Should the Government be able to take your kidsw If they think he or s

[kvnchrist]

 

I'm not sure if the OP is serious or not with original question.

 

 

What makes you think I'm not serious about my questions?

[Vagrant0]

I am a dyed in the wool Liberal, and I cannot believe what I am reading. What has happened to all the hue and cry against the government tampering with our personal lives? Vagrant has made some valid points regarding food additives and their restrictions, etc. But even there, we are talking about the government being involved in determining what is or is not good for us.

[/size][/font][/b]

 

Have you read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair at any point in your life... That was how things were before the government and board of health stepped in to tell food manufacturers what were and were not safe practices. No, a little rat meat or excrement in your food may not necessarily kill you, and some companies may even consider that their signature 'seasoning'. I know, you don't want the government telling you what you can and cannot do or have, but the fact of the matter is that many of these companies simply don't care about anyones health as long as someone is buying their products. Most of the 'quality assurance' labs are there for consistency and living up to government food safety standards, not for actual 'quality'. You know why there are so many e coli outbreaks these days? Because there isn't a law keeping workers from relieving themselves in the field as they pick the food you eat. You know why reality shows that show restaurants with appalling conditions never seem to run out of 'worsts'? Because this level of neglect is typical among food handlers. Frankly, I would prefer some laws in effect instead of no laws... Or do you suggest that everyone grows and kills their own food too?

[Pyrosocial]

Technically, letting a child become morbidly obese IS child abuse, due to the harm caused by being obese, such as heart problems ect. In essence, this could sometimes be worse then some cases of physical abuse as the child will have complecations with their heart and could die from it.

 

I think it is easy to prevent though, make them go outside, don't let them eat a whole bucket of KFC, ect.

[grannywils]

Vagrant, yes I did read The Jungle, years ago, and I was not trying to suggest that there should be no regulations; although I admit it may have sounded that way. I was just a tad frustrated with the whole concept of, "let's get the government in there to take care of something else that we are too lazy to do for ourselves". Remember, I pointed out that I am a Liberal. We are the ones that are frequently accused of wanting too much government. I absolutely agree that we do need it in many cases, and even pointed out that you were right, but only mentioned that it was another case of government in our lives (not a bad one though, in my opinion). But I was a bit too flip, and I do apologize for that.

[grannywils]

 

I'm not sure if the OP is serious or not with original question.

 

 

What makes you think I'm not serious about my questions?

 

I did not know if you meant literally for the government to take the children away from the parents. I apologize for my wording. I did not mean to imply that I was not taking you seriously. Poor wording on my part.

[RZ1029]

We should break up a family... just to make sure the kid doesn't get diabetes? I'm sorry, I don't follow that logic at all. I'm talking, severely, morbidly, immediately life-threateningly obese.

 

As I stated earlier in the thread

 

so obese that it is directly threatening his/her health

 

other associated illnesses

High blood pressure- treatable (easily) with medication, high blood cholesterol- get your diet in check, problem solved, Type 2 Diabetes - non-insulin dependent form of diabetes, it can be easily managed and controlled with attention, heart disease and congestive heart failure- the only really dangerous issue I see on this list, but can also be caused by numerous other things, including medication prescribed on a shockingly regular basis which has the risk of heart disease and congestive heart failure as a side-effect, gout- severe arthritis, more or less, controllable by lowering uric acid levels with a proper diet, osteoarthritis- arthritis in the joints, more or less, can be relieved with medication, but not 'cured', increased risk for some types of cancer, pregnancy complications, and poor reproductive health, on the females part.

 

While illnesses of any severity are not good, there is only one on that list I would consider life-threatening, heart disease and congestive heart failure. If the child becomes at risk of those, that would be when I consider it allowable to step in.

[ita]

high blood cholesterol- get your diet in check, problem solved

gout- severe arthritis, more or less, controllable by lowering uric acid levels with a proper diet

 

And who will make sure that the child maintains a proper diet?

The parents who, by neglect, allowed the child to get morbidly obese in the first place?

 

Yeah, I'm sure that will work out just fine.

[RZ1029]

high blood cholesterol- get your diet in check, problem solved

gout- severe arthritis, more or less, controllable by lowering uric acid levels with a proper diet

 

And who will make sure that the child maintains a proper diet?

The parents who, by neglect, allowed the child to get morbidly obese in the first place?

 

Yeah, I'm sure that will work out just fine.

Same way social services does well being checks on children. If it works so great now, why wouldn't it work for your plan too?

 

Yes, that was meant to be sarcastic.

[ita]

Well, being placed in foster care apparently worked out fine for the kid mentioned in the article in the first post of this thread. Edited July 17, 2011 by GenocideLolita

[RZ1029]

For every success story you find, I can find story upon story of foster care gone wrong, cases of abuse, neglect by the foster parents, including some we've already discussed in the topic so far.