It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Parents of seven told: Your children are too fat, so you will never see them again

page: 17
26
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvanB

This is disgusting!

This is starsi britain where your kids can be taken off you if they get fat


I thought we lived in a free country??

I know obesity is not good and helping people get to a healthy weight is good but you do not take kids away from a loving home and get them adopted out!!

This social services dept has gone way too far and cant understand why we are putting up with this.

What next?

Put up with this and your children could be next

www.dailymail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 4-9-2011 by EvanB because: (no reason given)



I am going to take a very unpopular stance on this and indicate that the social workers are doing the right thing. Parents who allow their kids to become morbidly obese are equivalent to other forms of bad parenting.

I commend these social workers and truly hope that this starts happening more. Great job!!! No this is NOT a troll post.




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by EvanB
 


Although its just not very good to be obese.... its far worse state of affairs to be adopted or taken into care!!!
Much worse atrocities in the World if you ask me....

How can someone else be given the right to do this? I know it happens if the child is abused but thats a different thing altogether or are they adding 'Obesity' to the list of what 'abused' is?

Why not watch what the Parents buy to eat instead???
edit on 5-9-2011 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ZIPMATT
 


A rose by any other name is a rose. Whether you know it or not, we practice eugenics today. One example being pre-screening children for down syndrome or other inherited diseases, some doctors will even offer terminations if the child is found to be defected. That is eugenics, alive and well today.

As I've spent the last 12 hours saying, the issue isn't Eugenics, its the emotional attachment irrational, overly emotional people have partly because of the misuse of the name by the Nazi's and the Pro-White world view that was dominant the first time the theory was advanced.

Eugenics today is a legitimate field, no longer referred to as Eugenics, because of the stigmas attached to it in the past. It may surprise you to find out that people such as, Charles Darwin, H.G. Wells, Margaret Sanger, Samuel Butler, Plato, Alexander Graham Bell, John D. Rockefeller, Theodore (Teddy God Damn) Roosevelt, John H. Kellog, Charles Davenport, Lewis Terman and Nikola Tesla all supported Eugenics.

Some supported more extreme versions which called for sterilization, or look down on other races as inferior. That is not something that I directly support. In the modern day, Eugenics is more concerned with improving the genetic calibre of people so that our future off spring will be healthier, more intelligent and better able to adapt and improve their environments.

It makes perfect sense that we would try to improve with every generation. You pick your mate based on specific traits you want your children to have, that's natural eugenics. There is very little difference if we look at genetic traits in parents, look at the impact those traits could have on their children and then encourage an informed decision to be taken from there.

All of the emotional fluff you've levelled at me is your own ignorance surrounding the subject, it is not inherent within the field. As I stated previously, I am not going to live in the dark of ignorance so a few people who're unwilling to evolve or even practice critical thinking can feel safe.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
If I were of that age, and I was taken away and put into foster care because I was too fat. I would blame myself for breaking up the family.

Just imagine being that age and that happening to you. Wouldn't it make you depressed? If it were myself, I would have no hope of even trying to lose the weight since it still wouldn't allow me to go back to my family. No motivation what-so-ever. I might even get an instinctual hate towards my new foster parents, so they would never even have a chance.

Never-mind if my parents were good or bad. Being that age, that is just how I would think. I just hope this child doesn't think like me.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
This is nothing more than a plot by your government and their tyrannical entities that do their bidding, planned Parenthood....to steal your children from you, to "prove" without a shadow of a doubt, that you are indeed a slave. Only a slave could have their children taken away for something like this and the people could do nothing about it. My question is are you (as a people) going to let them take your children from you, like the slave they are trying to convince you that you are? Or when someone tries to take your children.....you do as any parent who loves their children and whether it be a man in a suit with an agenda or a pedophile trying to steal them for his own personal use....you be the protector of that child and do whatever it takes to protect your family. The right to bear arms was to protect you from your government ...not thieves (as we know them), but the thieves who try to convince you that they are above the law because they create them as they create the game...all in their favor and more oppression for you and yours.... What will you do....if a man you don't know tries to steal your children just because a piece of paper tells them to and all under the banner of someone else's agenda?
Just know that, these overweight situations have been around for generations...this is NOTHING new,.....it's an agenda of the government and Planned Parenthood, (their plans, not yours) and they have just chosen to focus the light of media on it now to make it seem like such a large problem. This has been going on for generations and people usually grow out of it,....no more of a problem than it used to be. Their poll and statistics are nothing but made-up lies by the scientists THEY HAVE HIRED TO DO JUST THAT. Protect your no matter who tries to take them or for what reason. They are YOUR children, not the states...not some Queen or King, not a Democratic or Republican government...THEY ARE YOURS! We voted them into office to work for us...not for them to tell us what to do or enslave us or steal our children. Which is what is happening. The government is blatantly stepping over the line and this is no less than all the stuff Hitler did just before he started exterminating people. Don't let the "official" organizations fool you. They are nothing more than funded workers getting paid to do the bidding of the government and they get paid well to NOT CARE about your children or you. If someone tries to take my kids.....there are no rules left to the game. Government does the will of the people and I am sure the will of the people is NOT ....take my kids from me because of what YOU (the government) thinks about what they think of, what they eat, how much...these are all the most basic of freedoms. People will eat what they want, they will let their children eat what they want....they will teach their children what they want. When did the government become the parent? All I can say is your children are all you really have left in this life, they have taken everything else. What will you do when they come for yours?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Unity_99
 





Weight issues are NOT abuse.


Sure it is...it causes health issues. If a parent hits their kids and they break an arm, they could lose custody. The effects of obesity are slower, but just as grave. Making sure your kid has his/her first heart attack at 30 is just as bad as breaking his/her arm!

If you're handing your kid a bucket of chicken wings twice a day, your are causing him/her health issues. Do it often enough, and don't change that habit, and I believe it's perfectly ok for you to lose custody.


sure it isnt. health issues are not abuse neither are weight issues. you are presupposing circumstances and this issue is related to food only as far as we know. there is every possibility of change in the future if the family finally would reform themselves/ i am suspecting they could have been picked up for this because they dont care or would even sell their children as well as their story. dont assume ask questions instead. its much more productive

controlling what a person eats < that is abuse just one example pf psychological abuse.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ZIPMATT
 


Lol are you dizzy?

Let's look at some of my statements.

- These parents have failed to raise the children within a healthy lifestyle - Fact.
- have not succeeded or encouraged exercise - Fact, they allege that they have changed the diet but the children after three years are still fat ... lol
- What is intolerable is that you have now forced your child into a school life where they will be bullied - Fact, fat kids unfortunately get bullied

- They will just allow the child to sink further into an abyss - Assumption based upon the fact that they have over fed their children for years so why would they stop?
- I am sceptical, however, that they even bothered to do their dieting when no-one was looking - Assumption but based on the fact that the kids are still fat they evidently have not been dieting very well

Not really assumptions from start to finish is it. Any assumptions made are off the back of facts and are not far-fetched.

Feeding children is a form of indirect abuse on so many different levels. Their parents had no regard for their health and I am happy that these people are prevented from being parents until they are educated enough to understand what they are doing.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Imhotepsol
 





A rose by any other name is a rose. Whether you know it or not, we practice eugenics today. One example being pre-screening children for down syndrome or other inherited diseases, some doctors will even offer terminations if the child is found to be defected. That is eugenics, alive and well today.



The only difference between that and Nazism is that the parents are given a choice. The concept is still mostly the same, only the twist there is that the State believes and tells people that they are doing the baby a service by killing it before it is born. Hence, mercy killing, or euthanasia. But they are still saying that children with defects are less than human and should die.
You are right it still has the same stench of eugenics. They just use a little air freshener to hide the fish smell.
edit on 5-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by george_gaz
 





These parents have failed to raise the children within a


Just fill in the blank with anything, and you will have a States precedent to take children for just about any reason. Slippery slope.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by george_gaz
 


ahem how about we in england rewind the clock a bit and see if jamie oliver has been feeding them school dinners? or was it the supernannys themselves serving up pizza chips and burgers for lunch with white iced buns to wash the cheap and nasty products down with ? eh ?
or a bit further , lets see Margaret Thatcher the Milk Snatcher again uh?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Fat kids get bullied- fact ????????????

It's not a fact. It's an assumption, and who;'s fault is that, the fat kids or the bullies?

I think there's some bullies on this thread.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Phenomium
 





This is nothing more than a plot by your government and their tyrannical entities that do their bidding, planned Parenthood....to steal your children from you, to "prove" without a shadow of a doubt, that you are indeed a slave



Not only that but there is an assumption that the State knows how to raise your children better than you do, and the State has the authority to overrule everything you do as a parent. Their reason is really beside the point, as they will always come up with a reason.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I always think that threads like this might have 'sockpuppet' type activity.
Fat kids are considered to be a matter of national security. I'm not sure why- other than they have to turn away military recruits that are fat. I don't know why that is either, really, because if you have to run more than a block today, you're dead anyway. Everything is so computerized, and some of the best hackers I know...are fat. They seem to come in skinny and fat. To only admit one seems to be cutting your chances in half.

But I am always leary of threads like this because of that.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Imhotepsol
 





Some supported more extreme versions which called for sterilization,


Meet John Holdren


Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.
These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United States' Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:
Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.




Same rose


I didn't know about Tesla though, honestly. Got a link for that?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by george_gaz
reply to post by ZIPMATT
 


Feeding children is a form of indirect abuse on so many different levels. Their parents had no regard for their health and I am happy that these people are prevented from being parents until they are educated enough to understand what they are doing.


then you dont understand the facts as according to the headline of this thread and the source. without possession of the facts you are in no position to make judgements,

especially over whether children may ever find their parents again. you assumed it wasnt as bad as all that? wel dont assume anything when otherpeoples whole future life is at stake



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by george_gaz
 





Feeding children is a form of indirect abuse



Only if they are force-feeding them by telling them they have to eat everything on their plate or they don't get to watch tv and then making them sit at the table till they do. I have known people like this who think they are teaching their children not to waste food. I would never force a child to eat an item they abjectly hated, or to eat more than their little tummies need. Usually the child knows instinctively when to stop, but if the stomach becomes stretched from overeating, this mechanism will be overruled.
It is still not a reason to seize the children. The State would be seizing way more children than you would imagine if rules like this were to apply.
How about a little anecdotal story from me?
My parents once thought that I needed milk for strong bones(it was early 60's) so one night they made me sit with a glass of milk at the table. I refused to drink it. It got warm and I sure as heck wouldn't drink it. The glass sat there for an hour. I never did drink it. And they learned that that technique didn't work on me. Then there was the spinach episode. My dad tried to tell me to eat my spinach and I took one bite and it ended up on his face somehow. He was mad but he never tried that again.
Most parents try to get their kids to eat healthy foods, and I think most care about their children deeply.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Observor
Wonder what the people who are calling it, the social services removing the children, a good thing do if the number of such "ineligible" parents exceeds the "eligible" parents and these children all become wards of the state. Would they then endorse licenses to bear children through perhaps mandatory but reversible sterilisation of all people when they reach puberty, with only those deemed "eligible" parents being allowed to reverse the sterilisation process? Perhaps if the "eligible" parents are getting fewer and fewer they may be manadated by the state to have a number of kids as determined by the state as optimum, so that the society doesn't die off for lack of "eligible" parents to raise the next generation?

Or perhaps a 'Brave New World' where all children are raised communally and "eligibility" of parents is moot because only those trained in child care will be taking care of these children and not their biological parents? At the moment a foetus still needs a human womb to grow into a baby, but once technology crosses that threshold and babies can be grown outside a human womb, being biological parents doesn't carry much significance anyway.



Exactly, Hillary's "It Takes A Village" ( to raise our children). It is pure Statism and nothing else. She is also promoting the new UN "Rights Of The Child", which I am sure would be in the business of emancipating children from their parents (to the all powerful all loving State).



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ZIPMATT
 


No, it would be neglect if they allowed the kids to buy their own food and feed themselves. They are buying their kids junk food, instead of healthy food and therefore they are force feeding them crap.


and taking children on the basis of being overweight is kidnap


Not really, if social thinks that a child is being mistreated or not looked after properly then they have the right to remove that child from the unable parents.


are taunts and jibes a seious risk?


If it ends in suicide, which it may very well do, then yes. Of course.


what chronic illnessess havent they got from being fat yet?


Do I really need to tell you what sort of health problems you will get from being overweight?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imhotepsol
reply to post by ZIPMATT
 


A rose by any other name is a rose. Whether you know it or not, we practice eugenics today. One example being pre-screening children for down syndrome or other inherited diseases, some doctors will even offer terminations if the child is found to be defected. That is eugenics, alive and well today.

As I've spent the last 12 hours saying, the issue isn't Eugenics, its the emotional attachment irrational, overly emotional people have partly because of the misuse of the name by the Nazi's and the Pro-White world view that was dominant the first time the theory was advanced.

Eugenics today is a legitimate field, no longer referred to as Eugenics, because of the stigmas attached to it in the past. It may surprise you to find out that people such as, Charles Darwin, H.G. Wells, Margaret Sanger, Samuel Butler, Plato, Alexander Graham Bell, John D. Rockefeller, Theodore (Teddy God Damn) Roosevelt, John H. Kellog, Charles Davenport, Lewis Terman and Nikola Tesla all supported Eugenics.

Some supported more extreme versions which called for sterilization, or look down on other races as inferior. That is not something that I directly support. In the modern day, Eugenics is more concerned with improving the genetic calibre of people so that our future off spring will be healthier, more intelligent and better able to adapt and improve their environments.

It makes perfect sense that we would try to improve with every generation. You pick your mate based on specific traits you want your children to have, that's natural eugenics. There is very little difference if we look at genetic traits in parents, look at the impact those traits could have on their children and then encourage an informed decision to be taken from there.

All of the emotional fluff you've levelled at me is your own ignorance surrounding the subject, it is not inherent within the field. As I stated previously, I am not going to live in the dark of ignorance so a few people who're unwilling to evolve or even practice critical thinking can feel safe.


Your view is not moderated by ethics or law, and as you state in the last paragraph you are prepared to walk on human rights themselves in pursuit of semi defined ideals to be practised upon others without moral assurances, or their express agreement, as per law regarding abortions. i propose that abortive practises where unwanted suffering may occur are not for the benefit of society then but for the benefit of the parents should they choose that path. making what you say is eugenic practise into a wikiexcuse for people to ignore its other more sinister applications . such as the topic of this thread

i think thats why we went to war on the nazis or at least i'd like to think it was. its simply not acceptable . it is a clearly defined article of human rights, that everyone has the right to a life free of fear , especially of nazist infliltrations to his home and family life .

and lastly i dont call citing human rights or genocides committed by eugenicists to be emotional fluff.
edit on 5-9-2011 by ZIPMATT because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SangriaRed

Originally posted by atomicn
reply to post by EvanB
 


Would people be in trouble if they didn't feed their children enough. (of course it would be considered child abuse and possibly considered torture/murder)


Why is it different with the opposite extreme? Over feeding the child will always cause death in the long run and high;y increase the illness/disease related from obesity.

To all the people who think this is wrong. Stop posting saying this is wrong. You lack the basic critical thinking needed to bring up anything worth posting.


They lack critical thinking???

LOL

Because there is a LOT more to being an overweight person than JUST overeating.
Lack of exercise for one. Thyroid issues and YES they exist, because I've dealt with them personally as have other members of my family.
A person's metabolism Does differ, the body type and genetics.

All play a factor into these things.
It is Not so cut and dry as to say these parents are just overfeeding these kids.
Critical thinking, lmao.



Yes I know about thyroid problems but vast majority of obesity increasing has nothing to do with that. Simply thing is people keep stuffing their face, sit at home watching tv for prolonged hours.

It all boils down to self-control. People have the power to change. But they would rather stuff their face with food nonstop.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join