Blame Spanking Advocates for Child Migrants' Lack of Rights

[Potoooooooo]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/un-convention-rights-child-migrant-spanking

The United States has never ratified a treaty that could be protecting child migrants because conservatives fear it could outlaw spanking.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Shouldn't we be blaming conservatives then?

 

[bilby]

Farris believes, among other things, that if the United States signed the treaty, "parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children," parents wouldn't be able to keep their kids out of sex education, and that children could choose their own religion.

My bold.

I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure that the US Constitution already allows kids to choose their own religion - or none - without need for any reference to any UN treaties, ratified or not.

Is anyone seriously suggesting that a 14 year old American citizen, residing in the US, who wishes to become, for example, a Buddhist, can be forced by her Muslim parents to remain a Muslim? How could that even work? Even if the law did dictate that (and I am sure it couldn't do so within the US Constitution), how could it possibly be enforced?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Farris believes, among other things, that if the United States signed the treaty, "parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children," parents wouldn't be able to keep their kids out of sex education, and that children could choose their own religion.

Heh.
I just keep seeing one of those 'i need feminism' images, with someone saying 'I need spanking because my kid might decide he's an atheist.'
I realize they're not exactly connected in his statement, but that's where my mind went.

Along with "I need spanking because my kids will not know they're horny unless a sex ed teacher tells them they are."