Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children's Rights Movement

[Irenaeus]

I've not yet read Them Before Us: Why We Need a Global Children's Rights Movement, but it is on my Amazon wish list, and I plan to read it. I've got a few other books to get through first. Robert George wrote the foreword. You can get the gist of it from this interview with Katy Faust, one of the authors, just posted on YouTube: Them Before Us | The Dire Need for Children's Rights with Katy Faust.

[Doom]

I have to say, I don't agree with the concept, to speak of "rights" assumes a degree of personal autonomy which children do not and cannot have. Children have the same right to life, the same right to be free of abuse and neglect that are held by every human being. But to speak of special rights that applies specifically to children suggests something that doesn't apply. Parents have rights, and children are subject to their parents, and the parents have the rights not to have their children taken away except if it can be proven that they are harming the child, and only then after due process.

[Stella]

I have to say, I don't agree with the concept, to speak of "rights" assumes a degree of personal autonomy which children do not and cannot have. Children have the same right to life, the same right to be free of abuse and neglect that are held by every human being. But to speak of special rights that applies specifically to children suggests something that doesn't apply. Parents have rights, and children are subject to their parents, and the parents have the rights not to have their children taken away except if it can be proven that they are harming the child, and only then after due process.

In the video interview Katy Faust defines the right of a child to know and be loved by a mother and a father rather than be compelled to accept having 2 mothers (as Faust herself grew up with) or 2 fathers based on the right of parents to decide their rights come first.

To me it sounds like a timely discussion.

[Doom]

It is still not a “right”

[Vern Humphrey]

Who decides what these rights are? The right to choose your "gender " in grade school and to have "gender-affirming surgery before puberty?

Basically, this idea makes the government the parent -- and government is a notoriously bad parent.

[Stella]

Who decides what these rights are? The right to choose your "gender " in grade school and to have "gender-affirming surgery before puberty?

Basically, this idea makes the government the parent -- and government is a notoriously bad parent.

I'm getting mixed messages from some Catholics. We want the government to legislate the rights of the unborn. Why not the rights of born children?

[Vern Humphrey]

Who decides what these rights are? The right to choose your "gender " in grade school and to have "gender-affirming surgery before puberty?

Basically, this idea makes the government the parent -- and government is a notoriously bad parent.

I'm getting mixed messages from some Catholics. We want the government to legislate the rights of the unborn. Why not the rights of born children?

We do regulate the rights of born children -- for example, they have an absolute right to life, which the unborn do not have.

[Stella]

Who decides what these rights are? The right to choose your "gender " in grade school and to have "gender-affirming surgery before puberty?

Basically, this idea makes the government the parent -- and government is a notoriously bad parent.

I'm getting mixed messages from some Catholics. We want the government to legislate the rights of the unborn. Why not the rights of born children?

We do regulate the rights of born children -- for example, they have an absolute right to life, which the unborn do not have.

Listen to Katy Fausts reasoning in the video. Do you agree with her?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExHMQ0a358c

[Irenaeus]

It already has become difficult to identify who is a parent and just what type of parent: biological parent, surrogate or carrier mother, donor parent, adoptive parent. That taxonomy could be subdivided. Further, how good will parents protect the rights of their children when these parents agree to "discard" - that is, have killed - or designate for cryogenic storage surplus or unselected embryos? And what about the fertility industry which routinely treats the living unborn more like frozen peas than human beings?

It is not too early to wonder about, for example, artificial wombs - which could be good or bad for the living unborn - and what conceiving and gestating children in microgravity might lead to. Mouse embryos have already been carried aboard the International Space Station to examine the effects not of their conception but of their development in microgravity.

[Irenaeus]

Already somebody is planning to experiment on human embryos in space, binging them to Earth either to be killed or implanted in women:

From Spaceborn United:

We have developed a prototype ‘space-embryo-incubator’ which is sent into space and contains male and female reproduction cells. The first validation missions contains mouse cells. In subsequent missions we plan to use human stem cell embryos and eventually human reproduction cells. Once in space (low Earth orbit) the embryos are conceived and start developing in an artificial Earth like gravity level. After 5-6 days the embryos are cryogenically frozen and the incubator returns to Earth where the embryos are examined. If embryos are approved to place back in the natural womb(s) the pregnancy period and birth will occur on Earth.

[gherkin]

The incoherence of the progressive baby haters on display. In other contexts, they have redefined 'conception' as 'implantation', so they should say that there can't be conception without a uterus.