Rights of The Child Debate Help

[MolecularMan14]

In class, Ive we've all been given mini-debate topics about various UN topics. Mine was about the Rights of The Child conference. I have also been given the affirmative position thereby standing behind the US adopting and ratifying the convention. The problem is that I dont have too great of an arguement for the US to adopt it.

 

I have a feeling that my opposition will be arguing that it is anti-family.

 

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm

 

That is the actual conference. Any help is appreciated!

[Thales]

Arguing the rights of any human may help.

 

If parents are hindering the childs life and developement for a reason that is unjustifiable in the eyes of an objective observer, help and support should be provided to that child. If the parents feel that this impinges on their cultural or religous beliefs then perhap educating the parents and child as to why what they are doing is not only morally reprehensible but also socially unacceptable, may aid in at least minimising the amount of harm the parents can do to the child.

[MolecularMan14]

Why exactly would the US oppose adopting it? I dont see too much harm in it. I just wish I knew what my opposition might argue against me. Ive been given the position of 2nd affirmative, so it's my job to BS a lot of it, and basically make an 8 min cross examination but alone.

[MolecularMan14]

I suppose that they might argue that we are taking the control out of the hands of the US.

[MolecularMan14]

How would I respond??

 

Edit* My post #300

[atinymonkey]

Adopting the United Nations Rights of The Child bill in the US means an iron clad unchangeable policy to protect children in all the states in the US. It means that individual states cannot pass individual bills that infringe on a child's rights. It also means that policy on children cannot be used as a political tool by self serving politicians following whatever popular opinions of the time would sway voters. The UN presents an unbiased, logical and humanitarian approach to the rights of children. To say that the United States should not adopt it based on some vague form of patriotism is a perversion of nationalism to an unacceptable degree. The rights of a child have nothing to do with which country they are born in, all humanity should work together to protect them regardless of color, creed or heritage.

 

Did you know that a child in America will be refused access to public schools if the parents don't allow whatever injections the local heath authority feels like making mandatory? Given the immunization programs in the past have done everything from sterilization to increase leukemia in the children in the US, what right does the government have to force children to take these programs? It's not about trusting the government, it's about safeguarding future generations.

 

That's not to mention the weight the bill carries in other countries if the major western countries sign the bill. If the US signs it, other less developed countries will as well. To suggest that the US does not sign it is the equivalent of suggesting other more militant countries are allowed carte blanch in regards to the rights of children. We either provide a united front across all western countries, or live with the knowledge that millions of children will suffer across the world for decades to come. It's not about being pro american or anti America, it about being humanitarian or self serving.

[MolecularMan14]

why arent more people voting? I would really like to get a general opinion about this.

[atinymonkey]

I voted, but it's not really any of my business.

[LucidDreamer]

why arent more people voting? I would really like to get a general opinion about this.

 

Probably because they are too lazy to find out exactly what is on the bill or whatever they call it at the UN. The link didn't work for me. Maybe you should provide a summary of it in a post or copy and paste the main issues.

[Dave]

That would be useful. I've never heard of this before.

[MolecularMan14]

Oh boy its 54 articles plus a page and a half preamble. But I'll try to summarize it.

Just gimme a little while

[Guest Sleepybirdy]

My group for child psych just got assigned the same topic, with the same postion, and I'm having trouble finding anything online about anyone from the US who is for the ratification of this convention. I have my own reasons why I think we should ratify this thing...One reason being political. Somalia and the US are the only ones who havent ratified it, and Somalia's government is a complete mess...So what does it say to the world when the US is a powerful, "progressive" nation who prides itself on the rights of it's people yet we wont even ratify a treaty to help insure this? It's like the country is sitting on the fence. "Unofficially, we're for rights, but if we have to sign this peice of paper, then we wont commit to it." That's pathetic. Also, it's unconstitutional. The first amendment guarantees right for all. ALL. Blacks, whites, men, women...ALL. Still, I've never done a debate before and any help would be appreciate. I dont want them to wipe the floor with my argument. And Molecular Man, I'd love to hear what you came up with...Maybe we could bounce ideas back and forth?

[MolecularMan14]

Well my oppposition argued that the UN would strictly enforce these international "laws". But I reminded them that they could never over-rule the US judicial system.

They also came up with a weak arguement stating that the children would only have the rights given to them in the convention. I argued then, that that was impossibly out-of-line and I also, in the CX, asked what rights they were not given. They of course didnt have an answer.

They also agrued that the children would then overpower the parent's ruling, having international law behind them. In the convention the children would be given the right to rest and leisure; the negatives argued that if this were passed, the children would take severe advantage of this, and would just sit around and rest, in stead of doing homework or listening to their parents.

We pretty much neglected this arguement b/c of its stupidity, but Im sure you can figure out a good harm for it.

 

But on the first post, you'll find the actual convention. So you can site all the articles, for a good resource

[7hor]

I don't think it would really hurt, kids couldn't do anything too unreasonable I hope...

[MolecularMan14]

lol, the parents would of course still have authority over the kids, that would never be changed. And the UN could never really "enforce" the convention either. So it couldnt really hurt at all.

Im just happy that they didnt run topicality too hard