Strictly conservative?

[thinkerOFthoughts]

children are the property of their parents

Ok I was reading a thread here and someone mentioned this as if it was a super conservative terrible thing:confused: how is it? the parents provide for the children.. the parents take care of their children in a way they are the parents property but only for a small while (even conservatives recognize that they dont remain "theirs" forever) why such a bad thing?

[Plagueround]

Because none of that should translate to property or ownership. The implication that a child is anyone's "property" degrades them to a slave or object that the parent can treat any way they want. A better way to look at it would be viewing a parent as a guardian, or better yet (and I've said this a lot on this forum), a teacher and guide. Giving a parent exclusive property rights to child is saying that we should not act if the parent behaves in a manner that is not acceptable.

[butterfly]

Property implies that a parent has the right to treat a child in any way she/he pleases.
That childeren don't have the right to independent thought until they move out of home.
Does that sound right to you?

[Catbus]

A better way to look at it would be viewing a parent as a guardian, or better yet (and I've said this a lot on this forum), a teacher and guide.


Yes. A lot of people also think that the teaching of children shouldn't solely be the parents job, more of a community enrichment process.

As to your question, when children are forced to obey every command of their parents it can be really traumatising and cause later problems in life. I also think parents should be guides for their kids, they should help teach them how to function in society, not force their morals on them and cause them to live very rigid lives.

[apathy maybe]

their is no possible way I can get any Communist type stuff into my right wing christian home! lol
If you are the property of your parents, then you are a slave. You have to do what they say, and receive abuse (physical, mental etc.) without complaint (or recourse to the outside).

It is not OK for a person to abuse a child, whether it is their own child or not. Children are independent beings, with rights of their own.

[rednordman]

I believe that Marx and Engles mention this in the Communist manifesto. They basically stated that the current relations (1848?) are a bourgois one and believed that they should be broken down to be accept as respectable individuals and not as almost property of the male whom is head of the family. Of coarse they will need education, guidance and protection, but i guess simply have more rights. I must state that times have changed as parents did do some pretty mess up things with the children in those times (child labour, taking all of their earnings til they moved out from home, hitting them for things that we would take no notice of nowadays, etc). The world has changed in a positive way but its a big shame that most of those things are going on somewhere around the world, even today.

[FlamingChainsaws]

Speaking of matters relating to child abuse and such, I think some of you guys would get a kick out of this video of me on CNN, and I think it's pretty relevant to this topic. (I'm pretty sure CNN got my age wrong...I'm a freshman in high school but they refer to 6th grade as two years ago)

newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/08/20/cnn-segment-paddling-features-student-wearing-communist-insignia

P.S. the comments after the article are hilarious. "KILL THAT COMMIE! ALL HAIL LIMBAUGH!"

[Agrippa]

Viewing any human life as "property" is crass, however, I do agree, children, especially young children, for the most part, are physically dependent on those who raise them for survival, obviously.

This doesn't justify child abuse, however. But it's not child abuse, for example, to forbid a child from eating 13 pieces of chocolate cake in a row. (However, I'd let my child do it so they could become nauseous and learn their lesson)