RE: Chilling NCMEC Report Shows 88% of Missing Sex Trafficked Kids Come from US Foster Care
I think #6 sums it up the most.
Americans want to spend more on bombing children of color in poor nations, than we want to spend on our own children.
1 out of 5 children live in poverty in this nation...and the author of that pdf file thinks we should NOT spend more money on them and spend it on bombing children instead?!?!?!?!?!
Even the Saudi's signed it...and they treat their children horribly...
btw - when ratifying a treaty, many countries do put forth exceptions.
If USA really wanted parents to continue to have the right to beat their children...it could put that reservation into the acceptance...as some other nations did when they ratified the International Treaty for the Rights of Women...place like Saudi Arabia and Israel put in reservations to help keep their women out of power...we won't sign that one either.
This Treaty would force OUR government to stop doing some the horrors it does to children.
It would mostly, however, hinder our war profiteering, as we would be forced to bomb less children of color every year, until we started taking care of our own children.
The USA treats children horribly.
If you have a better solution than joining the civilized world, I'm interested in hearing it.
I am still waiting for actual evidence...not just some passing comment...about how the horrors of this treaty are ruining the lives of children in other nations...especially in comparison to how the USA treats children.
Alfie Evans. Charlie Gard. Dead at the hands of the court through power given them by this treaty to remove children in "world court" if parents don't fall into line with professional diktats.
All the Saudi children being treated horribly that this treaty hasn't done anything to protect.
You truly need more evidence?
Do you honestly think that IF the Saudis did NOT sign this treaty that they would treat children BETTER?
Weird...I'd like to see that article or study or whatever "fact" you are referring too.
I honestly think, that if the USA joined this treaty, we would be forced to stop bombing children of color everyday...in places like Yemen, Gaza, etc.
Firstly, bombing anyone is not part of the discussion at hand, which is the adoption of the International Rights of the Child for the purpose of stopping child trafficking through the foster system in the United States.
If the United States was conducting such bombing, nothing would change by the adoption of this treaty.
The Treaty has no teeth that would stop a country's policies of war, so if I accept your premise (and I do not), it would have no effect on the United States' decisions to bomb anyone. If you think a treaty has that kind of power, beware what else it can do.
The United States is not bombing Gaza. If you want to continue debating this, the conversation has gone so off-track it belongs in a whole new venue.
Regarding the Saudis, I was referring to your own statement and to the public information (check Wikipedia article on the UN Rights of the Child, section on countries who have signed, Saudi Arabia). They modified the treaty so it would not force them to combat child slavery in their country. If a country can do that, the entire process is a sham and the US is doing well to stay out of it.
My whole point is that the Treaty is immaterial to the actual good of children in a country and may actually do harm by infringing on the ability of parents to freely raise and protect their children (hence the Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard cases in England).
The Saudi Arabian signing of the treaty was clearly a sham or else they wouldn't have objected to language outlawing child slavery. So signing the treaty obviously does little to nothing for the childrens' good and would potentially abridge the freedom of parents to raise children without fear of over-zealous governmental intervention (the whole point of the @familyprotection awareness campaign).
Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment: produce for me evidence of a country that has signed the Treaty experiencing a drop in:
a.) trafficking/child slavery
b.) child abuse in foster systems (see recent upheavel in the UK's foster system and ongoing abuse that has yet to be stopped)
c.) child well-being in any measurable way (health, drop in suicide rates among teens, growth into untroubled adulthood, etc.).
When my tax dollars (millions and millions each day) go to fund the Israelis efforts to gun down Palestinians children, with US made weapons of mass destruction...then...yes...we are "bombing children."
The person that hires a hit-man is still guilty of the murder, even if they don't pull the trigger.
US Military bombs children everyday...pay attention...Congress MIGHT have to discuss this fact...if children had some rights in this nation.
The International community even attempts to help these children and the US works HARD to stop their efforts to save the children of Gaza.
The efforts of the Saudi's to slaughter children in Yemen...and to starve the remaining children is being supported by USA.
I don't have to look up who has signed it since the USA is the ONLY one not to. That means everyone else has.
Laws don't magically stop behaviors, but they do provide tools to fight injustices and reduce crimes against children.
There's this thing called Google, where you can look up these articles you wish me to read. I really don't want to do your research.
Here's a few more articles...even though you have failed to provide me ANY documentation so far:
https://borgenproject.org/children-around-the-world/
Here is one case study:
https://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/oct99cro.html
Look, I get it. You think children belong to their parents, are property of their parents and should be viewed the way our government viewed slaves and women, in 1776.
I get it.
You probably have a religious motivation...fine...
However, in terms of international law, I find nothing to say this treaty would HARM children...probably helps them...and at least makes government look before they harm a child.
I have a strong religious belief that children belong to God. IF the parents of God's children are being harmed by their parents, then the larger community should intervene.
US child welfare programs are still bases in our old notions of children as property.
Child welfare practices would have to be re-written and re-examed, as they would not stand up to this Treaty.
http://ideas.time.com/2012/01/24/why-is-the-us-against-childrens-rights/
More reading material. And if you want information on your specific questions, that I didn't get to, Google it...it is super easy to find this information (admittedly, I don't use Google, but you know what I mean...do an Internet search).
https://www.aclu.org/blog/human-rights/treaty-ratification/theres-only-one-country-hasnt-ratified-convention-childrens
Okay, I've read the articles. They are opinion pieces. The first article, for instance, states WHAT the treaty purportedly does but gives absolutely no facts to back it up (it refers to children casting votes and being rescued from military service). It just lists what the author believes to be true without hard data. The second is a theoretical discussion of how lawyers might be able to influence courts if the Treaty were ratified here. The others are all in kind.
Goodness, you win the prize for the most straw man arguments of the week! If I'd responded to every single accusation in like kind, you and I would be in the middle of World War Six right now.
Yes, absolutely 100% children belong to their parents. They do not belong to anyone else. Certainly not Society. God granted them to parents, not to society at large
IF this is your belief - that the larger community must be quick to intervene if it determines a parent is not parenting their society-loaned child properly - then you should probably not be posting under the @familyprotection tag. @markwhittam and @canadian-coconut began this project as a way to combat the forces of government bearing down on families that governments have unilaterally and falsely determined cannot care for their children as the government decides is appropriate.
The whole issue with Family Protection is that the larger community IS intervening on an intolerable level.