Every Child’s Right

I found this statement on the internet some time ago, and it stuck with me. “Every child has a right to be born into the loving arms of his or her mother and father.” I love the ideal that this statement embraces. I’ve wanted to find out more about what the author meant by the phrase. Alas, I haven’t been able to find it since; it seems to have vanished.

I say this to explain that what follows is my understanding of what it means...which may be different than what the original author had in mind.

The phrase begins with two simple words: “Every child.” To me, this is inclusive...regardless of the child’s race or nationality, conceived intentionally or unintentionally, in riches or poverty, conceived in rape or in a loving embrace, in marriage or out of marriage, with health issues or without, whatever. Every child means every child.

The next few words change our culture’s perspective: “...has a right.” By claiming a right, a person declares their existence in modern times - an existence that might be perceived as infringed upon. By establishing that every child has a right, we shift the paradigm of some in today’s society from stopping to think about the rights of the “self” and shift attention onto the child. Because every child has a right.

Here I must acknowledge that not all rights are absolute. Often, one individual’s rights must be balanced against another’s. For example, a right to practice one’s faith is balanced by another’s right to equal accommodations. Courts have ways to discern whose rights are more important when those rights conflict. They may do so imperfectly at times, but that’s not my point here. Before the courts can assess which rights are most important when a conflict is claimed, first a claim must be made that a right exists. Which this statement did in the first five words: Every child has a right.

The next portion may cause many to disagree with the phrase, if they understand it the way I do: ...to be born. If every child has a right to be born, then the child exists, as a child, before birth. I know a new life begins when the sperm meets the egg and forms a new genetic sequence that has never before existed. While scientifically it may described by the phase of growth it’s in (zygote, embryo, fetus), I prefer the generic “child” because “child” means “offspring.”

If every child has a right to be born, then abortion is always an infringement on that right. The right to be born is a right to be kept safely in the only location that can sustain that life - a mother’s womb. The right to be born implies the right to exist before being born, and existing requires the womb.

What if the mother’s life is threatened by the pregnancy? That is about the only infringement on the child’s right to exist in the womb that I can see. Even then, abortion should be limited to removing the child whole and treated with care to the best of our ability to allow the child a chance to live. Because every child has a right to be born.

Where will that child be born? ...into the loving arms...it’s important that the child is born into loving arms. Not abusive arms. Not indifferent arms. God the Father loved Adam and Eve just as we must love our children. The loving arms should love each other and each love the child.

But, whose loving arms should the child be born into? ...the loving arms of his or her mother and father. A child deserves to know his or her lineage...if only practically, for a health history. This phrase deserves more...perhaps that’s another post.

It’s also important to note the conjunction: and. A child needs both a mother and a father like a bicycle needs two wheels. One may provide direction, the other power. They may switch roles, too, as the child grows; what matters is they work together. One tire doesn’t jump off the bicycle and leave the child on a unicycle. One tire doesn’t routinely beat the other tire up, or fight with the other tire about the proper path to ride on. They work together to provide balance and stability.

So, that’s what the phrase means to me...Every child has a right to be born into the loving arms of his or her mother and father.

I realize we don’t live in an ideal society where this can always exist. We have casual sex; we have rape. We have sex outside of marriage; we have divorce. We have ectopic pregnancies and situations where there is no medical way to save the mother and child. We have neglect and abuse. We have IVF, surrogate mothers, frozen embryos and all sorts of non-ideal situations.

We also have ways to recover from the losses our less-than-ideal society leaves us with: pregnancy resource centers to help pregnant women choose life. Medical care to help neonatal births. Foster care and adoption help those who cannot provide the loving environment. Marriage and Parenting classes provide tools for parents learning how to provide those loving arms to each other and to their child. These are not bad things...but I want to acknowledge that they are less than the ideal. And God wants us, I think, to live up to this ideal.

The first step to doing so, I think, is to acknowledge the right. Which is part of the reason this phrase stuck with me...and I hope it sticks with you, too.