Ratification of the Convention of the Rights of the Child Bill [Passed]

[Verily]

Ratification of the Convention of the Rights of the Child Bill

1. Atlasia hereby ratifies the Convention of the Rights of the Child, as agreed to by the United Nations General Assembly on November 20, 1989, and signed by U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright on February 16, 1995.


(Sponsor: Ebowed)

[Ebowed]

The ratification was never pursued by the Clinton administration (although his Secretary of State did sign it) because the GOP-controlled Senate was opposed to provisions in the convention banning the use of capital punishment for child offenders.

I hope that we can now ratify this convention instead of standing alone with Somalia as the only other country who couldn't do so.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

For the Senate's convienience, a link to the text of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (PDF).

[DownWithTheLeft]

For the Senate's convienience, a link to the text of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (PDF).

Link is not working

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This would most likely improve our image abroad. Every little helps.

[afleitch]

I am in strong support of this bills passage, hopefully unamended.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I am in strong support of this bills passage, hopefully unamended.

On the whole, I support this as well.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

For the Senate's convienience, a link to the text of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (PDF).

Link is not working

Try this instead.  Convention of the Rights of the Child (HTML).

[Speed of Sound]

I am in strong support of this bills passage, hopefully unamended.

On the whole, I support this as well.

And I as well, meaning, with Ebowed, we have 4, and I doubt we're gonna have trouble finding one more out of 6.

[Verily]

I am in strong support of this bills passage, hopefully unamended.

On the whole, I support this as well.

And I as well, meaning, with Ebowed, we have 4, and I doubt we're gonna have trouble finding one more out of 6.

And I, too. Not that the result of this bill was ever much in doubt, to my mind.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Merely to provoke some controversy since this is looking very amicable and controversy is more fun:

Some quick questions:

1: Can article 6.1 "States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life." be interpreted to require restrictions on abortions?

2: Does article 23.1 "States Parties recognize that a mentally or physically disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child's active participation in the community." mean that if abortions are allowed only under certain circumstances, a non-fatal birth defect would not be an allowable circumstances.

3: Conversely, does article 24.2.a, "States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures to diminish infant and child mortality," mean that in the case of potentially fatal birth defects, abortion should be required or at least required to be funded by the state.

4: Does article 28.1.a, "Make primary education compulsory and available free to all," make home schooling illegal?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Ratifiying international policy is dumb, lets set our own precendent

[Verily]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly not; whether you oppose or support abortion, basically everyone acknowledges that the use of "child" by anti-abortion groups is rhetorical. Prior to birth, the term is fetus (or embryo or zygote, etc., depending on the stage of development), and that would clearly be the proper interpretation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above. Another point to consider is that education (below) obviously cannot be applied to fetuses, so to suggest that the intent is for fetuses to be included under "children" in the convention is absurd.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only if home schooling is not considered education, which is another spurious claim.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly not; whether you oppose or support abortion, basically everyone acknowledges that the use of "child" by anti-abortion groups is rhetorical. Prior to birth, the term is fetus (or embryo or zygote, etc., depending on the stage of development), and that would clearly be the proper interpretation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above. Another point to consider is that education (below) obviously cannot be applied to fetuses, so to suggest that the intent is for fetuses to be included under "children" in the convention is absurd.

But with respect to #3, if fetuses are not children, then preventing defective fetuses from becoming children would be a way to "diminish infant and child mortality".  After all it is generally recognized that ready availability of abortion is a factor that leads to lower rates of infant mortality in some countries.  If you are going to argue that fetuses are not yet children then you have not yet provided a counter argument to my intentionally loaded question.

[Verily]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly not; whether you oppose or support abortion, basically everyone acknowledges that the use of "child" by anti-abortion groups is rhetorical. Prior to birth, the term is fetus (or embryo or zygote, etc., depending on the stage of development), and that would clearly be the proper interpretation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above. Another point to consider is that education (below) obviously cannot be applied to fetuses, so to suggest that the intent is for fetuses to be included under "children" in the convention is absurd.

But with respect to #3, if fetuses are not children, then preventing defective fetuses from becoming children would be a way to "diminish infant and child mortality".  After all it is generally recognized that ready availability of abortion is a factor that leads to lower rates of infant mortality in some countries.  If you are going to argue that fetuses are not yet children then you have not yet provided a counter argument to my intentionally loaded question.

Meh. I don't really care about abortion, so beyond the semantic argument I'm not bothering, though the word "appropriate" certainly leaves plenty open to interpretation. (That and the fact that many ratifiers such as Ireland and Poland ban abortion outright suggests that any interpretation as having anything to do with abortion has no legal precedent.)

[Ebowed]

FYI, Ernest, the document states elsewhere that terms such as "child" and "minor" refer from birth until age 18.  So nothing here could be interpreted to prohibit (or, indeed, allow) abortions.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Let me ask a more serious question then.  What exactly does joining this convention do other than place the name of the Republic of Atlasia on a piece of paper?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Let me ask a more serious question then.  What exactly does joining this convention do other than place the name of the Republic of Atlasia on a piece of paper?

Nothing, I'd assume.

[Ebowed]

Let me ask a more serious question then.  What exactly does joining this convention do other than place the name of the Republic of Atlasia on a piece of paper?

It increases our international credibility.

[Sensei]

Let me ask a more serious question then.  What exactly does joining this convention do other than place the name of the Republic of Atlasia on a piece of paper?

It increases our international credibility.

very true. I'm in total favor of Atlasia signing.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Ratifiying international policy is dumb, lets set our own precendent

That, and I thought no treaty was dumber than Kyoto until this came along

[Speed of Sound]

Ratifiying international policy is dumb, lets set our own precendent

That, and I thought no treaty was dumber than Kyoto until this came along

Yeah! Those Damn whining slaves sweet little things dont need rights or protection!

[DownWithTheLeft]

Ratifiying international policy is dumb, lets set our own precendent

That, and I thought no treaty was dumber than Kyoto until this came along

Yeah! Those Damn whining slaves sweet little things dont need rights or protection!

My point is why do we need some stupid international treaty instead of creating our policy that suits our country?

[Speed of Sound]

Ratifiying international policy is dumb, lets set our own precendent

That, and I thought no treaty was dumber than Kyoto until this came along

Yeah! Those Damn whining slaves sweet little things dont need rights or protection!

My point is why do we need some stupid international treaty instead of creating our policy that suits our country?

I think Al and Ebowed covered that.

Let me ask a more serious question then.  What exactly does joining this convention do other than place the name of the Republic of Atlasia on a piece of paper?

It increases our international credibility.

This would most likely improve our image abroad. Every little helps.

Its about the unity of the world against common morals, like this one.

[Brandon H]

I motion to table this bill.