What are YOU and the UN going to do? remove the child from the home?
- - - Updated - - -
What EXACTLY are you going to do? if the parents leave the child at home then they get accused of abandonment. Sorry, the child goes where the parent decides they go. If YOU aren't paying for their care and upbringing then YOU dont get to decide.
- - - Updated - - -
Who do you think should decide? the UN, or the parents?
--- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.
I have little power to do anything, but if I or the child being abused reports it and it's investigated then said child can be removed from the home if there is no viable resolution by a or both parents. Sadly, verbal and psychological abuse is often unreported.
This has literally has not and does not occur with teenagers, which is what my OP addresses.What EXACTLY are you going to do? if the parents leave the child at home then they get accused of abandonment.
I'm not paying for anything and it wouldn't be me getting involved. Also, taking someone to a church is different from forcing them to believe in a religion.Sorry, the child goes where the parent decides they go. If YOU aren't paying for their care and upbringing then YOU dont get to decide.
The person who's pregnant.Who do you think should decide? the UN, or the parents?
Last edited by Techno-Druid; 2018-02-18 at 06:30 AM.
Perhaps you aren't aware, than leaving any minor child alone because 'they dont want to go somewhere', can be considered abandonment. People letting their kids play in the yard unsupervised have been even accused of such. Welcome to the world where everyone thinks they know best for YOUR child.
At 16 she's a minor child and thus the responsibility of her parents. At 16 if she's pregnant then she's also the victim of statutory rape, and the inseminator is a rapist. And as such, should be dealt with accordingly.
--- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.
Can't be bothered with reading back through the entire conversation, but it's only statutory rape if the other party was over the age of consent, depending on the state (some states have a 3-4 year "Romeo" law). Also, a teenager's bodily autonomy trumps parents in regards to something like abortion.
Last edited by Mistame; 2018-02-20 at 12:29 AM.
Nobody has ever been arrested for leaving a 16 year old at home while they went to church. Which is what we are talking about, not young children, but teenagers
In most states the age of consent is 16. So no, it is not statuary rape if she is in one of these states and consents to sex with someone older.At 16 she's a minor child and thus the responsibility of her parents. At 16 if she's pregnant then she's also the victim of statutory rape, and the inseminator is a rapist. And as such, should be dealt with accordingly.
And she still has the right to seek an abortion and if she's in a state where parental consent is required and she doesn't receive it, she's entitled to receive an alternative procedure (.i.e. a judge's consent) to undergo an abortion.
The UN is a massive waste of Time and Money and should be disbanded.
"States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child."
In the U.S., this line would exacerbate the immigration law headache in regards to deportation.
Would never hold in the US.
2 straight up disagrees with shitty deportation/citizenship laws.
4 would never work with parents (and is written so poorly that it would probably not work anywhere).
5 would never work, because religion is forced in the US. That's really not that big of a deal until kids mature (usually around 8-12 I would think for most?).
6 only works in unsupervised space, which can be never technically.
The first 3 points are very good, but it just goes downhill.
I don't think allowing a child—once they reach an agreement of competency and proper comprehension—is that unreasonable of a demand. I'm a Christian, my son tells me he's an atheist, ok. I'm pro-gun reform, he's pro-gun, ok. The role of a parent is to protect and guide their offspring so that they may become developmentally normal adults. It's not a parent's job to tell their, say adolescent son or daughter, who or what they should be.
Ratifying it means nothing if they don't actually enforce what it says, it's nothing more than lip service. Do you really think even if South Sudan and Somalia did ratify them that anything would change?
For instance remember who is on the UN Human Right's committee? The nation that puts women to death for driving.
The most difficult thing to do is accept that there is nothing wrong with things you don't like and accept that people can like things you don't.
Why would you even ask this here? The MMOC forums are full of redhat MAGA trolls who will vote against anything.
We should absolutely ratify this.
- - - Updated - - -
So you're saying it doesn't hurt then, because we already have it? As a leader of the world, it makes sense for the US to back things that help to make "common sense laws".
Nice to see that you're a huge asshat though, flinging contempt at someone because they think differently than you, and then blaming progressive for race politics, despite the fact that it's hard to deny racial issues when Cops are effectively murdering colored people, with nothing by paid leave.
Cell phones only allow us to recently capture events on a wider scale.
I wonder what happened between 1863 and now that we simply can't report on, because 90% of the populace didn't have a damn camera.
The world is "suffering" from racial politics, because people who are downtrodden are getting fucking tired of it, and they want equality. This is coming from a white guy, raised Republican, in So Cal. Watching the affluent white people act disgusted at colored people.