DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: j on November 29, 2011, 01:47:20 AM
-
https://news.yahoo.com/obese-third-grader-taken-mom-placed-foster-care-201731761.html
As much disdain as I have for the vast, vast array of shitty parents of varying types that we have in this world, this is completely ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, the mom of course sounds like an ignorant moron. But not only is this proposed "solution" totally inappropriate, but the precedent it sets is frightening, IMO (among other things). Anybody think otherwise?
Not much detail in the article I know, and unfortunately a few cursory Google searches didn't yield much more info either.
-J
-
Not exactly sure how you're supposed to deal with something as horrible as this; but that mom isn't just ignorant, she's down right horrible and destroying her kids life. An 8 year old should not weight more than a healthy male adult should weight. I'm sure she just doesn't have the willpower to tell her kid no (which is rather epidemic anyways).
The mother should be punished in some fashion, because she's being responsible for the endangerment of a human child. That little boy ain't ever gonna lose those fat cells.
-
Not sure how I feel in situations like this. The mother has done some permanent physical damage to her child and for that should be punished, but it does set a dangerous precedent. Plus foster care probably won't be a whole lot better for the kid.
-
I'm torn on this as well. I think that the state has an obligation to protect citizens, especially minors, from abusive situations, but does the mother's inability to manage her child's weight problem actually constitute abuse? I'm not sure. Putting the child in foster care seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps it would be a better solution to have a dietician assigned to the case to help the mother and the child overcome the problem.....
The precedent here is chilling. If the state can come in and take your child because they think he/she is too fat, then what's next? I think separating the child from the custodial parent should always be a last resort. This feels a bit like a knee-jerk reaction.
-
The mother should have been able to keep the kid. However, some kind of rep should have had to visit every week. If the child didn't lose say 20% of his body weight in 6 months, then the state should have taken him away... But I guess then yo urun the risk of the mother starving the kid just so she doesn't lose him... I'm not sure where I stand with this.
-
more people that don't know how to take responsibility of their kids. all that had to be done was therapy/dietician.
-
Perhaps it would be a better solution to have a dietician assigned to the case to help the mother and the child overcome the problem.....
The precedent here is chilling. If the state can come in and take your child because they think he/she is too fat, then what's next? I think separating the child from the custodial parent should always be a last resort. This feels a bit like a knee-jerk reaction.
Hey Barry....I don't have the source (I'll try to find it) but listening to a talk show this morning and a man did call in and say that he researched the case and last year she took the child to the hospital because he was suffering from sleep apnea. At that time a dietician and case worker was assigned to help her and the boy still gained more weight. The mother claimed that 'everyone' was feeding her child...not just her.
Like most of you I am torn because of the precedent. Where is the line drawn? You're a smoker...well we are taking your kids because 2nd hand smoke can kill....and so on. This lady clearly is incapable of being a parent, but tearing this kid from his mother is wrong as well. Just a tough situation. I honestly don't know what the 'proper' course of action is or should be......
-
This is not related to the topic, but it is related to the last post. A few years ago, my buddy and I were in Atlanta. We actually got stopped for J-walking, a cop saw us do it across two adjacent streets. He wrote us both tickets. As he was writing my buddy's a car drove by, and he said to the cop "why don't you give her a ticket?" A lady drove by with her window barely cracked with three children on board, while smoking. The cops respose was, "there's no laws against that".
Do I think that mother should have lost her kid's? Not a chance. Do I think some sort of action needed to be taken? For sure.
-
i wanna see a pic of this tub o lard
-
I think if people saw a pic, they might change their mind...
-
I feel so sorry for this poor kid, having his life destroyed by a selfish and useless parent.
-
Stand back, citizen. Government knows what is best for you! :angry:
-
I thought the Libertarian ideal was that no person should harm another person, or even kill him/her. Does that not apply to parents? At this BMI (~50), the kid probably has a life expectancy of 25 or so. Is it ok to slowly feed a child to death, but not slowly drip arsenic into the food that has the same effect?
Or is this just your knee-jerk reaction because the government is doing something, no matter what?
rumborak
-
I thought the Libertarian ideal was that no person should harm another person, or even kill him/her. Does that not apply to parents? At this BMI (~50), the kid probably has a life expectancy of 25 or so. Is it ok to slowly feed a child to death, but not slowly drip arsenic into the food that has the same effect?
Or is this just your knee-jerk reaction because the government is doing something, no matter what?
rumborak
This, for Christ's sake. I don't know how anyone who thinks this is OK can pretend, even for a moment, that their ideology has not had a crippling effect on their common sense.
-
If you can make an absolute excuse for abuse, it's one thing. We'd be better off establishing state-level breeding restrictions. :biggrin:
-
That's your response? Ok then.
rumborak
-
The Ron Paul fallback "let the states handle it!" answer is kinda getting annoying. It's not OK for the federal government to tell you how to live, but the states are allowed to tryanize you all they want?
-
The Ron Paul fallback "let the states handle it!" answer is kinda getting annoying. It's not OK for the federal government to tell you how to live, but the states are allowed to tryanize you all they want?
Yeah, I never understood that.
-
It's a cop-out, for sure, and it plays into the "us vs. them" mentality that reigns in the US (as I mentioned in the other thread). I mean, I can see the argument of course that smaller entities can much better ensure to please their constituents, but states are still enormous constructs that can not achieve that significantly better than federal.
rumborak
-
The Ron Paul fallback "let the states handle it!" answer is kinda getting annoying. It's not OK for the federal government to tell you how to live, but the states are allowed to tryanize you all they want?
10 Amendment, it's the law of the land. You can always move to a better state.