Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

do you want to raise your kids without the GOV.? they are trying to pass laws you need to see.

go to sign the parental rights act petition: http://www.parentalrights.org/
Today, parental rights are coming under assault from judges who deny or refuse to recognize parental rights. Only a constitutional amendment will ensure that federal judges protect the fundamental right of parents to raise their children. And only a constitutional amendment will override international law that seeks to undermine the parental role. he Senate will likely begin to consider ratification of this international treaty in early 2009. If ratified, the UN-CRC would radically alter the flow of power in the United States, taking away the authority of parents to decide matters pertaining to the lives of their children, and giving that power away to the United Nations. An 18-member international panel would decide what is best for American children and, hence, for America's future. COUNTINED

Answer Question
 
maiahlynn

Asked by maiahlynn at 12:32 AM on Oct. 13, 2009 in General Parenting

Level 13 (1,143 Credits)
Answers (17)
  • 10 about the substance of the CRC: 1.KIDS would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their kids advice about religion.2.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. 3.A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him to seek gov.l review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed. 4.According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare. 5.Kids would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure. 6. Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty. COUNTINUED
    maiahlynn

    Answer by maiahlynn at 12:41 AM on Oct. 13, 2009

  • 7.Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC. 8.Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions,  without parental knowledge or consent. 9. Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children. 10. A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
    maiahlynn

    Answer by maiahlynn at 12:41 AM on Oct. 13, 2009

  • Well...I'm ok with children being allowed to chose their own religion; I think that's ideal, actually. Really, most of this would be ok with me, but I'm a bleeding liberal, pro-choice, pro gay marriage, anti-organized religion type person. This is just the beginning of the bill they're trying to pass; everything is more extreme at the beginning, that's how they get heard.
    SarahLeeMorgan

    Answer by SarahLeeMorgan at 12:47 AM on Oct. 13, 2009

  • I'm a bleeding liberal as well, and some of this is ok, but I DO NOT want the government to be able to override decisions I make. I make choices based on my belief of what's in my kids' best interest. But it seems that any kid having a tantrum could call the government or something to say they don't like how they are treated? I need to look into it more.
    NightPhoenix

    Answer by NightPhoenix at 12:55 AM on Oct. 13, 2009

  • I also want to add that this has probably been a long time coming due to the many people who should never have been parents in the first place. And to those idiots I say, thanks a lot, jerks.
    NightPhoenix

    Answer by NightPhoenix at 12:57 AM on Oct. 13, 2009

  • NightPhoenix: that's why I said that I'd be ok with MOST of it. Definitely not all of it though!
    SarahLeeMorgan

    Answer by SarahLeeMorgan at 1:17 AM on Oct. 13, 2009

  • Not going to go into all the points, but the one on a child's right to leisure. I think of in other countries, children forced to work 7 days a week, 10 or 12 hours a day. Hell I think 8 hours a day 7 days a week is too long. Sometimes in the united states we don't think of that. the right to leisure is a good thing.
    SEEKEROFSHELLS

    Answer by SEEKEROFSHELLS at 1:37 AM on Oct. 13, 2009

  • Go ask every other industrialized nation in the world if they stopped being able to parent their children--they've already signed and abide by it. Britain constantly violates it and doesn't face any penalty for it. If you think the US is somehow weaker than the rest of the world, feel free to give into the fear mongering. In the meantime, child slavery still exists in the US (not that this would likely stop it, but it might encourage the authorities to crack down on it) and the rights of the CHILD need to finally be recognized. Children are less protected than dogs in this country.

    The fact is, this isn't something new. It's been around for many decades and hasn't usurped any parental power over children in any country that it's currently in effect for. It doesn't give the government any more power over kids (despite the propaganda being passed out stating otherwise).
    Xakana

    Answer by Xakana at 4:22 AM on Oct. 13, 2009

  • You cannot have it both ways. You either get all the bill or nothing. There is no inbetween with govy. And oyu know what even if they leave some of this out they will add it later. It is the UN what do you think we can do about it?
    Ibelongtojesus

    Answer by Ibelongtojesus at 8:13 AM on Oct. 13, 2009

  • 1.KIDS would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their kids advice about religion.   that is a good thing!  kids shouldnt be pushed to believe what they dont....


    2.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. we already have that... hello csb.


    3.A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him to seek gov.l review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed. that is no different than what we have now... i doubt they would listen to unreasonable questions...


    AmaliaD

    Answer by AmaliaD at 9:06 AM on Oct. 13, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN