Documentary about parents' rights

[liltwinstar]

So, Michael Farris (of HSLDA fame) decided to do a documentary on the "evils" of the UN "rights of children" document. It comes out in October - the trailer is here: http://www.parentalrightsus.org/overruled/

Gotta love the scary music and pearl-clutching going on in there.

(what is up with all the fundie documentaries anyway?????)

[xDreamerx]

The sting music is hilarious.

[ladypuglover]

I've raised 2 sons to adulthood with another a few months shy of it and never have I had to deal with anything they talked about in the movie trailer. I still have young sons and everything that comes down the shoot I have to approve. Anything about sex, the human body, food and ect I have to sign forms after forms to allow my children to be taught this in school. If I take my almost 18 yr to the doctor, I have a right to his medical treatment and to know what is going on. The doctors I have met over the past 22 years have been very good about making everything clear in my children's health care and not once was I out of any loop. From the eye doctor, dentist to labs, I was told what, why, where, when and how every step of the way.

This movie is just fear mongering plain and simple.

[Koala]

drama queens much? :lol:

[doggie]

so wacked out. but when you get so deep in fundy ville everything is on attack on you.

[liltwinstar]

drama queens much?

I know, right???

[CanadianHippie]

Good lord, we can't let children and teens have rights. They might grow up thinking they can make their decisions.

It's all about the parents and what they want, and nothing to do with what is best for their kids. If they aren't going to act in their child's best interest than I thank God someone is. As for medical care, here once the child is 14 the parents have no right to anything. That is a good thing, when that pregnant 16 year old knows that her doctor can't and won't tell her parents anything without her permission she is far more likely to get care. When she doesn't have that surety, she is more likely to ignore her situation or deal with it in a potentially fatal manner.

One thing I learned in Ethics, our rights only extend so far as to not infringe on someone else's rights.

[edgirl]

We need parental rights in the constitution but ERA, well, that's just unnecessary. :angry-banghead:

[Patsy]

We need parental rights in the constitution

Why?

[xDreamerx]

Good lord, we can't let children and teens have rights. They might grow up thinking they can make their decisions.

It's all about the parents and what they want, and nothing to do with what is best for their kids. If they aren't going to act in their child's best interest than I thank God someone is. As for medical care, here once the child is 14 the parents have no right to anything. That is a good thing, when that pregnant 16 year old knows that her doctor can't and won't tell her parents anything without her permission she is far more likely to get care. When she doesn't have that surety, she is more likely to ignore her situation or deal with it in a potentially fatal manner.

One thing I learned in Ethics, our rights only extend so far as to not infringe on someone else's rights.

This. In Ontario (I'm not sure what the laws are in other provinces, but I imagine they are similar). Doctors only have a right to tell a minor's parents about his/her situation if he/she has threatened to do harm to his/herself or others. The same applies to psychology and other fields. I think this is how it should be. There were a number of things I would have lied to my doctor about to avoid getting into trouble.

These fundies and other similarly minded people seem to cling to the idea that their children should have no autonomy at all.

[edgirl]

Why?

Apparently they feel that there aren't ample protections for parents and that liberal judges and public institutions can just arbitrarily decide to take their rights away.

[Patsy]

Ohh, gotcha. Sorry, I was just skimming the topic and thought you were stating your own opinion, not pointing out the errors in theirs.

[debrand]

I've raised 2 sons to adulthood with another a few months shy of it and never have I had to deal with anything they talked about in the movie trailer. I still have young sons and everything that comes down the shoot I have to approve. Anything about sex, the human body, food and ect I have to sign forms after forms to allow my children to be taught this in school. If I take my almost 18 yr to the doctor, I have a right to his medical treatment and to know what is going on. The doctors I have met over the past 22 years have been very good about making everything clear in my children's health care and not once was I out of any loop. From the eye doctor, dentist to labs, I was told what, why, where, when and how every step of the way.

This movie is just fear mongering plain and simple.

One of my sons is 18 and has asthma. The doctor talked to me as well as my son. Chris had to sign a form allowing me access to his records if something should happen to him, but that wasn't a big deal. He is technically an adult.

[debrand]

http://www.lexingtoncares.org/LearnTheFacts.html

Here is another side to the David Parker story:

What happened?

On April 27, 2005, David Parker, then a father of a kindergarten student, met with school officials at Lexington's Joseph Estabrook Elementary School. He was demanding to be notified whenever classroom materials were used that depicted families headed by same-gender parents or if an adult participated in any discussion of such families so that he could remove his son from the class. He claimed he had the right to do this based on the state's sex education opt-out law. The school officials explained to Mr. Parker that the materials and situations in question were not covered by that law and that there was no practical way to implement his request in any case. When the meeting concluded, Mr. Parker refused to leave the school grounds unless his demands were met. Both the school officials and the police spent hours trying to convince him to leave. When the building finally had to be secured for the night, Mr. Parker stated, "If I'm not under arrest then I'm not leaving". He was then arrested for trespassing.

Mr. Parker has since waged an ongoing media campaign against Lexington with MassResistance, formerly known as the Article 8 Alliance, an anti-gay group committed to overturning same-gender marriage in Massachusetts. (MassResistance is now classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.) Mr. Parker and his supporters incorrectly claim that he was arrested for his views, not for trespassing. They blame the school officials and police for arresting him when in fact every attempt was made to get Mr. Parker to leave the building on his own. The police tried to do everything in their power to not arrest him. Mr. Parker gave them no choice.

David Parker's Anti-Gay Activism

Between June and November 2005, David Parker participated in multiple events in Maine, joining forces with those who wished to overturn a recently enacted law that provides protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

.

[longskirtlotsakids]

Wait, you mean it wasn't a case of a Kindergartner bringing home a textbook depicting graphic gay sex tips? That's not the way I heard it...

And pearl clutching, indeed! Did they have to have a middle aged woman clutching fearfully to her husband's elbow in EVERY scene?

My favorite line? THe evul librul judge nodding sageley and declaring "I think that ONCE A WEEK church attendance is sufficient..." Dun Dun DUNNNNNNNNNN.....

Remember, EVERY parenting decision will be up to the UN rights of the child roster. I think that it's the "Every child has the right to be free from physical and sexual abuse" clause that has the Xtians going. After all, if you don;t have the right to beat a child with plumbing line, goats will be marrying bears, the sky will rain blood, and baby jesus cries.

[BlackHawk]

This. In Ontario (I'm not sure what the laws are in other provinces, but I imagine they are similar). Doctors only have a right to tell a minor's parents about his/her situation if he/she has threatened to do harm to his/herself or others. The same applies to psychology and other fields. I think this is how it should be. There were a number of things I would have lied to my doctor about to avoid getting into trouble.

These fundies and other similarly minded people seem to cling to the idea that their children should have no autonomy at all.

I don't know... I would hope to get lab results from my minor child... I agree in terms of psychologists and such, and even doctors to that extent... but I don't know how I feel about my (hypothetical)13 yr old being allowed to keep their labs or common care questions from me. I don't know, this is disjointed, but so is my brain right now.

I think parents do have rights to oversee their children's medical care barring an injunction that claims them unfit to do so. I also think parents have a right to have a "my house my rule" attitude about things. The minor children are their responsibility to raise how they see fit, even if I don't agree with how you raise your children. As long as you are not abusing them, really I can't find fault.

That said, what utter crap that movie trailer is! Who is going to take their parents to court over going to church 3 times a week? And the blatant misrepresentation of the Lexington, MA guy's case! That is wrong. Way to fear monger.

[debrand]

I don't know... I would hope to get lab results from my minor child... I agree in terms of psychologists and such, and even doctors to that extent... but I don't know how I feel about my (hypothetical)13 yr old being allowed to keep their labs or common care questions from me. I don't know, this is disjointed, but so is my brain right now.

I think parents do have rights to oversee their children's medical care barring an injunction that claims them unfit to do so. I also think parents have a right to have a "my house my rule" attitude about things. The minor children are their responsibility to raise how they see fit, even if I don't agree with how you raise your children. As long as you are not abusing them, really I can't find fault.

That said, what utter crap that movie trailer is! Who is going to take their parents to court over going to church 3 times a week? And the blatant misrepresentation of the Lexington, MA guy's case! That is wrong. Way to fear monger.

The only reason that a doctor would keep such information from a parent is if the doc suspects the parent of abuse

[Austin]

I am very suspect of people who clutch their pearls over the issue of child rights. Why would anyone not want a child to have rights? I think much of the time, it is for the same reason that some don't want women to have rights.

Some people believe that there is a finite source of "rights" or determinism in the universe, and that if anybody else gets some, their rights will be diluted somehow. I think we see this with fundies and extremists all the time. It seems to be about power and control, and the utter terror they feel at the thought of losing it or not being the sole possesser of such rights..

[Rosa]

Canada has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the United States hasn't. I don't know if Canada changed its laws to comply with the Convention when they signed, or if the rights enumerated were already in Canadian law (they are pretty basic.)

The US didn't sign because we have the death penalty for minors in several states, and that's prohibited by the Convention.

Other rights:

* the right to a relationship with living parents, even noncustodial ones

* legal representation - custody & abuse issues must consider the child's interest, not just parents rights

* protection from abuse & exploitation, especially prostitution

* the right to privacy - including religious, sexual, and medical privacy.

It's that right to privacy, especially medical records, that so many American parents get hung up on.

[Witsec6]

Here is a link to a summary of the UN's Rights of the Child:

http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf

Highlights:

Article 3 (Best interests of the child): The best interests of children must be the primary concern in

making decisions that may affect them. All adults should do what is best for children. When adults make

decisions, they should think about how their decisions will affect children. This particularly applies to

budget, policy and law makers

Article 5 (Parental guidance): Governments should respect the rights and responsibilities of families to

direct and guide their children so that, as they grow, they learn to use their rights properly. Helping

children to understand their rights does not mean pushing them to make choices with consequences that

they are too young to handle. Article 5 encourages parents to deal with rights issues "in a manner

consistent with the evolving capacities of the child". The Convention does not take responsibility for

children away from their parents and give more authority to governments. It does place on governments

the responsibility to protect and assist families in fulfilling their essential role as nurturers of children.

Article 14 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion): Children have the right to think and believe

what they want and to practise their religion, as long as they are not stopping other people from enjoying

their rights. Parents should help guide their children in these matters. The Convention respects the rights

and duties of parents in providing religious and moral guidance to their children. Religious groups around

the world have expressed support for the Convention, which indicates that it in no way prevents parents

from bringing their children up within a religious tradition. At the same time, the Convention recognizes

that as children mature and are able to form their own views, some may question certain religious

practices or cultural traditions. The Convention supports children's right to examine their beliefs, but it

also states that their right to express their beliefs implies respect for the rights and freedoms of others.

Straight from the horse's mouth.

[bananacat]

Fundies won't be satisfied until they can have complete legal control over their children until they are married.

[BlackHawk]

The only reason that a doctor would keep such information from a parent is if the doc suspects the parent of abuse

I know that's how it is in the states, but if you read the above quotes, they state "here once the child is 14 the parents have no right to anything."... I dunno, I just don't think that's right. I don't think a 14 year old is capable to make medical decisions on their own, honestly. I think it is still the parents job to guide the child. The legal age limit (here in the states) is 18, and I think unless that changes, then parents have a right to be involved in their child's care.

[Rosa]

Sure, parents should be guiding kids. But wouldn't good, helpful parents be the kind a kid would tell? The kind of parents who kids don't feel like telling, don't have some magical right to everything about the kid - kids aren't chattel. That's the whole point of the Convention.

Think about this: a kid with severe depression, caused by parental abuse. If they tell the school psychologist about the abuse, what will happen? When I was a teenager, the psychologists CALLED THE PARENTS. Parents beat & threatened kids. Kids learned to keep their mouths shut. Nobody got help unless they ended up in the hospital first (and then half the time the "help" was one of those abusive "therapeutic homes".)

Or, kid has symptoms of an STD. Will they go get treated if they know parents are going to find out?

Or, kid is experiencing obsessive thoughts, or practicing self-harm through cutting, or not eating. Parents are some variety of anti-psychiatric care believers who, if they find out, will ship the kid off to one of those Baptist homes like Rolloffs, or a "cure your thetans" camp run by Scientologists.

[Austin]

I know that's how it is in the states, but if you read the above quotes, they state "here once the child is 14 the parents have no right to anything."... I dunno, I just don't think that's right. I don't think a 14 year old is capable to make medical decisions on their own, honestly. I think it is still the parents job to guide the child. The legal age limit (here in the states) is 18, and I think unless that changes, then parents have a right to be involved in their child's care.

In a perfect world, I would agree with you. But take the problem of teen pregnancy. The truth is that a lot of teens do not believe they can go to their parents with that info. As a mother, would I want to know? Yes, but if I haven't earned my child's trust with years of unconditional love, then I would only have myself to blame if the kid wouldn't come to me. Kids usually have damn good reasons for not wanting parents to know certain things.

If a girl is having sex, or believes that she will in the immediate future, she may not be able to ask her mother for birth control. Many mothers (and fathers) would lose their minds at the very thought and the shaming would be epic. But the teen knows what's really going on in her life, and she should be able to acquire that contraception without parental consent, in my view.

[Guest Anonymous]

Fundies won't be satisfied until they can have complete legal control over their children until they are married.

And even after.