Michael you do not seem to understand that rights do not exist in a vacuum. With a "right" comes a "duty." Parental rights come with a duty to provide care. What level of care? Well, I would argue one must not endanger the child. Here I mean generally agreed to levels of apropriate care. One must not starve one's children to the point at which they become malnourished. One may not physically assault their child to the point that child requires medical attention. One may not use drugs and alcohol to the point that one endangers the safety of one's child, routinely. Children are much more likely to be killed by their parents than by the serial killers that are the boogie men of so many horror movies. Children are most likely to be sexually molested by their father or live in boyfriends of the mother.
Children, unlike property, HAVE RIGHTS TOO. Therefore the problem of parental rights is more difficult to determine than property rights. If you choose to shoot your car with a gun, burn down your place of business, or hack your home apart with a hatchet, you have committed some crimes, but unless the fire gets out of control, no one else was injured (well, your mortgage lender may have a problem with you). But if you do these things to your child, you have violated the rights of another human. They may be little humans, but they have (IMO) the same basic rights (to life, for instance) and frequently need to be protected from their parents. You may not like the idea of parents who are a danger to their kids, but there are lots of them out there. |
