X2,
I've noticed that you are a Randian and, as such, would think you realize that this is not nearly as clearcut an issue as you seem to make it.
A parent has a right to raise his child as he sees fit without interference by the government. The Supreme COurt heard a case in Jan. of this year re: parents having the right to decide which friends or extended family their children will spend time with(Troxel v. Granville). INterestingly the argument for parental rights is made by Thomas A. Bowden, a Baltimore-based lawyer and a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, who argues that: "The case's larger issue is whether or not the Supreme Court will reaffirm that the principle of individual rights includes the right to raise one's own children,"
Now we are faced with an even larger issue of a father who wishes to raise his child in a country where the government will dictate the way in which he raises his child. COmplicationg this, the father has been given the choice to stay here or to return to Cuba and he has chosen to return to Cuba with his son.
We may not agree, but is the decision ours? Or the father's?
According to the reasoning of Thomas Bowden, the Supreme Court should not override parental decisions. Can we then, because we don't like Juan Gonzales' decision, because we don't trust it, because we believe (probably rightly) that he will not ultimately be raising his son, can we then decide- whooops-- no- YOUR right as a parent doesn't count because you live in Cuba?
I don't find this a simple question. And I certainly find the rhetoric here reaching such extremes that there can never be solutions.
As a parent, I am very sensitive to any interference in my decisions re: my children. And for that reason I am hesitant to override too quickly Juan's rights as father, whether I think he is wrong or right. |
