United Nations' threat: No more parental rights

[Banjo]

Why is it assault if I lay a finger on my sister, husband, mother, but if it is my child it is socially and legally acceptable? Children are weak and need protection and they are the only people the law doesn't protect.

Because you are not the legal guardian of your sister, parents nor anybody but your children.

 

[faire_jour]

My, my, faire jour. You asked me for an example, and I gave you one. You want research, go for it. I do enough of it.

I love that when you have research to back your postion up, you offer it freely, but when you don't you always say "do it yourself".

 

[jillio]

It's all about consent for me. A child has no place to escape to, no rights.

Why is it assault if I lay a finger on my sister, husband, mother, but if it is my child it is socially and legally acceptable? Children are weak and need protection and they are the only people the law doesn't protect.

The law does protect a child from abuse and excessive discipline. But children need an adult that will discipline them. They are not capable of determining appropriate from innappropriate behavior or of understanding consequences unless the adult in their life that is legally responsible for their well being has the fortitude to discipline them.

 

[faire_jour]

that's precisely what the law discerns. a physical punishment that leaves bruised mark is ILLEGAL. The teacher is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to report to officials if he/she sees the bruise. If you notice - the parents were originally charged with FELONY CHILD BATTERY but somehow for fuck of unknown reason... it was overturned by Supreme Court. I find it very puzzling why but I'm going to assume they were politically-pressured to overturn it.

But if I "swatted with my hand" a stranger, I would be charged with a crime. Why are the weakest and most needing of protection, not given the same rights?

 

[faire_jour]

The law does protect a child from abuse and excessive discipline. But children need an adult that will discipline them. They are not capable of determining appropriate from innappropriate behavior or of understanding consequences unless the adult in their life that is legally responsible for their well being has the fortitude to discipline them.

Discipline does not need to equal physical pain.

 

[jillio]

But if I "swatted with my hand" a stranger, I would be charged with a crime. Why are the weakest and most needing of protection, not given the same rights?

You are not responsible for that stranger. You are respsonsible for your child.

 

[Jiro]

But if I "swatted with my hand" a stranger, I would be charged with a crime. Why are the weakest and most needing of protection, not given the same rights?

see Banjo's post -

Because you are not the legal guardian of your sister, parents nor anybody but your children.

Mind you - If your teacher sees a bruise mark on your child, you WILL be charged with crime. Fortunately - this America grants a freedom of choice for all. You can CHOOSE not to physically-punish your child. The law recognizes that some people believe in it and some does not. That's why they created the law to protect the child from UNREASONABLE corporal punishment.

 

[jillio]

I love that when you have research to back your postion up, you offer it freely, but when you don't you always say "do it yourself".

Its out there, faire jour, but I am not going to make the extensive effort to pull it all up just because you demand it. You want to disprove my statements, then by all means, go for it with any research you want.

 

[jillio]

Discipline does not need to equal physical pain.

Isn't that rather contradictory of you?

 

[faire_jour]

You are not responsible for that stranger. You are respsonsible for your child.

And so I should hit her? That just doesn't make sense to me. 100 years ago it was acceptable to hit your wife, now it isn't. 30 years ago there was no such thing as spousal rape. Just because people have been doing it for years, and the law says it is ok, doesn't mean it is right.

 

[faire_jour]

Isn't that rather contradictory of you?

Why?

 

[jillio]

And so I should hit her? That just doesn't make sense to me. 100 years ago it was acceptable to hit your wife, now it isn't. 30 years ago there was no such thing as spousal rape. Just because people have been doing it for years, and the law says it is ok, doesn't mean it is right.

The law doesn't say that it is acceptable to beat your child. They say it is acceptable to discipline your child with spanking.

And it is acceptable to hit your wife, if your wife consents to it.

 

[Banjo]

The law doesn't say that it is acceptable to beat your child. They say it is acceptable to discipline your child with spanking.

And it is acceptable to hit your wife, if your wife consents to it.

Please slap me in the face because this is getting ridiculous.

 

[Jiro]

Please slap me in the face because this is getting ridiculous.

 

[faire_jour]

The law doesn't say that it is acceptable to beat your child. They say it is acceptable to discipline your child with spanking.

And it is acceptable to hit your wife, if your wife consents to it.

And a child can't consent.

I didn't say beat, I said hit.

I just don't understand why children are so much less protected than adults.

 

[Jiro]

And so I should hit her? That just doesn't make sense to me. 100 years ago it was acceptable to hit your wife, now it isn't. 30 years ago there was no such thing as spousal rape. Just because people have been doing it for years, and the law says it is ok, doesn't mean it is right.

that's why you can choose NOT to spank your child. You can punish your child in ANY way you want but WITHIN scope of law. The law doesn't require you to spank your child.

 

[Banjo]

And a child can't consent.

I didn't say beat, I said hit.

I just don't understand why children are so much less protected than adults.

Do you think the convicts should be allowed to consent to being locked up in a cell for life?

We are talking about disciplinary here. A child cannot consent to disciplinary. Yes, beating a child with an extension cord is abuse, but a simple spanking is not. It is a form of disciplinary whether you like it or not.

 

[Banjo]

Thank you, that helped.

 

[faire_jour]

Do you think the convicts should be allowed to consent to being locked up in a cell for life?

We are talking about disciplinary here. A child cannot consent to disciplinary. Yes, beating a child with an extension cord is abuse, but a simple spanking is not. It is a form of disciplinary whether you like it or not.

It is something that I cannot single handly stop, you are right, but I hope through education and advocasy, someday, it will be seen in the same light as spousal abuse.

 

[Byrdie714]

It's not the specifics of the treaty that concern me as much as the idea that our sovereign nation should put itself under the control of an international organization such as the UN. Treaties are fine for international relations but they have no place in our country's internal affairs.

Amen!

Actually, I had a professor who was a well known and well respected developmental psychologist who stated as much. And keep in mind, we are talking about discipline....not violence against children.

And as a wise person would say, "Google is your friend."

I just find it somewhat ironic that this is coming from someone whose avatar contains of a woman holding a decapitated head.

Just saying.

So that's what it is?! I didn't notice that at all.

Please slap me in the face because this is getting ridiculous.

Bet you enjoyed that eh?