Parental Consent In The United States

1704 Words7 Pages
When you think of a child, you may not immediately think of them as a single entity, but instead as an extension of their parents. This view is one that doesn't seem to disappear until the child has reached their teens and are into their junior high and high school age. This view has to do with the idea of parental consent. Once a child reaches ages in the teens and above, they become more capable to make decisions without the guidance of a parental or another adult figure. Issues arise from this when we talk about the rights of the child because children don’t have a universal set of rights like the right of man, and some rights, such as the right to bear arms, wouldn’t . What are we to do if we want to give children rights that they deserve,…show more content…
has not ratified the CRC. The Convention was signed in 1995 by Bill Clinton but never ratified by a two thirds majority vote in the house. The only other countries to not have the CRC laws ratified are South Sudan and Somalia, nations with essentially no functional government. So is America really on the same level of South Sudan and Somalia? Well obviously, the answer is no, because we are a much more developed country in many ways. According to Lawrence J. Cohen and Anthony T. DeBenedet of TIME magazine, the primary opposition of the CRC is “based on fears of U.N. interference in U.S. laws and families.” Parents worry that the Convention will undermine the rights of parents, when in fact, the treaty protects the rights of the child AND of the parents. A sight called has been pivotal in instilling fear in the mind of concerned parents. The sight suggests that the adoption of such a convention would prevent parents from discipline such as spanking and from opting out the young feeble minds of their children from the “horrors” of sexual education. Michael Farris, the president suggests that the chief threat of the ratification of the CRC would be the denial of American self-government. Farris states that “Upon ratification, this nation would be making a binding promise in international law that we would obey the legal standards created by the U.N. CRC. American children and families are better served by constitutional democracy than international law.” The group is fearful that ratification of the treaty would mean children could choose their own religion, that children would have a legally enforceable right to leisure, that nations would have to spend more on children’s welfare than national defense, and that a child’s “right to be heard” could trigger a governmental review of any decision a parent made that a child didn’t like. Though the group may make a valid point, what kind of message are we
Get Access