http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90111
here are a few quotes:
U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child would mean every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child's best interest.
Fox News reported the standing U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, an 18-member panel in Geneva, would review the rights of children in all disputes.
The decisions would not even be made by officials we elect!!!!
6 comments:
But don't you agree that nations should spent more on child-welfare than on 'defense?' I mean there are a FEW good ideas in this.
I don't believe that child welfare is necessarily a function of the state or nation. It belongs to the family, church and at most the community. Also, you can't just adopt those ideas you agree with, it is all or nothing.
this law would be crazy for most families. with this law why should we become parents? we are here for the safty of our children for both temperal and spiritual. if a child wants to jump off a cliff and we say NO you may not do that then if the cild disagreas then what? are we not allowed to do what is best for our children? and as for the religion children dont know what is best for them. this is crazy!
i agrea with kellie.
Why can't I pick the good and leave the bad? In this 'law' no - I can't just support part, it is all or nothing. But I can say a few of the ideas have some merit.
I think we need to remember that as our kids get older, they will chose more and more things that are against what we are parents would prefer. How can we say a 17 3/4 year old doesn't know enough to pick their own religion or birth control? But they do at 18?
The age 18 is arbitrary. It is a maturity thing not an age thing. The state chose 18 to make paper work easier.
I agree. Age is very child-individual (does that make sense?)Which makes it even worse - some kids are ready to live on their own (wisely) at 16 - others are still at home at 35!
Post a Comment