WHO is a child? - Xtianty and Islam please

[Ciel_Rouge]

Well, I think we are all too familiar with religions discriminating women etc. But I suppose we tend to ommit another issue: discrimination based on AGE.

Let me quote the beginning of a philosophical discussion:

"But then, what is a child? How are their minds different? And what are the moral implications of these differences for how we should treat them?"

Philosophy Talk

Now what concerns me here, is the attitude. We do not even ask WHO, we so often ask WHAT a child is. As if a child was NOT a person. We call them "minors" or "kids". This sort of remotely reminds me of "blacks" or "niggers" We also usually imply that because of their age they are necessarily somewhat stupid and lack any complex feelings. This particular discussion strikes me as if someone discussed their policy on aliens and not human beings. We seem to forget that the little girl or boy is going to be an adult. We also tend to forget that WE were children.

Let me list some of the basic human rights violations that really strike me:

1) the very common and fundamental one: CHOICE OF RELIGION. Most religions decide it FOR YOU even before you are able to comprehend what religion IS.

2) BODILY INTEGRITY - another favourite of mine, especially regarding Islam - this particular religion seems to be a bit disrespectful of the integrity of human body, both male and female. And once again, the surgery is done and decided without ever asking the PERSON who is later going to become and ADULT who will be INFLUENCED by this decision.

3) PERSONAL FREEDOM - for instance, such things like the time you go to bed, the food you eat - I am not talking about extremes like "kids" who want to stay up and play computer games all night or eat only chips. I am talking about respecting sound, reasonable choices like children who hate a particular kind of food and are still made to it eat even though not eating it would not have any dietary consequences.

[CliveStaples]

1) the very common and fundamental one: CHOICE OF RELIGION. Most religions decide it FOR YOU even before you are able to comprehend what religion IS.

Freedom of thought seems like a key component of being a person; I don't see how that would change for an immature (in the developmental sense) person.

However, if I'm a parent and my child is following a religion that I believe to be quite harmful to his/her development--say, a religion that condones rape, or requires human sacrifice--aren't I obligated to act in what I believe are the best interests of my child, and attempt to de-convert my child?

2) BODILY INTEGRITY - another favourite of mine, especially regarding Islam - this particular religion seems to be a bit disrespectful of the integrity of human body, both male and female. And once again, the surgery is done and decided without ever asking the PERSON who is later going to become and ADULT who will be INFLUENCED by this decision.

What if the surgery involves, say, cutting a hole into the child's throat to form an airway, and without this procedure the child will die?

What if a child suffers from something like gangrene, and refuses to have their leg amputated, endangering their life? As a parent, wouldn't I be obligated to intervene in my child's decision?

3) PERSONAL FREEDOM - for instance, such things like the time you go to bed, the food you eat - I am not talking about extremes like "kids" who want to stay up and play computer games all night or eat only chips. I am talking about respecting sound, reasonable choices like children who hate a particular kind of food and are still made to it eat even though not eating it would not have any dietary consequences.

Who decides what is "reasonable"? What if eating the food they didn't like was to build character--to prepare the child for living in the real world?

[Ciel_Rouge]

However, if I'm a parent and my child is following a religion that I believe to be quite harmful to his/her development--say, a religion that condones rape, or requires human sacrifice--aren't I obligated to act in what I believe are the best interests of my child, and attempt to de-convert my child?

Indeed. However, convert from what? Shouldn't the choice of religion be made by a person when he or she becomes an ADULT?

What if a child suffers from something like gangrene, and refuses to have their leg amputated, endangering their life? As a parent, wouldn't I be obligated to intervene in my child's decision?

I suppose it all depends on how permanent a proceedure would be. A hole in the throat that will later heal is less serious and has less impact on subsequent life than cutting of limbs and making a person who will become an adult unable to walk and socially disadvantaged (e.g. dating). I suppose first and foremost, it should be an INFORMED choice. And what if later on it turns out this leg could have been saved? Just imagine how THAT would complicate your relations. What seems a bit shocking is the complete lack of consideration for what the child wants or uninvolvement in the decision-making process when the decision will affect something as important.

Who decides what is "reasonable"? What if eating the food they didn't like was to build character--to prepare the child for living in the real world?

And this one is a big NO-NO for me. How should THAT prepare a young person for the "real" world? If you make a person constantly eat a food they do not like they will certainly become frustrated and later on paranoid, schizophrenic etc. IMHO by doing this you will actually WEAKEN the character of a future adult because they will assume they are not worthy of following their personal choices in life. The very same child can later "put up" with an abusive partner or get stuck in a lousy job.

[Tino]

We also usually imply that because of their age they are necessarily somewhat stupid and lack any complex feelings.

Well they are somewhat stupid, but the issue you're ignoring is whether they are equipped to understand the implications of their actions.

Putting my cards on the table, I'm having trouble taking your post seriously because I fear that where you're headed is trying to justify child-adult sexual relations.

We seem to forget that the little girl or boy is going to be an adult.

The little boy or girl is also going to die someday. Should we just bury them now? Answer: no. Reason: because age DOES make a difference.

Let me list some of the basic human rights violations that really strike me:

1) the very common and fundamental one: CHOICE OF RELIGION. Most religions decide it FOR YOU even before you are able to comprehend what religion IS.

I'm an atheist so I obviously have objections to religion, and I'm a fan of Dawkins, who also makes this argument, but for me the issue is trumped by my advocacy for strong parental rights.

3) PERSONAL FREEDOM - for instance, such things like the time you go to bed, the food you eat - I am not talking about extremes like "kids" who want to stay up and play computer games all night or eat only chips. I am talking about respecting sound, reasonable choices like children who hate a particular kind of food and are still made to it eat even though not eating it would not have any dietary consequences.

This is silly. Anyone who has raised a kid knows that they thrive on rules, to create structure and a sense of comforting predictability. Bedtime is driven by what time they need to get up for school and how many hours of sleep they need. We don't need each kid to independently experience the health detriments of inadequate sleep. Likewise, "forcing" a kid to eat foods they might not now like is part of family life, eating the food that has been purchased and prepared and enjoyed by other members of the family. It's also about developing the child's palate, so that they can learn to enjoy a wide variety of foods.

Bedtime and eating your vegetables are human rights violations? Again, I'm left wondering whether your real point is that it should be OK for adults to have sex with children?

[Ciel_Rouge]

We also usually imply that because of their age they are necessarily somewhat stupid and lack any complex feelings.

Well they are somewhat stupid, but the issue you're ignoring is whether they are equipped to understand the implications of their actions.

Putting my cards on the table, I'm having trouble taking your post seriously because I fear that where you're headed is trying to justify child-adult sexual relations.

Now THAT was a giant leap in jumping to conclusions! I am against child abuse in any form, regardless whether sexual in nature or psychological abuse - which you kindly disguise as "strong parental rights" and I shall discuss later.

Is it really OK for you to treat a person not like a person but like a commodity just because you are their parent?

We seem to forget that the little girl or boy is going to be an adult.

The little boy or girl is also going to die someday. Should we just bury them now? Answer: no. Reason: because age DOES make a difference.

Your rhetoric is again brilliant and very amusing but has nothing to do with what I wrote. We sort of forget that children are going to be adults and the decisions we make for them now are going to affect their ADULT lives later on. Let me give you an example:

In the US a father decided to have his baby boy circumcised "to be like his father". Is it OK or not?

I'm an atheist so I obviously have objections to religion, and I'm a fan of Dawkins, who also makes this argument, but for me the issue is trumped by my advocacy for strong parental rights.

Does this mean your children have to be atheist because you are?

This is silly. Anyone who has raised a kid knows that they thrive on rules, to create structure and a sense of comforting predictability.

Well, from my observations of different parents and different children, the RULES they are supposed to be "thriving" on are simply constantly broken and the children are simply constantly punished. To my mind it would be much more efficient and respectable to simply explain WHY they should or should not do something.

Bedtime is driven by what time they need to get up for school and how many hours of sleep they need. We don't need each kid to independently experience the health detriments of inadequate sleep.

Bedtime is driven by a person's willingness to go to sleep. If it is not, you are either in jail or in the military. I am not talking about staying up all night. I am talking about parents sending their children to bed MUCH too early "just because". Because they want to have power over them. And since a child is not willing or ready to sleep yet, they DO develop sleeping problems later on.

Likewise, "forcing" a kid to eat foods they might not now like is part of family life, eating the food that has been purchased and prepared and enjoyed by other members of the family. It's also about developing the child's palate, so that they can learn to enjoy a wide variety of foods.

Please take a look at this:

Forceful feeding in Mauritania

This is just a step away from what you are doing. FORCEFUL FEEDING is FORCEFUL FEEDING. It can be done to prisoners etc. Why do this to your child? Food is a very personal choice.

On a side note, the chefs in Poland who appear on tv often admit they teach their children how to cook so that they can be independent and follow their own taste. I heard of 8 year olds preparing simple meals for themselves. What do you think about that?

As for "developing the palate", to my mind it is exposure to a variety of foods, not repeatedly exposing children to something they hate.

Bedtime and eating your vegetables are human rights violations? Again, I'm left wondering whether your real point is that it should be OK for adults to have sex with children?

NO. My real point is that we should reconsider why it is easily accepted when PARENTS treat their children like a COMMODITY rather than a PERSON and even apply some methods normally used on adults in jails, military etc. And why you constantly make your "giant leaps" from eating veggies to having sex is beyond me

So once again: this thread is about PARENT and CHILD relations, NOT about sexual offenders.

[pocaracas]

2) BODILY INTEGRITY - another favourite of mine, especially regarding Islam - this particular religion seems to be a bit disrespectful of the integrity of human body, both male and female. And once again, the surgery is done and decided without ever asking the PERSON who is later going to become and ADULT who will be INFLUENCED by this decision.

What if the surgery involves, say, cutting a hole into the child's throat to form an airway, and without this procedure the child will die?

What if a child suffers from something like gangrene, and refuses to have their leg amputated, endangering their life? As a parent, wouldn't I be obligated to intervene in my child's decision?

OH no.... no no no no no no.
You could be a 40 year old adult in full reason. If you leg is gangrening, any doctor will take it off to prevent it from spreading.
I certainly hope nothing of the sort ever happens to me or any of the people I know.... heck, I'd like that gangrene (or any disease) would never happen to anyone in the world. Doctors would be out of the job, then.... but the world would be a better place.

3) PERSONAL FREEDOM - for instance, such things like the time you go to bed, the food you eat - I am not talking about extremes like "kids" who want to stay up and play computer games all night or eat only chips. I am talking about respecting sound, reasonable choices like children who hate a particular kind of food and are still made to it eat even though not eating it would not have any dietary consequences.

Kids are always trying to push the envelope and test when the parental rules break. When they do, the kid is old enough to handle the new found freedom.
Parents know that kids need a full 10 hours daily sleep routine. Kids don't. They think 6 hours is enough. And when they only sleep those 6 hours, they spend their every waking moment just acting stupid, because they're really falling asleep, but refuse to acknowledge it.

Veggies are part of a full and diverse diet and should be part of what everyone eats. Some people like some veggies, but not others. Still, the child must be exposed to them all and, on occasion, must eat what s/he doesn't like because, when you grow up, you'll have to eat a lot of crap food and will not have the chance to complain. (hence the building character mentioned by Clive).
And kids say they don't like some foods, not because they don't like them, but because they just want to eat the goodies: fries and candy. Parents are obligated to understand this.... but fail to so many times... hence the fat generation that's sprouting.

Kids are not very knowledgeable, and lack the concept of long term consequence. It's the parents job to keep them in check until they do have this concept.

Of course, it's not force feeding them (unless they have been refusing to eat anything for the past 12 hours or so) and doing nasty things (unless they are stepping in front of a car and you can only pull them by one arm, potentially dislocating it).
In theory, parents just want the best for their kids.... but the truth of the matter is: not everyone is cut out to be a parent and, some of those that are, would benefit from a few years of learning about parenting prior to becoming parents.
And keep in mind that child psychology works well with some.... and not so well with others. They are still individuals with individual needs and individual crazynesses.

[Tino]

I am against child abuse in any form, regardless whether sexual in nature or psychological abuse - which you kindly disguise as "strong parental rights" and I shall discuss later.

Glad to hear it.

Is it really OK for you to treat a person not like a person but like a commodity just because you are their parent?

The point is to treat them like children, which they are.

We sort of forget that children are going to be adults and the decisions we make for them now are going to affect their ADULT lives later on.

I doubt that many parents forget this.

In the US a father decided to have his baby boy circumcised "to be like his father". Is it OK or not?

Yes it's OK. I support it for the same idea that I support a woman's right to choose regarding abortion. It's a complicated issue with many short and long term implications, religious overtones, societal norms, etc. Ultimately the decision is best made by the mother (in the case of an abortion) or by the parent (in the case of religious rites, medical treatments, etc.) The state should have the power to act, only in the extreme situation of a late abortion or if the parental decision is placing the child in immediate jeopardy.

Does this mean your children have to be atheist because you are?

No.

I've seen no science which supports your view.

[quote='Ciel_Rouge' pid='341199' dateline='1348562955']FORCEFUL FEEDING is FORCEFUL FEEDING. It can be done to prisoners etc. Why do this to your child? Food is a very personal choice.

Sorry but I just can't make the leap with you from expecting kids to eat a balanced diet which includes foods they might not like, to the forced stuffing done in Mauritania for tribal reasons.

On a side note, the chefs in Poland who appear on tv often admit they teach their children how to cook so that they can be independent and follow their own taste. I heard of 8 year olds preparing simple meals for themselves. What do you think about that?

As long as the child is supervised and kept safe I have no problem with it. I'm assuming here that the meals they've been taught to prepare are reasonably healthy meals, and not brownies for breakfast.

My real point is that we should reconsider why it is easily accepted when PARENTS treat their children like a COMMODITY rather than a PERSON and even apply some methods normally used on adults in jails, military etc.

Treating a child like an adult person is a bad idea because the child isn't yet equipped to understand the implications of its decisions.

[System of Solace]

What if the surgery involves, say, cutting a hole into the child's throat to form an airway, and without this procedure the child will die?

What if a child suffers from something like gangrene, and refuses to have their leg amputated, endangering their life? As a parent, wouldn't I be obligated to intervene in my child's decision?

You're playing the what-if game again, Clive.
It goes without saying this is an ignorant question.
First of all, what person would choose to die of gangrene?
Second, how does that have anything to do with his original statement? This is a life or death situation, not an unneeded and potentially life-threatening surgery that is done because a book says so.

[Ciel_Rouge]

In the US a father decided to have his baby boy circumcised "to be like his father". Is it OK or not?

Yes it's OK. I support it for the same idea that I support a woman's right to choose regarding abortion. It's a complicated issue with many short and long term implications, religious overtones, societal norms, etc. Ultimately the decision is best made by the mother (in the case of an abortion) or by the parent (in the case of religious rites, medical treatments, etc.) The state should have the power to act, only in the extreme situation of a late abortion or if the parental decision is placing the child in immediate jeopardy.

It is OK to mutilate an infant who is unable to resist or express own view in any form? Interestingly, circumcision has recently become illegal in Germany and is regarded a criminal offense. In the US people launch legal suit against hospitals who mutilated them in the past and apply for reconstructive surgery. I sort of get the impression that you forget you were a child yourself once and just don't care now, just want to feel the power you have over them as some sort of compensation.

I've seen no science which supports your view.
[/quote' Wrote: Do you really need complicated research for this? If you put a child to bed too early they will either "cheat" and read a book or play computer games in bed or they will toss and turn for a LONG time before they actually fall asleep. And both leads to sleep disorders later on, especially if done on regular basis. This is why it is healthier to go to sleep when you feel like it, regardless of age.

[quote='Ciel_Rouge' pid='341199' dateline='1348562955']FORCEFUL FEEDING is FORCEFUL FEEDING. It can be done to prisoners etc. Why do this to your child? Food is a very personal choice.

Sorry but I just can't make the leap with you from expecting kids to eat a balanced diet which includes foods they might not like, to the forced stuffing done in Mauritania for tribal reasons.

Both are forced actions that lead to psychological trauma. The magnitude might be way different in the two cases, but both are basicall traumatizing a very young mind over something as vital and personal as food.

On a side note, the chefs in Poland who appear on tv often admit they teach their children how to cook so that they can be independent and follow their own taste. I heard of 8 year olds preparing simple meals for themselves. What do you think about that?

As long as the child is supervised and kept safe I have no problem with it. I'm assuming here that the meals they've been taught to prepare are reasonably healthy meals, and not brownies for breakfast.

Chefs tend to promote real food with real meat and real vegetables so yes, the children are not preparing junk food. I suppose the reason why children sometimes crazy about junk food is that they usually do not really know real cooking and could not prepare a meal for themselves.

Treating a child like an adult person is a bad idea because the child isn't yet equipped to understand the implications of its decisions.

Well, there was once a book by a Japanese scientist who advocated talking normally to an infant instead of mocking to promote language acquisition. The result would be a person developing much faster intelectually. Perhaps we are dumbing our children down by treating them like complete retards.

[Minimalist]

say, a religion that condones rape, or requires human sacrifice

But let's take a more reasonable approach, one that actually happens, such as when parents exercise their religious beliefs to deny a child medical care while they pray to some bullshit god and the kid dies.