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

[marharth]

I think everyone needs to take a step back and quit looking at this as a black and white issue.

[RZ1029]

Unfortunately the question posed is a black and white issue. Should they be able to? Yes, or no. Depending on your point of view, the black and white may be flipped, but it is still a black and white question none-the-less. Few things in life are black and white, many questions in life, however, are.

[marharth]

Unfortunately the question posed is a black and white issue. Should they be able to? Yes, or no. Depending on your point of view, the black and white may be flipped, but it is still a black and white question none-the-less. Few things in life are black and white, many questions in life, however, are.

What does "Government take your kid" mean as a whole?

 

What is considered "fat?"

[ita]

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.

 

That's not an argument against foster care, it's an argument for stricter control and check-ups on foster parents.

[BlackBaron2]

I don't see this as black and white either. There are other issues at play such as food deserts, and the fact that fresh produce isn't cheap, but unhealthy food is. Then, once you've taken into account whether people can easily get fresh food and whether they can afford it, you have to know whether or not there's a medical issue with the child that could be causing the obesity. Even then, it's possible that it's the school lunches are unhealthy, or the child could be sneaking food. Obesity is not one of those "quick and easy" issues where you can instantly point to someone or something you want to blame.

[HeyYou]

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.

 

That's not an argument against foster care, it's an argument for stricter control and check-ups on foster parents.

 

For the original question, No. The government should NOT be permitted. They have already adequately demonstrated that they are not really in control of anything..... they make laws, they pass resolutions, they set up bureaus, and oversight committees, have hearings, set up another layer of oversight, but, in the end, things continue as they always have.

 

Who controls the childs diet? Does the child? Does the government? Do the corporations? Nope. None of the above, its the PARENTS. So, who should take ultimate responsibility? The Parents. Trouble is, 50 years ago, it didn't REQUIRE two working adults in a middle class home to be able to meet expenses, and live comfortably. Now, we have more kids at home, on their own, at younger ages..... that are expected to "take care of themselves"??? Yeah, right, that's gonna turn out well......

 

You need a license to drive. You need a license to have a business. You need a license to practice medicine. The only thing you DON'T really need a license for, is becoming a parent.... maybe THAT is what needs to change.

[marharth]

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.

 

That's not an argument against foster care, it's an argument for stricter control and check-ups on foster parents.

 

For the original question, No. The government should NOT be permitted. They have already adequately demonstrated that they are not really in control of anything..... they make laws, they pass resolutions, they set up bureaus, and oversight committees, have hearings, set up another layer of oversight, but, in the end, things continue as they always have.

 

Who controls the childs diet? Does the child? Does the government? Do the corporations? Nope. None of the above, its the PARENTS. So, who should take ultimate responsibility? The Parents. Trouble is, 50 years ago, it didn't REQUIRE two working adults in a middle class home to be able to meet expenses, and live comfortably. Now, we have more kids at home, on their own, at younger ages..... that are expected to "take care of themselves"??? Yeah, right, that's gonna turn out well......

 

You need a license to drive. You need a license to have a business. You need a license to practice medicine. The only thing you DON'T really need a license for, is becoming a parent.... maybe THAT is what needs to change.

I don't like the idea of having a license for anything. For medical purposes, you will still need to go through medical school for course, but I don't see any real need for a license.

 

For driving, I don't think a single person in this country has not passed a driving test if they wanted to pass it.

 

I think you were just trying to make a point though, and I agree that some parents need to quit being so stupid. Would it be fair to partly blame society for making people like they are now though?

[HeyYou]

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.

 

That's not an argument against foster care, it's an argument for stricter control and check-ups on foster parents.

 

For the original question, No. The government should NOT be permitted. They have already adequately demonstrated that they are not really in control of anything..... they make laws, they pass resolutions, they set up bureaus, and oversight committees, have hearings, set up another layer of oversight, but, in the end, things continue as they always have.

 

Who controls the childs diet? Does the child? Does the government? Do the corporations? Nope. None of the above, its the PARENTS. So, who should take ultimate responsibility? The Parents. Trouble is, 50 years ago, it didn't REQUIRE two working adults in a middle class home to be able to meet expenses, and live comfortably. Now, we have more kids at home, on their own, at younger ages..... that are expected to "take care of themselves"??? Yeah, right, that's gonna turn out well......

 

You need a license to drive. You need a license to have a business. You need a license to practice medicine. The only thing you DON'T really need a license for, is becoming a parent.... maybe THAT is what needs to change.

I don't like the idea of having a license for anything. For medical purposes, you will still need to go through medical school for course, but I don't see any real need for a license.

 

For driving, I don't think a single person in this country has not passed a driving test if they wanted to pass it.

 

I think you were just trying to make a point though, and I agree that some parents need to quit being so stupid. Would it be fair to partly blame society for making people like they are now though?

 

There are some folks that have a drivers license here, that I think REALLY shouldn't...... Of course, their are doctors that fall into the same category. I would not even consider going to a doctor that was NOT licensed..... at least you are somewhat assured that they met SOME standards. Consider the 'doctor' that went thru four years of med school, but, didn't graduate.......

[Pyrosocial]

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.

 

I would think that most responsible parents/guardians would see the error of their ways once their child has diabeties, or some other complication. A good wake up call at the very least.

[kvnchrist]

The one thing that gets me is that most parents were raised the same way that they raised the same way they are raising their kids. Even if there is a slight deference, then when the kids see their grandparents, they are treated like their parents were treated.

 

Some things are handed down through generations and I think the parents and their doctors should have the ultimate say so in bringing up a child. The government can tech health care and nutrition at school level, but they should not be able to take a child from it's parents. There is a bond there, that no one else can replace. If the child is definitely in jeopardy, then social services should be called in to discuss things with the entire family, Parent and grand parents. If the parents are incapable of supporting their kid in a healthy and safe environment, the grandparents should be given custodial rights. If not them, then a close uncle or aunt. In no way should the government take sole custody of a child unless there is no other way.