Real Freedom

Different people have different ideas about how much freedom is desirable, and when in the lifespan freedom should begin. Traditionally, children were considered the property of parents, so parents had the right of life or death over their offspring, and still do at least concerning the fetus. Parents certainly produce their offspring, but unlike other products, a child is a human being who is formed of unique DNA and life experiences that may be significantly different from either parent.

Traditionally, some people believe that children should be “free” to think, speak and do only what parents want them to. At least until age 18, and in some traditional cultures that boast “close families,” real freedom is not granted until 21, or even 30. Such magic numbers are a compromise between the interests of the parents and the interests of the child, as well as an administrative convenience for government bureaucrats. If you want to know whether or not a person should be allowed to be free, just count her birthdays. Some parents have even gone so far as to terrorize children to force obedience, or utilize the courts to control “wayward” daughters (1).

Some parents try to indoctrinate a child or instill habits so he will continue making choices the parents want reflexively even after he grows up. A more child-centered view is that children are born free, limited only by their capacity for informed choice. A moral parent is one who cultivates a child's capacity for critical thinking and informed independent choice, rather than cultivating the child's dependency or the habit of making parent-centered choices. In other words, an immoral parent is one who limits a child's access to accurate information and formative experience, as well as providing distorted information and indoctrination exercises to manipulate the child's ability to think independently and make free choices.

Some communities may require that parents indoctrinate their children in a certain way, as a condition of being members of that community, in the belief that such indoctrination is necessary for the cohesion and peace of the community. Other communities (some religions come to mind) go even further in requiring that every community in a nation (or the whole world) must indoctrinate kids in a certain way. But since kids are not allowed to vote on such a policy, the practice is clearly adult-centered.

In the past most people assumed that parents have the child's best interests at heart, but recent revelations of widespread parental neglect and abuse (physical, sexual and emotional) have damaged that myth beyond repair (2). Unlike other species of primates, humans are the only mothers who will kill their own healthy offspring (3). Some people still assume that governments have children's best interests at heart, but that belief is crumbling as well - not fast enough in my opinion.

Freedom involves practical as well as moral considerations, and people may reasonably disagree on both counts. An example is infant male circumcision, a painful and harmful practice of primitive origin. Babies have no choice in the matter, even though there is no verifiable urgency in performing the gruesome “operation” before boys are old enough to make their own informed choices.

References

1. Odem, Mary E. Delinquent Daughters. University of North Carolina, 1995.
2. Ogilvie, Beverly A. Mother-Daughter Incest. Haworth, 2004.
3. Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. Mother Nature. Random House, 1999.