The purpose of the treaty is to prevent children from being co-opted into cults, military militias (think Taliban), and the sex trade, even if their parents want them to do it.
The intention of this treaty is not to prevent people from parenting their children according to their values, but to protect the safety and well being of a child from obvious dangers.
We all know it is the right of any parent to throw their children into cults. Who ever heard of kids and cults not mixing?
Oh....right.....
We all know it is the right of any parent to throw their children into cults. Who ever heard of kids and cults not mixing?
Oh....right.....
That's just total bull****! They already have those rights; stop apologizing for the UN. This isn't "other" countries, so let them ratify the damn thing. I don't care what the intentions are, I care about how it will **** us.The purpose of the treaty is to prevent children from being co-opted into cults, military militias (think Taliban), and the sex trade, even if their parents want them to do it. They have the right to say no and go to the authorities for help. If a country has ratified this treaty, then they will be obligated to help those children. It's a good idea because in a lot of countries, children must serve their parents no matter what, and sometimes parents put their children in bad situations for their self-gain.
The intention of this treaty is not to prevent people from parenting their children according to their values, but to protect the safety and well being of a child from obvious dangers.
Why don't we just pass laws that state that if a child does not want to join a crazy cult with their parents, they don't have to? Why does this need to be an international treaty?
Maybe that's what I'm not getting. Couldn't we achieve the same goals without entering into a treaty?
I'm going to define Scientology, Mormon, and Christianity as crazy cults. HAHAHA, take that!
Because the UN is so much better and smarter than we are.Why don't we just pass laws that state that if a child does not want to join a crazy cult with their parents, they don't have to? Why does this need to be an international treaty?
Maybe that's what I'm not getting. Couldn't we achieve the same goals without entering into a treaty?
We passed the first one in 1776, a little thing called the U.S. articles of confederation, later revised into the U.S. constitution, and galvanized throughout the 18 and 1900's. You were saying?Anytime we are along side Somalia as the only nation on earth that has not ratified a human rights treaty, then I think its safe to assume we are in the wrong.
Oh, cheap shot! That's alright, we know you're joking, at least I hope so.I'm going to define Scientology, Mormon, and Christianity as crazy cults. HAHAHA, take that!
Yes.... and however true that is, if it is ratified, the first time some parent forces their kid to go to church, some loon will scream that the parent is violating his rights under international law and demand that the US government, in accordance to the treaty, do something about it.The intention of this treaty is not to prevent people from parenting their children according to their values, but to protect the safety and well being of a child from obvious dangers.
Oh, cheap shot! That's alright, we know you're joking, at least I hope so.
Yes.... and however true that is, if it is ratified, the first time some parent forces their kid to go to church, some loon will scream that the parent is violating his rights under international law and demand that the US government, in accordance to the treaty, do something about it.
We passed the first one in 1776, a little thing called the U.S. articles of confederation, later revised into the U.S. constitution, and galvanized throughout the 18 and 1900's. You were saying?
And nobody will care
because it will be a stupid argument. Sounds similar to what happens already.
How do you know? Are you able to predict the composition and legal atmosphere of the US years from now? Is there really a need for a law like this when we have a perfectly functional government of our own? I don't understand these apologetics and justifications. This law is an unnecessary usurpation of American sovereignty and the US can govern itself without input from the UN regardless of what some foreigners think.
Oh yes, because we all know the US is immune to stupid ideas...
I agree that this law, if enacted, would probably have little to no effect on a parent's ability to raise their children but that is nothing more than an assumption. In striking down this treaty we are preempting the possibility of abuse.
So what has this paper tiger accomplished? What incentive is there for a country to adhere to its laws? All these UN apologetics are laughable. Comparing the US with Somalia just because we refuse to sign some worthless piece of paper is preposterous hyperbole.
American children will be just fine without this BS treaty.
The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention. It commented on nearly all of the articles, and proposed the original text of seven of them. Three of these come direct from the US constitution and were proposed by the administration of President Ronald Reagan. On 16 February 1995, Madeleine Albright, at the time the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, signed the Convention.
"Whether you ground your kids for smoking marijuana, whether you take them to church, whether you let them go to junior prom, all of those things . . . will be the government's decision," said Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org. "It will affect every parent who's told their children to do the dishes."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?