Debate Topic number 5 - UN convention on the right's of children

[FromTheSouth]

The new US administration is suddenly in favor of the UN convention on children's rights. The problem here is that it removes the rights of parents.

Two cases in Washington used this charter as precendent, although it is not US Law. One of them threatened to take a child away from his parents because they took him to church too much. While there are people here who would think this is right, they are wrong. I don't care what you think of church, when it comes to a child's attendance, it is the parent's decision, not the child's or the court's.

The second case removed a child from the care of her parents because she was grounded, at the age of 13, for smoking pot and having sex with a 16 year old boyfriend. This is absolutely ludicrous.

Michael Farris enumerates the rights and adds some commentary to these restrictions.

Ten things you need to know about the structure of the CRC.


1. It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law. It is no mere statement of altruism.
2. Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.

There is a provision of the Constitution that allows for any UN treaty that is ratified by this nation to supersede US Law. The UN is the most worthless body in the world. They hide from acting on real atrocities, and try to bad grounding children.

3. Children of other nations would not be impacted in any direct way by our ratification.
4. The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of our Supremacy Clause.
5. The CRC has some elements that are self-executing, while others would require implementing legislation. Federal courts would have the power to determine which provisions were self-executing.
6. The Courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.

Those self executing provisions include bans on spanking. WHile spanking may not be everyone's idea of family time, it is certainly an acceptable option for the parent of out of control children. How many times have you been around a screaming child in a restaurant and wished the parents would handle it?

7. Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty. This would constitute the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.

This is yet another example of the Obama administrations attempt at taking tyrannical control of every aspect of American lives. This treaty was formed in 1995, and not even a President as liberal as Bill Clinton considered ratifying it. This is something else that makes me with that if we were going to elect a democrat, it would have been Hillary. with bill's guidance, she would have been fine, and at the very least, better than Barry Hussein Obama.

8. A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures. This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.
9. Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.
10. Reservations, declarations, or understandings intended to modify our duty to comply with this treaty will be void if they are determined to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.

There is no way that the UN should have any say over US Law. This body constantly condemns actions all over the world without acting. Telling Sudan that Darfur is bad, but doing something, according to the UN, would be worse. This body has done nothing to stop genocide around the world, when that is basically what is was started to do.


Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC.

1. Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

Disgusting. Kids today have no discipline as it is. The little shits run all over authority figures. These authoritity figures have been handcuffed by the liberal courts for years, and now the kids are smart enough to figure out that anything short of firing a bazooka at a cop, they can do whatever the fuck they want with little to no consequence.

2. A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

Once again, the UN is trying to baby kids. When I was 16 I was encouraged (read: ordered) to get as job and become a productive, tax paying member of society. I had responsibilities. I was being taught to be an adult. I had to do adult like things, and most importantly, I was taught right and wrong. Using myself as an average member of society, I know that if I kill someone, I am going to get in trouble. Now, under the UN's charter, right and wrong don't matter nearly as much as a matter of hours. If a 16 year old kills ten people, he will be allowed out of jail after two years. Any disgruntled emo can do whatever they want and get away with it.

3. Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

This one sounds OK on first glance, but it is another stupid ploy. Even if you think the Jesus story is a myth, is there anything he teaches that kids shouldn't have to learn? Loving your neighbor is now ipen for household debate? Turning the other cheek is a bad idea? Instilling certain values like honesty, loyalty, and tolerance are now bad ideas if some smart ass ten year old decides he wants to sleep in on Sunday?

4. The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.

Fuck the government's intrusiveness. This is what makes Obama the worst President ever. He wants to run every aspect of everyone's life. As soon as he controls their money, he plans on moving on to their kids. I don't understand how any government worker has enough information on a family situation to raise anyone's child. Short of abuse, molestation, and incest, what does it matter to the government? If someone wants to home school their child with good Christian values, and the God-hating left decides that is bad, the child can be removed from the parents? Bollocks!

5. A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

Family discipline is not a democracy, and it shouldn't be. Being able to go to court to over a grounding is terrible. Can you imagine the case of Johnny Spencer vs. Mark Spencer. In this trial we will debate who's idea of the design for a Pinewood Derby car is better. Please rise for the Honorable Chuck E. Cheese. The courts are backlogged enough without a trial over the proper amount of face paint for the summer carnival.

6. According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.

This is fine. Just remember, defending the nation is in the best interest of the child. Moot point.

7. Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

Bullshit. Kids wre put on Earth to mow lawns and pull weeds. Why exactly should parents allow kids to sit inside and play video games while they do all the backbreaking labor? This is stupid.

8. Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.

Once again, what business is this of the government. I feel like if a child gets 13 years of Christian education, they will have enough information on whether or not to believe the Jesus story, and can make this decision on their own. It's not like there's no Jews on TV. And the way TV has to treat Islam with kid gloves, it's not like they won't have a favorable view of Muslims.

9. Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
10. Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

I have every right to know if my 14 year old is sexually active, seeking abortions, and whatnot. First of all, if she keeps the baby, it becomes my financial responsibility. Secondly, the only reason Hussein Obama wants to raise kids is so they continue to vote Democratic to ensure that is twisted view of socialism and his goal of tyrannical control comes to fruition.

This UN charter is the worst idea in the history of the world. I think kids should be protected from abuse, from capital punishment, and from molestation. I do not think kids need to be protected from loving parents and God. This new administration is so focused on removing all freedoms from people, that they might consider ratifying this treaty. Please join me on contacting your senator and congressman to begin impeachment hearings on Fuhrer Obama.

Also, contact your state and local government. This charter aims at removing states rights, and is a step in the complete and total centralization of laws, which is a direct violation of the separation of powers doctrine in the constitution.

 

[Azrael Cain]

Excuse my bluntness but I only have one question, consiting of two parts: (i) get the fuck out of here; what is this shit, and (ii) is this even remotely for real?

Children have zero rights -- at least the rights that are understood to be had in the context of this aforementioned constitution (I guess we can call them legal rights, right?) -- until they reach the age of adulthood (whatever age that is wherever one resides). To claim that they do, or to grant them said rights prior to the time they reach the age when they can maturely handle them, is irresponsible, dangerous and ludicrous.

I wish I could come up with a well thought out and written out post, but the absurdity of this renders me speechless; there's no fucking way this can be for real.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Look it up. It is law in something like 135 countries around the world.

I am under the impression that you have no rights unless you pay taxes. That is why I am against the aforementioned abomination, PETA, Greenpeace, etc.

 

[HBK-aholic]

1. Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

Good. There is absolutely no need for you to hit a child, and I can't understand where the concept comes from that it could ever be a good thing. To me it just shows bad parenting and a lack of you being able to control your child in anyother way, therefore resorting to violence. There's a lesson to teach your kids folks.

2. A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

This is pointless - it means I could go out and kill someone now and not get life, but if I did it in 6 months I'd have life in prison. Is this trying to tell me someone older than me doesn't know that murder is wrong?

3. Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

It's true. You can grow up going to Church etc. if that's what happens with your family. But when your child thinks themselves mature enough to decide which path they want to follow you should have no say in that.

5. A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

Lmao, well, it'll stop the unemployment.

8. Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.

Well my first point would be if it bothers you that much don't send your child to a Christian school.

9. Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

And when that child gets pregnant who will be the first people to be blamed? The school.

10. Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

Good. If I went for an abortion it'd have nothing to do with my mother.

 

[klunderbunker]

1. Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

No. While there's no reason to beat a kid half to death, if they simply refuse to listen, spanking is a good thing. I've long since thought it was bullshit that all of a sudden spanking is a bad thing. It's worked for 5000 years, but all of a sudden it is bad? No. As a last resort, it works every time.

2. A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

Bullshit. This is something that ticks me off in everyday life. Two and a half months ago I turned 21, the legal drinking age in America. Suppose on February 2 (my birthday is the third) at 11:59 PM I went to a store to buy a beer. It's illegal then, but sixty seconds later it's legal? That's completely absurd, as are most age restriction laws. It shoulnd't be about age, it should be about mindset. I know people 14 that can play poker for 2 hours on 20 dollars, lose it, and not blink an eye about it while having a great time. Then there are 35 year olds that shouldn't be allowed near gambling because tehy can't handle it. Again, bullshit.

3. Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

I think this is fair to an extent, but it again depends on age. When someone is 13-14 years old, they know what they believe about religion. However, it's not going to kill you to go to church for a few hours on Sunday morning. Sure you should have a right to choose, but how many 12 year olds are going to use this as an excuse to sleep in?

4. The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.

No, no, no, no, no way. The decisions that parents make for their children are their own business. There are absolutely no set rules for parenting and if you think there are then you're a fool. You take things on a day by day basis. It's a lot of trial and error, and I've rarely seen a set of parents that are fair yet firm not achieve great results. Each kid is different, so how can you make rules on how to raise them?

5. A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

Again, more bullshit. So, a kid can ask for a review on not getting to watch ten more minutes of Spongebob? Am I reading this right? No. This comes back to the main point of this whole thing: the parents are smarter than the kids. Plain and simple, most kids can't take care of themselves, and their parents know much more than they do. They're kids. Their parents feed, clothe, and pay for their existence. Without them,, the kids would be in big trouble, so no they don't get to appeal every decison.

6. According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.

Fine idea but not practica. Would this mean that in the middle of a war, we might have to stop to make sure that the budget doesn't go overboard?

7. Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

Are you fucking kidding me? Kids have too much leisure. Why in the hell do you think American kids are all fat? They do nothing but sit around all the time. Go mow the fucking lawn you fat ass kid. We work and pay the bills. If someone deserves leisure IT'S US!

8. Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.

if they're a Christian school, why would they teach other views? Isn't the point of going there to only hear about such views? If you want other views, go to that wonderful thing called public school.

9. Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

No. Sex is everywhere and like it or not, your kids are going to hear about it. My family's talk about sex with me has lasted about an hour in 21 years. I've learned more on here than anywhere else except maybe high school. You can't shelter your kids forever, so why not let them learn at least the basics from people that have received proper training in the subject?

10. Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

Information is ok. Other than that, I'm thinking no. If my daughter is under 18 and living in my house, like hell she's having a medical procedure without me knowing about it. That is my flesh and blood and my responsibility. I'm against abortion to begin with, and if one of my children is about to give me a grandchild, there's no way the grandchild is being killed before it's born. They can stay with me. I'd be more than happy to raise it.

Overall, this scares the hell out of me. The problem in society today is that kids don't get enough real parenting. My parents are divorced and while my father is an asshole, I can't claim for a second that he's ever left me on my own. Every time I've needed something he's been right there with open arms. My mother just the same. No matter what's wrong, I could always go to my parents for help, and that is why I'm the person I am today. All of the morals and values they've taught me are a big part of my life and while I didn't agree with them at the time, they were what needed to be done at the time and now for the most part I know that. Kids don't need more rights. Feed them, clothe them, protect them, and love them. That's what parents need to do. Treat them like your family, not your cases.

 

[The Dewbliners]

Wow, just,wow. So, now a parent can' t give a child a reasonable spanking? What are you supposed to do, ask them why they feel the way they do, and give them a damn cookie? If a child acts up, give them a couple firm swats (not going overboard with, sandals, or a fraternity paddle you find while cleaning out a house.) It's what my father did to me, and I turned out fine.

As far as the religion is concerned, I can't understand that either. It's the childs place to go to whichever church their parents decide, or lack thereof. I was raised protestant, and my dad wouldn't allow me to stop attending church, until I was 18, and was responsible enough to make my own mind up.

The other stuff is likewise ignorant. It's not the gov't's place to tell anybody how to raise their children, save for cases of abuse (extreme beatings, starvation, incest, or molestation.) Leave the lesser stuff to the parents, and stop coddling the kids. A little discipline never hurt anyone, and religion is not the worst thing either.

 

[HBK-aholic]

No. While there's no reason to beat a kid half to death, if they simply refuse to listen, spanking is a good thing. I've long since thought it was bullshit that all of a sudden spanking is a bad thing. It's worked for 5000 years, but all of a sudden it is bad? No. As a last resort, it works every time.

There is NO reason to hit your child. At all. It shouldn't be 'All of a sudden' either. It should have been illegal a long time ago. Seriously, teach your children violence is wrong by hitting them, yaay!

Bullshit. This is something that ticks me off in everyday life. Two and a half months ago I turned 21, the legal drinking age in America. Suppose on February 2 (my birthday is the third) at 11:59 PM I went to a store to buy a beer. It's illegal then, but sixty seconds later it's legal? That's completely absurd, as are most age restriction laws. It shoulnd't be about age, it should be about mindset. I know people 14 that can play poker for 2 hours on 20 dollars, lose it, and not blink an eye about it while having a great time. Then there are 35 year olds that shouldn't be allowed near gambling because tehy can't handle it. Again, bullshit.

I agree with this, but they have to be there to stop abuse. We can't go around having a test done on every person to decide when they should be allowed to drink/have sex etc. The legal age for sex is 16 here, before that you're breaking the law. There's no difference between me on my 16th birthday and the day before. But the law needs to eb there to stop 10 year olds being abused.

I think this is fair to an extent, but it again depends on age. When someone is 13-14 years old, they know what they believe about religion. However, it's not going to kill you to go to church for a few hours on Sunday morning. Sure you should have a right to choose, but how many 12 year olds are going to use this as an excuse to sleep in?

Who cares? If they don't want to get up and go to Church it clearly doesn't mean that much to them. Leave them to it, it's their choice.

Information is ok. Other than that, I'm thinking no. If my daughter is under 18 and living in my house, like hell she's having a medical procedure without me knowing about it. That is my flesh and blood and my responsibility. I'm against abortion to begin with, and if one of my children is about to give me a grandchild, there's no way the grandchild is being killed before it's born. They can stay with me. I'd be more than happy to raise it.

Becca's E-husband is what?!?

 

[klunderbunker]

When I say last resort, I literally mean last resort. I don't mean they say one thing wrong and you slap them. I mean you talk to them, they still do it. You put them in time out, they still do it. You take things away from them, they still do it. You slap them on their ass one time, see how they respond. And I don't mean someone a year old and I don't mean with a leather belt. I mean you take the back of your hand and spank them, and nowhere near as hard as you can. Firm, yet fair.

Well of course on the abuse laws. That takes precedent over everything. And of course I don't want an 8 year old being able to buy liquor or sleep with someone, but at the same time like you said, you're no different the day before and the day after your 16th or whenever birthday. I get why they're there, but I think they're overly enforced.

My issue with the church thing is there is absolutely nothing wrong with making your child go somewhere for three hours, dress somewhat nicely and listen to someone talk. It teaches them respect and discipline. If tehy reach an age where they can come to a decision like this rationally and not use it as an excuse to sleep in, then that's one thing, but someone 8 years old isn't going to be thrown into his own 7th circle of hell by going to church.

And yes, I'm against abortion, but I don't want it outlawed. While I agree that a woman should be allowed to choose what happens to her child (with the agreement of the father in most cases), I have yet to hear a convincing argument for a child being aborted, with the possible exception of it killing the mother.

 

[HBK-aholic]

When I say last resort, I literally mean last resort. I don't mean they say one thing wrong and you slap them. I mean you talk to them, they still do it. You put them in time out, they still do it. You take things away from them, they still do it. You slap them on their ass one time, see how they respond. And I don't mean someone a year old and I don't mean with a leather belt. I mean you take the back of your hand and spank them, and nowhere near as hard as you can. Firm, yet fair.

Nope, it just isn't necessary. If you're a good enough parent you won't need to resort to it full stop.

My issue with the church thing is there is absolutely nothing wrong with making your child go somewhere for three hours, dress somewhat nicely and listen to someone talk. It teaches them respect and discipline. If tehy reach an age where they can come to a decision like this rationally and not use it as an excuse to sleep in, then that's one thing, but someone 8 years old isn't going to be thrown into his own 7th circle of hell by going to church.

Age does come into play but only when you think about it in comparison to something else. Making a child go to Church with you is the same as making them go to a Supermarket, they have to go with you most of the time. But when they don't want to go specifically because it's Church then you shouldn't make them.

And yes, I'm against abortion, but I don't want it outlawed. While I agree that a woman should be allowed to choose what happens to her child (with the agreement of the father in most cases), I have yet to hear a convincing argument for a child being aborted, with the possible exception of it killing the mother.

Have you never read any of my posts?

 

[klunderbunker]

And what happens if you have a child that is simply wild and doesn't listen? I hate the idea of spankings and if/when I'm a parent I hope that I never have to give one. I think I was spanked twice in my entire life, one of which was for biting the hell out of my dad's shoulder and drawing blood. He spanked me three times and while I was sad and hurt, I never did it again and I was fine iwthin an hour. I've never hit anyone, because a great lesson my parents taught me was don't hit other people out of anger.

As FTS said, it's not like you're going to hear evil concepts at a church when you're 12. A lot of what I was taught in children's church was basic ideas mixed with Biblical principles. WHile I didn't want to be there, it was hardly torture on me.

Yes I have, and as I said, I still haven't seen a good reason for it.

 

[Azrael Cain]

I've had some time to clear my head and kind of step back from the initial reaction I had to finding this out, so I figure why not respond in kind.

1. There is nothing wrong with [a light] spanking your child if it must be done. Mind you: not beating the shit out of your kid until they can't walk right the next day and are covered with bruises, not beating their ass until they bleed with one of those spiky punk belts, not assaulting them with a steaming hot iron to the back, not throwing them against a wall -- a tap on the bum with an open palm. The difference, to me, is incredibly stark, always has been and always will be.

Some children, especially when they're young, don't listen. It doesn't matter how much patience you have, how much you love your kids, what you've taught them. Kids are kids, they're a little wild, a little wired, and they mis-behave. A spanking is not a sign that you don't love your child.

2. Bullshit. I would argue it has to do with the maturity level of the child, but then we are getting into an incredibly gray area that opens that door for most of the points this law presents. Instead of arguing for a maturity level alone, I would argue for these additional factors: circumstances of the crime be taken into account, the history of the child and all prevalent information that could explain as to why the child committed the/a crime in the first place.

3. I think that one needs to have such a relationship with one's parents in which they love [you] regardless of one's religious affiliation (or sexual identification, for that matter). Religion is not something that should be forced on anyone, however the basic principles of religion like 'Do Unto Others' should be instilled. If your parents brought you up right, so to speak, you'll have a decent moral compass regardless of whether or not religion was involved. In some cases religion helps, in others, it does not.

4. Ridiculous. A child "belongs" to the parents until the day s/he reaches adulthood. Again, depending on the type of relationship one has and how one has been reared up, there should be no need for this.

5. Again, ridiculous. A child does not know what s/he wants, that is why the parents are there. This argument flies until a certain period of time, of course, but until said time (which is, I would argue the time of the "teenage years") the child is being taken care of (ideally) and provided for.

6. Fine, perfect, great. Let's help our kids financially.

7. Not until the age of adulthood, at which, arguably, they are mature enough to handle the responsibilities that come with the legality of issues.

8. Religion is, in my regard, philosophy turned into a spiritual institution, and the ideas that are taught are sometimes scientifically inaccurate, but truthfully it's all a huge matter of opinion. This issue is a touchy one -- if it were up to me, institutionalized (read: organized) religion would be done away with and common sense would rule. That's not the way it is, and if a child is indeed religious by choice and is going to a Catholic school and getting a Creationism Education, that's no one's business but the parent's and the kid's. If religion is that big a part of your life, that you cannot handle the theory of evolution, fine -- whatever helps you sleep at night. As long as you have a moral compass and are tolerant and respectful.

9. Kids need to be educated about sex, and you can see the thread about it in which I posted from what age to see my view. But abstinence only education is a bullshit way to teach our kids, and guilt-tripping them into not having sex is even worse. Inform and prepare, not overreact.

10. Once again, depending entirely upon the relationship had with the parents and until the age of adulthood. Until said age, the child is dependent on the parent for everything, including reproductive "rights."

This entire idea infuriates me because it's a reaction, like most things in human nature and society, and it's half-cocked and idiotic. A child depends on his/her parents until that child reaches the age of adult-hood (and sometimes well afterwards!), and in return the child takes care of the parents when s/he is financially capable. That's how it works -- one hand washes the other. Children grow and develop mentally and physically and emotionally, and during this growth, the relationship with the parents is crucial, and must be a positive one.

Don't give children more rights all of a sudden because around the world society and the idealized family structure is falling apart because parents have to work more and more jobs just to make ends meet; fix the fucking economy, stop making the parents work so they can raise their kids and raise them right.

I'm getting angry again... <_<

 

[FromTheSouth]

I don't see what's wrong with a spanking. Becca asks how you can teach a child to not be violent by hitting them. The answer to that is simple. If you hit someone, you are likely to get hit by someone bigger and stronger than you. Lesson learned.

And I don't see why you're so anti-church. If you are 18, and don't want to go, then don't go. If you are 10, what exactly are you learning that is so harmful? Church's sermons don't demonize homosexuality. They tie in with portion of the Bible that corresponds to that week. They don't demonize Jews, they don't demonize Muslims. Church sermons teach you to love your neighbor, and teach that we came from somewhere and that there is a power greater than man. Do you disagree with these ideas? I know you're atheist, but that doesn't mean that church is bad.

And, yes, if you are 14, your mother should know if you are getting an abortion. From experience, a 14 year old girl is not getting pregnant by a 14 year old boy. It is likely an older boy, and a mother has a right to know if her daughter is a victim of statutory rape, whether the little **** wanted it or not. If you are 17, your parents ahve every right to know if you are seeking out contraception of abortions, because they are the ones who have to foot the bill for this baby, which means they will have to foot the bill longer for you as well. They have every right to know. Imagine that you had a daughter who went and had an abortion because she got pregnant by a 19 year old boy. No one told you, and now six months later, she is pregnant again, and this time wants to keep the baby. Now, it is costing you money, your daughter is a rape victim, and all this could have stopped with a simple phone call. The laws doesn't require parental permission, just notification.

Finally, once again, children enjoy only natural rights, to life and liberty, and nothing else. The other rights enumerated in the Constitution apply to tax paying citizens.

 

[Slyfox696]

Meh, I didn't take the time to read all this, so I figure it's time to give my opinion, right? Here's what I say.

If we're going to give children rights, then it's time we give them responsibilities.

"No, I'm sorry. You can't go with your friends tonight, you have to go work at the factory for minimum wage."

"You have two options, Mr. 12 year old. You either follow my rules, or you leave my home."

"I'm sorry, I don't have time to cook for you tonight, you will need to go buy your own food, and cook your own meals."


I mean, if we're going to give little people the right to do big people things, then I say its fair to treat them like big people. Disobey your teacher in school, be prepared for a smack across the face. That's not a spanking, that's just good discipline. Argue with a police officer? Prepare to be tasered.

In fact, I think more of that stuff should be done. It never ceases to amaze me how little respect kids have for adults and authority. My classes would go so much smoother if I were just allowed to administer my own discipline. So yeah, from what little I read, I'm against all this stuff.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I don't see what's wrong with a spanking. Becca asks how you can teach a child to not be violent by hitting them. The answer to that is simple. If you hit someone, you are likely to get hit by someone bigger and stronger than you. Lesson learned.

A good parent doesn't need to resort to violence on their child. Teaching against violence using violence is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard.

And I don't see why you're so anti-church.

..Was this directed at me too? Seeings as I'm in no way anti-church, I guess not.

If you are 18, and don't want to go, then don't go. If you are 10, what exactly are you learning that is so harmful? Church's sermons don't demonize homosexuality. They tie in with portion of the Bible that corresponds to that week. They don't demonize Jews, they don't demonize Muslims. Church sermons teach you to love your neighbor, and teach that we came from somewhere and that there is a power greater than man. Do you disagree with these ideas? I know you're atheist, but that doesn't mean that church is bad.

So yeah, it was at me. When did I say Church was bad? I spend every Sunday at Church, so don't try saying anything as stupid as that. I don't 'disagree' with any of the ideas, but I don't understand why you'd force your child to go if they didn't want to, I definately wouldn't, in the same way I wouldn't stop them going if they wanted to.

And, yes, if you are 14, your mother should know if you are getting an abortion. From experience, a 14 year old girl is not getting pregnant by a 14 year old boy. It is likely an older boy, and a mother has a right to know if her daughter is a victim of statutory rape, whether the little **** wanted it or not.

Eugh statutory rape is the most annoying concept in the whole world.

If you are 17, your parents ahve every right to know if you are seeking out contraception of abortions, because they are the ones who have to foot the bill for this baby, which means they will have to foot the bill longer for you as well.

I'm 17, and if I felt I needed an abortion in no way would I let my mother know. It has NOTHING to do with her. And definately not if I wanted contraception either, I'm 17, completely legal to have sex if I want to, and if I'm going to the doctor to get contraception I'm clearly responsible enough to not need my mother to know.

They have every right to know. Imagine that you had a daughter who went and had an abortion because she got pregnant by a 19 year old boy. No one told you, and now six months later, she is pregnant again, and this time wants to keep the baby. Now, it is costing you money, your daughter is a rape victim, and all this could have stopped with a simple phone call. The laws doesn't require parental permission, just notification.

She's not a rape victim if she wanted it. And I'd hope my daughter would trust me enough to talk to me about it, but I don't think I should have to be 'notified', as I don't think my mother should be if I was in that position.

 

[Slyfox696]

A good parent doesn't need to resort to violence on their child. Teaching against violence using violence is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard.

I agree and disagree.

A good parent may not have to resort to violence, but then again, there's something to be said about a child having a healthy and robust fear of their parents. I don't mean abuse, I mean knowing that if they act inappropriately, then there will be real punishment to be had. My mother and father spanked me (a lot actually...I was quite defiant in my younger years...if you can believe that), but never really did for my brother or sister. And, we all turned out very similar, in terms of what kind of people we are.

..Was this directed at me too? Seeings as I'm in no way anti-church, I guess not.

I'm anti-church, pro-religion, but think the concept of God is silly. Figure that one out.

So yeah, it was at me. When did I say Church was bad? I spend every Sunday at Church, so don't try saying anything as stupid as that. I don't 'disagree' with any of the ideas, but I don't understand why you'd force your child to go if they didn't want to, I definately wouldn't, in the same way I wouldn't stop them going if they wanted to.

Well, ok, don't try and figure it out, I'll tell you.

In my opinion, the biggest benefit to religion is not the belief of an immortal spirit with magical powers, but rather the teaching of morals and values. Religion is excellent for teaching people the proper way to interact in society, and how to be a good person. I don't care if you believe in God or not, but I do care about what kind of person you are, and religion is a VERY good tool for teaching good morals.

So, I don't have a problem with a parent forcing a child to go to Church, because I don't see faith being the most important thing they learn, but rather how to treat people right and with respect.

Eugh statutory rape is the most annoying concept in the whole world.

Agreed, but I still feel it is a necessary thing.

I'm 17, and if I felt I needed an abortion in no way would I let my mother know. It has NOTHING to do with her. And definately not if I wanted contraception either, I'm 17, completely legal to have sex if I want to, and if I'm going to the doctor to get contraception I'm clearly responsible enough to not need my mother to know.

Agreed. Although, I would hope that most children would trust their families enough to want to tell them of the tough time they are going through.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I agree and disagree.

A good parent may not have to resort to violence, but then again, there's something to be said about a child having a healthy and robust fear of their parents. I don't mean abuse, I mean knowing that if they act inappropriately, then there will be real punishment to be had. My mother and father spanked me (a lot actually...I was quite defiant in my younger years...if you can believe that), but never really did for my brother or sister. And, we all turned out very similar, in terms of what kind of people we are.

But I just don't think that hitting your child should be a 'real punishment'. I wouldn't go around hitting other people or their children so why my own?

I'm anti-church, pro-religion, but think the concept of God is silly. Figure that one out.

Thanks for confusing me.

Well, ok, don't try and figure it out, I'll tell you.

Ooh yay.

In my opinion, the biggest benefit to religion is not the belief of an immortal spirit with magical powers, but rather the teaching of morals and values. Religion is excellent for teaching people the proper way to interact in society, and how to be a good person. I don't care if you believe in God or not, but I do care about what kind of person you are, and religion is a VERY good tool for teaching good morals.

I half agree. I like the concept of religion because of the hope and faith it gives to people. Using a 'famous' example - Shawn Michaels has said that turning to religion completely changed him and saved his life. I don't believe there is a 'high power' but I like the fact that it helps those that do believe, simply by beliving.

So, I don't have a problem with a parent forcing a child to go to Church, because I don't see faith being the most important thing they learn, but rather how to treat people right and with respect.

I just think that I'd be able to teach my child that without the need for religion - it isn't anything they can't learn at home with positive role models. Using Church isn't a bad thing if you think it helps, but when the child decides it doesn't that should be the end.

Agreed, but I still feel it is a necessary thing.

I guess.

Agreed. Although, I would hope that most children would trust their families enough to want to tell them of the tough time they are going through.

Did you just agree with me twice/three times in the same post?

Sometimes it just isn't possible though. While I'd love for any of my children to be able to talk to me about those things, I doubt I'd ever tell my mum.

 

[FromTheSouth]

A good parent doesn't need to resort to violence on their child. Teaching against violence using violence is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard.

I don't think it's violence though. I think it's discipline. It has been that way for thousands of years. It's just that in the last fifty years everyone's become a PC pussy. A little swat serves as a reminder that you should listen to the pack leader. A parent is the pack leader, the child needs to be subordinate, and there is no better way than a little swat on the ass.

..Was this directed at me too? Seeings as I'm in no way anti-church, I guess not.

My bad! Forgive me

So yeah, it was at me. When did I say Church was bad? I spend every Sunday at Church, so don't try saying anything as stupid as that. I don't 'disagree' with any of the ideas, but I don't understand why you'd force your child to go if they didn't want to, I definately wouldn't, in the same way I wouldn't stop them going if they wanted to.

But that is how YOU would do it. And that is the whole point of this thread. Giving children all these stupid rights that they don't deserve undermines the rights of the parents. Parents should have a right to raise their children in whatever manner they please, so long as you avoid abuse and molestation. Giving children the right to make a stupid decision, in which they are the sole beneficiary, takes away the right of the parent to raise the child how they choose. Kids today are already out of control, snot nosed bastards. Giving them all these rights doesn't help. Instead of teaching right and wrong, we're teaching legal loopholes. If a kid gets grounded, he can appeal to a court? How does that help anyone? Anyone at all?

Eugh statutory rape is the most annoying concept in the whole world.

No, it's not. A 14 year old girl can consent because she thinks it will make her cool. She can consent because of peer pressure. She can consent because she wants drugs. All of these are consensual acts. hwoever they damage the child for life. Children need to be protected. They get special treatment by the courts, ie juvenile detention centers as opposed to regular prisons. Therefore, the surrender additonal rights. It's the principle of reciprocity, and it necessary to maintain order in a society. Believe me, giving a child more rope will result in hangings, no jump ropes.

I'm 17, and if I felt I needed an abortion in no way would I let my mother know. It has NOTHING to do with her. And definately not if I wanted contraception either, I'm 17, completely legal to have sex if I want to, and if I'm going to the doctor to get contraception I'm clearly responsible enough to not need my mother to know.

You are dependant to your mother. If you're not old enough to pay your own bills, then you, and your vagina, belong to her. When you move out, you can have abortions for a weekend activity, but until that point, why is it none of her business? Because you don't WANT it to be? Sorry kiddo, but your sex life is your parents business. When I was 17, I thought like you did. Ten years later, I see kids as kids, and not peers, and wish parents would be more stern with their kids and their sex lives. I live the county with the most teen and out of wedlock pregnancies in America. The roads are shit because the money goes to Health Services for teenagers who had money for extacy, but not for a condom. Every time a poor, 15 year old girl has a kid, everyone has to pay to raise it, and her parents should go to jail for allowing the little tramp to burden society.

She's not a rape victim if she wanted it.

She's not old enough to know what she wants. All she wants is to be popular, and being a **** is the way to get the boys to notice you.

And I'd hope my daughter would trust me enough to talk to me about it, but I don't think I should have to be 'notified', as I don't think my mother should be if I was in that position.

Once again, what about the rights of the parents? If a child causes too much trouble, the parents can be prosecuted, so any way and anything they want to control their children is fine with me, and not one bit of it is the governments business.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I don't think it's violence though. I think it's discipline. It has been that way for thousands of years. It's just that in the last fifty years everyone's become a PC pussy. A little swat serves as a reminder that you should listen to the pack leader. A parent is the pack leader, the child needs to be subordinate, and there is no better way than a little swat on the ass.

No way better? Are you kidding me? And I hate the whole PC thing, so it has nothing to do with that. There are just A LOT of better ways to raise your child than hitting them.

No, it's not. A 14 year old girl can consent because she thinks it will make her cool. She can consent because of peer pressure. She can consent because she wants drugs. All of these are consensual acts. hwoever they damage the child for life.

So? It's her fault for being a stupid idiot. Rape is forced sex, what exactly has the guy done wrong if she consents because it'll make her 'cool'? He hasn't forced her into that.

You are dependant to your mother. If you're not old enough to pay your own bills, then you, and your vagina, belong to her. When you move out, you can have abortions for a weekend activity, but until that point, why is it none of her business? Because you don't WANT it to be? Sorry kiddo, but your sex life is your parents business.

My sex life has NOTHING to do with my parents..are you kidding me? If I was having an abortion then there will be no baby for her to pay for, so it is completely my decision.

When I was 17, I thought like you did. Ten years later, I see kids as kids, and not peers, and wish parents would be more stern with their kids and their sex lives. I live the county with the most teen and out of wedlock pregnancies in America. The roads are shit because the money goes to Health Services for teenagers who had money for extacy, but not for a condom. Every time a poor, 15 year old girl has a kid, everyone has to pay to raise it, and her parents should go to jail for allowing the little tramp to burden society.

Tell me you're joking. Your whole stance makes no sense. Basically, if I go to my doctor for contraception advice..my parents will be informed, meaning I won't go get contraception advice and will be more likely to get pregnant. Then if I go for an abortion, meaning it won't affect my parents in the slightest, they still have to be informed?

She's not old enough to know what she wants. All she wants is to be popular, and being a **** is the way to get the boys to notice you.

And? It's her fault for being a **** and thinking sex is 'cool'. You're blaming her for all this, yet it'd be the guy she slept with who will be harmed by possible prison. How does it make sense? I can understand if it was a 50 year old and a 14 year old. But not 19.

 

[FromTheSouth]

No way better? Are you kidding me? And I hate the whole PC thing, so it has nothing to do with that. There are just A LOT of better ways to raise your child than hitting them.

I'm serious here. If the child refuses to listen, you need to remind them who is in charge. If you don't do that, at home, the child will go to school with no sense of who's in charge. This causes disruptions in class. This leads to less time to teach. This leads to stupider kids, which makes stupider adults, whcih makes a less productive society, which makes businesses less money, which causes lay-offs, which leads to welfare with less tax revenue to draw from, which leads to borrowing more money from China, which leads to economic collapse, which leads to Pirates. Yes I said it, if those pirates had been spanked as children, then there would be no problems.

So? It's her fault for being a stupid idiot.

Which is why she can't vote. She can't make informed, logical decisions. Statutory rape laws protect these children. A 40 year old man could easily coerce a 12 year old into consenting to sex with him. These laws protect this girl.

Rape is forced sex, what exactly has the guy done wrong if she consents because it'll make her 'cool'? He hasn't forced her into that.

Likely, some form coercion. He may not have laid her down and had his way with her, but tricking someone, who isn't old enough to vote because of her fragile little mind, into having sex is just as bad.

My sex life has NOTHING to do with my parents..are you kidding me? If I was having an abortion then there will be no baby for her to pay for, so it is completely my decision.

You live in their home, therefore they should have approval on everything from what color panties you wear to how many babies you kill. Get your own place and have all the abortions you want. Until that time, everything in your life is your parents concern. That's the way it is. Call it stupid if you want. Just remember this when your child comes home drunk, or pregnant, or with AIDS. I bet then you'll wish you had exercised more discipline. If YOU want to stay out of YOUR child's sex life, that's fine. But it shouldn't be law that every parent has to stay out of their child. There should be no law where a child can appeal the rules of the house, and that is the point of this thread. Giving children these stupid rights that they don't deserve takes away the rights that the parents do deserve, and that is wrong.

Tell me you're joking. Your whole stance makes no sense. Basically, if I go to my doctor for contraception advice..my parents will be informed, meaning I won't go get contraception advice and will be more likely to get pregnant.

Actually, it means that your parents will know you are sexually active, and will be able to make an informed decision on how to proceed. Most parents understand that kids are going to have sex. Parents just need the information so they can observe their child's behavior and determine if the new lifestyle is dangerous for them. Some parents will overreact, but so the fuck what? It is their decision on how to raise kids.

Then if I go for an abortion, meaning it won't affect my parents in the slightest, they still have to be informed?

It does affect them. Do you think a girl goes and has an abortion, and then returns to the world the next day like nothing ever happened. The Elliot Institute has determined that 25% of women seek out psychologists after abortions, 44% report sleep disturbances, and 35% report nervous disorders. The problems of post-abortion syndrome are real, and very close to post-partum depression. Some women experience these disorders together. I am sure your parents would appreciate a heads up before you try to kill yourself. Believe me, it does affect other people. No one just walks out of the office willy-nilly and asks to go to the water park right after they've killed a baby.

And? It's her fault for being a **** and thinking sex is 'cool'. You're blaming her for all this, yet it'd be the guy she slept with who will be harmed by possible prison. How does it make sense? I can understand if it was a 50 year old and a 14 year old. But not 19.

The adult male who is sleeping with 14 year old girls deserves prison. Their minds are still developing, their sense of right and wrong is still developing. These are psychological issues, not intelligence issues. The world isn't a movie. This isn't Juno, where everything is charming and cute. These are real situations, and it is the parents who have to foot the bill and deal with consequences. Giving reproductive rights to children is akin to giving a loaded gun to a serial killer. Their brains can't handle the temptation and can't process the consequences.

 

[Father:_Polley]

I want to address the discipline issue.

I work in a chemist as some of you know. Every day I have screaming children wanting their parents to buy them a lollipop/car which we keep near the till (they're a curse). More often than not, parent says no, you've got loads of cars in the house/it's nearly lunchtime (depending on the scenario). Child proceeds to sulk/scream/hit the parent.

Now, when little Stephen was young... he'd have promptly have a real reason to cry. And guess what, I managed to have forgotten about it in about 10 minutes. A slap round the back of the leg, bottom or hand is never going to cause a child permanent physical or psychological scars.

Where I would draw the line is punching or throwing a child into anything. I can justify it because you're not doing it to physically harm the child. It's the equivalent to an electric fence to a cow or a newspaper to the nose to a dog. It doesn't cause harm, but instead instills a sense of appropriate behaviour. Otherwise you end up with the situation where a parent is left standing and able to do nothing as their brat wrecks my shop and we complain about bad parenting.

A parent isn't there to instill fear, they are there to educate and I feel a clip round the legs does that.

Rant over, onto other topics:
2. If a child doesn't realise that killing someone is wrong by 14, they shouldn't be let off lightly because they're below 18. Otherwise, if you fancy killing, you may as well do it before you can be tried as an adult.
3. I feel that once you reach an age where you can make a decision, then it's up to you. Before then, if your parents, as your legal guardians choose to make a decision for you to attend a place of worship, why shouldn't they have that right.
4. Within reason, what right is it to tell a worker how to raise a child. Ok, unless the child is being made to partake in sacrificing goats to Lucifer, then you may have reason, but anything within reason should be none of the state's business.
5. So if I don't like it, I can gain government intervention? I'm thinking no.
6. I have no opinion on it
7. So you could claim 'Legally I have to complete this level on my X-Box, then I'll tidy the room'? I think I'd be pointing out that legally I don't have to give you a penny if you don't.
8. As has been said, you know what you're getting into, so go away.
9. Unless a parent is going to do the job themselves, then why should they. My parents told me nothing and I don't think parents are trained to do 'the birds and the bees' (and STDs, teenage pregnancy) talk.
10. Medically, a child does have that right below 18. I know for a fact if a mother to a 13 year old on contraception, that I'm legally not allowed to tell her what it's for.

 

[Tastycles]

Woah. You've been a little misleading here. First things first, 193 of 195 members of the United Nations have signed the convention. I live in one of those countries, and as far as I can see children don't get taken away from their parents for no reason, get punished for crimes, and suffer from abuse a hell of a lot less than they used to. The only countries that haven't ratified it are the USA and Somalia. Somalia haven't because they want to be allowed to put children in the army, USA haven't because the public support has been swayed against it. It really shouldn't have been.

If you actually read what the constitution says, and not some right-wing scaremongering interpretation of it, then it's very hard to disagree with it, it's a fucking boring read, but it's here.

http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/uncrc.asp

Now to address a few points.

1. It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law. It is no mere statement of altruism.

Yes, so is the code of human rights, but I'm sure as a conservative you take issue with that. In the age of the internet, and with the prevalence of predators upon it, you need international consensus upon how to deal with people. If you add that to the fact that a lot of it concerns children crossing borders and what entitlement their parents have to speak to them, so international consensus is needed upon laws.

2. Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.
There is a provision of the Constitution that allows for any UN treaty that is ratified by this nation to supersede US Law. The UN is the most worthless body in the world. They hide from acting on real atrocities, and try to bad grounding children.

The UN ended the conflict in Bosnia for a start and did a hell a lot of other things. It's problems come from the 5 big players throwing their weight around, particularly Russia, China and the US. There are plenty of laws "forced upon" people. There's a law stopping me from raping people, I had no say in the matter, either. SCANDALOUS.

3. Children of other nations would not be impacted in any direct way by our ratification.

Absolutely bullshit. I direct you to Article 10. It says that it is the responsibility of states to ensure that the children are able to communicate with their parents. Take a Canadian family. The mother takes her child to Mexico, then the Mexican and Canadian authorities could ensure that the child was allowed access to his or her father back in Canada. If they were US, then the mother could cease all contact, because the father would have no right to ommunication in international law.

4. The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of our Supremacy Clause.

Why is that a problem? If you didn't want the UN to be able to influence your law, you shouldn't have that clause. Regardless of that, what is the diffeence between the government you elected passing a law and the government you elected adopting an international law?

5. The CRC has some elements that are self-executing, while others would require implementing legislation. Federal courts would have the power to determine which provisions were self-executing.

That's their job, it isn't a problem.

6. The Courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.

As with any other law.

7. Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty. This would constitute the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.

I don't see the problem with this either.

8. A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures. This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.

This is a lie. Britain has passed or tried to pass laws relating to education, child care, child welfare and abortion in the years since adopting the treaty in 1991. If we can, you would be able to too.

9. Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.

America is not above the world, and why should it be? I'm sure not every state agrees with the laws of the country, but they abide by them.

10. Reservations, declarations, or understandings intended to modify our duty to comply with this treaty will be void if they are determined to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.

That's the point of a treaty, so if you're going to sign it, you should probably abide by it. Otherwise the action is pointless. You abided by the treaties created in the past, so what's the problem with this one?

1. Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

Firstly, not true. Smacking your own child privately and within reason is legal in Britain so the treaty would do no such thing, it is only illegal in 25 of the 193 countries signed up to the treaty. Secondly, the three countries that banned it first: Sweden, Finaland and Norway have amongst the lowest teenage crime rates in Europe, so the unruly hellraisers argument is nullified. Thirdly, spanking or smacking is condemned by the UN as well as the Australian Psychological Society, Canadian Pediatrics Society, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and American Academy of Pediatrics who all say it has overwhelmingly negative consequences.

2. A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

There has to be a cut off point somewhere. If a ten year old killed someone, you would argue for diminished responsibility. I point ou to article 1 which says "a child means every human being below the age of 18 years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." So if American law wants to try a 16 year old as an adult, they can.

3. Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

So you think it is right for adults to force their kids into cults like at Waco? Do you think it is right for a child to be forced into arranged marriages in the name of God? I don't, and I think it's all about regulation. I was forced into going to chapel 6 days a week for the 7 years I was in military school, and I was 18 for 6 months of that and powerless to do anything in law. So, the law couldn't do anything to prevent parents from taking children to church. I think children should be allowed to choose what they believe, but no judge will punish a parent for choosing to take a 15 year old to church rather than leaving them at home.

4. The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.

It isn't in any government's interest to put a child into social services care without good reason. Do you realise how much it costs to keep a child in care homes or foster care? What this legislation allows is for abusive parents to be punished and negligent parents to be encouraged/changed otherwise they lose their kids. I'd rather a child in care than one in a body bag.

5. A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

Yes, because the government is going to waste court time on trivial domestic arguments isn't it? The child will be fobbed off if it is anything but a serious allegation, which probably should be looked into.

6. According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.

Find me a country that has ever spent more on national defence than healthcare and education, you know children's wlefare, and you will be showing me the Soviet Union. Don't know about you, but I'm happy being different to them.

7. Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

It doesn't say they aren't allowed to do chores. You are arguing the negative to this point. It says children are entitled to lesiure. If you think children should work dusk till dawn, then power to you, I don't and neither do the UN.

8. Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.

(c) The development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;

(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;

What that says is that a child must be taught their own cultural identity, as would be the case if they went to a Christian school. It also says that they should be taught to tolerate other worldviews. If the Christian church is above teaching tolerance now, then it needs to be cut down.

9. Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

So it should be. Parents molly coddling their children is ******ed and irresponsible. My stepmother grew up in a time before sex education, when she first got her period, she thought she was dying. Is that a good state of affairs? Kids find out about sex from TV and movies. Sex education tells them the negative aspects of it, the media doesn't.

Britain has notoriously shit sex education and we have the worst teenage pregnancy rate in the developed world. What do you think that shows?

10. Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

In some cultures, a child would be killed for having an abortion. In other, less extreme ones, a child would be ostracised for it. I don't want this to become a pro-choice argument, but fundamentally if a child can physically have a baby, be it illegal or not, it should be aware of its options. Knowledge of the parents if they go to official sources will only encourage them to get unreliable information from older children, dodgy adults, and TV, which is far more dangerous.

 

[Shocky]

What a fucking joke. First and foremost, Becca, I know you're strong opinionated and all that, but I'm sitting on the other side of the table raising two boys, and when it comes down to it, old daddy here is the face of fear, while mother is the voice of reason. It's just how it works. I'm the bad cop, she's the good cop, we both have roles to play in disciplining are children. Hell, I'm not ashamed to admit it, my boys, they act really out of line, they will get the belt. Once you have done it once, all it takes is for you to do the belt snap, and you'll see results within a second. There is a fine line of having your child's fear, and respect. I'm a parent, my job in life is to instill values on said child, not to be their friend. Being a friend is my second job, my first job is to make sure these kids get threw life without becomming assholes or a burden on society, and thus far, we're doinga good job as both are honor role students. The spankings are few and far between now, but they will be used when needed. It is a parents right to decide, not the governement. Spanking and physically discipling children has been around since the dawn of society, and it's pretty much turned out okay thus far.

1. Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

As I said before, complete and utter bullshit on this one. It is my duty to raise a child the way I see fit, and if they need a spanking, they'll get it. The oldest responds to physical threats, while our youngest doesn't, so he gets things taken away from him. It's knowing your own child, and knowing what they'll react to that makes you a goo dparent, not some asshole bueracrat telling you how to raise them b ecause they raised their child a certain way.

2. A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

Double Lawlz. Yes, somehow someone isn't mature or rationale enough to known in 300 days time that aking a life is a bad thing. 17 year olds are essentially adults. If they have been educated and lived in a "modern society" and they show no signs of being disabled mentaly, then they deserve to die for their crime, my opinion. Maturation should be based on a psychological examination, not some abritrary number decided by a bunch of halfwits reading a study.

3. Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

Yes, they have every right, when they are old enough to begin an understanding of what relgion is. An 8 year old has no say that he wants to be Muslim, but his parents are Jewish. The 8 year old has no idea what he is chosing. Look, it's the right of the parent to raise the child as they see fit, end of story. The governemtn isn't bringing the child into the world, the individual is. When a child reaches an age when they have a better udner standing of the world, then yes they should be able to seek out whatever relgion they want.

4. The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.

Again, some asshole sitting in an office somewhere that probably doesn't have a child, trying to tell people that actually are raising children, how to raise their children based on some journal they read, bullshit. The governement has enough things to worry about, as opposed to why little Johnny feels left out because his parents make him do dishes, while Billy gets to go out and play, and life is so unfair.

5. A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

Um yeah. The child has a right to be heard, and a right to be completely ignored. Hey people, listen up, cause I'm going to say it, and be completely honest about it, Kids are dumb. Kids have no clue whatsoever in what's going on in the world. Oh they might have Mayday or Earth day, or crap like that, but for the most part, their worlds revolve around what new game is out, or whats on the Disney Channel. Seriously, we're going to be having lines out the wazoo for kids going to the government because they disagreed why they didn't get a candy bar while they were at the store because "they wanted it".

6. According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.

Blah Blah Blah. Say that to the members of nations that live on borders with their enemies. In an ideal world, this would be the dream, and in an ideal world, no one would have a military, but we don't live in an ideal world. We live in the real world, certain people hate certain people for simply being who they are. If you don't have defenses, then you get killed in those regions. Without those defenses, those kids wouldn't be alive in the first place. Again, this is an ideal world these people live in, when the reality is far different.

7. Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

My anthropological side in me comes out on this one, yes, their needs to be leisure, social times. Young social interactions create your personality and how you'll be able to act with others throughout the rest of your life, this is a fact which I will not dispute. However, you have to instill discipline, and work ethic at a young age, otherwise, you have an entire country of people growing up to be lazy assholes that contribute nothign to society. Your youth is for development, and you develop certain skills threw work, plain and simple.

8. Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.

So pretty much, the ugly truth comes out about who has written this article. Closed minded atheist that do everything int heir power to belittle and degrade Christianity. Where is the article about Islamic schools, or Hebrew schools? Nope, Christianity is singled out as the great evil entity of the world once again. Look, these schools are private, they can pick and chose whatever the hell they want to teach their children. If you want your child to learn public views of the world, send your child to public schools. This is the parents right to chose how they wish to raise a child, not the governement.

9. Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
10. Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

Lump these two together since they pretty much are on the same topic. Sex Education, I think should be mandatory, at public schools. If your child is in ap rivate school, then it's up to the school to set the curriculum, not some numbnuts in an office.

As far as the abortion, let's put it this way. If my girl that doesn't exist, goes out, and kills someone in my car while under age, whose responsible for that death, and all of the damages, um, me. My child is my responsibility until she's 18 here in the states, if she's going to have anything done to her, then you damn right i'm going to be the first to find out about it. I pay taxes, I pay these people, it's my right to now. My child has no legal rights in this country until their 18th birthday. If I'm the gaurdian, and I'm responsible for everything else, then you damn right I'm going to know about this.


Honestly, anyone that believes in any of this garbage should have themselves checked out. The people that put this together are on the fringe of left wing nut jobdome. These people are the people that are so far removed from reality, that they create their own Imagination land, and the rules in which those lands are governed by. These peoples are the assholes of society that are too good to mingle with you in public, yet want to be the one that dictate your life. They are too busy looking down their own noses and criticizing others and their way of lives, that chances are, they aren't parents themselves.

 

[TwistofRKO]

There is NO reason to hit your child. At all. It shouldn't be 'All of a sudden' either. It should have been illegal a long time ago. Seriously, teach your children violence is wrong by hitting them, yaay!

Congrats on expressing your opinion, let everyone else have their own. When will people see the hypocrisy of saying we should be open minded, yet you take away the voice of opinion on matters regarding abortion, homosexuality, and how to raise children. Pure hypocrisy.

Who cares? If they don't want to get up and go to Church it clearly doesn't mean that much to them. Leave them to it, it's their choice.

They live in a house for free, they are fed, they are provided with clothing. A parent who wants their children in church have the right to bring them to church whether they want to or not.

 

[Tastycles]

I've had a while longer to think about this, so I'm making a second post on the matter.

Honestly, anyone that believes in any of this garbage should have themselves checked out.

You have just managed to alienate 99% of the countries in the world by saying this. This piece of legislation isn't some namby pamby left wing love in that lets kids run free and do whatever they want. It is a vital document that ensures that the entire world appreciates that child poverty needs to be ended.

Amnesty international say that the aims of the treaty are thus:

(*) Freedom from violence, abuse, hazardous employment, exploitation, abduction or sale
(*) Adequate nutrition
(*) Free compulsory primary education
(*) Adequate health care
(*) Equal treatment regardless of gender, race, or cultural background
(*) The right to express opinions and freedom of though in matters affecting them
(*) Safe exposure/access to leisure, play, culture, and art.

If you object to any of them, you are an idiot, simple as that. For whatever reason the right wing media has taken it upon itself to vilify this treaty, because that is what right wing media does. But this time it is beyond ridicule. Every single country in the world apart from the USA and Somalia, who are too unstable to be allowed to pass laws, has passed it. That means Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, the left wing states, have passed it. However, it also means that Germany, Italy, Austria, Zimbabwe, the right wing states have done too. This isn't a pilitical dcument, it transcends that, it is a basic and fundamental declaration of human rights, and it has been delibrately misinterpreted to make Obama look the villain. To any outside observer, Obama was right when he called it an embarrassment to the country, because it is.

This is what amnesty international has to say on the matter:

Due to widespread misconceptions about the Convention's intent and provisions, and a lack of public understanding about how this type of agreement is implemented by our government, the Convention has encountered a notable level of opposition within the Senate and in the public.

The most common unfounded concerns voiced by the opposition include:

The Convention usurps national and state sovereignty

The Convention undermines parental authority

The Convention would allow and encourage children to sue parents, join gangs, have abortions,

The United Nations would dictate how we raise and teach our children

These claims and perceptions are a result of misconceptions, erroneous information, and a lack of understanding about how international human rights treaties are implemented in the United States.

But perhaps the most telling piece of information is this:

Notably, in many cases, the Convention's opponents criticize provisions which were added by the Reagan and Bush Administrations during the drafting process in an effort to reflect the rights American children have under the U.S. Constitution.

I'm not going to tell you how to raise your children, I'm not going to tell you not to smack your children. I was smacked, I won't be smacking my kids, it's up to you. I'm not going to tell you that it is wrong to instill faith into children, nor am I going to say my views on childhood incarceration, but, crucially, neither is the UN. I cannot reiterate enough how little the convention will change anything in the US, but it is the international symbolism of the act.

Britain signed it, our kids are fine. Our children do not run wild. There has never been a child harging his parents for a petty dispute, either, nor has any child from this country been taken away from their parents for anything but serious neglect.

What I am going to tell you, as a non-American, is that when people like Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-Il sign a treaty that forbids child slavery, paedophilia and child soldiers and George Bush doesn't, that is why people hate America. It is a backward and introverted us against the world mentality that is wholly unjustified.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I've had a while longer to think about this, so I'm making a second post on the matter.



You have just managed to alienate 99% of the countries in the world by saying this. This piece of legislation isn't some namby pamby left wing love in that lets kids run free and do whatever they want. It is a vital document that ensures that the entire world appreciates that child poverty needs to be ended.

Then why should children be protected from having to notify their parents if a 12 year old wants an abortion? Why should spanking be illegal? Amnesty International makes Hussein Obama look like Dick Cheney, politically.

Amnesty international say that the aims of the treaty are thus:

If you object to any of them, you are an idiot, simple as that. For whatever reason the right wing media has taken it upon itself to vilify this treaty, because that is what right wing media does. But this time it is beyond ridicule. Every single country in the world apart from the USA and Somalia, who are too unstable to be allowed to pass laws, has passed it.

135 countries have passed it. There are more than 137 countries in the world.

That means Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, the left wing states, have passed it. [/quote]

And I am so sure they will abide by it. Iran, who has signed the document, is so accommodating to the UN on everything that they agree to do. How are those nuclear inspectors doing? You know, the ones that they continually kick out. This country executes homosexuals. But go ahead, please use Iran as your example of the most progressive countries in regard to human rights. That will get you far.

However, it also means that Germany, Italy, Austria, Zimbabwe, the right wing states have done too.

Yes, those are some right wing countries you have mentioned. Germany is socialist, not exactly right wing. Their political right is somewhere left of center. Their far right are Nazis.

This isn't a pilitical dcument, it transcends that, it is a basic and fundamental declaration of human rights,

The only rights kids enjoy is the right not to be abused, molested, or sold. The theory of reciprocity states that anyone who receives extra protection also surrenders extra rights. I am guessing the right to leisure is one of these.

and it has been delibrately misinterpreted to make Obama look the villain.

Really? Obama? This document was passed in 1995. Obama was still planning bombings with Ayers and doing coke back then.

To any outside observer, Obama was right when he called it an embarrassment to the country, because it is.

I am an inside observer, and Obama is an embarrassment to this country.

This is what amnesty international has to say on the matter:





But perhaps the most telling piece of information is this:



I'm not going to tell you how to raise your children, I'm not going to tell you not to smack your children. I was smacked, I won't be smacking my kids, it's up to you. I'm not going to tell you that it is wrong to instill faith into children, nor am I going to say my views on childhood incarceration, but, crucially, neither is the UN. I cannot reiterate enough how little the convention will change anything in the US, but it is the international symbolism of the act.

If you can quote Amnesty International, can I quote the equivalent on the right? Just kidding, even those of on the right know Ann Coulter is a joke, if only you people could understand that Amnesty International is one too.

My biggest problem is that when we sign a UN charter, it supersedes US law. Then kids would be able to take parents to court over groundings. Aren't the courts backlogged enough? Isn't not letting important lawsuits into court instead of nonsense over rights that kids don't even deserve a bigger harm than a spanking? We have something called the 9th district court, located in San Francisco. They would love nothing more than to allow consensual sex between a 30 year old man and a willing six year old boy. Hey buddy, you want some candy? Just drop your pants. In all seriousness, passing this charter in the US leads to trouble that other countries don't have. Our district courts would, at some point, put all kids under control of the US government.

Britain signed it, our kids are fine. Our children do not run wild. There has never been a child harging his parents for a petty dispute, either, nor has any child from this country been taken away from their parents for anything but serious neglect.

This is America. The ACLU will jump at the chance to restrict parents ability to raise kids in the church or with morals. The ACLU's goal is to make it illegal to mention God and make a situation where political goals outwiegh morals. The US can't sign it because we are way too lawsuit happy.

What I am going to tell you, as a non-American, is that when people like Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-Il sign a treaty that forbids child slavery, paedophilia and child soldiers

They signed it so they could say the US didn't. They have no intention of following it. Are you kidding me? Are you that much of a lefty that you want to make terrorists out to be better than George Bush? Give me a fucking break. That is a weak argument.

and George Bush doesn't,

And neither did Bill Clinton. And just you know what we're talking about, and perhaps to stop you from spewing this nonsense, the law has to be passed by both houses of congress, which has failed to happen with BOTH FUCKING PARTIES IN POWER.

that is why people hate America.

If 48.7 got banned.... But anyway, people hate America until they need us. The only reason that there hasn't been another attack in England is because we share intelligence. People hate America because they have to follow us or they get lost in the shuffle.

It is a backward

You guys still stop for tea.

and introverted us against the world mentality that is wholly unjustified.

You used the same arguments, and even the same source, that people use to rail against us for not signing the UN land mine treaty. We just can't do it. Things are different here. We can't sign the landmine treaty because those land mines are the only thing protecting 50,000 US soldiers and millions of South Koreans from Kim Jong Il. We can't sign this treaty because there are too many leftist organizations who will take it too literally and take all rights from parents. America is different from Europe in so many regards. First of which is we don't have 32 parties to sway on an issue. We have two, and those two parties are diametrically opposed. Our left is intent upon letting the government run every phase of day to day life. Besides not being able to afford this, this is why we had to beat England in two wars. We don't want an overreaching government, and this proposal far overreaches the bounds set up by the American government.