Ronda Hawkins and I view the Convention on the Rights of the Child from different life lenses (Oct. 16).

Rather than debating each of its 52 articles, I will point out their effect in several countries. In Italy, the names of all newborns are reported to a government agency. In a recent case, the agency decided the parents' choice was unacceptable; the child's name was chosen and changed by this agency. This accords with the CRC mandates for governments to monitor children's "well-being" -- in this case, the suitability of a name.

UNICEF reported that Netherland's children lead the world in terms of their subjective well-being. These children begin receiving sex education at age 4, and the age of consent for sexual activity is 12. Drinking, smoking, drugs and sex among the young are tolerated activities to ensure positive self-esteem.

In Great Britain, government investigator Graham Badman issued a report on elective home education. He proposes changes to the current system, not for failing educational needs, but because he does not think the children's rights are properly balanced with the parents' rights.

The CRC prescribes government oversight of all things involving the children of signature nations. Its articles may sound ideal, but the legal interpretation of many of them sounds Orwellian.

I urge interested readers to check the document, available in its entirety online. Then read the legal interpretations and make your own assessment. Issues that endanger children -- abuse, neglect, malnutrition, civil conflict -- may easily be prohibited by a treaty, but the realities of these horrors do not obey man's laws in any form.

Again, I note that an amendment to the Constitution to delineate that parental rights are fundamental rights would secure America from international interpretations of "what is best for the child." For additional information, see www.parentalrights.org.

Lacy Pessagno

Aberdeen