Regardless, you really think that this should be a constitutional matter, especially as a "states' rights" man yourself?
Though I think that parents should be able to raise their children the way they see fit (as long as it doesn't involve any egregious abuse, of course), I strongly feel that this sort of issue should be regulated at a state level. Moreover, any sort of federal regulation of this should not be in the constitution. I would oppose an amendment enshrining gay marriage for similar reasons.
And though I might be wrong, I don't remember any prominent cases in which parents have been arrested for merely spanking their children.
...and this only confirms my stance, as the constitution should especially not be used as a platform for activism. And it sounds like typical paranoia over UN conventions from the more radically conservative elements in the US.More or less it's a counter measure to the current treaty that the UN is trying to push, which can basically be outlined as follows-
And what exactly in the UN articles opposes a parent's perogative to raise his or her child as she or he sees fit? Isn't it taken as a given that a parent or guardian should have oversight and ultimate control over their children?
As quoted directly from the document itself (emphasis my own):
Originally Posted by Article 2So it sounds like the rights of the parents to raise their child as they see fit are well-protected in this document, does it not?Originally Posted by Article 5
Again, though, where in the UN Convention on the Right of the Child does it say "though shalt not spank"? Are we making judgements on things we haven't read because "UN = BAAAAAD"?
Bookmarks