they see fit, they have the responsibility to raise them the best way that they can”. You very well might see it fit to raise your kids through beatings and/or rapes, but that is not the best way you can raise them. And that really is the sophistry of “parents’ rights' '. They want the right to control another human being, a right no one else has or should have, they want extra rights not equal rights and we as a society take this way too seriously especially for biological parents. Just think about adoption and birth and the inconsistencies in this dichotomy. When one wants to adopt a kid they have to go through background checks, interviews ETC. None of which are required for one who gives birth to raise a child. Basically it seems the burden is switched. If one wants to adopt they have to demonstrate that they are a fit caretaker. But if one gives birth they are automatically assumed to be a fit caretaker unless/until someone else demonstrates that they are not. To address these inconsistencies we would either have to make the adoption process standard or as easy as giving birth. Now I favor the adoption process being standard as that seems a better way to protect children and their rights, which is what everyone claims to want. And when I speak of children’s rights I mean it in the first sense, that is, children have been denied basic human rights for too damn long and that they are just as entitled to them as anyone else. They should not have extra rights, only equal rights.

    Now the most common response I hear when expressing this point (other than just being called a pedophile) is that “children are not mature enough to understand and/or advocate for their own interests, so parents must have a level of control”. Now let’s be clear, this argument has been used against the liberation of every other oppressed demographic. People said this about blacks, women, ETC. And as in all of those cases this is drastically underestimating what children are capable of and is a self fulfilling prophecy. If we assume children are incapable of doing something, then we keep them from doing that thing, they don’t learn how to do it, cannot do it, and we take that as confirmation that they are incapable of doing it. Like if we assume blacks are illiterate, don’t teach them to read, and then take their inability to read as confirmation of their illiteracy. Now it is true that very young children are dependent. Though not as true as people think. As any runaway living independently on the streets demonstrates. It certainly is not Ideal that these kids are living on the streets, it’s not ideal that anyone is living on the streets, but children can't rent an apartment or get a job even if they have the means to do so. If they are picked up they will be sent right back to the foster care system that was so bad for them they chose homelessness over it. Children are not gonna leave a good thing nobody is. If the cost of being out of foster care is being homeless they will pay it if and only if they value that more than the foster care system. But yes, the very young require caretakers to take care of them. But a caretaker need not control and ought not control, they ought only take care of. And this is certainly not unique to children. Elderly dementia patients may have the same issue as might severely mentally disabled people of any age. That is why age is such an arbitrary way of determining when one is capable of giving informed consent/advocating for their own interests, as I will discuss in more detail later.

    Now if voluntarism is the equal consideration of interests and the problem with power is that everyone occasionally subordinates another's interests to their own. And the way people protect their rights is advocacy and negotiation, yet children cannot advocate for their own interests then obviously we need advocates to advocate on their behalf in order to assure their rights can be protected. Though any caretaker will inherently be in a position of power and therefore be able to get away with subordinating their child's interests to their own when they inevitably do that. How do we address this? We clearly need someone to advocate for the interests of those that cannot advocate for their own as that is how rights are protected, but we also need a way of assuring that these advocates cannot get away with doing what we all inevitably do. In a word, peer review. Peer review is the only solution I see. This requires a large number of advocates checking the work of others to make sure they don’t step out of line. The solution the scientific community came up with, as we all have biases, we don’t all have the same biases, so I check your work, you check mine and our biases ideally are evened out so to speak. What I would say is that child advocates have a role to play and will continue to, just as animal rights advocates, environmental advocates, machine advocates, ETC. As advocacy can be helpful for everyone, why do you think adults form unions? See none of these issues/solutions are unique to children. These advocacy groups would ideally consist of large numbers of advocates to check the work of the other advocates. This would broaden the perspective of the children as they would get to experience being around a diverse group of people with a diverse range of perspectives. Though the benefits of this could be seen by parents as well. Being a parent is hard. Even two parent households end up tired out and not having a lot of time for themselves and/or each other. Having a community of advocates could help give these parents time off for naps, date nights ETC. As the ancient African proverb says “it takes a village”. That is just one thing I support though. Another is allowing children to sue their parents and run away to seek their own guardians or care of themselves if they are able.

    Now let’s talk about medicine, vaccines, surgeries ETC. Some may say that parents need to be involved in deciding treatments needed by their kids, how else is this to be decided? Though in my mind we already have precedent for this sort of thing. Let’s consider an adult who is rushed to the emergency room unconscious and bleeding out. What do the doctors do? Do they wait for them to wake up and have them sign a consent to treat? Do they call their parents? Do they call friends? Do they call lawyers or other advocates? No, they don’t. They prescribe and provide the necessary treatment to stabilize the individual and if further treatment is needed after then they talk to the patient and have them sign a consent to treat. But if that is not possible they do what they need to do to make it possible. So how are children not in the same boat? These are individuals unable to advocate for their own interests/give informed consent whether a child or unconscious bleeding out adult. So doctors should be making these decisions for children as they already do for other individuals unable to advocate for their own interests. This would likely result in only the most necessary of treatments being provided. Surgeries that one could survive without would have to wait, only surgeries necessary for saving the life would be performed. As for vaccines, this would almost certainly depend on how essential the vaccine is as determined by medical professionals. I'm not going to pretend that I know more about what is and is not essential for life than people who have studied it for years.

    Next I will discuss informed consent, age, age of consent, and how power imbalances are in this case (as in most) the main issue. Now I will maintain that age is an arbitrary way of determining when one is capable of giving informed consent, as what matters in mental maturity. Let us consider an emancipated 16 year old and an early onset dementia 50 year old. I think you would be hard pressed to say that that 50 year old is more capable of giving informed consent than said 16 year old. Now the most common response I hear to this (aside from, again, just being called a pedophile) is that although that makes sense, we just don’t have a way to determine mental maturity, or who would develop the necessary evaluation to do so? But this is incorrect. No one needs to develop said evaluation because they have already been developed by psychologists/psychiatrists and are in use by them to determine how mentally mature/competent they are. I mean even the IQ test was originally developed as a mental age placement test, before being co opted, changed, and overrated by social darwinists to be the end all be all of determining intelligence that we see it as today, though it was never meant to be that. Anyway numerous other evaluations exist and are used by psychiatric professionals everyday in the real world. They are just not used to indicate one's ability to give informed consent, and nobody can tell me why. 

    Now let’s get a little dark, talk about pedophilia and statutory rape, before moving on to cigarettes, alcohol, sugar and other drugs. Children having sex, that may sound bad (because of what was mentioned prior) but I have yet to say anything too objectionable. Two 5 year olds having sex is generally not seen as that bad, it may be taken as a teaching opportunity but one 5 year old will not be seen as “victimizing” the other. Now a 30 year old and a 5 year old will certainly result in the 30 year old being seen as the victimizer of the 5 year old, and that makes sense, but why? Well, power imbalance in the form of intelligence. Generally we would see two five year olds as having more or less the same intelligence or access to information. Let’s consider a 30 year old with the mental capacity of the average 5 year old, then I’m gonna be honest, I would see sex between them the way I would see sex between two 5 year olds. But even life experience is information, information a 30 year old would have that a 5 year old would not. See, the older party almost certainly knows more than the younger party. That would make sex between them a form of sexual fraud or rape. Now some may say I’m broadening the definion of rape but I don’t care, if you ever tell someone you love them when you don’t to get into their pants, then you have committed sexual fraud (rape) just as if you were to wine, dine and flatter someone to get access to their bank accounts would be monatary fraud, which most would call theft, so why would it not make sense to call sexual fraud rape? These same issues apply to substances like tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, and even sugar. Sugar has been demonstrated to be just as addictive as cocaine (if not more) with long term health effects at least just as severe. So selling a child tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, or sugar usually involves one party knowing more about these substances than the child could. This is why warning labels are on these items, yet a child won’t understand that, So if I (a 30 year old) gives a 5 year old a cigarette I would be seen as a victimizer, but if a 5 year old gives his 5 year old friend a cigarette he will not be seen as a victimizer, because of the imbalance of power in the form of intelligence. Knowledge is power, afterall. Back to medicine for a second, let’s consider I, a 30 year old giving a 5 year old a cigarette, then as stated above I would (and should) be seen as a victimizer. But let’s change this example a little bit. Let’s now imagine that this 5 year old has a rare but terminal medical condition that will result in them dying unless they smoke a cigarette. In that hypothetical situation, suddenly me giving a 5 year old a cigarette would be seen as legitimate and even good, not as victimization, matter of fact in that situation I would be seen more as a victimizer for not giving them a cigarette. So again in medical situations doctor recommendations for certain substances would be allowed. See if one were to sell drugs to a child they could be held liable either by advocates or by the child themselves when they grow up (as has happened in the past relating to tobacco products) but a doctors note would give a reasonable way of taking liability off of one’s self. These kinds of notes could also replace ID. checks. Maybe in the future store clerks would ask to see a psychologist note of mental competency instead of ID. before selling someone alcohol, tobacco, ETC.

    In closing let me just say that I think all authority must be constantly questioned and challenged and you can never let up, not even for a second, because the moment that you, the very moment that you do an unjust authority will rise and start oppressing you. See, a just authority can answer your questions, can meet your challenges and an unjust authority cannot. So it should be clear that no one has more to gain from not questioning authority than an unjust authority, yet we encourage children from a young age to not question authority. A parent may tell a child to do something and that child may ask why, then a parent may respond “because I said so” and if anyone responds to your question like that, you should dismiss them outright, they are not a just authority. And if you are a parent and your child asks why they should do what you say, take that as a teaching opportunity and tell them why and if you don’t have an answer then don’t tell them to do it. Some may say “I don’t have time to explain” but that’s bullshit and you know it, if you have time to say “because I said so” you have time to give an actual answer so do that. A little while ago I was at Maple Valley days, and I met someone running for school board. He asked me what I think would be good for schools and I told him that I think we should give kids more say. Like a student union that could actually negotiate with administrators and teachers about assignments and rules. He said that was an interesting idea and although he may have just been saying that, I think these ideas are more amenable than they may sound on first hearing. After all even those that can advocate for their own interests form unions, mutuals, hire lawyers ETC. because sometimes it can be helpful to have advocates on your side. And I want to drill this in, that none of these ideas are unique to children, they are not special. Yes, we should protect children, but not because they are children, but because they are human beings and they ought be treated as such!