Posted on 01/27/2019 5:01:36 AM PST by Tax-chick
A new nonprofit, Them Before Us, aims to defend children's rights in the family. We use story to highlight the true victims, and we critique all practices and policies that prioritize adult desires above children's rights.
Unfortunately, in 2015, the Supreme Court redefined marriage for the entire country, transforming an institution that used to bring together the two people to whom children have a natural right into just one more vehicle of adult fulfillment.
[body of article]
Them Before Us wants to transform the narrative around marriage and parenthood. We believe that every conversation about family structure should recognize and respect the rights of children. When that happens, good policy is the natural outcome. When we fail, children are regarded as commodities to be manufactured, bought, and sold for the enjoyment of adults.
Becoming a defender of children’s rights is the best strategy when it comes to protecting children and defeating bad policy. Still, it does comes with a personal cost: it means that we must make sacrifices in order to respect the rights of our own children.
In the world of children’s rights, no adult gets a pass.
Such a mindset is long overdue.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepublicdiscourse.com ...
Ping!
Socialism requires destruction of the family.
Maybe. The British voted in socialism, and the early State of Israel was socialist, before family breakdown was the norm.
Kind of funny to be putting kids first when Europeans are’t having any.
"Conversation" is a warning sign in any Lib text. It means "shut up, I'm talking".
Unless the definition of ‘family structure’ starts with an idealized goal of 2 parents, with sufficient income and education to properly accommodate raising and educating a child, then that ‘conversation’ is a non-starter from the git-go!
No doubt.
If children have a 'right' to two opposite sex parents they certainly have a right to a decent level of income and education.
People opposed to socialism should be very leery of this argument.
There is considerable elaboration in the complete article, but the site is “excerpt only.”
It is a good point, however, that any discussion of “rights” immediately raises the question of the corresponding duties. My take on the complete article was that the author was positing an adult duty not to put children intentionally into situations that are most likely to be damaging to them.
later
When I was in College in the late 70s Early 80s, Children’s Rights was a way of legalizing Pedophilia...I think it still is...
That’s another good illustration of the way we can mix ourselves up by using the same words to mean a lot of different things.
That is all this is: doublespeak. The globalists love children, but not in the way normal people do.
I admit that my knee jerk nearly made me respond to this without reading the article.
In my experience, nearly anything I have seen up to this point in my life that has a “conversation” about children’s “rights” is a cover for an end goal to eliminate biological parenting by people and putting it into the hands of the state, more commonly known as the “It Takes A Village” approach.
And we all know what that means.
In the book “Walden II”, a book that puts a soft, compassionate, comfortable, non-threatening face on the concept of the state rearing your children, you don’t get to raise your children, you get to raise other people’s children. A pro-socialist apologia if there ever was one.
If “Children’s Rights” means not encouraging homosexual adoption, I can support it.
If “Children’s Rights” means not encouraging single motherhood, I can support it.
If “Children’s Rights” means that children are given an equal voice in nearly anything, I don’t support it.
If “Children’s Rights” means that parents have to adhere to standards of raising children set forth by the state in the same way that Common Care was to be used to educate our children, I don’t support it.
Agreed 100%. There have always been movements afoot to give children the same rights as adults, and the motives behind those movements are suspect.
If the Left had its way, they would give the vote to six year olds.
But everyone knows that taking away the liberty either physically or emotionally of a child is quite a different thing than taking away the physical or emotional liberty of an adult (and for very good reasons, too) but the Left would like to blur or eliminate that distinction.
Thank you for taking the trouble to read the article. I wonder if the author knows that her use of “children’s rights” terminology creates a very misleading impression for many readers who actually agree with what she is saying.
I did not expect some of the responses to those words, or I would have excerpted differently, so as to convey more of the author’s intended message.
An astute observation. When I saw it, I felt like a fish, far underwater, seeing a disturbance on the surface indicating there was an insect up there, and beginning to swim up to engulf it without stopping to see if there hook, line, and sinker attached to it.
I saw “Children’s Rights” and felt very much that way.
Why do we need to bring anyone here? If you are sincerely wanting to help them why don’t you move there? No One will stop or miss you.
Can we assume that “Children’s Rights” groups support abortion?
I don’t understand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.