Welcome to Gaia! ::

Reply The Pro-life Guild
Abortion illegal by international law?

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

I.Am
Captain

Quotable Tycoon

7,825 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Signature Look 250
  • Forum Regular 100
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:43 am


Now, first of all, abortion isn't actually illegal by international law. Just wanted to say that.

However, if fetuses were to be "proven" legally to be people, then they would be. Except, ironically, in the US and Somalia.

Wikipedia Article
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an international convention setting out the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of children. It is monitored by the Committee on the Rights of the Child.

Most member nation states (countries) of the United Nations have ratified it, either partly or completely. The United Nations General Assembly agreed to adopt the Convention into international law on November 20, 1989; it came into force in September 1990, after it was ratified by the required number of nations. The Convention generally defines a child as any person under the age of 18, unless an earlier age of majority is recognized by a country's law.

The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping and have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated.

The Convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, to have their privacy protected and requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference.

The Convention also obliges signatory states to provide separate legal representation for a child in any judicial dispute concerning their care and asks that the child's viewpoint be heard in such cases. The Convention forbids capital punishment for children.

The Convention is child-centric and deals with the child-specific needs and rights. It requires that states act in the best interests of the child. This approach is different from the common law approach found in many countries that had previously treated children and wives as possessions or chattels, ownership of which was often argued over in family disputes. In many jurisdictions, properly implementing the Convention requires an overhaul of child custody and guardianship laws, or, at the very least, a creative approach within the existing laws.

The Convention also has two Optional Protocols, adopted by the General Assembly in May 2000 and applicable to those states that have signed and ratified them: The Optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict and the Optional protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.


If you click on the link at the top, it will bring you to the full article, with more details about what rights exactly the convention affords children.

Now, if you notice, it specifically includes the right to life. Annoyingly enough, Bush opposes the ratification of this convention, claiming that it affords too many economic, social, and cultural rights.

As much as I love Georgie, that's just stupid. Reading over the main points in the main article, none of them sound overly generous to me. In fact, most of them sound like things that we already have in place, essentially.

Anyways, I'm curious what everyone else thinks! 3nodding
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:35 am


I.Am
Bush opposes the ratification of this convention, claiming that it affords too many economic, social, and cultural rights.


stare .....Too....many....rights. stressed Oh, for the love of mud.... scream

I cite this and the Kyoto Protocol as two of many reasons why I want to be Canadian. WTF, PEOPLE?!

La Veuve Zin

Rainbow Smoker

5,650 Points
  • Mega Tipsy 100
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Ultimate Player 200

divineseraph

PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:18 am


finally. i hope it comes to be. then we will only have America to worry about, really... most of the statistics we speak of are in america, correct? so that 1.4 million per year is just america. there are millions more going on in other places, right? is there any way we can support this bill, or is it out of our control since it is international?
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:26 am


I can actualy see what Bush is worried about. I propably got the same sinking feelign he did when he read that. Where as the right to life sounds great, many of the other child gauranteed right can be over interpreted to sound as though the child (if they are a minor at the time) is at the same status as their parents. IE, their rights will trump what they're parents say.

"The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, to have their privacy protected and requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference." Thats the lien I have alot of dispute with. I know what it means, but I also know that it could be over interpreted.

Tiger of the Fire


divineseraph

PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:24 am


but it says "when appropriate"- this does not mean "you must buy your children ponies if they ask"
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:36 am


Thats what scares me the most. It dosn't say what the appropriate times are. And many people who seem to think children know better or just as much as their parents will interpret it wrong.

Tiger of the Fire


divineseraph

PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:43 am


true... so maybe stating that concern and then rewording it as to not be misinterpereted by overly politically correct douches?
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:11 am


La Veuve Zin
I.Am
Bush opposes the ratification of this convention, claiming that it affords too many economic, social, and cultural rights.


stare .....Too....many....rights. stressed Oh, for the love of mud.... scream

I cite this and the Kyoto Protocol as two of many reasons why I want to be Canadian. WTF, PEOPLE?!
I love being Canaidian and all but our Prime Minister now isn't much smarter than your President.

Theallpowerfull


I.Am
Captain

Quotable Tycoon

7,825 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Signature Look 250
  • Forum Regular 100
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:31 pm


Pyrotechnic Oracle
I can actualy see what Bush is worried about. I propably got the same sinking feelign he did when he read that. Where as the right to life sounds great, many of the other child gauranteed right can be over interpreted to sound as though the child (if they are a minor at the time) is at the same status as their parents. IE, their rights will trump what they're parents say.

"The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, to have their privacy protected and requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference." Thats the lien I have alot of dispute with. I know what it means, but I also know that it could be over interpreted.
That's how international law is; You can't be too specific, because you have to leave breathing room for the individual countries to translate it the way they want. Otherwise, we might as well just have a global government in control of everybody, and get rid of the individual countries.

It would be up to the individual countries to specify how it's interpretted.
Reply
The Pro-life Guild

 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum