Child Rights

[Homicidalheathen]

why do you think this has not been signed by the US yet? Because we buy child slave labor products?

Because sick rich (mostly white) guys want to go over seas and purchase child prostitutes for very little $?

I do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xossWRlmr8

[Rev.Reverence]

Who else did not sign?...Somalia...whom, has not had a GOVERNMENT for near 20 years...

...you know why we won't ratify?

.....it gives rights to teens to abort unwanted pregnancy...that's what I heard...

[Oh_My_Goth]

Who else did not sign?...Somalia...whom, has not had a GOVERNMENT for near 20 years...

...you know why we won't ratify?

.....it gives rights to teens to abort unwanted pregnancy...that's what I heard...

& People think that is a bad thing :dry

[TheOsakaKoneko]

why do you think this has not been signed by the US yet? Because we buy child slave labor products?

Because sick rich (mostly white) guys want to go over seas and purchase child prostitutes for very little $?

I do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xossWRlmr8

Sorry, but this is one of the funniest things I've read so far today.

I think you could have worded that better!

(Actually, I take it back, I don't think it's possible to have worded that any better at all!)

[Rev.Reverence]

[pomba gira]

Who else did not sign?...Somalia...whom, has not had a GOVERNMENT for near 20 years...

...you know why we won't ratify?

.....it gives rights to teens to abort unwanted pregnancy...that's what I heard...

Gotta agree with that. "Critics say the convention places the rights of children above their parents and is anti-family." That there's Religious Right talk... 'cos you know, the Bible says it's cool to sell your kids into slavery and all.

Edited November 23, 2009 by pomba gira

[Rev.Reverence]

... 'cos you know, the Bible says it's cool to sell your kids into slavery and all.

...it does...& your wife as well...not that I'ld ever, either...I'm just sayin'...but, abortion isn't in the bible...you know why? They just never did that in THAT tribe...there are plenty of herbs & fungi from around the world, that have been used to terminate unwanted pregnancies since time unmemorable[sup(usage?)...

...even, the Italian peninsula, I read, USED to have the 'best' herb for this...it is now extinct...

.....I mean, don't get me wrong...back in the day, abortion was more often wrong, on a tribal level...or, more, unthinkable/uncomprehensible...'casue, well if your tribe is really tiny, it's like an animal thing, to protect every procreating union as an extension of the will of g*d for the tribe to flourish...now, remember, in these times, it was every woman's JOB to carry children...every man's, to hunt.

...but now...when we destroy crops, instead of bridging the have/have not gap...

...just wierd to me...we have plenty of humans...

[Tacohitts]

I see you like to blame YT for everything,not all White people do this crap.

[Rev.Reverence]

I see you like to blame YT for everything,not all White people do this crap.

Settle down yo...no one said anything like that...

[pomba gira]

...it does...& your wife as well...not that I'ld ever, either...I'm just sayin'...but, abortion isn't in the bible...you know why? They just never did that in THAT tribe...there are plenty of herbs & fungi from around the world, that have been used to terminate unwanted pregnancies since time unmemorable[sup(usage?)...

...even, the Italian peninsula, I read, USED to have the 'best' herb for this...it is now extinct...

.....I mean, don't get me wrong...back in the day, abortion was more often wrong, on a tribal level...or, more, unthinkable/uncomprehensible...'casue, well if your tribe is really tiny, it's like an animal thing, to protect every procreating union as an extension of the will of g*d for the tribe to flourish...now, remember, in these times, it was every woman's JOB to carry children...every man's, to hunt.

...but now...when we destroy crops, instead of bridging the have/have not gap...

...just wierd to me...we have plenty of humans...

Actually the common practice in the ancient world was to expose unwanted babies (i.e. leave them out on a hillside or at the edge of the fields)... or just not bother to smack 'em to make them breathe. In most traditional cultures, newborns were not considered fully human until they'd been through some type of acceptance ritual... which could vary from women bringing them back to the village after giving birth alone, through the elaborate 30-day celebrations in Asian cultures. The idea that one is obligated to raise every child one bears is a very recent thing in human history.

[Rev.Reverence]

Actually the common practice in the ancient world was to expose unwanted babies (i.e. leave them out on a hillside or at the edge of the fields)... or just not bother to smack 'em to make them breathe. In most traditional cultures, newborns were not considered fully human until they'd been through some type of acceptance ritual... which could vary from women bringing them back to the village after giving birth alone, through the elaborate 30-day celebrations in Asian cultures. The idea that one is obligated to raise every child one bears is a very recent thing in human history.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Did any of you read any of it? or it's history... or how it has or has not been implemented by the countries that have ratified it?

[Rev.Reverence]

Did any of you read any of it? or it's history... or how it has or has not been implemented by the countries that have ratified it?

...no....I do not have time to read such a mass of legalese....why don't you break it down for me? (In a friendly fashion.) You know, by now, how non-concrete my mind can be.

All that I did do, was hear about it...I heard some peoples not cool with it...I noticed why.

I don't actually care that much about what OTHER countries are doing...as much as what we are doing, & what's more, why we are doing it.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

...no....I do not have time to read such a mass of legalese....why don't you break it down for me? (In a friendly fashion.) You know, by now, how non-concrete my mind can be.

All that I did do, was hear about it...I heard some peoples not cool with it...I noticed why.

I don't actually care that much about what OTHER countries are doing...as much as what we are doing, & what's more, why we are doing it.

OK, here's the Wiki version...

The Convention deals with the child-specific needs and rights. It requires that states act in the best interests of the child. This approach is different from the common law approach found in many countries that had previously treated children and wives as possessions or chattels, ownership of which was often argued over in family disputes. In many jurisdictions, properly implementing the Convention requires an overhaul of child custody and guardianship laws, or, at the very least, a creative approach within the existing laws.

The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping and have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated.

The Convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, to have their privacy protected and requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference.

The Convention also obliges signatory states to provide separate legal representation for a child in any judicial dispute concerning their care and asks that the child's viewpoint be heard in such cases. The Convention forbids capital punishment for children.

In its General Comment 8 (2000) the Committee on the Rights of the Child stated that there was an "obligation of all States parties to move quickly to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment and all other cruel or degrading forms of punishment of children".^[9] Article 19 of the Convention states that State Parties must "take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence",^[10] but makes no explicit reference to corporal punishment.

The European Court of Human Rights has made reference to the Convention when interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights.^[11]

United States

Main article: US ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the ChildThe United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention and signed it on 16 February 1995, but has not ratified it.^[1] Opposition to the Convention is in part due to what are seen as potential conflicts with the Constitution and because of opposition by some political and religious conservatives.^[31] The Heritage Foundation sees the conflict as an issue of national control over domestic policy.^[32] President Barack Obama has described the failure to ratify the Convention as 'embarrassing' and has promised to review this.^[33]

The US has signed and ratified both of the optional protocols to the Convention.^[7][8]

Optional protocols

Two optional protocols were adopted by the UN General Assembly on 25 May 2000. The Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict requires governments to ensure that children under the age of eighteen are not recruited compulsorily into their armed forces, and calls on governments to do everything feasible to ensure that members of their armed forces who are under eighteen years of age do not take part in hostilities. This protocol entered into force on 12 July 2002;^[7] as of May 2009, 128 states are party to the protocol and another 28 states have signed but not yet ratified it.^[7]

The Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography requires states to prohibit the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. It entered into force on 18 January 2002;^[8] as of May 2009, 131 states are party to the protocol and another 31 states have signed but not yet ratified it.^[8]

The major oposition to ratification of the main body is that if we do ratify the treaty we would have to alter US law first. Thats not normally a problem with most treatys but in this case many people have thought that we would have to change the Constitution. Changing the Constitution is not a fast or easy process.

Another hurtle is many people feel that it strips away most parental authority.

Also keep in mind, this was not drafted for Western countries. This was a tool to get control over countries where women and children are treated like property.

[jynxxxedangel]

The major oposition to ratification of the main body is that if we do ratify the treaty we would have to alter US law first. Thats not normally a problem with most treatys but in this case many people have thought that we would have to change the Constitution. Changing the Constitution is not a fast or easy process.

Another hurtle is many people feel that it strips away most parental authority.

Also keep in mind, this was not drafted for Western countries. This was a tool to get control over countries where women and children are treated like property.

..and in most of those Third World countries, the children are much more responsible from a young age, and more inherently respectful toward their elders, than they are here.

I can only think of the social damage that may be done, if we were to indoctrinate this treaty. The people who would benefit most, would be the family law shysters. They'd be up to their eyeballs in cases, and richer than anyone.

Edited November 24, 2009 by jynxxxedangel

[pomba gira]

Did any of you read any of it? or it's history... or how it has or has not been implemented by the countries that have ratified it?

Yes.

[thevamp2173]

Gotta agree with that. "Critics say the convention places the rights of children above their parents and is anti-family." That there's Religious Right talk... 'cos you know, the Bible says it's cool to sell your kids into slavery and all.

Yup i agree with you ..it usually starts in the family itself of the child with proper guidance.

Dentist Norwalk | Dentist West Covina

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

..and in most of those Third World countries, the children are much more responsible from a young age, and more inherently respectful toward their elders, than they are here.

I can only think of the social damage that may be done, if we were to indoctrinate this treaty. The people who would benefit most, would be the family law shysters. They'd be up to their eyeballs in cases, and richer than anyone.

They are more respectful and responsible because thier parents can and will beat the snot out of them without having to worry that thier child will sue them or that some government body will have them arrested.

This whole treaty is an attempt to reshape the social structures of the rest of the world to fit the Liberal mold of how thing "should be" without any thought to the outcome. We already see the results here and in Eroupe of this mindset and it's not fucking pretty.

[pomba gira]

They are more respectful and responsible because thier parents can and will beat the snot out of them without having to worry that thier child will sue them or that some government body will have them arrested.

This whole treaty is an attempt to reshape the social structures of the rest of the world to fit the Liberal mold of how thing "should be" without any thought to the outcome. We already see the results here and in Eroupe of this mindset and it's not fucking pretty.

Wrong. Children nowadays are less respectful of authority because adults are less respectful of authority. Just about everything in our society fosters lack of respect for authority. What made the difference in days gone by was not just the people felt free to pummel their children with impunity... it was that EVERYONE had a vastly different view of authority and the individual's place in the world than we do now. Third-world cultures still hold to the extended family structure, which does not foster the kind of selfish individualism that the nuclear family structure does... people are more respectful because they are more dependent on the group and maintaining the functionality of the group.

I know I don't usually engage with you, and truthfully, I'm not gonna do it now. But the assertion that all we need to do is have everyone beat their kids more and it'll be 1955 again is deeply disturbing to me. It's simplistic at best and intensely counterproductive at worst. I know plenty of folks who regularly whale on their children and guess what... those children are not any better behaved than anyone else's.

[Rev.Reverence]

Wrong. Children nowadays are less respectful of authority because adults are less respectful of authority. Just about everything in our society fosters lack of respect for authority. What made the difference in days gone by was not just the people felt free to pummel their children with impunity... it was that EVERYONE had a vastly different view of authority and the individual's place in the world than we do now. Third-world cultures still hold to the extended family structure, which does not foster the kind of selfish individualism that the nuclear family structure does... people are more respectful because they are more dependent on the group and maintaining the functionality of the group.

I know I don't usually engage with you, and truthfully, I'm not gonna do it now. But the assertion that all we need to do is have everyone beat their kids more and it'll be 1955 again is deeply disturbing to me. It's simplistic at best and intensely counterproductive at worst. I know plenty of folks who regularly whale on their children and guess what... those children are not any better behaved than anyone else's.

There's the point.

...let me expound...I have one from the school me Junior is in:

Our school had to explain, time & time again, for the parents not to park on the streets where it is illegal (with nice signs everywhere that say so)...they still did not stop...so, we got a letter sent home to EVERYONE (how much did 200+ fliers & postage cost?) AND...the principal got a fucking bullhorn, so she could yell at us WHICH, feels about like you got smacked in the ear by dad, if you are too close to her.

THEY STILL DO IT!

They just stay sitting in their cars till their kids walk out.

THAT, is how the general populous does it now...they teach their kids how to find a loop hole (a running car, with a person in it, is 'standing' not 'parked').....or, just ignore the rules.

...if they even teach them kids anything.

...& don't get me started about how the T.V. shows are warping the minds...we just banned Nicolodean during weekdays, the level of respect in our house was waning.

...taking away the remote control, & either ignoring, or rubbing in the hurt, seems to have worked better (& more immediately) than ANY beating I ever got.

...which brings me to another problem...carrying out non-corporeal punishments...a bit harder than just beating a kid...a bit like work it is...but, well, we know ALL about the WORK ETHIC in this country of late.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Cause and affect. It's something we don't teach our children enough of. Or our adults for that matter. There must be repercusions to any action. Sometimes the affect needs to be a well placed smack on the ass.

Rev. perhaps your school needs to try actually enforcing the laws. Getting a ticket that costs hundreds of dollars seems more like a hard spanking than someone giving me a firm talking to.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Gaf The Horse With Tears

[jynxxxedangel]

Gaf's playing the "I agree, yet I don't" advocate. I loves you though..you make people THINK...and that's good.

Darlin', you should find yourself a spin doctorin' job! FUCK SHIT UP.

[n0Mad]

Penn Jillette said something like, "Anytime anyone ever says, 'There ought to be a law,' there usually oughtn't."

[Rev.Reverence]

Cause and affect. It's something we don't teach our children enough of. Or our adults for that matter. There must be repercusions to any action. Sometimes the affect needs to be a well placed smack on the ass.

Rev. perhaps your school needs to try actually enforcing the laws. Getting a ticket that costs hundreds of dollars seems more like a hard spanking than someone giving me a firm talking to.

...only where the peril of a life threat NEEDS to be stressed, is striking a child an option for me.

...there are plenty of other things to do other than smack a child that are very effective repercussions

..seriously, you are remenicant of my step-father with this, "smack on the ass"...

...if the hand sins, you smack the hand...if the mouth, then, the mouth...

..WHY...do peoples always go for the ass? THEN, you just have a tuff-assed-kid, that thinks your a hard handed asshole with little to no self control...not you personally, you know what I mean.

...once again..in in the "I don't give a shit" camp...I don't drive

The school was ATTEMPTING to use it as a point that it is hard to teach te children moral values & structure & rules when they have shitty examples at home.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Gaf's playing the "I agree, yet I don't" advocate. I loves you though..you make people THINK...and that's good.

Darlin', you should find yourself a spin doctorin' job! FUCK SHIT UP.

Thank you but no thanks on any spin doctor job. I try try my best to find some middle ground on all issues. I don't think the left or the right has any of the answers we need.

but on this treaty.

I am opposed to ratifieing the main body if it would cause us to have to change our Constitution. Why? We, as in the USA, don't need this. We already have laws the cover just about everything in the treaty. Our children are treated like people... they are also treated like children but the main point is they are treated like people rather than proterties. This treaty was designed to enforce OUR morals (Western) on countries that treat their children like objects of little value. That offends me. As much as I would love to protect every child on the planet I must balance that with my need to respect the culture of other peoples.