Here we are, at the beginning of a new year and the challenges before us are myriad and mounting. I'd like to take a moment raise awareness of this issue.
UNICEF has announced that Somalia plans to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty, leaving the US as the only UN member state still holding out. This Treaty is appalling in it's generality and scope. In my opinion, the US should not sign on to this treaty for a number of reasons.
- This sentence, in the preamble to this treaty takes a definitive stand on when life begins:
"Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth" (emphasis mine) Combined with Article 6 section 1( "1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.") I think this effectively outlaws abortions-all abortions. I, personally, am in favor of outlawing abortion, even in the case of rape or incest, because in my view that child did not commit the crime. I do, however, strongly object to a lack of consideration for the life of the mother. A couple who must choose between the mother's life and that of her unborn baby for health reasons has enough stress without the government sticking their two cents worth into that decision. - This treaty would create an unconscionable financial burden upon the nation as Article 6 states:"2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child." This is further strengthened by Article 7, sections 1 and 2, which state:"1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. 2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless."
- Article 7, sections 1 and 2 also leave a whole lot of leeway for government interference with the raising of our children. Article 7 section one could be read as saying the child has the right to be cared for by his/her biological parents. Then section 2 says the State must make this possible. Article 7 , section 1 may outlaw adoption as well as egg and sperm donation. Because the state would be required to ensure the child "the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents".
Now this may all sound fairly innocuous, until you factor in the idea that the state must make possible a parent's ability to raise their child. This opens the door not only to abuse on the part of the state, but abuse of the state on the part of the citizenry. I have heard teen aged girls plotting to get pregnant so that they can go on welfare and get out of their parent's houses under the current welfare system of the state of WI. How much worse would this become under this treaty? Can't find a job-or just don't want to? Don't worry, the government is bound by international treaty to make you able to care for your children. Isn't the character of young girls like the ones I overheard degraded enough without adding this sort of temptation? This treaty says parents(plural) That means all those young men getting their machismo on by fathering children they don't care for could also demand benefits from the government, does it not?
This treaty, in mandating that the government provide for such things, also creates a mandate for in-home checks by government officials. In home checks on every child, not just those who have been reported as at-risk for one reason or another. In home checks with government criteria to be met whether the government's criteria for a healthy home matches your own or not.
I think we are better than that. If you don't like the possibilities for government meddling in our private lives and the lives of our children contained within this treaty, I would strongly suggest you check out Parental Rights.org. Sign the petition and join the fight.
"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate."~ Psalm 127:3-5
Posts
5 comments:
Interesting but factually not on. There are many countries where abortion remains unlawful and where they are signed up to and indeed incorporate the Convention into their national laws. Not one of the things hysterically alleged by PRO have happened, including nations who have modelled their constitutions on the US's. The PRO and its lobby seem unhappy that children DO HAVE separate Rights (your own courts have settled that anyway, they do) and that they might want to make their own decisions about faith (which they can anyway when they become adults). The CRC makes it clear that parents have the lead role in upbringing, it is the state's role to support this, and only to intervene to ensure the rights of children are not abused. In the UK smacking has not been banned, though corporal punishment e.g. in schools etc has. On that basis, parents alone retain the right to 'reasonable chastisement' which contradicts the claims that the state will step in. But the state cannot administer such punishment however 'reasonable'some people think that would be, to re-introduce the cane for example. The CRC probably does say no to that, I hope personally it does because it was abused and it was not possible to control it whilst legal.
One opponent of the CRC warned recently that it would 'give' children the Right to Play. Well, I always thought that one came pretty much From Above anyway. Hey ho.
Somalia (a failed state trying to recover) now says it will move to sign the UNCRC, so that leaves you guys, with your claim to world leadership (go on, you do) alone and certainly not leading. It's claimed you signing up won't help kids in other nations - you bet your life it will, don't be misled.
Also like other countries you will be asked to submit a report every 5 years to a UN committee of world-class experts, it will come from your Govt and it will say how good it all is. But ...
We know here in the UK that this is an opportunity for others to tell the UN experts their views. This time a much more detailed report went from a consortium of NGOs, including rights, faith, parental, children's and other bodies, and that resulted in the UK Govt getting more recommendations for improvements than they expected. In a powerful civil society like the USA and the UK, it puts power in our hands. And in children's - this time we also sent a children's delegation, they said nothing that would alarm god-fearing folk or other good people, but it illustrated one fundamental attribute of good parenting, that we must listen.
The UN report has no power of law, it recommends, and in 5 years we'll see if progress has been made. Compared to the previous report, the UK had, but some things remained not attended to and there were new concerns.
As for the US constitution, it will be possible for the USA to make safeguards to protect situations it regards as superior or more desirable than the UNCRC's, this is done with other treaties.
The idea of a PR amendment now being pushed begs the question, should there be a balancing CR amendment?
Jan,
Thank you for posting, but I must take issue with your statement that it is "factually not on". The only facts I used were the quotes which were taken directly from the text of the treaty itself, so I am puzzled as to how you may claim that it is "not on".
You said: There are many countries where abortion remains unlawful. Currently abortion is lawful here, so I'm not quite sure what point you are attempting to make. My point was that this treaty seems to make abortion unlawful and there are no exceptions for the life of the mother. My opposition stems from that lack although I know there are many citizens of this country who would oppose it simply because they beleive they have a right to kill their unborn children for any number of reasons including convenience.
The conclusions I have drawn about the language contained in the treaty and how such provisions may be interpreted by US courts are my opinion, based on they ways I have seen laws interpreted in this country throughout my lifetime.
You seem to be saying that the UN will have no power of enforcement.
Perhaps that is true in Britain and the other countries, but here, the people are the supreme authority(at least for a little while yet) and should we accept this treaty, the provisions contained in it would bind us all to follow the treaty to the letter. Legislation limiting such a treaty must be made prior to such acceptance. If I am mistaken, I would ask for a US citizen to correct me. As it stands, the treaty does contain the seeds of unconstitutional governmental intrusion into the lives of ordinary families. Any time the laws of this country are to be abrogated by an international treaty, it is a matter of the utmost concern for me and should be for every other citizen. We are a sovereign nation where the government rules "by the consent of the governed".
Simply saying that the folks at Parentalrights.org are hysterical does not make it so. I suggest you contact them with your objections to their claims, as I have no control over what they claim or do not claim. I think it quite rude for you to say such things on this blog where there are no members of that organization to defend their reputation. If it was only your intention to share your opinion, you should have made that clear, rather accusing them of hysteria outright.
I am aware of a few cases in this country where communities have adopted legislation very similar to that of this treaty and it has been interpreted in those communities in ways that were harmful and overbearingly intrusive and to the families involved.
I have not indicated in any way that I think children should not be allowed to play, nor have I denied that when a child comes of age they may choose their own faith, nor have I indicated anywhere in this post, what my opinions are regarding corporal punishment. I really don't see how such an inflammatory statement has anything to do with my post, other than to cast aspersions on my character and my intentions in making this post.
Leadership does not mean being the first one into a hazardous situation. Sometimes leadership is best demonstrated by resisting peer pressure to do the wrong thing. As my grandmother used to say"If everyone else tied themsselves to a rock and jumped off the boat in the middle of the lake, would you too?"
The US should never sign any UN treaty. We should withdraw from the UN and demand that it get out of America. It works contrary to the interests of America and is a force moving toward the great evil of world government. Signing any UN treaty is a loss of sovereignty for this nation, something we simply cannot afford, something that is contrary to the US Constitution.
Dr. D.
I agree. I hope you didn't take the statement: "My opposition stems from that lack ..." to mean that I would support the signing of this treaty if that were remedied. I only wanted to make clear to anyone reading that I oppose abortion, but that when the life of the mother is in question, that is not a decision that should be made by the government.
The parameters of this treaty, even were we so inclined as to surrender one iota of our national sovereignty to the UN or any international body, are so vague and general as to allow nearly any interpretation an enforcer should wish to apply.
To Elsa Findlay,
Don't leave your trash on my blog. If you want to advertise that sort of thing, put it on your own blog, not here.
Post a Comment