Amazon.com Widgets
  • The US signing this could hurt many people.

    What if a kid went around killing people? They couldn't get arrested for life. I think that American children are great the way they are right now, and we really don't need a change right now. Signing the treaty would on;y generate more problems...Not solve them. That's the worst thing we need right now.

  • The US signing this could hurt many people.

    What if a kid went around killing people? They couldn't get arrested for life. I think that American children are great the way they are right now, and we really don't need a change right now. Signing the treaty would on;y generate more problems...Not solve them. That's the worst thing we need right now.

  • Has The Convention of The Rights of the Child ceased the issues it stated?

    No, The U.S.A should not ratify the Convention. Along with it being too costly and we already have a 17.5 trillion dollar, my question is has the Convention affected positively the problems it noted. The answer is no. I say this because within achieving the goals set in The Convention, there is one main problem stopping you from progressing. That is poverty. Almost half of the children living on Earth are in poverty. If these kids cannot get access to water or food and are stunted, how can we fulfill Articles 27, 28, and 29 all focused on education and child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development. If there is a blockade preventing children from fulfilling what is their right, then the convention is doing no good.

  • I find it shocking that a leading nation, the United States of America, is one of two countries which have failed to ratify this convention.

    The other country which has not ratified is Somalia.

    I happen to agree with Obama that this failure represents an embarrassment. Children are our future, their basic rights deserve to be recognised and upheld. The convention sets a minimum standard and I find it difficult to understand how exactly American values and the rights of parents could conflict with the best interests of the child, as recognised by most of the world.

    "American conservatives have long opposed ratification out of fear that it will impinge on their right to raise their children as they see fit. Among the complaints on the ParentalRights.Org website, which is led by homeschooling advocate Michael Farris, is that under the treaty parents "would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings" to their kids...The claim that it would outlaw spanking is grounded in the provision that "No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," according to ParentalRights.Org."

    If the right to subject children to inhuman or degrading punishment is a cherished American value, do you think it's time to rethink these values in light of the things we have learned? I believe so.

    Http://childrenshospitalblog.Org/spanking-has-detrimental-effects-on-children/

    http://www.Huffingtonpost.Com/susan-kaiser-greenland/more-science-to-support-w_b_1649770.Html

    http://www.Scientificamerican.Com/article.Cfm?Id=to-spank-or-not-to-spank

    http://www.Cbsnews.Com/8301-503544_162-20014613-503544.Html


    Here is the document in question, if anyone is interested:

    http://www.Refworld.Org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?Docid=3ae6b38f0

  • No, we cannot afford it.

    No, the United States should not ratify the convention on the Rights of the Child, because it would be very costly to the United States. The United States would like to help every child who needs it, but there is no way that this can be done effectively. This would be misused by corrupt governments for their own purposes.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.