Parent's Rights, where do you stand?

**Syme** · 04-26-2009, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Shinysides

I had to vote in favor of the UN treaty or whatever it is. I won't try to get too deep into it because I just read the OP and skimmed the replies, but I have to say I don't think that you should have the fundamental right to raise your child however you want. There are lots of people out there who have poor morals and would make terrible parents who are just pumping out babies.

Be this as it may, how will a UN convention on child-raising rectify the problem? It's not going to improve shitty parents one bit. If people have poor morals and would make shitty parents, no amount of UN agreements (and corresponding domestic legislation) will change that, or cause those people to raise their kids well instead of poorly.

I'm not coming down on either side of this argument, just pointing out that voting in favor of the UN convention because some people are shitty parents doesn't make any sense.

**Shinysides** · 04-26-2009, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Syme

Be this as it may, how will a UN convention on child-raising rectify the problem? It's not going to improve shitty parents one bit. If people have poor morals and would make shitty parents, no amount of UN agreements (and corresponding domestic legislation) will change that, or cause those people to raise their kids well instead of poorly.

I'm not coming down on either side of this argument, just pointing out that voting in favor of the UN convention because some people are shitty parents doesn't make any sense.

No, my vote isn't for the UN thing because some people are shitty parents, I voted for the UN convention because I think it may help protect children is other countries from some abuse. I just think it may promote better guidelines on child care in other countries. I was on the fence for a while choosing between voting the UN convention or voting neither, but I eventually came down on the UN side because of that thought.

Edit: And as far as the right/privilege discussion goes, I meant only that children should be taken out of abusive environments, not that people should have to prove their right to breed.

**sycld** · 04-26-2009, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Mr. E

It is a non-issue now, but it won't be a non-issue forever. There is nothing wrong with preemptively dealing with an issue. But no, I agree that states should handle the majority of issues. Issues that should be handled by the federal government are issues that effect everybody. Parenting regulation potentially effects everybody. Stuff like gay marriage, abortion, and whatever else should stay with the states.

As far as I'm aware, "stuff that affects everyone" vs. "stuff affects only some people" is not the standard by which we determine what is controlled on a federal level vs. what is controlled on a state level.

In addition, over legislation is never good, especially in a difficult to change document like the Constitution, since such action is prone to either being co-opted by people to legislate on other issues or can lead to unintended consequences.

And finally...

SECTION 3
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

...no amendment we have in the Constitution has such ridiculous language in it since it is not necessary. All it does is mark this as something written by a group of paranoid people.