Please help with 'freedom question': Does the child have rights beyond a parent's wishes?
Dear Daily Paul community,
In my Sexuality class, we are discussing the occurrence of hermaphroditic or 'intersex' individuals in our population. According to Anne Fausto-Sterling, in addition to male and female sexes, there are also other sexes. **There are individuals born with one ovary and one testis (known as true hermaphrodites-- or herms); individuals with a set of testes and some aspect of female genitalia but no ovaries, known as male pseudohermaphrodites (or merms); and individuals with a set of ovaries and some aspect of male genitalia but no testes (or ferms).
The typical process of the 'American doctor' is to analyze the baby's genitalia (once it's born) and 'correct' it to make it seem like one of the two main sexes, often telling the parent that this is what the baby's body wants it to be, that they're fixing a deformity. Sometimes after doctors perform the corrective surgery, the individuals would grow up confused, or feeling like they were in the 'wrong' gender, or they'd end up losing sensitivity/feeling in their erogenous zones; a lot of them would regret the surgery. In the past, before surgeries were performed, these individuals would have grown up, and come to terms with their ambiguity on their own time (what other choice did they have?). They normally led healthy, content lives sometimes even finding others who didn't mind their anatomical situation, and they'd marry (depending on if they grew up with the public believing that they were either a male or a female-- their anatomy was generally their own business/secret).
I personally feel that parents shouldn't try to 'correct' anything about the sex of their child, unless there is a potential that their condition could lead to further physical complications along the way (tumors, hernias, hormonal imbalances, salt imbalances), but who am I to tell a parent what they should or shouldn't do with their child?
On the other hand, if a parent wanted his/her son to be a daughter, do they have the right to have a doctor perform a surgery to turn the boy's penis into a vagina (even if there is no doubt that their child is a boy)? And if not, and the child does the have right to decide for themselves what they want to be once they're mature enough to make a decision, should parents even have the religious freedom to circumcise their children? I know plenty of adult men who wish that their parents never would have circumcised them. Of course I've also heard the stories of men with foreskin who wished that their parents would have circumcised them-- but here's the kicker, they went to a doctor and got the circumcision even when they were already in their 30s. It was THEIR decision.
So what is the freedom solution? How much power does the parent actually have in determining the sex of their child? I don't think parents have the right to kill their unborn children because I believe that the unborn child has the right to its life-- babies have rights. But how far do those rights extend? What's the principle???
Signed,
Conflicted
**She later writes that even this 'Five Sexes Model' is still much too constricting, and that there are many variations and combination of human sexual anatomy, each with varying degrees of 'male/female' expression.
Just to Complicate Things
Doctors will also be involved, and I'm sure most will "first, do no harm." That said, they often give the wrong advice. But they will be somewhat restrained in what they can do. And, if a parent tries to "practice medicine" it would be called mutilation and assault.
Babies are not a blank slate. They already, before birth, have personality traits, and hormones have already been at work, shaping them.
One thing I do know: I don't want voters, their elected representatives, or government employees making those decisions for me, or my family members. I don't trust them. My town just banned de-clawing cats, leaving the pound to be some cat-owners' alternative to deal with a destructive feline.
I would think that this is an issue that is in a state of flux, societally, and will be with us for debate for some time.
IMissLiberty
Parents decide so long they do not harm the child.
So ofc parents can´t decide to operate the child anyway they wan´t, unless it is life important.
The child has a right to it´s life and body.
/Mike
Front Fell Off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg
It is the parents decision.
The parents are responsible for the bills and care so they must make the best decision for the child at that time. When the child grows up, like everything else the child can bitch about it the rest of his or her life.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
Really?
Even if the parents want to turn their obviously male boy, into a girl by mutilating his penis?
(Sorry if I'm being graphic or vulgar about it, but I'm thinking about this in terms of 'extremes'.)
Speaking of penis mutilation,
Speaking of penis mutilation, I have spoken with other guys who felt their penis was mutilated against their will. One guy I spoke to, told me that he had spoken to several guys who had been circumcised later in life, due to religious reasons, and they all noticed a decrease in sexual pleasure to one extent or another, not a temporary decrease, but a permanent one that lasted for years after the circumcision.
This guy I talked to was upset that he had been circumsiced against his will, without his consent, because he didn't want to lose sexual pleasure but he didn't really blame his parents because they didn't know any better, he was just upset that circumsicion was still a common practice and most parents don't give it a second thought, when they should.
He knew all the arguments used for circumcision, the religious reasons, about it supposedly reducing the risks of transferring STD's, decreasing risk of urinary tract infection, and he discounted this stuff because he said he can always use a condom, so the STD thing did not apply to him, and he felt he could keep his penis clean enough to ever have to worry about a urinary tract infection happening, and he was not religious so the religious aspect did not apply to him.
He was very passionate about it, he felt a righteous anger aboout the whole thing, and felt like he had to spread the word, wake up other guys who had their penises mutilated without their consent, and see if he could start a movement to end the practice of circumcision(which he called penis mutilation) in the U.S. He said, let a man choose when he turns 18, if he wants to get circumcised or not, don't do it without his consent when he is a baby and cannot say no.
All this made me wonder, if there is a noticeable decrease in sexual pleasure after circumcision, how many thousands or even millions of guys would also wake up and become upset that they were circumcised against their will as well?
i don't know
you certainly have a case here that the gray area of involuntary act in a person's early minor years under his parents can generate undesirable and lasting consequences. i think the only way to reduce this from occurring--and there is no elimination of bad practices in any field, as we've already seen the astronomical amount of failures to reach perfection through central planning--is to simply better education--the same answer rp gives to many things. there's just no way to eliminate this from happening, and the best way to reduce the amount of victims is to simply reduce the amount of uneducated parents, rather than relying on laws that generate unintended consequences and hinder economics, large or small.
government has the responsibility to protect life..
what's there to ponder about? children may have disagreement with their parents vocally over what their parents might want to teach them in regards to sexual orientation or what have you, versus what they learn in the real world.. what's that got to do with rights?
when violence are involved then there is a certain degree when it becomes the protection of life issue for the government and they can intervene.
"rights" only exists in the context of the constitution to the extent that the government specifically has the authority to intervene in order to protect them. like freedom of speech only refers to how government/public sponsored entities cannot stifle free speech in any manner, but it has nothing to do with one individual telling another to shut up, unless any actions are involved that would become a protection of life issue.. same applies in a parent/child relationship.
what you want to teach to your child is all a judgment call.. no government can intervene, federal or local, because that would violate the constitution which refrains the government from making any decision at all on what one individual can say to another.
can we stop tossing the word "rights" around? seems like no one understands them.
Interesting...
So then you would oppose the idea that parents have the 'ability' to decide their child's sex, on the grounds that it's a "protection of life" issue?
And what is "violence"? Seems pretty subjective to me...
yes..
and that is why there is a court system to enforce the law instead of applying every law automatically.. if everything was so easily discernible, rules can just be applies automatically. there wouldn't be the need for a "judge" to apply judgments nor a jury to reflect the general value of a society and applying them upon hearing a case. of course it's subjective.. if a 100 years into the future the social value of the time then becomes that "cutting off a penis isn't severe enough to count as violence and incite punishment of the law", then that's that. now however, i think the answer to that is obvious enough not to trip yourself over it.
Situations like this
I have read about or seen documentaries on seem to IMO be more of a raumato the parents than it would be the child had the parents not interfered. Becoming who you are is something you must do even under so called normal circumstances. This is a problem with society detemining what normal is. It can easily be carried to the discussion on wether people are born gay or decide to be gay. I only wish all parents would love and encourage their children and except them for what and who they are and if there is a decision to be made it should be made by the child when they are mature enough to do so with full support of the parent. Parents are all too often selfish in there expectations of their children and it seldom turns out well for the child. Personally I think you should raise your children with encouragement not expectations. Help them be the best that they are, Not what you want them to be the best at. Who they are. Not who you want them to be. Be thankful you are blessed to watch them grow in to the unique person they will grow to be.
This is a good question.
Obviously Federal Law should neither protect the child or the parent or the doctor.
And almost just as obvious State law shouldn't either.
Now comes the difficult question...
Should there be local laws that guide the family towards a particular decision by limiting the choices.
Personally, I think it should be a civil matter and there should be no statute of limitations on liability.
The doctor better think long and hard when advising parents about what should be done to their child. The natural checks and balances in property rights tend to produce the best outcome. When the child grows up and feels he/she/it had been harmed as a child, there should be standing.
This argument should also be used in abortion. While the child cannot grow up. Other parties should have standing. (Siblings, extended family, a remorseful parent)
Just like any property rights case this should be a civil matter.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
I think I agree with you...
except, I'm not quite sure how it all boils down to a 'property rights' case...
What is property? Children? If so, at what point do they stop being property?
Well ...
The child's own body is his/her/its own property.
The parent is merely the custodian.
And in other circumstances, when the child becomes an adult, they have standing for civil action if the parent has acted negligently. (I am thinking of trusts and inheritances from ancestors or other benefactors).
With regards to abortion ... this one is much more difficult, because the child will not become an adult. This particular situation causes me to think that maybe LOCAL gov. only has the implied power to step in and limit decisions if they deem appropriate.
Will a remedy always be possible? No.
But this model has the best mechanisms in place to minimize injury and damages.
The incentives against medical intervention will cause a provider to think twice and to keep the best interest of the child in their mind.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
I
think you just solved my dilemma. Thanks! :)
(I kind of feel bad for the child that went through the trauma of the surgery though, but I guess if enough angry children grow up to be active, vocal adults about this issue, then public opinion would eventually shift to look on medical intervention as a not-so-great idea, and without any laws being passed and without force, society would accept the individuals as they are and let them decide on their own.)
Proof that education is the key!
Glad I could help.
God Bless.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Natural rights are inherent
inalienable rights possessed by a sovereign entity. A sovereign entity has a right to his/her own personhood. In today's society technology exists to perform these types of operations at any age, so the only need to perform any type of "corrective" operation would be in the event of a health risk... Otherwise the choice belongs to the individual and any intervention by another party without consent could be considered a "violation" of the said individual's rights.
Civil law may not agree with natural law so all sorts of violations may be permitted according to civil authorities. However, if one is concerned with conscience, morality, human rights, the cosmos or a final judgement one will certainly want to consider the ramifications of violating another sovereign entity's personhood.
For those who have made these types of decisions in the "best interests" of the child, they may need to "clear the air" at some point and allow for some type of forgiveness or closure to take place. People do the best they can with the knowledge available to them sometimes and the choice is either to forgive or be swallowed up by the negative energy of resentment... Even though a person may have a "right" to be bitter, it doesn't alter the negative impact of bitterness...
Of course this raises the question of other "deformities" and who's to say whether or not something is a deformity?
IMO... FWIW
Ewwww....
.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I have one word for you...predator drones. Oh, you think I'm kidding?" Obombya
bump
bump
True Hermaphraditism
is extremely rare. So why is this subject so popular on college campuses? In order to blur the lines of sexual identity for the whole of society, thus raising further questions about traditional family structure. For which the liberal sociologists that teach these classes have a deep-seeded disdain for.
... But to answer your question; i would wait to see if their voice drops during puberty... actually... i have no idea.
I think that protecting the
I think that protecting the basic rights of a child is a legitimate role for government. Government, particularly our formerly-constitutional government, is a subsidy on the individual versus social institutions.
Ventura 2012
"basic" being the key...
Laws are already in place against violence and willful neglect... too much beyond that point the state becomes a surrogate parent.... No?
Certainly. If anything, we
Certainly. If anything, we need a roll-back.
Ventura 2012
Keep your F___ing hands off of my kid
The government has no business telling me what to do with my kid.
I don't give a S--T if its Federal, State, County, or Municipal government. Don't f--k with my family.
As a parent I will do what I think is best. It is no one else's business.
Anyone who does not live under my roof can kiss my ___ when it comes to my decisions about my family.
I agree with Mr. Plainview's opinions in the movie "There will be blood." If you have see that movie you know what I'm talking about. If you haven't, the scene I'm talking about has to do with some busy body's neck.
Please pardon my blanked out profanity, but this is the one place where I give no quarter and pull no punches.
No one tells me what do do in my family.
Hmm..difficult topic to really discuss seeing how an infant
can't even comprehend such a thing at that stage. Sure the kid has rights, but when he/she doesn't even KNOW enough and cannot express an opinion, there is no one who can provide an answer on the child's behalf -- not even the parents. Only option I see is allowing the child to make his/her decision when they are old enough to do so.
What are you fightin' for?
Caught in the middle?
Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!