It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senator Pan Introduces SB-18 Bill of Rights for Children and Youth in California.

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: DBCowboy

But that's not the case is it. We are not talking about religion. We are talking about basic rights to food, shelter, education, healthcare.


One, health and education might include religion.

What if California thinks that church is bad for a child?

Two, are there laws that are already in place that address these issues?




posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: DBCowboy

But that's not the case is it. We are not talking about religion. We are talking about basic rights to food, shelter, education, healthcare.


One, health and education might include religion.

What if California thinks that church is bad for a child?

Two, are there laws that are already in place that address these issues?


One, there is a little thing called separation of church and state.

Two, you apparently are against all laws, so who cares, right?



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

I'm against laws that remove rights.



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: kaylaluv

I'm against laws that remove rights.



Except for children's rights. You don't care about removing their rights.



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Two, you apparently are against all laws, so who cares, right?

Where did he say he's against all laws? You must have some seriously poor reading comprehension to have come to that conclusion based on what's been written in this thread.



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Children don't have rights, you can even kill them in the womb.

At least that's what I've been told.

Are you saying that California is suddenly concerned with children's rights now?

And you?

You think abortion is finally a barbaric act and that children have rights?

Maybe we can find agreement here.



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Navieko

He has a post history beyond this thread. He thinks everyone exercises personal responsibility perfectly well, therefore no real need for laws.



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

An embryo is not a child. I think when faced with a miserable life of years with abuse and neglect, it is better to end it quickly when there is no knowledge of pain and suffering.



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv
I'm guessing you were all in support for the Iraq war, right?



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   
So my three year old is on a kick where she refuses to eat anything but milk from her baby bottle.

Forcing her to eat can be very stressful to all of us; so we decided to let her eat as much "proper food" as she will (very very little) and let her drink hee milk as much as she wants.

Certainly this isn't the same as eating cheetos every day all day for two years. But it's also not getting her the "proper" nutrition. Milk might be good for you, but it can't be all you have if your worried about "proper" nutrition.

How will the state deal with grey areas like this?



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

So it's not so much about acknowledging the rights of a child as it is removing the rights of a parent.



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

I had similar problems when my child was a toddler. I asked her pediatrician for advice. He advised me to do something similar to what you are doing. I think that is being a responsible parent. Going to a doctor for medical care and advice, then following that advice is not being a bad parent.

I read a news story once about some parents who got mad at their 4-year-old daughter because she kept wanting a drink of water when she should be going to sleep for the night. As punishment, they made her drink a whole gallon of water at once. Her brain swelled and she died from water poisoning. THAT is bad parenting. Guidelines like, don't give your young child more than xx ounces of fluid at once would be helpful, no?



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: kaylaluv

So it's not so much about acknowledging the rights of a child as it is removing the rights of a parent.


Removing the rights of the parents to spend years mistreating their children, yes.



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: kaylaluv

So it's not so much about acknowledging the rights of a child as it is removing the rights of a parent.


Removing the rights of the parents to spend years mistreating their children, yes.


And the state gets to determine what is considered, "mistreatment".



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Guidelines like "don't give your young child more than xxx of yyy"

Are unenforceable. Sure if the kid winds up dead you will know you have a bad parent on your hands. But what of the parent that gives their kid xxx + 0.1 Oz of water? Are they now criminally neglectful? And more to the point how would you know for sure?

The problem with laws like these are not their intentions. I get that the people who proposed it and support it have good intentions. The problem is that these types of laws are to subjective and as such they are easy to miss use.

In their goal to help the outliers in society, that do in fact need the protection, they are placing and undo burden on the rest of society.

There are better ways to help the outliers that does not involve question the acts of the vast majority of good parents; all of whom have their own set of circumstances to deal with.
edit on 14-1-2017 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: kaylaluv

So it's not so much about acknowledging the rights of a child as it is removing the rights of a parent.


Removing the rights of the parents to spend years mistreating their children, yes.


And the state gets to determine what is considered, "mistreatment".


Someone has to determine it when a parent thinks forcing their young child to drink a gallon of water at once is acceptable treatment.



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv
Well then, why stop there? CCTV Cams should be setup in every household so that these laws, when broken, can actually be enforced - right? Otherwise what's the actual point?



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Navieko

No need - there are usually signs of mistreatment that show themselves at daycare facilities, public schools, in front of neighbors, etc.



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv
But no where near as effective as cameras all over the household. Or don't you care about children's rights???



posted on Jan, 14 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Navieko

More fear mongering to stop the protection of children. "It's gonna be 1984!"

Much like "they're gonna take all our gunz!"



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join