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.
"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."
How would any government know how children are not being raise in a correct and productive manner? How would they define correct or productive? What parameters would be used? Sounds to faulty to me. Only parents can gauge what is best for their children.
I would not want any governmental agency raise my children, heck they cannot even run the postal service correctly!
Location: I currently exist only in a state of mind. one too complex for geographic location.
4,196 posts, read 5,833,293 times
Reputation: 670
are you saying that the agency who runs the DMV sucks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by XLIGuy
"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."
How would any government know how children are not being raise in a correct and productive manner? How would they define correct or productive? What parameters would be used? Sounds to faulty to me. Only parents can gauge what is best for their children.
I would not want any governmental agency raise my children, heck they cannot even run the postal service correctly!
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)
It does not surprise me that lunatic leftists like Boxer would sign onto this crap, they think America is an oppressor nation, and the bane of the world.
Our US Constitution and Bill of Rights are what guide our country, so why would we bother with some worthless UN piece of paper?
You say 193 countries have signed on to this, are their children all of a sudden more free then ours now? Call me when the rest of the world has more freedom in their countries then ours.
I would not want any governmental agency raise my children, heck they cannot even run the postal service correctly!
That's only because the younger postal workers received government-mandated vaccines containing mercury and formaldehyde, while ingesting enough pesticides to confuse any endocrine system.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,701,094 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC
Who IS responsible for the child?
First and foremost the parent(s). When they fail however to act in a responsible way then the government must and should step in to insure the health, well being and proper rearing of the children.
First and foremost the parent(s). When they fail however to act in a responsible way then the government must and should step in to insure the health, well being and proper rearing of the children.
Who decides what is responsible, the UN?
Is teaching your child that God is all powerful and must be obeyed irresponsible do you think???
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,701,094 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by XLIGuy
"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."
How would any government know how children are not being raise in a correct and productive manner? How would they define correct or productive? What parameters would be used? Sounds to faulty to me. Only parents can gauge what is best for their children.
I would not want any governmental agency raise my children, heck they cannot even run the postal service correctly!
It is pretty easy to tell when children are beiong raised in a correct and productive manner. That is not to say that any of us (I have raised 4 of them) are perfect but when they show up with head lice, dirty clothes and hungry at school- or just don't show up for school at all, it is obviously time for the government to step in and take over. The same when the parents are habitual druggies or drunkards. The same when the parents belong to religious organizations that bar them from getting proper medical attention for their children. I agree that parents should have a fair amount of the decision making over the rearing of their children but the government must always be a parent of last option. Remember that the parent is only going to have the kid for 18 years and the rest of us will be stuck with the product they put out.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,701,094 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC
Who decides what is responsible, the UN?
Is teaching your child that God is all powerful and must be obeyed irresponsible do you think???
No I don't but taking your child to a church where they handle poisonous snakes or are forced to "marry" when they are 13 or are beat with a whip in front of the church is quite irresponsible. Denial of medical attention for an illness because some nutty preacher wants to do "spritual healing" is irresponsible. If the child is in an accident and needs blood to survive, that decision should be made by a medical doctor and not a nutty minister.
No I don't but taking your child to a church where they handle poisonous snakes or are forced to "marry" when they are 13 or are beat with a whip in front of the church is quite irresponsible.
What percentage of children are exposed to this?
Quote:
Denial of medical attention for an illness because some nutty preacher wants to do "spritual healing" is irresponsible. If the child is in an accident and needs blood to survive, that decision should be made by a medical doctor and not a nutty minister.
What about the parents,what if the parents decide they do not want a blood transfusion on their child?
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.
