Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,524,412 times
Reputation: 2038
Advertisements
193 other nations have signed on to this, while Somalia, is the only other country that refused to.
This was under Bushco. Obama said that he will sign a similiar agreement that will protect gays and transgender people. However, I don't know where he stands on this particular one.
I don't think the UN means to say (like some cons are trying to make it to be), well, parents cannot punish their kids from not going to church or I can't ground my kid as I see fit. It's meant to protect kids from severe abuse, which is already on the books at least on local levels anyway.
Or is it one of those "THE UN IS THE BOOGEYMAN!" talking points from the cons, that make them against it, based on UN involvement?
ConstitutionParty.com Article: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights (http://www.constitutionparty.com/news_print.php?aid=874 - broken link)
Simple: we as parents don't want the United Nations telling us how to raise our children. We don't want someone from another culture and/or religion telling us what religious values we must observe (no, my children do NOT have the right to decide what religion they may be brought up in, although I have no control over them after they reach their majority), what forms of discipline I may use, or what values I incull in them. I want them educated to the values of my family.
Furthermore, I do not trust the United Nations - whose member states are often hostile to my own country - to use this as a method of subverting my nation's values and bringing down my people. The United Nations is not an impartial world government, all wise and all knowing. It is made up of representatives of governments, each with a different culture, many of which are led by dictators whose only desire is to remain in power. To surrender my fundamental right to bring up my children as I see fit is to destroy my own culture.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,752,651 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul of Alexandria
Simple: we as parents don't want the United Nations telling us how to raise our children. We don't want someone from another culture and/or religion telling us what religious values we must observe (no, my children do NOT have the right to decide what religion they may be brought up in, although I have no control over them after they reach their majority), what forms of discipline I may use, or what values I incull in them. I want them educated to the values of my family.
Furthermore, I do not trust the United Nations - whose member states are often hostile to my own country - to use this as a method of subverting my nation's values and bringing down my people. The United Nations is not an impartial world government, all wise and all knowing. It is made up of representatives of governments, each with a different culture, many of which are led by dictators whose only desire is to remain in power. To surrender my fundamental right to bring up my children as I see fit is to destroy my own culture.
There is no such "right". Never has been. I do not have an opinion on the UN thing because I have not read it but it seems that there are lots of folks about that think children are their "property" to do with as they please. There is no such right and the government has not only an interest but an obligation to step in when children are not being raised in a correct and productive manner.
193 other nations have signed on to this, while Somalia, is the only other country that refused to.
This was under Bushco. Obama said that he will sign a similiar agreement that will protect gays and transgender people. However, I don't know where he stands on this particular one.
I don't think the UN means to say (like some cons are trying to make it to be), well, parents cannot punish their kids from not going to church or I can't ground my kid as I see fit. It's meant to protect kids from severe abuse, which is already on the books at least on local levels anyway.
Or is it one of those "THE UN IS THE BOOGEYMAN!" talking points from the cons, that make them against it, based on UN involvement?
ConstitutionParty.com Article: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights (http://www.constitutionparty.com/news_print.php?aid=874 - broken link)
from what I read of the treaty, it would make it illegal for a parent to dicipline their child.
I also dont see the UN as a boogyman, but as an idiot. also if the UN came to my home to enforce this treaty, they shall be leaving on my terms.
There is no such "right". Never has been. I do not have an opinion on the UN thing because I have not read it but it seems that there are lots of folks about that think children are their "property" to do with as they please. There is no such right and the government has not only an interest but an obligation to step in when children are not being raised in a correct and productive manner.
So GOVERNMENT is the supreme authority on what is "correct and productive"? Great idea!! Abort the imperfect and let the government raise the rest.
Serious genetic disease, particularly mental illnesses, make their victims incapable of living a normal life. They rob their victims of their reasoning powers and sense of responsibility, reducing their value to the people's community. The unfit proliferate wildly and spread their genetic diseases. This is clear from the average number of children per family.......
Healthy families have 2.2 children
Families with inherited mental deficiencies have 3.5 children
Families with criminal tendencies have 4.9 children.
Location: I currently exist only in a state of mind. one too complex for geographic location.
4,196 posts, read 5,841,798 times
Reputation: 670
so if children do not belong to the parents, then you have no problem with a parent letting their child starve to death right? you're logical. I can't wait to starve my child as the child is not my responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK
There is no such "right". Never has been. I do not have an opinion on the UN thing because I have not read it but it seems that there are lots of folks about that think children are their "property" to do with as they please. There is no such right and the government has not only an interest but an obligation to step in when children are not being raised in a correct and productive manner.
193 other nations have signed on to this, while Somalia, is the only other country that refused to.
This was under Bushco. Obama said that he will sign a similiar agreement that will protect gays and transgender people. However, I don't know where he stands on this particular one.
I don't think the UN means to say (like some cons are trying to make it to be), well, parents cannot punish their kids from not going to church or I can't ground my kid as I see fit. It's meant to protect kids from severe abuse, which is already on the books at least on local levels anyway.
Or is it one of those "THE UN IS THE BOOGEYMAN!" talking points from the cons, that make them against it, based on UN involvement?
Well, how is it going to protect them? What is the exact mechanism?
Rule of thumb: when the US refuses to sign on to a UN bill or convention, it is because:
(1) the bill in question empowers some unelected foreign official to interfere with the administration of justice in the US -- in other words, erodes national sovereignty; AND/OR
(2) the bill in question defines the key term (in this case, "severe abuse") in an unacceptable way -- by, for example, excluding certain practices deemed "cultural" or politically acceptable, and embraced by other signatories; AND/OR
(3) the bill in question requires the US to comply with onerous (read: expensive) administrative regulations and to expend an unacceptably large amount of money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
