According to Foxnews.com, Senator Barbara Boxer is pushing a bill that will basically give the government more control over children and it will take away control from the children's parents.
What do you think of this? I personally think that the Parents should still be the ones who control their kids. We already have children services is the parents aren't doing a good job. It would be unnecessary and dangerous to ratify this law.
I was trying to think of how an international body of diplomacy could ever have jurisdiction of parental rights and just wasn't getting it. I also don't understand how much of this isn't already in effect and why more people aren't expressing concerns about how the child protection services are already too interfering or something.
Oh wait, I forgot to take into account the demographics.
Bah, darn Fox. Leave it to them to put do much effort in bashing Democrats. The article hardly even says anything about the treaty. Just a lot of bull about "This is America! Screw other countries!"
And of course they're against it. They want to make sure all babies are born so that they can control the little fellas and shove them around. XD
RATIFY THE DAMN THING! God damnit, America is supposed to be land of the free, and yet the only other country that hasn't decided to give underages freedom to even THINK how they want is Somalia. Congratulations, America, your the biggest hypocrite in the world.
This bill doesn't necessarily provide freedom. From what I can tell, it takes freedom away from the parents and creates more government regulations. Most of the stuff in the bill, such as all children needing care and the prohibiting of child pornography and prostitution, is already provided for in other laws. The only place that I can see it making a real difference, is when a parent is arguing with a child about going to church, the parent would no longer have the right to force the child to go. However, situations like that where a child could benefit from the morals learned through religion, but disagrees with the opinion of their parent make this bill a bit more difficult to take a side on. Children are inexperienced and need guidance because of that. Without guidance they would almost certainly have a difficult time fitting into society, however this bill would take away the right of a parent to force them in a good (or potentially bad) direction.
Dude, the article talks about that very freedom in the first few paragraphs.
it takes freedom away from the parents and creates more government regulations
Only the freedom to dominate someone else.
The only place that I can see it making a real difference, is when a parent is arguing with a child about going to church, the parent would no longer have the right to force the child to go.
Or forcing the kid to do other shit that has no relation to the kids wellbeing, and only relates to the parents.
owever, situations like that where a child could benefit from the morals learned through religion,
You shouldn't get your morals from religion, you should have them to begin with.
Children are inexperienced and need guidance because of that
This applies to more than just little kids, you know.
Without guidance they would almost certainly have a difficult time fitting into society, however this bill would take away the right of a parent to force them in a good (or potentially bad) direction.
The problem with that is the force part. And whats good in the parents eyes might not be good in the kids eyes. What they do might ruin the kid, and they would have no idea.
I'm a little confused by that, are you mistaking me as an adult? PLease correct me if I'm mistake
i meant that thats what the people in the government say about how its a good thing, the governments will only interview the kids who think its a good idea(which would be only a fraction of teens living in that country). so what im trying to say is, what do the teens (that live in this countries and dont like the laws) think about the laws and how the laws are executed.
Well, this "treaty" only becomes a problem because when the Founding Fathers wrote the Supremacy Clause into the Constitution, they didn't think that we'd be signing treaties about if our kids should get spanked or not. This "treaty" is absolute crapola, and actually, because I'm homeschooled, I could get taken away from my parents and put in the foster care system if this treaty is signed.
Just reread my first post. Somehow, it did not pot what I wanted to post. I was trying to say that even if the law was ratified, it would be extremely difficult for the government to follow through and enforce it. Since our country has much larger problems than imposing their will upon America's youth, I think that we need not worry much about this issue. In the short term, at least.
i agree with ubertuna right know the country is to messed up to do anything like that. by the time this crisis is going to be over well all be 18 or 19 so theres no point in worrying about this laws. let the next generation worry about this laws
Is there something acceptable about beating children now? If a child is being abused, the government needs to interfere and protect the child; it's their responsibility.
It's called "discipline". Without it, kids, little children, and teens think they can do everything they darn well wish to without physical consequences. As far as I'm concerned, mental and emotional punishment doesn't do squat diddly to kids, because they aren't mature enough. Pain is the natural signal to show that you did something wrong. Take this away, and every single rule that children follow will be based on their morals and alignments.
I am GLAD that the U.S. hasn't ratified this "act", fake or not. It's what sets kids straight, and I'm going to use my parental power to make sure my child(ren) will behave like responsible people, like everyone should. It's what keeps kids from being rebellious.
Metaphor alert:
If you dog pees/poops on your carpet when he/she is supposed to be going outside or on the newspaper, what would be the most effective course of action? Screaming "NO! BAD DOG!" ?? Nope. You smack it on the rear as soon as you catch him/her do it, the number of times smacked at your discretion. If you consider discipline as a form of child abuse, you are definitely not ready for parenting. That's all I got to say.
