73 replies to this topic

[ninjadude]

joc, on 28 November 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

In most states?

https://en.wikipedia.../Best_interests

[joc]

questionmark, on 28 November 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

That makes two who are wrong.

And as you might have noticed, I don't care about persons I care about issues.

I just made that up.  I don't know what Obama thinks nor do I care at this juncture.  I was just hoping someone would say..Provide a link for that...and then I would say...yeah?  Where's the link for what Santi said...a bit of chess gone awry..but whatever.  You know what..it doesn't matter.  It's over.  America is now on it's way out the door as a Super Power...Kriptonite you know...America's Kriptonite is Socialism...Stupid Americans...it finally paid off...dumb down the society until they are too stupid to see what is happening...fat, stupid and lazy...that's America for ya.

[acidhead]

questionmark, on 28 November 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

'Twas late in Greece and I had to go to bed... had morning duty at the Animal Welfare clinic...

But I sure got some people's paranoia all riled up. did I not?

What!?  The animals in Greece get benefits too?  No wonder they're in financial trouble.... lol

[questionmark]

acidhead, on 29 November 2012 - 04:36 AM, said:

What!?  The animals in Greece get benefits too?  No wonder they're in financial trouble.... lol

Yeh,they do... from donations pf caring people...just like in the rest of the world.

[Harte]

cormac mac airt, on 27 November 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:

Some might want to actually read the "CONVENTION on the RIGHTS of PERSONS with DISABILITIES" before parroting Rick Santorum's paranoia.

cormac

Santorum's problem is with this:

Quote

Article 7 - Children with disabilities

1. States Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children.

2. In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

3. States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, on an equal basis with other children, and to be provided with disability and age-appropriate assistance to realize that right.

Source
#2 above is where the decision of what in a child's best interest appears to shift from the parent to the state.

The convention is probably a good idea in most member states, but here we already have laws concerning the disabled that require even more than the convention does.

Obviously, the UN isn't about to write US law, but if we adopt this, it's only a matter of time before the contradiction is pointed out.  Even if nothing comes from it, why should we agree to be hypocritical?  Are we saying that the rest of the world doesn't deserve the sorts of protections the disabled get here, or are we saying that maybe we're the ones that have gone too far in protecting the disabled?

I doubt that Santorum has any nefarious agenda, and I'm certain that his opposition is anything but thoughtless.  His own little daughter is severely disabled herself.  Could be a case of parental overprotection, which is a common thing in families with disabled children (I know this first-hand.)  Not being an expert in international law, I can't say if Santorum is right, but I can say he has the right thing in mind when he opposes this.

Harte

[F3SS]

Well it didn't go through.
While not every republican voted no every democrat voted yes. Those dems are such an emotional bunch. I swear they'll vote for anything with a feel good title *akhem*Affordable Care Act*cough* rather than looking at what lies beneath. Yay! It gives disabled people rights they see. I see it giving more rights to big brother to make decisions you may not want them to make for your family. Seriously, what reasonable rights do they not already have here? My guess is that they have all rights for the most part as disabled can mean anything from having a hook hand to being mentally retarded. So what if some mentally disabled people don't have the right to own a gun or drive? That's reasonable and understandable. So what if some mentally disabled people can't run for office? Ok, that's arguable. Anyway, the United Nations doesn't need to be involved in our domestic affairs unless Obama started soaking us in mustard gas and even then the outcome would be terrible for Americans as I'm sure there are very many within the UN who would love to overthrow our government and take this country over. We do nothing but block their progress for power anyways.

http://www.senate.go...vote=00219#name

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Resolution of Ratification (Resolution of Ratification Treaty Doc. 112-7 )
Vote Number: 219 Vote Date: December 4, 2012, 12:06 PM
Required For Majority: 2/3 Vote Result: Resolution of Ratification Rejected
Treaty Number: Treaty Doc. 112-7
Treaty Title: The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 13, 2006, and signed by the United States of America on June 30, 2009 (the "Convention")
Vote Counts: YEAs 61
NAYs 38
Not Voting 1

[preacherman76]

pallidin, on 28 November 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

I think the issue here is the "proper" protection of those with disabilities, be it in the home, workplace, public areas or the access to those areas(ramps, auto-doors, etc...)

A parent should not be able to claim "full control" over the disabled child/adult without some type of state observation, agreement and oversight.
In my opinion.

Santorum claims that this oversight is unnecessary, but since when should we trust people to properly care for the disabled, just because the parent(s) say they can? Seems in courts of law this often(not always) leads to poor care.

LOL, what the hell are you talking about? I mean seriously, are you asking why we should let people raise thier children without the states control over them? Im speachless.

[shadowhive]

Harte, on 02 December 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

Santorum's problem is with this:

Source
#2 above is where the decision of what in a child's best interest appears to shift from the parent to the state.

The convention is probably a good idea in most member states, but here we already have laws concerning the disabled that require even more than the convention does.

Obviously, the UN isn't about to write US law, but if we adopt this, it's only a matter of time before the contradiction is pointed out.  Even if nothing comes from it, why should we agree to be hypocritical?  Are we saying that the rest of the world doesn't deserve the sorts of protections the disabled get here, or are we saying that maybe we're the ones that have gone too far in protecting the disabled?

I doubt that Santorum has any nefarious agenda, and I'm certain that his opposition is anything but thoughtless.  His own little daughter is severely disabled herself.  Could be a case of parental overprotection, which is a common thing in families with disabled children (I know this first-hand.)  Not being an expert in international law, I can't say if Santorum is right, but I can say he has the right thing in mind when he opposes this.

Harte

Having read through the posts here a few times I think the problem is largely down to perception. Will this law effect the parents of disabled children? For the most part, not really. Why? Because most parents of disabled children care for their children like any other. However the law isn't about them. It's about protecting children who are in families that wouldn't do so. In that case the law becomes crystal clear. When parents are mistreating and abusing children the state should have the ability to take the child away from the parent. That, to me is how I read the law.

Now does any one of you think that we should leave a child with an abusive parent because 'the parent knows best'? Because that, to me, is what some of you appear to be defending here and I don't see how anyone can do that.

[F3SS]

shadowhive, on 05 December 2012 - 03:13 AM, said:

Having read through the posts here a few times I think the problem is largely down to perception. Will this law effect the parents of disabled children? For the most part, not really. Why? Because most parents of disabled children care for their children like any other. However the law isn't about them. It's about protecting children who are in families that wouldn't do so. In that case the law becomes crystal clear. When parents are mistreating and abusing children the state should have the ability to take the child away from the parent. That, to me is how I read the law.

Now does any one of you think that we should leave a child with an abusive parent because 'the parent knows best'? Because that, to me, is what some of you appear to be defending here and I don't see how anyone can do that.

No and we don't need the UN to have a say in this in any way because there are already plenty of laws and programs out there for these situations any way.

[shadowhive]

-Mr_Fess-, on 05 December 2012 - 03:34 AM, said:

No and we don't need the UN to have a say in this in any way because there are already plenty of laws and programs out there for these situations any way.

That's the only logical reason I can see for being against it, that it's just a redundant law because it's already covered. But if that's the case, then why was it ever up for consideration in the first place? Did no one really think to say to the UN 'well we already have the appropriate laws in place so we don't need to do this'.

[F3SS]

shadowhive, on 05 December 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

That's the only logical reason I can see for being against it, that it's just a redundant law because it's already covered. But if that's the case, then why was it ever up for consideration in the first place? Did no one really think to say to the UN 'well we already have the appropriate laws in place so we don't need to do this'.

Exactly. Everybody who voted for it is saying that it doesn't trump US law anyway so we ask what's the point? Is it just about being involved in something with a nice title for show?

[Harte]

I'm saying that it is a matter of principle.

Everyone may not agree with Santorum's principles (probably very few here do) but he's making a valid argument.

It doesn't matter that the UN convention wouldn't have any effect on US law.  What matters to Santorum is the argument itself.

Harte

[GreatFenris]

Harte, on 05 December 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

I'm saying that it is a matter of principle.

Everyone may not agree with Santorum's principles (probably very few here do) but he's making a valid argument.

It doesn't matter that the UN convention wouldn't have any effect on US law.  What matters to Santorum is the argument itself.

Harte

So, arguing for the sake of an argument? May I curiously ask what's up with Americans and the UN?

[questionmark]

GreatFenris, on 05 December 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

So, arguing for the sake of an argument? May I curiously ask what's up with Americans and the UN?

Mostly that it is not an American UN where only one opinion counts.

[Harte]

GreatFenris, on 05 December 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

So, arguing for the sake of an argument? May I curiously ask what's up with Americans and the UN?

To clarify -

The UN says it's okay, in fact preferable, for the State to decide what's best for my child.

Santorum says that it's not.

Why anyone would pretend not to know this is the real question here.

Harte