Holding a child back from who they are just because you want them to be something different will also separate you two and can affect their future happiness greatly. In the end, new parents should try their best to not be too strict with their children and need to let their child express themselves. In conclusion, my parents were a mix of authoritative and permissive with me and my three older siblings. Their mixture of parenting styles had both positive and negative influences on my behavior as child. However, I hope I am the same way with my children as my parents were with me.
It is also important so that parents would be aware of how the way they treat their children or for them to be able to give importance to their children fairly to avoid inequality because it will affect the child’s personality (Sampson, 1993). When there is inequality or lack of parental investment, the children is more to be rebellious and adventurous for the pursuit of parental investment (Sulloway,
Some argue that the Foster Care system is ineffective and causes more harm than good. Children are traumatized from being moved home to home and never feel a sense of belonging. Being in the system can cause emotional, social, and life skill problems that can affect a child future. Many studies have shown that kids who are in Foster Care develop emotional, social and life skill problems that will affect them long-term, that will cause problems in their future as an adult. Some may often not be able to learn the basic life skills that will help them as a functional citizen in society.
The experience of abuse will not make a child stronger or more resistant to external social influences. On the contrary, it decreases the level of child’s self-esteem, his or her effectiveness in dealing with stress, and his or her cognitive capacity. Given the fact that child abuse cuts across national and ethnic borders, the problem is to be addressed more effectively in order to protect the lives and the well-being of millions of children. This can be achieved through the development of the system of reporting of child abuse and neglect, a more thorough supervision of families, especially those that are dysfunctional, and
One such objection is that in regards to the notion that preventing more handicapped people from being born is a good thing, this might further alienate and call less attention to the current handicapped population. However, this objection within itself is flawed because it is almost a call for more people to be born disabled solely for the reason of adding to the ranks of the current disabled population. This is indisputably an unethical way of thinking as it seeks to subject more people to suffering for the sole benefit of a small proportion of the population. Furthermore, people who object say that preventing the birth of these handicapped people insults the existence of the current population of handicapped people by disvaluing their lives by saying their parents, if given the choice, would have chosen them to be different. As concerning as this may be to a handicapped person it is difficult to argue that just because their parents hadn't had access to technology and they do that using it is ethically wrong.
For example, if a male does not have a father to discipline him, he may turn into a kid that fights at school, because he does not have that discipline that he would get from a father. However, just because they only have a mother does not mean they will end up violent. As long as their mother raises them correctly, they will be a well adjusted citizen. It is also stated that if a single mom has a child they may become poor. Robert Franklin, author of the article “Children Need Both Parents, Even after Divorce” , implies, “single mothers with children living with them are far more likely to live in poverty than is any other segment of society”.
Although Velleman’s approach is different from a contractualist approach and does not regard protecting the de dicto interests of future persons as the de dicto obligations of previous generations, he claims that every child has the de dicto right to be born into good enough circumstances and regards that protecting the child’s rights is a parental obligation. In other words, possible parents have an obligation to give their children the best opportunity for personhood to flourish. Therefore, the immediate conception is morally wrong because the 14-year-old girl cannot provide her child good enough circumstances yet. Velleman additionally mentions that even if a child was born as disabled or was born under miserable circumstances, the child will probably grow up to be glad that he was born in the de re sense; however, the child may also feel that he was not given due consideration at his conception in the de dicto sense. I believe that the de re/de dicto account and the pluralistic account dodge a dilemma of the rights-based accounts.
Like some commentators say that the increasing power prenatal intervention as a threat to the sacredness of human life. The things worry them are that parents will want superior children instead of healthier children and parent chose those traits which children consider undesirable. There is also a possibility that social pressure may force parent to choose a trait, which they don’t want in their baby especially woman. The desirability of traits and genes differ from one culture to other culture. One culture accepts that traits and the other culture neglected it, which is a biggest flaw.
As a parent their duty is to be a role model for the child show the child the correct and mental stability that it is in. Becoming a role model means helping and showing guidance and support towards the child. Coming into a new home the child might have trust issues, might be shy, a little rude, scared. Depending on what has happened to the child in the past everyone has a different background story but don’t pressure the child to open up he/she will adapt differently towards other. People can’t one day wake up and think “ I want to become a foster/adoptive parent today”.
However, it does leave room for two significant counter arguments, 1) that children are, by nature, actors which have their autonomy violated in some sense by the parents the nurturing process and gene selection is not a radical departure from the exercising of preference present in rearing, and 2) the perpetuation of sexism is not an issue because less of the disadvantaged group would give them more power in the society. Although these are strong objections to the claims made in the argument, an sufficient response can be made to each. To the first counter, although children are inevitably the subjects of the parent’s will, by allowing the parent to shape the child so radically so early in the relationship, the relationship between parent and child is ultimately different. The influence and goals of the parent become the foundation of the “family,” and individual desire will be undermined. To the second argument, a historical response could be offered.
This essay aims to bring light to the very real issue of parents practicing modern day eugenics on their children. Genetically selecting for disabled children is the goal of the “Deaf of Deaf” movement. Although parent autonomy over their own child is a given, the utmost importance needs to be placed on the child’s right to an open future. Deaf people do not view their lack of hearing as a disability and flourish within their cohesive community. However, deliberately forcing this lifestyle on a child violates their right to make their own decisions about their life.