S Res. 519 (Rights of the Child... and parents...)

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Tracy, May 21, 2010.


  1. Tracy

    Tracy Insatiably Curious Moderator Founding Member

    I received an email, which prompted a search, and now sharing with you:

    Sponsored by: Sen. Jim DeMint (R, SC)
    Introduced: 5/10/2010
    A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the primary safeguard for the well-being and protection of children is the family, and that the primary safeguards for the legal rights of children in the United States are the Constitutions of the United States and the several States, and that, because the use of international treaties to govern policy in the United States on families and children is contrary to principles of self-government and federalism, and that, because the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child undermines traditional principles of law in the United States regarding parents and children, the President should not transmit the Convention to the Senate for its advice and consent.

    From the email:
     
  2. Seawolf1090

    Seawolf1090 Adventure Riding Monkey Founding Member

    Excellent! I applaud this. That UN initiative has always really disturbed me, even though I have no children - anything taking the parent's rights to raise their kids the way they want, is pure EVIL.
    The UN has overstepped it's mandate long ago, and is sticking it's collective nose where it does NOT belong!
     
  3. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

    I will not comply..
     
  4. ozarkgoatman

    ozarkgoatman Resident goat herder

    If they come to tell me how to raise my daughter or raise her they will be in for quick dose of reality.
     
  5. Ivan

    Ivan Monkey++

    except the treaty doesn't do any of those things and US law is already more or less in compliance even though we've not ratified it.


    on a more philosophical note, why do parents have any particular right over their children? are children property?

    eta:to clarify, i understand why governments do not. im just asking why parents do
     
  6. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    Children are not property! the Adults who are responsible for the welfare of the children have the right to set the rules for the children under their care as long as they are deemed reasonable and legal. This is true whether a child is in State custody, behind bars, in foster car, or in a loving home. If children want rights over and above what their parents reasonably tell them to do, it's simple. Run away, change your name, support yourself. In some cases Rich kids who have mostly made it on their own have successfully petitioned the court to emancipate them. Although for many obvious reasons it is rare. Most parents have the childs best interest in their hearts and minds at all times. But, there are rules and consequences. Good Parents try to teach their children what they consider to be right for them to learn, grow healthy, stay safe, how to interact acceptably within their peer group and the world, to excell and make something worthwhile of themselves. It comes down to reasonable and legal and best interest of the child. There are laws in force to protect the child, but almost all of them result in the child being taken out of the home if the child forces an issue that may be considered borderline legal. Spanking would be one of those. Simple bad parenting is not against the law, but maybe grossly agregious bad parenting should be. examples (note one example is not necessarily grossly agregious, but multiple could be) not showing love for your children, not setting a good personal example for your children, not encouraging your children to learn and excell, letting your children run wild and do anything what so ever, not watching out for your childs safety, not providing properly for your children with regard to clothing, food, and shelter. Parents do not eat their children, animals sometimes do. Parents do not have sex with their children, animals sometimes do. parents do not abuse their children, animals sometime do. I could go on but is it necessary?
    .
    Good parents have the interests of the child at heart. It does not take a freakin village. There is no problem with the saying; in this house, under my roof, My Rules!
    .
    A good parent should be loved and respected. A bad parent, maybe a little less so. An animal raising a child, not at all!
     
  7. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

    It wasn't even worth your time to reply to that post. It was nothing but bait.
     
  8. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    I know that, but If nothing else I wanted to dispel, that liberal crap about "it takes a village".
    .
    Ivan and a few others are like that. I have no problem discussing anything.
     
  9. Ivan

    Ivan Monkey++

    children dont as yet have the right to run away from home. the police will come and bring you back. if you have to hide and change your name to do something then it aint much of a right.

    indeed, but those are all more responsibilities then they are privileges. if you have a child then you have an obligation to raise said child to the best of your ability. since youve already stated that you think children should be able to leave if they so decide then i think we probably pretty much agree.

    would you agree that: the only authority a parent should have is that by virtue of owning the child's means of procuring food and shelter and that which they gain by virtue of having the child's love and respect.?




    i didn't intend it to be.


    .
    i think it only 'takes a village' insofar as having contact with people of different backgrounds and with different viewpoints is important.


    [looksharp]
     
  10. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    Okay Ivan, I will come out and play, and I will try to play nice. The subject at hand is one I consider worthy of talking about.
    .
    Alot of this we seem to be fundamentally in agreement on.
    .
    I guess the problem lies with the definations of "children" and "adults", and what does age have to do with it.
    .
    children are inherently incapable of taking care of themselves therefore require a "guide" or "guardian" and or "provider" to take care of them and keep them safe.
    .
    modern society as opposed to say pre-industrial society is quite different, and the standards for what is acceptable for raising children in these vastly different situations also varies greatly.
    .
    Children are forced to abide by rules acceptable to the prevailing government and society of the region where they abide, as allowable also by their care takers (parents if they have them).
    .
    Age as it relates to all this, is nothing more than an arbitrary number selected by the regional government and laws.
    .
    I think we can agree that there are 40 year old adults who realistically are no more than children when it comes to being responsible for taking care of themselves. We call them a number of things and make various efforts to assist them with their well being. These would be the bums, homeless, addicts, mentally challenged, etc etc. Most of these with the exception of the mentally challenged, I believe were not raised properly, or were led astray while out of control or observation of their guardians.
    .
    Children are not property and are not owned by their parents or the government. They are merely young, not yet of legal age to be considered "adult" human beings.
    .
    I will post more on this if you so desire to continue the discussion, but I have no way to save it mid stream..... it is right at 2pm, I have been up since before 7am, I have had two large cups of coffee and nothing else, and require nutrients to sustain life........Later
     
  11. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    part two and maybe more on point.
    .
    Children are the juvenile of the human species. Until they reach a certain age as designated by experience of the society they are raised in, they are considered incapable of providing for themselves or being trusted to survive in a safe and productive way on their own.
    .
    THEY ARE NOT PROPERTY. that can not be stressed too loudly or more plain.
    .
    Parents in our society as well as most on the planet have been deemed to be the most desireable guardians for their natural offspring in most cases.
    .
    regardless of who the legal guardians happen to be, they under the eyes of the regional government and standards and laws of that society set the rules for the juveniles.
    .
    Ownership and or property have nothing to do with it.
    .
    With regard to being exposed to a wide variety of peoples and experiences ala "it takes a village". It is not a requirement of Law or Society for this to be true. Although I agree in my case that was pretty much the case, I have no problem with certain religious groups raising and teaching their young totally isolated and protected from the outside world until deemed adult, at which time they are free to choose. Mormons as well as Amish sometimes do it that way.
    .
    I fully support Home Schooling over Public Government Sub-standard Brainwashing.
    .
    Children run away all the time whether they have either a valid need to or not, or a right to. Most are lost to society and themselves forever because of it. There are groups of runaway children in every major city all over the world including here. Unless they run afoul of the police by getting hurt or breaking the law and getting caught, they seldom get returned to their parents. The are prey for the worst adults on the face of the earth. Most would have been much better talking to a trusted adult instead of running away.
    .
    thats about all I have to say on the subject for now.
    .
    Ivan I do consider you to be intentionally argumentative. One only has to call up all posts by Ivan to draw their own conclusion. You claim not to mean it that way, but I am telling you.... to me that's the way it comes across. I may well be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.
     
  12. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    So did the Nazis, the Stalinists, and now and then Maoists. Careful with that one unless you make sure the parents are participating in the "creche.")
     
  13. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    I do not fear the teachings of a Mormon creche or a Amish one, as I feel they are pretty benign. I am not so sure of the peaceful religion of Islam and their Madrasas. Allah Akbar, death to the infidels, and all that. It makes one wonder, especially if tax payer dollars are subsidizing the costs of teaching per child in the Madrarsas.
     
  14. Ivan

    Ivan Monkey++

    very much so.


    what i dont want to come across as is intentionally offensive.
     
  15. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    Oh hell Ivan, that is damn near impossible. I can bring up a subject that 80 percent of the people anywhere would agree with in an effort to try and convince some of the 20 percent not convinced to switch sides. Due to the fact that often I drive thumb tacks with a sledge hammer when trying to make a point, I end up losing even some of the 80 percent. It's all in presentation, volume, and tone. Sometimes you are going to agravate people no matter how hard you try not to.[boozingbuddies]
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7