Governmental control over children

[NursingTLC (Kelly)]

Regardless of your political views or religion, there is some information that I feel every parent needs to be aware. President Obama is considering signing a treaty with the United Nations which would override the US Constitution in regards to parental rights. This treaty is one of two that the UN is requesting President Obama to sign in exchange for a seat for the US on the UN Commision. If this treaty, U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), is adopted, the following would take affect:

Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children
.
A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.

A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.

Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

Good parents also no longer would be entitled to the legal presumption that they act in the best interests of their children, giving way to governmental decisions that would trump anything a parent would seek for his or her child, regardless of the topic.

Here's the website for more information: http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B56D7393-E583-4658-85E6-C1974B1A57F8}

There is a petition you can sign to allow an amendment to be filed which prevent any such treaty to override the US Constitution. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94298

[argonaut (Scott)]

Great we can be like Great Britain where if your child is on life support the Gov't paid doctors get to decide when life support is removed. Whether or not the parents want it to remain.

[NursingTLC (Kelly)]

Exactly....

[Jen]

Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion. What's wrong with this? Kids can have a mind of their own rather than being forced to follow like sheep to whatever their parents believe?

According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare. I'm struggling to see how this is negative. Honestly. Our education system SUCKS compared to other First World nations.

Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC. It's called separation of church and state. If you want your kids to learn and interpret the Bible, send them to a Christian school.

Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC. Parents already have this right in public schools. Though I think that there are enough studies - done by our government as well as many top research think-tanks - that show that knowledge does not mean kids are running out having sex. So why you would want to keep your kids out of sex ed is beyond me.

Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent. If a parent is doing their job and TALKING to their child, the kid won't feel the need to run out searching for this information to begin with. But why is this a bad thing?

After reading through this website, the authors seem to want to banish the idea of governments setting standards for parents but then continuously refer to this "amendment" as being for "fit parents". Who sets this standard? THE GOVERNMENT DOES. So you need to pick one and stop trying to have it both ways.

[argonaut (Scott)]

So when your child comes home and says Mama I am going to Sally's church this week because they don't have to listen to a sermon. They just throw a party because they worship a guy named Satan. You would be OK with that??? And, if you do have a problem and your 10 year old tells SOSCF they come take them away because you are violating their rights. You are really ok with that? Think about what you are agreeing with.

As far as defense goes, lets see why most of the First World Nations can afford thier education systems. It's because the USA has defended them and continues to defend them. Japan, Germany, Norway, Sweden, etc. all thier freedom is backed up by the power of the US army. So, when the US can no longer afford to defend them they get taken over by some totalitarian regime and then it won't matter that their education was good. But, they will make highly educated slaves. I have a better idea. Why don't we fund them both as much as needed and quit building bridges to nowhere and airports in places that don't need them.

Teaching kids about religions is part of social studies. Can't afford to send them to Christian school the government takes all my money to pay kids to be taught sex ed instead of the three Rs. When the Gov't refunds all of the taxes they take for school's from my paycheck if I send my kid to Christian school then that is a valid arguement. Until then most people do not effectively have a choice. Because a man with a gun comes and locks you up if you don't pay your taxes. Look at what Obama did to the poor kids in DC. He stopped vouchers so they could go to private schools. Now instead of being able to get a good education they have to go back to the cesspools that congress runs.

Don't you think WE the People should make the choice about sex ed. not the UN. I am pro-choice. It is the parents choice.

Did you know that currently in the State of Oregon your 13 year old can go to the doctor, get treated for cancer, receive chemo etc., and if they decide they do not want you to know what is going on it is against the law for the doctors to tell you? I've had to get my 14yr old nephew to sign off so I could get his MRIs to send to specialists. Even though I am his legal guardian, I was not allowed in the room unless he consented.

You are right Jen, the gov't does set the standards, but currently those standards are somewhat kept in check by two sources, the constitution and the people. Unfortunaltely, past Supreme Courts have ruled that treaties override the Constitution. So, our gov't ratifies the treaty we lose BOTH of our checks on gov't abuse. All Supreme court rulings that say you have the right to homeschool, or send your child to a religous school are now null and void. If ratified neither you nor anyone else can gauruntee that right will still exist.

The government SUCKS! at raising kids. Look at the stats for foster kids! Those are kids raised by their gaurdian the gov't. A guardian which won't pay for braces, a guardian which can't keep a stable roof over their heads, a gaurdian that doesn't protect them from abuse, a gaurdian that doesn't get them adequate medical care. A guardian that does not even compensate those it hires to care for them at anywhere close to what a noncustodial parent would be required to pay their spouse. A guardian which does not provide a secondary education. If a foster kid graduates from highschool it is amazing!!

When the gov't can actually figure out how to raise a child then MAYBE they might be able to tell others how to do it.

[Jen]

A couple of quick points about your argument:

1) Actually, our government does NOT fund sex ed - they fund abstinence only programs. So your money is being taken to teach our children to NOT do things rather than give them the knowledge to protect themselves. This was cemented in place by good ol' G.W.

2) The US spends an incredibly large amount of money on defense, and while I think it is important to defend our country and those less fortunate than us, that should NOT take away from the education of our own children. The countries that spend less on defense and more on education have lower unemployment rates, higher GNP, and citizens are typically happier with their job and personal life. The countries you listed above *are on that list*. Not because the US "defended them" (which I think is ironic considering two of the countries were against us in WWII), but because they chose to put their own citizens' well-being above that of going out and finding problems and picking fights. Sometimes it would be for the best if the US government/military could keep its nose out of other people's business and deal with our own issues here at home. Maybe then, there wouldn't be millions of children going hungry, not receiving medical care, and living in extreme poverty in the "richest nation on the planet".

3) As for religion, if your child walks up to you and says they want to attend Sally's church, I hope that you a) know who Sally's parents are, b) know who Sally is, and c) feel comfortable with your knowledge about that family to be able to allow that to happen. If your 6 year old is hangin out with satanic worshipers at school, maybe that says something about your involvement with your child rather than their choice of friend. Also, I agree that religion is a personal choice when you are at an age that you can make that decision. A first grader coming home asking to go to church B is NOT seeking spiritual enlightenment - they are probably wanting to spend the night Saturday night and the parents said they would take your child to church with them as part of their normal family routine. And honestly, if you are that worried about it, that may signal some questions about your own religion that you should answer before you bring your child to your church anyways. I am strong in my beliefs that if my son came up to me and said "I want to go to the Catholic church with Johnny", I would say okay, here is what will be different, and here is what you will not be allowed to do (i.e. communion), and let's talk about when you get home. Have DISCUSSIONS with your child - regardless of age - and not just assume they will understand why you have the values and spiritual beliefs that you do.

4) I think the argument of the government raising kids is comparing apples to oranges. Yes, our foster care system leaves something to be desired, but setting standards and choose individuals to follow through with those standards are two different things. There are MANY foster parents in the system who do not take advantage of what IS offered, even if it is not up to the standards that other systems might have. There are also foster parents out there who do wonderful things and really save kids from a negative life with love, consistency, support, and discipline. But your argument there is missing some pieces for it to be justified.

5) The medical issues are valid points. I agree that parents should be aware when teens are seeking abortions, but the petition does not specify ONLY abortions, it places a broad label on reproductive health and services and frankly, if my daughter at age 16 wants to have a PAP smear done, who am I to stop her? That is a healthy and appropriate decision to make for a woman's health. It's interesting to me that it is freaking people out that you can't be in the room with your 14 year old during doctor's visit but that you aren't appreciating the fact that they WENT to the doctor in the first place!!!! If it is their right to refuse to go, let's be thankful they went and have a DISCUSSION about how you can support them! Part of that discussion can include you expressing what YOU would like to do to support them, such as being part of the doctor visit.

It is not a bad thing to TALK to your children. And the way these arguments are written, I am reading that you want your children to do like you do, because "you said so" not because you want to give valid arguments and reasons to back up your beliefs. Kids are not stupid. Talk to them! Treat them with respect to discuss these (obviously) heated topics and open up that dialogue, and that will be reciprocated! Give your kids some power, the choices to give them EXPERIENCE in this world, and I think you'll see them turn into great adults with good decision making skills, not just sheep who do what they are told without questioning it. THAT scares me more than anything else.

(And let's be honest - with our depleted government resources, how often do you think this would actually be enforced??? I work in social services - I know how many reported things go without investigation - because they prioritize reports and focus on the reports that discuss children ACTUALLY being harmed, not just complaining that mommy wouldn't let me go to the church I want to go to.)

[NursingTLC (Kelly)]

Jen,

Normally, I love to talk with people that have different view points. It's interesting to me to share views and make comparison's in a mature non-confrontational way. There's nothing wrong with friendly debates or discussions. However, I don't appreciate your attack on my parenting when you do not know me! I could say some very crude and rude things in return. (EX: I'd love to see how well your child scores on ACT/SAT's compared to mine! Or perhaps we should compare how independent and successful they turn out to be as adults.....) Attacks on one's parenting kind of stings, don't it? Do you think that perhaps you can voice your view points without personal attacks on myself and others?

I read one of your blogs, btw, about your friend telling you not to talk to her ex... I find it ironic that you have a problem with a friend telling you who you can or cannot talk to, yet you have no problem with a government (not even our own government at that) telling you how to raise your kids.

You, also, have failed to see the point that this is not OUR government that would have this power. The UN is not the US! Our nation's values and cultural differences make us unique. I think that our local courts have a better grasp on what is or is not considered good parenting. If you really believe that the UN dictating how our children should be raised is better than a local judge ruling whether or not a parent is fit, you may be living in the wrong country. Children should have reasonable rights; right to good education, safety, health care, food, adequate shelter, etc. However, they must have discipline (discipline is not the same as punishment, but is the teaching of what is right from wrong) in order to grow and mature into healthy adults.

Please refrain from personal attacks if you wish to continue to debate. After all, this site is for supporting each other not attacking! I don't like to be nasty, but trust me, I have two exes that were abusive, I can get pretty nasty too. Can we please stick with the issue and not continue with the bashing on parenting skills? Thanks!

[NursingTLC (Kelly)]

Btw, I would like to add that I have extensive education in childhood developement, childcare, child psychology as well as medical, nutritional and physical developement. I have worked in child care, nursing, and other related areas since I was a teen. I think my resume, as well as, my childrens' personalities and accomplihments proof that I am extremely skilled in the area of child rearing. You may want to refrain from telling someone that they are a bad parent or that they don't care about their children as individuals when you don't have the facts. Just a thought....

[Angel Christine]

Kelly,
This was a great topic! I don't respond to topics of this nature because I don't want to get into a debate or heated discussion. That is just the way I am, very mellow and non-confrontational.

Maybe I'm just dense, but I do not see where Jen personally attacked you or your parenting in any way. I read it twice and just didn't see it at all.

We are really very glad that you are here. I have read many of your posts and think you are an incredible and extremely knowledgeable person. We also LOVE our Jen. So, please, please, let's keep things mellow and in perspective.

Take care.
Angel

[MaryAnne]

I believe Jen was using 'you' in the general sense, not to mean you specifically. That's a pretty common way of writing about topics like this... It's easy to take things personally when they are important to you, but having met Jen and read her writing quite a bit over the last several months, I doubt she meant it as a personal attack of any kind.

[NursingTLC (Kelly)]

I certainly hope that you are right. To me, it sounds like it is being directed toward individuals here, not in general. I don't take being attacked very well. Just because people don't agree doesn't mean they can't get along. Most of my friends share very different views than my own. We just respectfully disagree.

[Jen]

First off, thanks Angel and MaryAnne for steppin up and backing me up! They are absolutely right - this was not meant as a personal attack on your parenting - but general statements in response to general statements.

I think it's interesting that the CRC that you quoted above in your original post is NOT from the actual UN website? The "negative" things that you list above are FAR outweighed by the multitude of positive things that the UN is trying to standardize for EVERY child in the WORLD. Such as "producing and disseminating"childrens' literature, encouraging media outlets to produce material to all diverse and indigenous populations, to encourage media to stop producing materials that are detrimental to a child's well-being (read: no more violent ads, no more ads focused on negative self-image), providing adequate and safe child care for all children whose parents have to work outside the home, granting children refugee status (which is what orphans from Africa have been denied in the past, b/c they did not have a parent to sign for them), providing services FREE OF CHARGE for mentally and physically disabled children.... the list goes on and on.

I feel as if you got the majority of your information from this group on the website you originally posted, rather than reading the actual article from the UN and forming your own opinion? If I'm incorrect, forgive me for that assumption, but in reading the UN documents I feel very confident in our ability as a nation to help countries in extreme poverty to provide basic rights for their children. Your arguments are valid and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But please remember that for every child in the US that now "has the right to complain about going to church", there are several children around the world who don't have food, clean drinking water, the right to an education, live in war zones, and do not have access to decent health care and vaccines. This UN document is for THEM, too. Not just us.

Here is the website that I found: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm

[NursingTLC (Kelly)]

Hi Jen, The wording of your posts seemed personal to me. I'm glad that was not the case.
I understand and empathize greatly for situations in the other countries. I have my concerns with the wording of these documents for our nation and the rights we have. I don't feel that the rights of the individual states should be ignored. Our country needs to make a lot of changes, but I don't feel this will help us.

My life has always and always will revolve around children, both mine and others. I understand many of your points and agree with much of the things you have to say, but feel that this treaty is not necessarily in the best interest of our children. We the people do not have enough control as it is. I stand by my opinion and feel that the only real answer to the issues you posed is education for families, not taking rights away. I'm against the government controling every aspect of our lives. I believe in the Bill of Rights, freedom of speech, religion and the many other rights which are slowly being taken away. I also believe in state government. I do not feel that we should follow blindly like sheep either, not in any aspect. We are capable of critical thinking and decisions. We do not need government telling us what to do in every situation. I am oppsed to anything giving more power to government and fewer rights to individuals. That's not the American way, I'm sorry.