1
   

DOES IT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF PARENTS ?

 
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 02:25 pm
While the parent has the legal right to bring the child home and I believe is also legally obligated to do that, by advising the authorities that the child left the home, I would think in many locales some sort of professional intervention would be also initiated if authorities were made aware of the situation. Considering it's not 1850 and children don't "run away to join the circus" (if they ever did), there is something going on in the family dynamics that should get professional intervention.
If the parents allowed the child to become a Charles Dickens "waif," that would be where the parents weren't fulfilling their parental "legal" obligations. The child would wind up in foster care, if the child was found, I believe.
In an earlier time (before the mid-twentieth century) there were instances, I believe, where parents had to "give" a child to an orphanage, since it was economically unfeasible to maintain the child in food and clothes.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2007 03:24 pm
Re: DOES IT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF PARENTS ?
OmSigDAVID wrote:


Suppose that a child ( shall we say, 12 years old ? )
feels the allure of the open road, puts on his hat,
bids thanx, farewell and departs,
does he thereby violate the moral rights of his parents ?

Do thay have a moral RIGHT to his continued presence,
as thay did with the horse ?



Yes, he does violate the moral rights of his parents. They wanted this child and wanted to raise him to adulthood. His leaving denies them of this opportunity.

THink of the reverse - if the parents decided to abandon the child. He has a right to expect to be raised, loved, guided, schooled, etc., and his parents' leaving denies him of those rights.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2007 04:38 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
boomerang wrote:
That's not a definition, that's "let's pretend".



We don t have to pretend:
when the communists invaded the Baltics,
thay enslaved the local population under communism,
violating their natural rights.


Quote:
Well, before the communists were there, Germans and before them Slavic and Gemanic tribes invaded those regions.

That's quite ridicule as source for a moral right.

I did NOT say
that invasions are a SOURCE of moral rights.


Quote:

(And why exactly this example, whic really is stupid since those regions were invaded x-times
by various different others during the last 2.000 years.)

If u believe that my example is stupid,
then CHOOSE another example; whichever u prefer.



Let 's try it THIS WAY:
After a government has withdrawn, or has ceased to exist,
there is no law in effect.

In that circumstance,
if one man encounters another and slays him for the hell of it,
he has thereby violated his natural right to live.
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 02:51 pm
Setanta wrote:


Setanta wrote:
Quote:

I can't believe how dull-witted this thesis is.
The law does not consider the "moral" position of the child,
or the wishes of the child.

As I indicated earlier in this thread:
this is the PHILOSOPHY and DEBATE forum.

HERE, we can debate the philosophy of what is right and rong.
This is NOT the legal research forum.
Over the years and centuries the law has varied radically
between and among different jurisdictions.
The law is an arbitrary fact of a particular point in time in a designated place.
In this forum, we are not so limited.


Quote:
The law considers the the parents are responsible for the child--
responsible in the sense that the parents are the guarantors of the child's good behavior,

BALONEY !
Your assertion is in error in my jurisdiction,
and false as to most of America.

If a child goes and robs a liquor store,
the parents are NOT responsible; thay guaranty NOTHING.
In my jurisdiction, if a child runs over someone
with his bicycle, or hits someone with a rock, the parents are NOT responsible
( with some narrow and unusual exceptions ).
U r blurting out emotional declarations
without understanding what u r talking about, Setanta.
I thought u did better research than that.



Quote:

and responsible in the sense that the law requires the parents to house,
and clothe, and feed and educate the child.

Yes, but thay r NOT in default ( neither legally, nor morally )
of their duty of financial support, if the kid has
yielded to the allure of the open road and left them behind.






Quote:
If a horse gets loose, and it tramples a man's newly planted field,
and eats another man's fodder--the owner of the horse if responsible for
the losses those others have suffered.

Yes; this involves the owner 's negligence
in failing to secure his property,
the same as if he failed to properly secure his tractor,
it rolls downhill and breaks down his neighbor 's barn.

I only mentioned the horse ( owner 's property )
to distinguish this from the relationship of a father to a human being,
who ( because of the 13th Amendment ) cannot be property.
I am saying that the man has a RIGHT to his equine property;
DOES HE HAVE A RIGHT TO A HUMAN BEING ( his son ) ?

In this thread,
I raise questions as to the rights of a child;
u answer with allegations concerning OBLIGATIONS of parents, Setanta,
IGNORING my questions about the rights of children.
I did not ask about the duties of parents; THAT IS ANOTHER THREAD.
These are 2 distinct and different concepts.
Let 's keep them separate.


Does the boy violate the rights of his dad
if he hits the road ?
Does the boy violate the rights of his dad
if he goes to live with someone who gives him a better deal ?

The HORSE has no right to choose a better farmer;
does the BOY have a moral right to choose a better host ?

For instance,
Elian said on TV that he wanted to remain in Florida
with his cousins; his communist father demanded him back in Cuba,
as lost property. Elian was what used to be called " a runaway slave ".
( This concept does not apply to an escaped horse. )
In my opinion,
Elian 's own choice shud have been honored.



Quote:
Additionally, the law with regard to prohibiting cruelty to animals
requires the owner to adequately care for the horse.

In WHICH jurisdiction is this the law, counsellor ?
Do u have a case on it ?

I deem it improbable that any law against cruelty to animals
requires the owner of a lost animal to go CHASE him.



Quote:
The case with children is even stronger in that children will one day enter society
as members of that society to be held responsible for their behavior,

WHAT ?
When I was a kid,
I was under the impression that I was a member of society
THEN and there, and that I was responsible for my behavior
( e.g., no robbing of any liquor stores ) as of that time
( with some minor exceptions, such as possibly, in some cases,
being able to get out of a contract of sale ).




Quote:
and in the circumstance, the behavior of any children whom they produce.

Again ( see above ) as a general rule,
people of any age r responsible for their own behavior.
( Below a certain age [ in my jurisdiction age 4 ] thay r " non sui juris "
such that damage thay cause is deemed as a force of nature,
like the wind and no one is responsible. )



Quote:
What the child wants, and what one could or could not allege is the "moral" position of the child is meaningless--
society requires the adult to care for and regulate the behavior of the child.

1 ) " Meaningless " is a relative term.
It is poor reasoning to employ a relative term
without designating the criteria to which it relates.

2 ) As I have pointed out hereinbefore,
different cultures have had different requirements, over the centuries;
for instance, in Medieval Japan, society deemed it OK
for a parent to KILL a child, within that parent 's discretion.

Girls have legally been killed by their fathers
for refusal to marry the choice of the killer.
The vu of " society " is not necessarily * RIGHT *
if u 'll excuse me for using that word.


I dissent from your point of vu, Setanta
insofar as u deem it rong to consider and debate moral philosophy.
I rely upon Freedom of Speech and upon the grace of our host.
David
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 03:52 am
I think the issue is only unclear because you chose 12 instead of 5 or 18...and therefore grey.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 08:57 pm
Re: DOES IT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF PARENTS ?
Mame wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:


Suppose that a child ( shall we say, 12 years old ? )
feels the allure of the open road, puts on his hat,
bids thanx, farewell and departs,
does he thereby violate the moral rights of his parents ?

Do thay have a moral RIGHT to his continued presence,
as thay did with the horse ?



Quote:
Yes, he does violate the moral rights of his parents.
They wanted this child and wanted to raise him to adulthood.

In your mind,
does WANTING something
give u the right to have it ?

In your opinion,
if a stalker wants a girl,
does his desire give him the moral RIGHT
to have her, regardless of her choice in the matter ?




Quote:
His leaving denies them of this opportunity.

Granted that thay had the DESIRE
for that opportunity; did thay have the RIGHT ( morally )
to HAVE what thay wanted ?

If so,
how did thay acquire that right ?



Quote:

THink of the reverse - if the parents decided to abandon the child.
He has a right to expect to be raised, loved, guided, schooled, etc.,
and his parents' leaving denies him of those rights.

I agree that everyone has a right to EXPECT
anything. Anyone can freely organize his mind
and his beliefs,
as he wishes.
Does he have a MORAL RIGHT to GET what he expects ?

David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/04/2021 at 04:33:20