Have you...read the Treaty for the Rights of Children?
Adoption of it would increase instances of families losing their children exponentially. It essentially causes children to be considered as separate entities from their parents and severs the connections that in the United States have been recognize through long-established case law that even the Ninth Circuit Court is reluctant to undermine.
As homeschoolers, we've long fought against Treaty being signed because it would essentially destroy our right to safely school our children at home without having them removed for daring to do so.
Why would that happen ONLY in the USA?
It happen NO WHERE else and every other nation on earth has passed it?
The only thing it does, that American's don't like is about abortions and not being able to consider our children as our property.
That's not true. I don't like it because it removes a crippling amount of the parental right to determine what course they want to take in teaching their children or treating them medically. It is tremendously detrimental to the rights of parents to guard and protect their children.
This has nothing to do with abortions or treating children as property. It has to do with parents being given the right as those who love their children best to determine the things that most directly impact them.
And if Family Protection posts have shown nothing else, they have shown that these things WOULD and DO happen across the Earth. Take a look at children in England made to die instead of being released to their parents' care to seek other options. That only happens here if the authorities manage to avoid any publicity. Once it goes that public, the hospital would be forced to let the child go to the parents because our case law currently demands parents be given the overwhelming weight of consideration in decisions about the child's welfare where the Rights of the Child mentality creates a lot more ways of cutting parents out of the decisions.
Which nation is this happening in?
Society has a responsibility to our children. Some parents should not be able to harm their children because they think it is right.
You are saying that parents have rights to harm a child, even if society see the children being harmed, that is treating a child as property.
Children belong to God. Society has a responsibility to them to keep them from harm in dangerous households.
Again....show me an article or show me the text of the treaty or show me something besides your opinion and I might be able to converse about the topic with you.
IMHO, if the US signed this treaty it would make it harder for the US Military to continually bomb children of color everyday...in the ongoing War of Terror...which would also be a good thing.
Also...we wouldn't steal children from refugees, at the border...
First of all, this and things like this (human trafficking, removal of children without redress) are happening in every single ratified country. That is not a valid argument for this discussion, nor would the adoption of the UNRotC change anything. This is demonstrably true. In order for this situation of child trafficking to be stopped, EXISTING LAW must be diligently enforced. Adding laws will change nothing except to remove parental rights.
To discuss all the different points of the UNRotC would be a very, very long post in and of itself. This article addresses many of my concerns. It is written by a legal organization in the United States which has been fighting for parental rights to have final decision-making capability for their children since the early 80s.
The salient point is that the UNRotC creates binding law - superimposed over the laws in any country in which it's enacted - which lead to the death of at least two young boys in England over the past 12 months, which makes the government the ultimate arbitor and guardian of all children. It reaches into the homes of the citizens burdened with it and makes them responsible to the government. This is not opinion. This is the stated goal of the drafters and convention members implementing UNRotC.
This is EXACTLY the onerous and terrible situation we are dealing with in @familyprotection posts right now. If someone believes this to be reasonable, I would question participation in @familyprotection posts and goals: the overreach of UNRotC - government having the final say in the treatment of children - already partially exists and is proving itself evil to it's core.
I think #6 sums it up the most.
Americans want to spend more on bombing children of color in poor nations, than we want to spend on our own children.
1 out of 5 children live in poverty in this nation...and the author of that pdf file thinks we should NOT spend more money on them and spend it on bombing children instead?!?!?!?!?!
Even the Saudi's signed it...and they treat their children horribly...
btw - when ratifying a treaty, many countries do put forth exceptions.
If USA really wanted parents to continue to have the right to beat their children...it could put that reservation into the acceptance...as some other nations did when they ratified the International Treaty for the Rights of Women...place like Saudi Arabia and Israel put in reservations to help keep their women out of power...we won't sign that one either.
This Treaty would force OUR government to stop doing some the horrors it does to children.
It would mostly, however, hinder our war profiteering, as we would be forced to bomb less children of color every year, until we started taking care of our own children.
The USA treats children horribly.
If you have a better solution than joining the civilized world, I'm interested in hearing it.
I am still waiting for actual evidence...not just some passing comment...about how the horrors of this treaty are ruining the lives of children in other nations...especially in comparison to how the USA treats children.
Alfie Evans. Charlie Gard. Dead at the hands of the court through power given them by this treaty to remove children in "world court" if parents don't fall into line with professional diktats.
All the Saudi children being treated horribly that this treaty hasn't done anything to protect.
You truly need more evidence?
Do you honestly think that IF the Saudis did NOT sign this treaty that they would treat children BETTER?
Weird...I'd like to see that article or study or whatever "fact" you are referring too.
I honestly think, that if the USA joined this treaty, we would be forced to stop bombing children of color everyday...in places like Yemen, Gaza, etc.
It sickens me that Madam Albright signed this treaty...after she helped to slaughter so many children in Iran with her sanctions and said the 1/2 million dead children was worth the price....
I've been a homeschooler for 20 years.
There's nothing that would stop me from doing it. It would actually stop the shit our government does to homeschoolers now, where they take kids away if parents refuse to give their children drugs, etc.
And you asked if I read it. Long ago, I did.
Have you?
Yes, but also not recently.