"so, if you compare animals to children, most humans will feel more like they deserve respect"
That's not necessarily the case. Most people, while finding children "adorable", also unconsciously think of them as incomplete individuals because they're that, children, not adult. It's just the way society are; considering children as actual human beings is still extremely new actually, Children's Rights are pretty recent in the course of history.
Still nowadays, children are thought of as dependable, self-centered, not having a clue about the bigger picture, and so many other traits that enable paternalist and condescending attitudes toward them which justify the way children are currently treated in society. It's not called a "minor" status for no reasons, and it's not accidental either that women have fought against this "minor" status themselves in "women's rights" in the past (such as the right to decide for themselves of their future, instead of being dependable from either a father or a husband); prior to that, women were thought as being "eternal minors", that is, children forever. Which comes will less rights, as well as a deshumanized status. And of course women are more easily abused in society as well because of that, in comparison with men.
(Additionally you're also taking for granted that people will feel empathy towards children, which isn't the case for a lot of people (I'm not generalizing about child-free individuals either, because they're not necessarily like that, but a part of this population do not find children "special", "precious" and so on, even though they do deserve respect).
These are the reasons I find using the "animals = children" argumentation tricky; IMHO it comes with too many downsides so it ends up counter-productive to use.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2011-09-25 11:51 pm (UTC)That's not necessarily the case. Most people, while finding children "adorable", also unconsciously think of them as incomplete individuals because they're that, children, not adult. It's just the way society are; considering children as actual human beings is still extremely new actually, Children's Rights are pretty recent in the course of history.
Still nowadays, children are thought of as dependable, self-centered, not having a clue about the bigger picture, and so many other traits that enable paternalist and condescending attitudes toward them which justify the way children are currently treated in society. It's not called a "minor" status for no reasons, and it's not accidental either that women have fought against this "minor" status themselves in "women's rights" in the past (such as the right to decide for themselves of their future, instead of being dependable from either a father or a husband); prior to that, women were thought as being "eternal minors", that is, children forever. Which comes will less rights, as well as a deshumanized status. And of course women are more easily abused in society as well because of that, in comparison with men.
(Additionally you're also taking for granted that people will feel empathy towards children, which isn't the case for a lot of people (I'm not generalizing about child-free individuals either, because they're not necessarily like that, but a part of this population do not find children "special", "precious" and so on, even though they do deserve respect).
These are the reasons I find using the "animals = children" argumentation tricky; IMHO it comes with too many downsides so it ends up counter-productive to use.