Utterly Meaningless

Good to know these R Congresspeople are focusing on the big issues. Sigh. . .

The good news was the line that none of these wacko amendments are going anywhere.

Nance

It honestly never occured to me to think of spanking and this amendment at the same time. I’m all about not letting any source of law besides US law apply to any aspect of my life.

While a treaty that seeks to protect children may sound innocuous, its opponents, such as Michael Farris, the Christian conservative founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, see in it a dystopian future in which “Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children”; “A child’s ‘right to be heard’ would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed”; and “Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion,” as he puts it on his website parentalrights.org.

Yeah, what a dystopia. Kids won’t be beat and they could choose what god (if any) they’d bow down to. No wonder Farris is worried.

So Farris wants children to have rights independent from the parents while in the womb, then take those rights away after they are born.

“A dystopian society is one in which the conditions of life are miserable, characterized by human miser, poverty, oppression, violence, disease, and/or pollution.” Wikipedia

Sounds like what we already have.

I’m all about not letting any source of law besides US law apply to any aspect of my life.

************

Aside from the issue of constitutionally protecting child abuse, how do you manage to achieve this? The US is a party to treaties. That means some other country signed the thing too. Those don’t apply to you?

It’s a circular sort of argument. “I don’t want any law but US law to apply to me.” But the moment the US ratifies a treaty it is US law. So, poof, no problem and no need to make that argument.

It is the substance of the treaty which may or may not be worth arguing over. Rights for children seems like a good thing to me. But, then, I don’t beat my children.

Nance

Sorry, Daryl. I completely missed the big DINO in your post and thought this idiot was an R. I like your suggestion that he change parties.

Nance

There are 70 some odd co-sponsors. Only one DINO. 🙁

So Farris wants children to have rights independent from the parents while in the womb, then take those rights away after they are born.

An interesting take on it, Chris. I think you’re right. It’s an old, old story (to coin a phrase this fine Easter morning). The far, far right only cares about kids up until the moment they’re born. After that they’re really something less than human.

Especially if they are female.