Monday, October 29, 2012

Children's rights amendment is radically anti family

The proposed amendment is radically anti-family, indeed, in two ways it changes the very NATURE of the family.

1. The proposed amendment makes the State the defender of the rights of all children and teenagers, even against their parents. And the radical rights in question here are basically set out in the UN Convention.
This changes the very nature of the family unit from parents and children to teenagers backed by the State against parents. This makes the State a part of the family unit, and the family becomes, in principle, not a place of unity but a locus for conflict.

2. Section 3 of the proposed amendment will provide for “the voluntary placement for adoption of any child”.

In other words, the State will no longer officially expect parents to bear responsibility for the care of their children, will no longer see it as part of the natural duty of parents to do so. Rather it turns parenting into an optional choice.
This means that even for those parents who do opt to care for their children, actual parenting will be seen by the State as a lifestyle choice.
In this way, the State is undermining or changing the very nature of the family as referred to in other articles of the Constitution. This utterly devalues those articles.

Moreover, does a child not have a natural and imprescriptible right to be brought up by his/her own parents? What will happen to this right?