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: 18
26
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by atomicn
 


a) Okay I will say you are right on that. It is not a major contributor.
b) However, it is A contributor and plays into it.

c) Ugh at this point, the more I read that article and the posts here, my response is slowly becoming:

Why are we still arguing over whether or not it's healthy to be overweight?

What I see is that:
Funny that the govt picked this particular thing to attack parents. Well why not?
Look at the support they have garnered. People who can't stand overweight people are thrilled with this!

Why not pick, as I've said how many times, the smokers? The people who blow smoke in the face of a 5 year old?
They wouldn't get support on that.

There's plenty of things that are unhealthy for a child that parents do.

They picked obese people because it would garner the most support. They're not stupid. They know quite well that if they obtain mob mentality on this, the masses wouldn't realize that they are actually supporting the govt telling the rest of the people how to parent.

The fact that this thread keeps revolving around the weight and health tells me that this world is royally messed up.

This is not about health anymore, this is about the govt vs the people.
Some of what I've learned about what our country has done in the last 10 years without our knowledge has blown me away, but what blew me away more so was finding out how they did it.
How did they do it?
Just like this.

So..... idk, I guess at this point, whatevs.
I'll keep reading things but any more I'm just .... amazed and blown away.

peace out.




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
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.


you are very wrong. it is neglect of health and well being if anything ie they are not being force fed
secondly you are wrong again the social services do not have the right to do that they need to put evidence to a judge to do so,
and thirdly you are wrong again they do not have that right over mistreatment or negelct. there needs to exist a serious risk of further harm clearly evident for the judge to even consider allowing what social services want to do.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
This is probably one of the more disturbing things I've read in quite some time.

Did they even bother to LOOK at the parents?!
Both of them are rather large themselves! I'm not trying to be rude or ignorant, but it seems to me if 2 obese people got together and had children, it would stand to reason that their kids would end up that way.

Plus there's the fact that they have SEVEN children.

I mean come on. Feeding seven kids plus you and your spouse is probably not the easiest thing to do in the world right now, let alone overfeeding seven kids plus you and your spouse.

Epic fail on the part of the social workers.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by atomicn
 


So you say and believe. What makes you the expert? Because you have fought the obesity issue yourself because of the reasons you state? Or are you just naturally skinny?

I've fought being over weight all my life, and I can guarantee it has nothing to do with having been sedentary or not eating healthy. I grew up working my butt off on a farm and eating healthy.

These days I am in my normal weight range, but it means I eat WAY LESS than most people, and it means I have to work hard every single day to burn those calories. Like I have said before in other threads where people who feel unrealistically superior bash on those who are different than they are. My sister, she eats junk food all day long, drinks soda after soda and never gains a pound, and sits on her skinny butt watching tv or reading most of the time. If I were to try to eat and lay around like she does, I'd be ten thousand pounds.

Do some research will ya? Not all obesity is caused from over eating or being a couch potato.

It used to be that it was good to be overweight for the times when food was short. If you were skinny, you were going to die first. Genetics in my belief is a cause for some people's obesity, not over eating.

Though being open minded, I understand that for some people the cause could definitely be overeating without exercise.

But what do we now have?

New studies are showing 3 different gut types in humans, one type is showing a link to obesity, gut types are showing a link to blood types and genetics.

So what do you propose? Should we type people before they are born, and then abort them if they have the "fat" gut just because you don't like fat people? Such a slippery slope this idea of taking children from their parents because of weight is, and I don't agree with it. Yes, teach people how to eat healthy, and leave it at that.

If obesity was a reason to take children away, my daughter would have been taken from me at birth, she was in the 100% for her height and weight until about the age of 3. She certainly grew out of that pretty darn quick and even spent many years in 00 size jeans. She is now a wonderfully healthy university student who most consider very tall and skinny. If she had been taken away, I am sure someone like you would have claimed that if she had been left with me, she would never have lost that weight she had as a baby.

www.medicalnewstoday.com...


Researchers have found three different “gut types” or enterotypes that people can have. The three types-bacteroides, prevotella and ruminococcus-are found in people all over the world and are not linked to race, country of origin, diet, age or health status. Some strains were closely linked to obesity and direct correlation between a bacteria’s efficiency in obtaining energy from food and body mass index was observed



Fat or thin The team has named the clusters after the dominant genus: Bacteroides, Prevotella and Ruminococcus. Bacteroides are known to be good at breaking down carbohydrates, so it is possible that people of this type might, for example, struggle more with obesity.


www.nature.com...

A little googling will give you even more information.

One theory I have read about is the hope that eventually Dr.s may be able to take the enterotype from "skinny" people and insert into the guts of "obese" people in the hopes that the "skinny" gut type will override the "obese" gut type. Though scientists explain it in a more scientific detail.

Please stop being so harshly judgmental.

Harm None
Peace



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SangriaRed
 


you may be interested in reading this related thread ; spies like us - uk forensic psychiatry



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ZIPMATT
 


Because I wasn't talking about technicalities. Why would I bother with that when most people can't even get past the Nazis, who by the way weren't the only country practising Eugenics. America and the UK at the time, like much of the then developed world, had a deep fascination with the science.

If you believe that you went to war over Eugenics, or it even played any significant part you're mistaken. The people who funded the Nazis ( former president Bush's family) only decided to enter the war after Pearl harbour, which there is also evidence to suggest was another false flag operation. The real reason America went into the war was the same reason they funded both sides. Money. It's the same reason America does anything to this very day. All of that crap about hating the Nazis, caring about the jews or human rights are just PR spun tales given by the victor in an attempt at self aggrandizement. As the adage says "History is written by the victors."

Anyway, it comes back to what I previously said. You cannot subdue your own emotions long enough to see anything else. So no matter what I say or do it will not be good enough because you are on the defensive because I am advocating an idea that you do not support. I have given plenty of examples of how it is a legitimate science, used to the present day, and has become far more enlightened then the original racist practices that spawned it, to become a very real, scientifically proven, fact of life.

It is not my issue that you cannot see fact. You cannot see that what we are doing today is Eugenics and we are not going around performing inhumane experiments. It is done mostly through DNA analysis, and is concerned with uncovering inherited traits that could have a negative impact upon us. IF it sounds kind of like modern medical science, thats because it is. The entire field of DNA and Genetics is Eugenics, get over it.
edit on 5/9/11 by Imhotepsol because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/9/11 by Imhotepsol because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Seriously will you shut up about the Nazis. I understand that it's all you have but I've refuted that too many times and you're beginning to sound like a very boring, moronic, recording. You're not adding anything but emotional argument which is less than worthless when it comes to making rational decisions based on fact.

If you can provide any facts I would be happy to listen to them. But do not go digging up the past and practices we have since moved far beyond to make your case. It is like me trying to say doctors today are useless because modern medicine evolved from leeches and bleeding. It has no bearing on today.
edit on 5/9/11 by Imhotepsol because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 





Like many of his era he developed a fondness for eugenics. The earliest clear instances of this were after his obsessive-compulsive disorder had been pronounced. In a curious 1926 interview he indicated humanity's future would be run by a "Queen Bee" referring to women who'd mate selectively.[1]. By February of 1935 he had a pro-eugenics article in Liberty which was edited by a friend named G. S. Viereck. In a 1937 interview near the end of his life he indicated that "A century from now it will no more occur to a normal person to mate with a person eugenically unfit than to marry a habitual criminal."[2] Tesla was considered an eccentric, therefore some of his ideas have been overlooked in the traditional eugenicist school of thought.

Link

He also refused to have a child because of his belief in Eugenics. Tesla simply didn't consider himself good enough to breed.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SangriaRed
 


We've just introduced laws to ban parents from smoking in their cars with children in Ireland. There is also a law in the works that would make smoking in a home containing children a crime. As a smoker I'm absolutely fine with that. It's not down to personally hating someone because they're overweight, it's about actual lasting physical and emotional damage being done to children, who have their own inherent rights that even the parent must respect.
edit on 5/9/11 by Imhotepsol because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
It scares me that nothing really shocks or surprises me anymore. Anyways..

I think it's completely unacceptable to take these kids away from their parents. Obesity is a serious problem and I can't believe that as a global society, a society that has created the oppurtunities for people to become morbidly obese, we turn around and threaten to take away someone's child for being obese. Instead of punishing both the parent and the child, we should do something about the infinite possibilities a child, or adult, can become obese.

Make it illegal to produce all of the chemically laced, sodium enhanced, preservative filled foods and start again utilizing the simple foods available to us that are natural, from the earth. There's no reason for you or your child to start your day with a bowl of sugary lucky charms or artificial maple syrup smothered carb overloaded pancakes and wash it down with a redbull. The world is full of delicious, nutritious foods. There's no reason for us to depend on a laboratory to create nasty tasting food that has a shelf life of years.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SangriaRed
 


I've never thought about that, I will be doing my smoking outside from now on.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
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).

While a 'Brave New World' may sound horrifying to you and me, there definitely are people to who it is a welcome development. They may not be voicing it in that way only because doing so at this stage is detrimental to the goal.

There are people who wish there existed a way of having children without having the complete responsibility of raising them on themselves. An overwhelming majority of women, not just Hillary Clinton, fall into that category (Many men too would be happy not to have to support the children that don't live with them anymore). The reason is biology. Biologically it is the mother's responsibility to bring up a child, not the father's. But the mother would do everything it can to get some others to share the responsibility. The first step was the family, to get one man to share the responsibility. The next step is the welfare state, to get many to share the responsibility. The next step will be the 'Brave New World', to get the rest to take over the responsibility completely.

So those talking about individual freedom and personal responsibility are working against the biological impulses of most of humanity. But then, social existence requires working against some biological impulses, memes triumphing over genes. But the welfare state is simple biological impulses at work, although in the form of a powerful meme.

It would be an interesting battle to watch, between the meme of individual freedom and that of a welfare state, which is simply biological impulses as a meme, and see which triumphs. So far biology is winning



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SangriaRed

Right.
So what I'm saying is this:
a) Having tobacco smoke in the home of a child is unhealthy.
b) Having illicit drugs in the home of a child is not looking out for the well being of the child.

The logic that the govt is allowed to step in in the case of a parent allowing their child to be overweight and risking their health, can be equally applied in the above two scenarios.
And the only way that they would know this, is by having officials go to their homes to make certain those kids are not in unhealthy environments.

Where do we draw the line of govt involvement with our families?
edit on 4-9-2011 by SangriaRed because: spelling


We draw he line where it is just now. The government only steps in if you fail to obey the law with regards to drugs/crime or if you fail to look out for the health and well-being of a child. You're right that the only way they can do that is by going to see the family/child, but they only do that in response to the guardians/parents failing their responsibilities.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I'm not saying I support the parenting that was at work here, but come on... the government's trading negative physical health effects for extremely negative psychological health effects, which could even accelerate the negative physical health effects in the long-term.

I mean, think about it, do you not see how snatching these children away from their parents is going to psychologically scar them if not traumatize them for the rest of their lives? And what will that lead to? Probably increased likelihood in the future that the kids find themselves addicted to drugs, having suicidal thoughts, and various other mental issues.

And do you really think the government is going to do a better job at parenting these children? As cliche as this is going to sound, I can't tell you how many stories of sexual abuse and child molestation I have heard about within the foster care system -- that's not to fault the whole system because obviously there is a need for the govt. to get involved sometimes, but not this time, at least IMO.


edit on 6-9-2011 by soma100 because: clarifying a detail



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Imhotepsol
reply to post by ZIPMATT
 


If you believe that you went to war over Eugenics, or it even played any significant part you're mistaken. The people who funded the Nazis ( former president Bush's family) only decided to enter the war after Pearl harbour, which there is also evidence to suggest was another false flag operation. The real reason America went into the war was the same reason they funded both sides. Money. It's the same reason America does anything to this very day. All of that crap about hating the Nazis, caring about the jews or human rights are just PR spun tales given by the victor in an attempt at self aggrandizement. As the adage says "History is written by the victors."

. I have given plenty of examples of how it is a legitimate science, used to the present day, and has become far more enlightened then the original racist practices that spawned it, to become a very real, scientifically proven, fact of life.

. IF it sounds kind of like modern medical science, thats because it is. The entire field of DNA and Genetics is Eugenics, get over it.
edit on 5/9/11 by Imhotepsol because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/9/11 by Imhotepsol because: (no reason given)


A regards the war, the british fight was very different to the american fight. how could hitler beleive the aryans were the master race , and be part of a siding with japan? pearl harbour then was a japanese attack on america during a war being started by those who had a common enemy ; the nwo who had assumed globalist power over nations already through the money markets.
and as for the universal declaration of human right , you are so blinded by your love of eugenics , you cant see how very valuable and important to the human race the 30 articles are. hence your belittlement. anyway have you got evidence the americans funded both 'sides'. no i think you offer unsubstantiatable conjecture.

regarding eugenics and science , you are confusing theory with practise. murder is murder , violation is violation , i dont care how 'scientific' you try to make these practises but they are unrelated to scientific study.
eugenics is in no way a science it is an application of a way of thinking , a psuedo ethical code which eugenicist expect society to accept as coming along with white labcoats.

you dont fool me, and you will not find me ever ever allowing eugenics to have the place it so wishes to have, at least on a moral basis. and i know a lot of people are behind me on that. eugenics is pretty abhorrent actually i suggest you see the value of high grade education and access to tools such as the internet. even for overweight people and their children



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ZIPMATT
 



you are very wrong. it is neglect of health and well being if anything ie they are not being force fed


Well, it kind of is indirect force feeding. The kids are actually forced to eat that food, otherwise they would starve. It's not as if the kids could go out to the shops and buy healthy food, is it? It's the parents responsibility to look after the health of their children, something which they are not doing


secondly you are wrong again the social services do not have the right to do that they need to put evidence to a judge to do so,


Yes, and when the judge sees that the parents are mistreating their children they will probably allow the social services the rights to take away their kids.


and thirdly you are wrong again they do not have that right over mistreatment or negelct. there needs to exist a serious risk of further harm clearly evident for the judge to even consider allowing what social services want to do.


There is a risk of further harm: diabetes, heart disease, sleep apnoea, cancer, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and osteoarthritis. Not to mention that a poor diet in children has been linked to lowering levels of intelligence

Child diet 'linked to IQ'

Poor diets may lower children's IQ
edit on 7/9/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Terrorist
 


They shouldn't be faced with NO legal penalty. What if your kid decided he was gay and they took him away from you because it was considered abuse?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


If they can refuse it it is not force feeding now is it. be sensible . do they do forced drinking to them ?

1 in 3 people dies of heart disease , the most likely outcome of eating rubbish instead of a *natural* diet.

something we all guilty of > buying food at supermarkets. my mate had neglected his strawberry patch> i rammed the lot there and then and didnt need sugar or a bowl or washing them. not selling or packing or bleeping over a till or a speedhump or on an airoplaneo from japan . it felt absolutely great, true fulfillment

what was your other point? it doesnt really mattter its just mitigation. thats on record and oh yeah ,

judges make up their own minds.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Imhotepsol
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Seriously will you shut up about the Nazis. I understand that it's all you have but I've refuted that too many times and you're beginning to sound like a very boring, moronic, recording. You're not adding anything but emotional argument which is less than worthless when it comes to making rational decisions based on fact.

If you can provide any facts I would be happy to listen to them. But do not go digging up the past and practices we have since moved far beyond to make your case. It is like me trying to say doctors today are useless because modern medicine evolved from leeches and bleeding. It has no bearing on today.
edit on 5/9/11 by Imhotepsol because: (no reason given)


You reveal your nature by telling me that people who disagree with you should just shut up and listen to what you have to say. What facts are you looking for? Some things are not just scientific but also moral and ethical. You think that by putting a new face on an old idea that somehow makes it different?

Here's a fact

Examples of those favoring extermination of certain races is not just restricted to those who lived decades or hundreds of years ago. One particularly glaring example comes from James R. (Ron) Weddington, one of the co-counsels for Roe v. Wade, the famous Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion as a "right" in the United States. Weddington wrote to president elect Bill Clinton in 1992,5 advocating elimination of the lower class through birth control and abortion


"But you can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I'm, not advocating some, sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can't afford to have babies.[
There, I've said it. It's what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged differently as discriminatory, mean-spirited and...well...so Republican...
Condoms alone won't do it. Depo-Provera, Norplant and the new birth control injection being developed in India are not a complete answer...
No, government is also going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions...RU 486 and conventional abortions. Even if we make birth control as ubiquitous as sneakers and junk food, there will still be unplanned pregnancies
/ex]
www.godandscience.org...




edit on 10-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SangriaRed
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


OK next>

So what about high fructose corn syrup? The studies are available that shows how horrible it is for your health?
I mean really that bad. So bad that the companies are trying to change the image of it and major groups are trying to ban it. It's in so many foods. There is a choice between eating it and not eating it.
Ingesting high amounts of it may not actually make a person overweight but still is directly linked to health problems.

If a parent is giving their children high amounts of hfcs should their kids be removed?
(seriously seriously not trying to be a wench, just trying to get a point across.)



MSG is another culprit food additive they keep changing the name to hide what it is. It's in all sorts of processed and restaurant foods. This additive makes the food taste more exciting and makes people want it more.




top topics



 
26
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join