Ohio takes away 200-pound third-grader from parents and puts him into foster care

[Created4]

By Associated Press and msnbc.com staff

An Ohio third-grader weighing more than 200 pounds has been taken from his family and placed into foster care when county social workers said his mother wasn't doing enough to control his weight.

The Plain Dealer reports that the 8-year-old is considered severely obese and at risk for diseases such as diabetes and hypertension.

The Ohio Health Department estimates more than 12 percent of third-graders statewide are severely obese. The removal of the Cleveland child is the first state officials can recall of a child being put in foster care for a strictly weight-related issue.

Lawyers for the mother say the county is overreaching in taking the child. They say the medical problems the boy is at risk for do not yet pose an imminent danger to his health.

Cuyahoga County does not have a specific policy on dealing with obese children, the Plain Dealer reported. A spokeswoman for the Department of Children and Family Services told the newspaper that the agency removed the boy because case workers considered this mother's inability to get her son's weight down a form of medical neglect.

Authorities claim the child's weight gain was caused by his environment and that the mother wasn't following doctor's orders -- an allegation the mother disputes.

"This child's problem was so severe that we had to take custody," Mary Louise Madigan told the Plain Dealer. The agency worked with the mother for more than a year before asking Juvenile Court for custody of the child, she said.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/27/9050071-ohio-puts-200-pound-third-grader-in-foster-care

[ShaneEnochs]

I was a bit of a hefty kid when I was younger as well. If I had been taken away from my mom, I probably would have committed suicide, as my weight problem was directly tied to my depression.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I weigh over 200, am I going to be taken away from myself?

[AGRP]

By Associated Press and msnbc.com staff

An Ohio third-grader weighing more than 200 pounds has been taken from his family and placed into foster care when county social workers said his mother wasn't doing enough to control his weight.

The Plain Dealer reports that the 8-year-old is considered severely obese and at risk for diseases such as diabetes and hypertension.

The Ohio Health Department estimates more than 12 percent of third-graders statewide are severely obese. The removal of the Cleveland child is the first state officials can recall of a child being put in foster care for a strictly weight-related issue.

Lawyers for the mother say the county is overreaching in taking the child. They say the medical problems the boy is at risk for do not yet pose an imminent danger to his health.

Cuyahoga County does not have a specific policy on dealing with obese children, the Plain Dealer reported. A spokeswoman for the Department of Children and Family Services told the newspaper that the agency removed the boy because case workers considered this mother's inability to get her son's weight down a form of medical neglect.

Authorities claim the child's weight gain was caused by his environment and that the mother wasn't following doctor's orders -- an allegation the mother disputes.

"This child's problem was so severe that we had to take custody," Mary Louise Madigan told the Plain Dealer. The agency worked with the mother for more than a year before asking Juvenile Court for custody of the child, she said.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/27/9050071-ohio-puts-200-pound-third-grader-in-foster-care

I love these soft acceptance of tyranny articles by state propaganda outlets. 95% of it is proposing a problem solution by the state scenario. I suppose that means more that 12% of 3rd graders should be abducted from their parents for their own good :rolleyes:

[TNforPaul45]

Sickening.

[Sola_Fide]

What if the kid is an emotional eater? Won't being away from his family be even worse for him?

[Created4]

A big part of the problem is that the state-sponsored nutritional advice promotes eating a lot of carbohydrates and little fat. This is a recipe for weight gain. So the parent could well have been following the advice of school nutritionists and their doctor, which was only making the situation worse.

[Rael]

Sickening.

what sickens me is letting your 8 year old get to 200 lbs. no way i would let my kid get that heavy. cook proper meals for your kid and teach them some self control. i don't know that taking the kid is justified but the mom needs to get her act together and put that kid on a diet.

[Simple]

I was the big kid in school, getting to 100 lbs by the third grade. 200 lbs is just ridiculous.

[green73]

what sickens me is letting your 8 year old get to 200 lbs. no way i would let my kid get that heavy. cook proper meals for your kid and teach them some self control. i don't know that taking the kid is justified but the mom needs to get her act together and put that kid on a diet.

I think everyone here would agree that she is not being that good of a parent. That does not justify the state kidnapping her child. That is far more sickening.

[oyarde]

Child snatching agencies commit acts of terror . They must be eliminated .

[ShaneEnochs]

what sickens me is letting your 8 year old get to 200 lbs. no way i would let my kid get that heavy. cook proper meals for your kid and teach them some self control. i don't know that taking the kid is justified but the mom needs to get her act together and put that kid on a diet.

There could be other factors. Medications, stress, genetics, etc. I knew a vegan that exercised every day, but because of the medication he was on, he couldn't get below 250 lbs.

[Created4]

I think everyone here would agree that she is not being that good of a parent.

Really? How do we know that? What if this is a single parent who must work during the day to support her family, and must trust the school to provide one (or in some places two) meals a day? Did you know that some school districts even PREVENT kids from bringing a lunch packed from home because they are the ones who decides what is nutritious and what is not? So if she has no control over what her child eats at school eating the subsidized cheap food that is provided and could never prevent weight gain, and if she is not earning enough money to pay for healthy organic food but must buy genetically modified cheap commodity food that is primarily available to people in her income level, she is the one who is to blame and must lose her child??

[Anti Federalist]

Like this is a surprise?

News flash people: the state owns your ass, from the minute you're born to the day you die.

The state will repossess its property if it does not feel that you are managing it to the state's specifications.

Had enough yet?

Yah, didn't think so...

[green73]

Really? How do we know that?

You're right we don't necessary know that. But it's a pretty safe bet. You're a shitty parent if you let your kid get morbidly obese. That's hardly my concern in all this. Under no circumstances should it justify the state snatching the child.

[LibForestPaul]

I think everyone here would agree that she is not being that good of a parent. That does not justify the state kidnapping her child. That is far more sickening.

Is that not a court of law and a jury of her peers decision?
Schizophrenia - when was it discovered. When were a host of disease discovered? Stress causes ulcers...no discovered bacterium does.
No day in court for an accusation such as not being a good parent?

[LawnWake]

There could be other factors. Medications, stress, genetics, etc.

These may make weightloss harder, but unless you have a specific, diagnosed, medical condition, you will lose weight if you eat about 10-20% calories less than you burn. Period.

Genetics is the biggest copout ever.

[heavenlyboy34]

These may make weightloss harder, but unless you have a specific, diagnosed, medical condition, you will lose weight if you eat about 10-20% calories less than you burn. Period.

Genetics is the biggest copout ever.
Not necessarily. If the calories come from simple carbohydrates (bread, pasta, HFCS, etc) you will still gain weight. You can eat all the protein (from natural sources like meat, not processed soy) and vegetables you want and lose weight.

[Created4]

you will lose weight if you eat about 10-20% calories less than you burn. Period.

Not true! That myth has been disproved many times. Calories are not neutral that all you have to do is count them. If your primary caloric intake is refined carbs, even if you eat below 2000 calories a day, you will have a very hard time losing weight. See Good Calories Bad Calories by Taubes: http://www.tropicaltraditions.com/good_calories_bad_calories.htm

[angelatc]

These may make weightloss harder, but unless you have a specific, diagnosed, medical condition, you will lose weight if you eat about 10-20% calories less than you burn. Period.

Genetics is the biggest copout ever.

It's none of your business how or why people weigh more than you think they should. Leave people alone.

[heavenlyboy34]

Not true! That myth has been disproved many times. Calories are not neutral that all you have to do is count them. If your primary caloric intake is refined carbs, even if you eat below 2000 calories a day, you will have a very hard time losing weight. See Good Calories Bad Calories by Taubes: http://www.tropicaltraditions.com/good_calories_bad_calories.htm
This ^^

[Created4]

You're right we don't necessary know that. But it's a pretty safe bet.

Nope. Not a bet I would take. Obesity is most common among the poor, as they have fewer food choices, and are dependent on commodity foods that are cheap because of government subsidies. Not a safe bet at all....

[angelatc]

Not true! That myth has been disproved many times. Calories are not neutral that all you have to do is count them. If your primary caloric intake is refined carbs, even if you eat below 2000 calories a day, you will have a very hard time losing weight. See Good Calories Bad Calories by Taubes: http://www.tropicaltraditions.com/good_calories_bad_calories.htm

What? Calories are nothing but energy. If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight. If you burn more calories than you eat, you will lose weight. It really is that simple.

[ShaneEnochs]

Not necessarily. If the calories come from simple carbohydrates (bread, pasta, HFCS, etc) you will still gain weight. You can eat all the protein (from natural sources like meat, not processed soy) and vegetables you want and lose weight.

Atkins diet?

[Revolution9]

What? Calories are nothing but energy. If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight. If you burn more calories than you eat, you will lose weight. It really is that simple.

Nope. There is chemical processes at play that resemble hydrolyzation in a flask. It yields better or worse fuels depending on the precursors. Saturated fat is the best precursor. Think of it like having 2000 calories of alcohol in your auto engine versus 2000 calories of high octane gasoline. The gasoline will burn leaner and give more power.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

Atkins diet?

Atkins diet is high protein. High saturated fat, though counterintuitive due to forty years of propaganda is the best diet. You can only digest about 800 grams of protein a day.

Rev9

[Created4]

What? Calories are nothing but energy. If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight. If you burn more calories than you eat, you will lose weight. It really is that simple.

Nope. Not that "simple." Calories from carbohydrates, fats, and proteins are all digested differently. See: http://www.tropicaltraditions.com/good_calories_bad_calories.htm

[raystone]

Like this is a surprise?

News flash people: the state owns your ass, from the minute you're born to the day you die.

The state will repossess its property if it does not feel that you are managing it to the state's specifications.

Had enough yet?

Yah, didn't think so...




Feeding an 8 year old kid to reach 200 lbs is no different than sticking some C-4 to his chest with a 12 year timer, cause there is no way that kid is living past age 20 in his current setting.

Physical child abuse is not only sickening, if it reaches the point of being life threatening, the state (where family and friends have shirked their moral obligations) has an obligation to step in and protect that child's God given right to life.

[heavenlyboy34]

Atkins diet?
I'm not very familiar with Atkins (I've heard a little about it on the radio). If it emphasizes proteins and veggies/minimizes starches, sweets, and simple carbs-then yes.

[Sola_Fide]

Like this is a surprise?

News flash people: the state owns your ass, from the minute you're born to the day you die.

The state will repossess its property if it does not feel that you are managing it to the state's specifications.

Had enough yet?

Yah, didn't think so...


Yes. And there is no group that has understood this more than the Christian homeschool movement. That is why so many of them support Dr. Paul.

[heavenlyboy34]

Feeding an 8 year old kid to reach 200 lbs is no different than sticking some C-4 to his chest with a 12 year timer, cause there is no way that kid is living past age 20 in his current setting.

Physical child abuse is not only sickening, if it reaches the point of being life threatening, the state (where family and friends have shirked their moral obligations) has an obligation to step in and protect that child's God given right to life.
I'm not comfortable with that. The state could only know about such a thing with ungodly amounts of surveillance. The standard by which the state takes action will inevitably be arbitrary, and the regime could hire "experts" to skew standards and statistics any way it wants.

[Created4]

Physical child abuse is not only sickening, if it reaches the point of being life threatening, the state (where family and friends have shirked their moral obligations) has an obligation to step in and protect that child's God given right to life.

Sadly, you are misinformed. The State is a poor judge of "where family and friends have shirked their moral obligations." The way the current laws are setup under CAPTA (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act), states are encouraged to abduct children and actually have a quota to meet in order to receive federal funding. Read here: http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/child-abuse-laws-legally-abducting-children-by-broadening-the-definition-of-child-abuse/

Quote:

"The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) is the federal law on which almost all state and local legislation and funding for child protective services are based. Enacted in 1988, CAPTA directs the U.S. Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children & Families to provide grants to communities for child abuse prevention programs.

As a federal mandate, CAPTA mandates states to implement child abuse laws on their own, so they can align themselves for the massive funding and grants that go along with the law.

In theory as the years went by, if the goal for this law – to reduce child abuse in this country – had been successful, then today we should need less funding for these programs, not more. Success also should have resulted in fewer children in foster care and even fewer being put up for adoption.

But in reality, the opposite happened. Instead of less children in foster care, the numbers went up for nine years after CAPTA was passed. And, layers and layers of state and federal government programs and agencies whose funding depends solely on child abuse occurring were created.

In 1999 foster care numbers started dropping – but only because of new laws that encouraged states to move children out of foster care and into adoptive homes.

Of course, that legislation came with funding too, giving CPS a new avenue for making more money and creating more jobs and more programs. The tragedy is what Van Doorn pointed out in his campaign: the financial incentives for rooting out child abuse actually encourage agencies to make false accusations against parents, and to tear families apart for something that did not occur."

Read the whole article, Child Abuse Laws: Legally Abducting Children by Broadening the Definition of “Child Abuse”, here: http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/child-abuse-laws-legally-abducting-children-by-broadening-the-definition-of-child-abuse/

[LawnWake]

Not necessarily. If the calories come from simple carbohydrates (bread, pasta, HFCS, etc) you will still gain weight. You can eat all the protein (from natural sources like meat, not processed soy) and vegetables you want and lose weight.

Depending on how well you digest carbs, sure. If you're insuline resistant for example, it's better to cut down on carbs and pump up on complex fats.

Point is, if you have your macronutrients down it's as simple ass 'less calories, less fat'. Period. Genetics and all that other stuff is a copout.


It's none of your business how or why people weigh more than you think they should. Leave people alone.

Someone's being defensive. You'll notice that I've not said that people shouldn't be as tubby as they want. If that makes them happy, go ahead, I don't care it's their body. If you read very carefully, however, you'll notice that I actually said that 'genetics' is a cop-out. That's it.

[raystone]

I'm not comfortable with that. The state could only know about such a thing with ungodly amounts of surveillance. The standard by which the state takes action will inevitably be arbitrary, and the regime could hire "experts" to skew standards and statistics any way it wants.

If a child comes to school with a new broken bone 6 months in a row, something needs to be checked out. The child welfare system is terribly flawed. However, considering 3 children die every day in the U.S. due to child abuse, we owe them something.

[LawnWake]

Child abuse, and hell even this case (which to me is pretty close to child abuse) is pretty tricky. On one hand, parents are responsible for their kids and therefore it's none of the government's business. But kids have no personal responsibility.. so should they suffer from the irresponsibility from their parents?

I'm a 'leave a government out' kind of guy, or hell, I don't even think government should exist. But it'd be kinda shortsighted to deny that there's still a problem with a kid being fed until they're 200 pounds.

No system is perfect is the lesson to take away from it, I guess.

[heavenlyboy34]

If a child comes to school with a new broken bone 6 months in a row, something needs to be checked out. The child welfare system is terribly flawed. However, considering 3 children die every day in the U.S. due to child abuse, we owe them something.
Yes, but this is traditionally the job of churches and other voluntary, non-government agencies. When the point has been reached that the cold, dead hand of the regime "has" to intervene in personal/family affairs, something is SEVERELY wrong.

[Created4]

If a child comes to school with a new broken bone 6 months in a row, something needs to be checked out. The child welfare system is terribly flawed. However, considering 3 children die every day in the U.S. due to child abuse, we owe them something.

Apparently you did not read the article I referenced above. The government has expanded the definition of "abuse" so that the State can take away children from parents who simply disagree with government dogma. This includes drugs. If you want to treat your child's sickness with natural means and a doctor says you must medicate them, the state can come in and abduct your child. Check out this article: "Police use Assault Weapons and Tank against Home School Mom wanting to protect daughter from Dangerous Medications" http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/police-use-assault-weapons-and-tank-against-home-school-mom-wanting-to-protect-daughter-from-dangerous-medications/

The government has no business determining who is a fit parent and who is not outside the bounds of the constitution. Children have their rights protected under the constitution, and there was less "child abuse" all the years our country existed without these massive social agencies like Child Protection Services. If a child is REALLY being abused, it should go into the judicial system where a judge and court appoints a public defender for the child, and then the parents should be given due process in a fair trial as is demanded by the constitution. But in the system we have today, the government can legally abduct children from parents using their own definitions of child abuse. They often show up at your home with the police and without a warrant for arrest issued by a judge.

[Rael]

These may make weightloss harder, but unless you have a specific, diagnosed, medical condition, you will lose weight if you eat about 10-20% calories less than you burn. Period.

Genetics is the biggest copout ever.

Thank you! All the other stuff is just excuses.

[Rael]

Not true! That myth has been disproved many times. Calories are not neutral that all you have to do is count them. If your primary caloric intake is refined carbs, even if you eat below 2000 calories a day, you will have a very hard time losing weight. See Good Calories Bad Calories by Taubes: http://www.tropicaltraditions.com/good_calories_bad_calories.htm

His statement still is true. He said 10-20% less than you burn. If we concede that carbs burn differently, it just means you need to eat even less when eating lots of carbs.

I agree that eating lots of carbs is bad and makes it harder to lose weight, so it's better to eat more protein and fat and scale back the carbs.

[Revolution9]

Do not dismiss the bloat factor in that this is many times alot of water weight bound up by MSG, mono and diglycerides, dough conditioners. I would place a bet on gluten allergy and that the parents were following the food pyramid and the kid was starved no matter how much he ate because of inflamed intestinal lining, coupled to the chemical in food factor.

Rev9

[raystone]

Apparently you did not read the article I referenced above. The government has expanded the definition of "abuse" so that the State can take away children from parents who simply disagree with government dogma. This includes drugs. If you want to treat your child's sickness with natural means and a doctor says you must medicate them, the state can come in and abduct your child. Check out this article: "Police use Assault Weapons and Tank against Home School Mom wanting to protect daughter from Dangerous Medications" http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/police-use-assault-weapons-and-tank-against-home-school-mom-wanting-to-protect-daughter-from-dangerous-medications/

The government has no business determining who is a fit parent and who is not outside the bounds of the constitution. Children have their rights protected under the constitution, and there was less "child abuse" all the years our country existed without these massive social agencies like Child Protection Services. If a child is REALLY being abused, it should go into the judicial system where a judge and court appoints a public defender for the child, and then the parents should be given due process in a fair trial as is demanded by the constitution. But in the system we have today, the government can legally abduct children from parents using their own definitions of child abuse. They often show up at your home with the police and without a warrant for arrest issued by a judge.


I'm not arguing that children should be taken from parents who disagree with government dogma, including drugs. Nor am I arguing that states should be encouraged to abduct children by means of a federal quota.

[Hospitaller]

These may make weightloss harder, but unless you have a specific, diagnosed, medical condition, you will lose weight if you eat about 10-20% calories less than you burn. Period.

Genetics is the biggest copout ever.

This, calorie intake and output is the only thing it comes down to.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm not arguing that children should be taken from parents who disagree with government dogma, including drugs. Nor am I arguing that states should be encouraged to abduct children by means of a federal quota.

If you justify one, you justify the other.

It's just a question of degree.

Short of clear, demonstrable, physical injury, and followed by immediate due process in a real court, the state has no right to invade into the family in such a way.

Unless of course, you and your children are the property of the state.

Then, of course, the property owner has every right to check up on and repossess their property if it is not being cared for in the manner that they want.

Pretty clear to me which situation we live under.

It's not to you?

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Feeding an 8 year old kid to reach 200 lbs is no different than sticking some C-4 to his chest with a 12 year timer, cause there is no way that kid is living past age 20 in his current setting.

Physical child abuse is not only sickening, if it reaches the point of being life threatening, the state (where family and friends have shirked their moral obligations) has an obligation to step in and protect that child's God given right to life.

How many kids end up in a hospital every year because they fell off their bike? How many kids end up in a hospital or a grave because of sports injuries? Hell my middle child once broke his arm on a trampoline... I guess the state should go abduct children from their parents for trampolines, bikes and sports.

[raystone]

If you justify one, you justify the other.

It's just a question of degree.

Short of clear, demonstrable, physical injury, and followed by immediate due process in a real court, the state has no right to invade into the family in such a way.

Unless of course, you and your children are the property of the state.

Then, of course, the property owner has every right to check up on and repossess their property if it is not being cared for in the manner that they want.

Pretty clear to me which situation we live under.

It's not to you?

AF - you canceled out your initial argument on justifying both when you wrote "short of clear, demonstrable, physical injury..." In other words you agree there is a difference between disagreeing with government dogma and demonstrable child abuse.

And I agree due process in a real court is the proper way to handle these cases.

Of course, a baby with a brain shaken loose appears fine upon a cursory examination. And half of child abuse deaths are caused by babies being shaken and the resulting bleeding from the brain or retina. So, there will be some concerns with the ability of the local jackboot thug, who's expertise is pepper spraying mundanes, to competently complete a child abuse criminal investigation.

[heavenlyboy34]

If you justify one, you justify the other.

It's just a question of degree.

Short of clear, demonstrable, physical injury, and followed by immediate due process in a real court, the state has no right to invade into the family in such a way.

Unless of course, you and your children are the property of the state.

Then, of course, the property owner has every right to check up on and repossess their property if it is not being cared for in the manner that they want.

Pretty clear to me which situation we live under.

It's not to you?
The problem there is that the courts are State-owned as well. The presupposition with any sort of State decision-making is that the State owns people. Not much different than a plantation (except the slaves are free-range). There's got to be a more rational way to solve this.

[heavenlyboy34]

This, calorie intake and output is the only thing it comes down to.
No. As described on the prior page, not all calories are created equal.

[Created4]

Of course, a baby with a brain shaken loose appears fine upon a cursory examination. And half of child abuse deaths are caused by babies being shaken and the resulting bleeding from the brain or retina. So, there will be some concerns with the ability of the local jackboot thug, who's expertise is pepper spraying mundanes, to competently complete a child abuse criminal investigation.

Do you really believe that the correlation between the increase brain damage among infants is caused by more people shaking their babies? If so, what would be the possible cause for more people to all of a sudden start shaking their babies? Not saying it doesn't happen, but why would there be such a sudden increase? And if upon examination one sees these symptoms, are the parents automatically guilty, or are there other explanations plausible? Are in fact good moral people being put into prison for shaken baby syndrome that have no previous history of abuse, and claim they are innocent?

To answer these questions, see:

At least half of all parents tried over shaken baby syndrome have been wrongly convicted, expert warns - http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/at-least-half-of-all-parents-tried-over-shaken-baby-syndrome-have-been-wrongly-convicted-expert-warns/

More Doctors Questioning Increase in Shaken Baby Syndrome Diagnosis - http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/4061/

Are Parents Being Accused Falsely of Shaken Baby Syndrome that are a Result of Vaccine Injuries? - http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/are-parents-being-accused-falsely-of-shaken-baby-syndrome-to-cover-up-vaccine-injuries/

[raystone]

How many kids end up in a hospital every year because they fell off their bike? How many kids end up in a hospital or a grave because of sports injuries? Hell my middle child once broke his arm on a trampoline... I guess the state should go abduct children from their parents for trampolines, bikes and sports.


You're equating accidents with physical child abuse ? I wasn't.

[heavenlyboy34]

Do not dismiss the bloat factor in that this is many times alot of water weight bound up by MSG, mono and diglycerides, dough conditioners. I would place a bet on gluten allergy and that the parents were following the food pyramid and the kid was starved no matter how much he ate because of inflamed intestinal lining, coupled to the chemical in food factor.

Rev9
Some meds cause bloating too. Considering how pills are handed out like pez nowadays, it could be a reaction to pills or some other Rx chemical. It happened to me when I was 8 or so. That plus my bad diet at the time kept the bloat on. I'm a lot slimmer nowadays. :cool:

[Revolution9]

Some meds cause bloating too. Considering how pills are handed out like pez nowadays, it could be a reaction to pills or some other Rx chemical. It happened to me when I was 8 or so. That plus my bad diet at the time kept the bloat on. I'm a lot slimmer nowadays. :cool:

That too. I note raystone is avoiding speaking to this and just keeps hammering on child abuse. A dangerous fellow/woman indeed.

Rev9

[Anti Federalist]

The problem there is that the courts are State-owned as well. The presupposition with any sort of State decision-making is that the State owns people. Not much different than a plantation (except the slaves are free-range). There's got to be a more rational way to solve this.

That is the assumption that must be rooted out at all costs.

Until that is changed, nothing rational will happen, because you are starting from an irrational position.

[raystone]

That too. I note raystone is avoiding speaking to this and just keeps hammering on child abuse. A dangerous fellow/woman indeed.

Rev9


Hey there Buffalo Bill ! I know I haven't really gotten under your skin until you start calling me "it".

Sure thing, the speculated bloating accounted for doubling the 8 year old's weight. Yeah, that's it .

You must one of those who think we can all catch the "obesity disease", too.

[heavenlyboy34]

That is the assumption that must be rooted out at all costs.

Until that is changed, nothing rational will happen, because you are starting from an irrational position.
Damn. IOU a +rep when I get some more ammo. Apparently I have to spread the rep-love around.

[Revolution9]

Hey there Buffalo Bill ! I know I haven't really gotten under your skin until you start calling me "it".

Sure thing, the speculated bloating accounted for doubling the 8 year old's weight. Yeah, that's it .

You must one of those who think we can all catch the "obesity disease", too.

Howdy Honcho. Yours is mere speculation. The type that leads to lives being ruined while guys like you smirk that you knew it all. I think they catch the food disease. Bad foods and some react like this to it. When msg is dumping all yer cell innards into your bloodstream a child's body gets really confused as to what is water and what is waste and what is body. Frankly under your scenario they strapped him down and force fed him through a tube.

Rev9

[pcosmar]

When i was a kid I had a friend named "Chucky". In 4th grade Chucky was over 6ft tall and well over 200lbs.
Heck, he was huge in Kindergarten.
Chuck was a bit on the slow side, but he was my friend.
My mom was always worried about him hurting me playing. He was always getting in trouble,, doing stuff he shouldn't,, but never harmed me. He was being raised by his Grandparents,, and they let him away with a lot,, I guess cause he was slow.

Last I saw of him before I joined the army he was working for the Mob,, as muscle. Not too bright, but strong as an ox.
He was always my friend though.

[Slutter McGee]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_s6YwGUHretA/TUZ5wTLD7cI/AAAAAAAAAQc/nAcZ5t_lS6I/s320/Jessica%2B-%2BWorlds%2BFattest%2BChild.jpg

Because this isn't child abuse? It sounds to me like the state may have been justified in removing the child. Children have the same right to life as anyone else. If the actions of the parent knowingly and needlessly endanger that right, and there is evidence to support it, it is the duty of the state to protect the child's right to life. Its not like they just barged in and snatched the child with no fucking warning. They tried to work with the parent for over a year.

Allowing a child to over eat is not child abuse. Letting a child get fat is not child abuse. Letting a child get so morbidly obese and fat that health complications and incredibly shortened life expectancy develop certainly is fucking child abuse.

The big issue here, is that when you set precedent for removing children for obesity related issues, a wide door for abuse opens up. Your child is a little overweight. Now we are gonna take em from you. That is the real threat.

I realize that the an caps here will disagree with me, but I am not an an cap.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[DamianTV]

That is the assumption that must be rooted out at all costs.

Until that is changed, nothing rational will happen, because you are starting from an irrational position.

I think the first thing we need to change is the idea of Human Ownership. We need to get rid of it completely. Employers think they own employees. The Military even has laws that consider Enlisted Personnel to be their property. If you get a Tatoo in the Military, you can be charged with "Destruction of Government Property", although it is obviously not enforced. But that isnt what bothers me, what bothers me is the very fact that it is even on the books to begin with.

When the State thinks that their Property is "at risk", they step in to protect their "product", yet, they fail to see the Irony that the Socialist State itself is a product of Banksters and endorsed by selfish, stupid, and the most irresponsible people. These people that endorse the idea of a Social Worker fail to make the connection that they are opening doors that ready us all for Abuse of the State. Children are also people, and also have rights. In such extreme cases that a child should be removed from their parents, the parents would only be responsible for crimes that are already on the books. And I mean this in only of the most extreme senses. Such as fuckhole parents that wrap their children literally in barbed wire, throw them in a closet, naked, for days at a time, then not only lock the closet door, they nail it shut. That is abuse. Having an overweight child is the result of having a completely comprimised food industry and an educational system so broke that they think they must cut out any form of physical activity, then turn right back around and try to say that kids are more hyperactive than ever and wonder why. Now Junior, dont exercise, its good for you, oopies, you got fat, it MUST be the parents fault! (/sarcasm)

[Slutter McGee]

I think the first thing we need to change is the idea of Human Ownership. We need to get rid of it completely. Employers think they own employees. The Military even has laws that consider Enlisted Personnel to be their property. If you get a Tatoo in the Military, you can be charged with "Destruction of Government Property", although it is obviously not enforced. But that isnt what bothers me, what bothers me is the very fact that it is even on the books to begin with.

When the State thinks that their Property is "at risk", they step in to protect their "product", yet, they fail to see the Irony that the Socialist State itself is a product of Banksters and endorsed by selfish, stupid, and the most irresponsible people. These people that endorse the idea of a Social Worker fail to make the connection that they are opening doors that ready us all for Abuse of the State. Children are also people, and also have rights. In such extreme cases that a child should be removed from their parents, the parents would only be responsible for crimes that are already on the books. And I mean this in only of the most extreme senses. Such as fuckhole parents that wrap their children literally in barbed wire, throw them in a closet, naked, for days at a time, then not only lock the closet door, they nail it shut. That is abuse. Having an overweight child is the result of having a completely comprimised food industry and an educational system so broke that they think they must cut out any form of physical activity, then turn right back around and try to say that kids are more hyperactive than ever and wonder why. Now Junior, dont exercise, its good for you, oopies, you got fat, it MUST be the parents fault! (/sarcasm)

The military is a contractual obligation. In a sense they do owe you, because you willfully sign over your rights. A draft is different.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[donnay]

Has anyone done any research into the preservatives, chemical additives, Genetically modified foods, and other poisons they put in our food? The Government gives the O-Kay to on Aspartame, MSG, High Fructose Corn Syrup and Sodium Fluoride. MSG and Aspartame are excitotoxins which make people crave carbs. You see lots of heavy people drinking Diet _______. The more carbs, the more weight gain. Government pushes psychotropic drugs, and vaccines, too. All which are very bad, and could be considered abuse, by the way they push these things.

The State has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER, to take children away from their biological loving family-- unless they were being physically abused.

[Danke]

The military is a contractual obligation. In a sense they do owe you, because you willfully sign over your rights. A draft is different.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

That is true, but the so-called "draft" is not different. 13th A?