Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

suspended in her jar

Home
Catholic
Whatever Happened to Parental Rights? Alfie Evans and Immigrant Children

Whatever Happened to Parental Rights? Alfie Evans and Immigrant Children

Last updated on: June 24, 2018 at 11:37 pm by Rebecca Bratten Weiss

Whatever Happened to Parental Rights? Alfie Evans and Immigrant Children 2018-06-24T23:37:17-04:00 Rebecca Bratten Weiss

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Was it just last month that vocal pro-lifers were denouncing the British courts for their violation of parental rights in the case of little Alfie Evans? Was it so recently that I was being harassed with demands that I make a statement on the issue?

Perhaps it seems longer ago because so many who were up in arms about parental rights have suddenly done an about-face and are now asserting that the state has a right to do anything it deems necessary to protect its borders. We are hearing arguments that those who are “illegal” (an unfortunate and dehumanizing term to slap on any person) have no rights – or, at least, not the same ones as we “legal” citizens have. The popular idea that rights are given by God appears to have vanished, too.

When the debate over Alfie Evans was at its hottest, I made a statement with great reluctance. I was reluctant, partially, because I don’t believe we should even appear to capitulate to the demands of those whose requests for “clarification” are not in good faith. But I was also reluctant because it was a complex situation and one on which, as a person with no medical training, on the other side of the ocean, I was not qualified to speak.

I wrote then:

We believe that all available services must always be offered to protect the life and health of any human, however small or poor or vulnerable. But we also recognize that at some point, the only services that can really help are palliative. If I were a physician attending to little Alfie Evans, I might be able to pronounce on which of these cases this is. But I’m not, so I won’t.

There is also the issue of parental rights. Again, this could go two ways. Parents have a right to decide what is best for their children, but this right is limited by the right of the child to be protected from dangerous decisions. It is possible that the physicians are wrong in saying that it would be traumatic and painful for the baby to be flown to Italy. It is also possible that they are right, and speaking in the child’s best interest.

How is this situation, with refugee and asylum-seeking families being torn apart at our borders, different from the case of Alfie Evans?

In the case of Alfie, the court ruled on the basis of a concern for what was best for the child. Agree of disagree with their conclusion, but the determination that the child could not be flown out of the country was made because it was not believed to be in his best interest to be moved, in his delicate condition. But in our case, the decision is being made not only without regard for the well-being of the children, but as a deliberate act of terrorism and punishment.
In the case of Alfie, there was room for disagreement among responsible and humane persons. The argument was partially technical: is it likely that moving this child to a different hospital would help him? Or harm him? And it was partially ethical: how far do parental rights extend? My response to the second question is that parental rights are limited. If parents are harming children, they waive their right to make decisions for them. However, in cases where other parties are harming their children, parents have not only a right but a moral obligation to prevent this. And that is exactly what these asylum-seekers are doing.

With these factors in place, why is it that an ideological faction that claims to be defending life and family, and is usually anti-government and libertarian – don’t tread on me! – has swung about in the direction of defending totalitarianism against the right to life and the sanctity of family?

3. Well, I think the third major difference explains it. They aren’t “one of us.” They look different. They speak differently – at least, from the perspective of white American citizens. Alfie Evans was a white British child, with white English-speaking parents, so their image fit with the glossy, energetically marketed image of FAMILY that pro-life advocates are used to defending.

And in some cases, these advocates have been defending white English-speaking families specifically and overtly because of fear of demographic replacement. This is white ethno-nationalism under the guise of traditional morality. And, unfortunately, it has made itself pretty comfortable in the pro-life movement. Consider, for instance, that the fascist cult “Tradition, Family, Property” is welcome in the March for Life every year. Consider the recent case of the former pro-lifer turned open Alt Right racist.

I know that some who spoke out for Alfie Evans did so out of genuine concern for life and for the rights of the parents. Charlie Camosy, for instance, vocal in the Alfie Evans case, and has remained ethically and ideologically consistent in his stance in defense of immigrant children.

But in many cases, it is now clear that “right to life” and “sanctity of family” have really just been code for “right to white life” and “sanctity of white families” all along.

The Christian ethos has always emphasized the theology of Christ among us in the poor, the vulnerable, the exile. For those who find it a challenge to see “us” in “them,” I would suggest this is an important moment in our collective vocation, when we are all called to step beyond the limited ways in which we define who our neighbor is – to break down the barriers we place between ourselves and the “Other” in whom Christ comes.

image credit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Immigrant_Family_Toronto_(1).jpg

culture

ethics

family

New Pro Life Movement

Previous Post

June 22, 2018

What Does the Gospel Teach Us About Property and Illegal Immigration?

Next Post

June 29, 2018 So You Didn't Like Political Correctness (Or: What Would Nietzsche Say?)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abortion anti-semitism art Atwood Betrothed church clergy abuse coronavirus culture economics education environmentalism ethics faith family feminism gardening gun violence immigration Judaism literature MaddAddam New Pro Life Movement news pandemic personalism poem politics politics blue Pope Francis racism religion salvation sexuality social justice spirituality Station eleven Stephen King The Stand Trump Uncategorized war World Health Organization

Select a Month March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I married an unfaithful wife to illustrate God's relationship with Israel. What was my wife's name?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Delilah Jezebel Gomer Bathsheba

Support this
Column