Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
questionmark

Santorum's new hobby: Oppose the disabled!

74 posts in this topic

Like I said, try reading it first instead of accepting Santorum's version of what he says it means. Nowhere in it does it take a parents rights away.

cormac

Nope, not reading it..... now I will tell ya why. Do not have to read the material presented because your stance is not about why he is challenging this but about how stupid he is for doing it. Regardless of how YOU feel about it, do you really think he is challenging the verbage in this because he HATES the disabled? Or because he thinks he can make some political points with a stance that can be EASILY construed by some as being harsh on the disabled? I mean, heaven forbid someone should come on here and call someone "themoron" just because they think they can poke fun because they know NOTHING of his intent behind his argument only his political affiliation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did Q go? Anybody sight him recently? I mean, if you are going to go fishing at least come back and check your bait.... reel in your line and call it a day.

lol

'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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama opposes this as well.

That makes two who are wrong.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not about "paranoia"...it is about seeing legal loopholes "so-to-speak" in the language. It is, of course, worst case scenario viewing, but the language is there...or more appropriately "not there".

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.

States shall ensure. What about "parents, with state support...shall ensure". The missing language...is... the parents...

Ahhh some one informed... Thank you for your post Jeremiah.

I know that as a father, if my child had a disability I would worry about the language in this bill. Santorum, no matter his political preference, is a father who has a disabled child and he is worried about the government infringement on his rights as a parent. Its truely that plan and simple.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Now wait, are you trying to tell me that children are not being taken out of their families in case of major mistreatment or neglect?

What would you call that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is neglect mentioned in the convention?

I know you're just jerking my chain here.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is neglect mentioned in the convention?

I know you're just jerking my chain here.

Harte

No, I am not jerking your chain, the convention sets no minimum requirements for children just that the government is to establish a standard. Like for example that deaf children should get signing classes, those incapable of walking wheelchair training and so on. And as it is right now, even without the convention, under the law there are no parents who can avoid doing that without having a social worker come down on them for neglect, and in reiteration may even loose custody of the children.

The convention calls for nothing else. And the addressee was not the US (even though, as soon as some here see UN they seem to be convinced of that) the addressee are those countries where children get locked up in a pen for being disabled. In the US those laws required, and the governmental supervision, already exist.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

No, I am not jerking your chain, the convention sets no minimum requirements for children just that the government is to establish a standard. Like for example that deaf children should get signing classes, those incapable of walking wheelchair training and so on. And as it is right now, even without the convention, under the law there are no parents who can avoid doing that without having a social worker come down on them for neglect, and in reiteration may even loose custody of the children.

The convention calls for nothing else. And the addressee was not the US (even though, as soon as some here see UN they seem to be convinced of that) the addressee are those countries where children get locked up in a pen for being disabled. In the US those laws required, and the governmental supervision, already exist.

You just answered the first post I quoted with the second one. So the question is if we are not the addressee, and that was my understanding, why do we have to have anything to do with this except show support when it's clear that we already support such guidelines and if its not that then it seems a reasonable concern that the UN would have at least some oversight on such USA affairs, otherwise the bottom line question is what's the freaking point of our involvement in this? The only logical conclusion is political brownie points. It doesn't make sense, since we practically invented and imposed the law a long time ago. Or does the UN need our vote to impose their will over other countries? It seems like our employees are just wasting our time and money on this for the usual Dems love you Reps hate you crap.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just answered the first post I quoted with the second one. So the question is if we are not the addressee, and that was my understanding, why do we have to have anything to do with this except show support when it's clear that we already support such guidelines and if its not that then it seems a reasonable concern that the UN would have at least some oversight on such USA affairs, otherwise the bottom line question is what's the freaking point of our involvement in this? The only logical conclusion is political brownie points. It doesn't make sense, since we practically invented and imposed the law a long time ago. Or does the UN need our vote to impose their will over other countries? It seems like our employees are just wasting our time and money on this for the usual Dems love you Reps hate you crap.

Naturally it makes sense. The US had human rights 150 years before the universal declaration was adopted, and that was not about the US either it was about the rest of the world (or most of it). Like most UN conventions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.