Obese Children

Colin Phillips

At the Start
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
13,268
Location
Talbot Green
Overfeeding = Neglect, discuss.

Story on the radio this morning suggesting that the parents of some obese children should be charged with neglect and even have their children taken into care.
 
I heard this. To me, overfeeding is more abuse than neglect; allowing children to overeat is neglect.

But where do we go next?

Is forcing kids to be active going to be seen as abuse?

I hear stories nearly every day that disturb me: 11yo kids being allowed to watch Big Brother, play with violent video games, stay up watching TV till after midnight, be exposed to vile language at home, given drinks by parents or allowed the run of the house while parents are out drinking.

It's getting harder and harder to be a good parent...
 
Possibly another money raising opportunity for the government. They intend to "fine" the parents who have obese children.
 
DO, apart from the modern innovations, what's new about any of that? The very reason why so many church homes for kids, the Children's Act, the NSPCC, et al, were brought into being. Children have been both neglected and abused since time immemorial. We seem to have had a curious relationship with them - centuries ago, they were regarded as no more than tiny adults and pretty much treated as such. After all, there were boy kings and emperors, as well as children of four working 12 hours a day who weren't in such an exalted class.

I don't think we'll ever be free of the scourge of the poor parenting of some children, any more than we will be free of cruelty to animals. While medical science tries to find the triggers for alcoholism and a host of ailments, there doesn't seem to be a gene to prevent some people making dreadful parents.

Early and continuing education in parenting skills is essential, but at some point (and this is where there will be howls of protest), the day could well arrive in this over-populated world, where it will be a privilege won on a merit system, not just a random, unwanted result of rutting by unsuitable partners.
 
I remember that suggestion being put forward by a work colleague, ooo it must be about 40 years ago, and I thought he was an arrogant tosser, as when I asked who would make the decision on who could breed or not, he said people like him.

I am beginning to think that he might have had the right idea and once again......I WAS WRONG!!!! :(
 
I'm not arguing to the contrary, Krizon. I just think the definitions of what amounts to abuse and neglect are changing.
 
As Keanu Reeves said in Parenthood - "you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father. "

It does make you wonder sometimes....
 
Yes, you need a licence for a damn tv, but heaven forfend you should have to show any qualifications for raising the most precious commodity of any household.

DO: well, yes, we don't send 6 year-olds up chimneys any more, but neglect and abuse are still rampant. Overfed, underfed, beaten, or just brow-beaten to suicide by over-ambitious parents living vicariously through their children... it goes on and on. A (Scottish) work colleague of mine gave up coaching Little Leaguers in Saudi Arabia, for American parents. Although this was some 25 years ago, he couldn't stand the language used THEN (so God knows what it's like now) by rabidly-ambitious fathers towards their boys. He asked one foaming sire to pipe down one day for bellowing "Come on, you little motherf***er, get him! For f's sake, come on, you f***ing useless moron!" Now, there's motivation, and there's motivation... hard to believe that parents can be like this, but I'm barely shocked by anything they do now.
 
I wonder how anyone can do anything other than the absolute best for their child. Common sense, decent morals and lots of love mean you won't go far wrong. It's working so far anyway....
 
"And this is Ricky, Dad. Aren't his new tattoos and nose rings grrreat?" Oh, yes, wait for the moment, Pee, wait for the moment... :laughing:
 
Originally posted by PDJ@Jun 14 2007, 06:29 PM
I wonder how anyone can do anything other than the absolute best for their child. Common sense, decent morals and lots of love mean you won't go far wrong.
The sad thing is, a lot of these morons believe they are doing the absolute best for their child.

Common sense to some people is madness to others.
Decent morals are outdated dogma to some people and outright permissiveness to others.*
Lots of love means incest to some and over-protectiveness to others.

*No criticism intended, PDJ, but for some having a child out of wedlock is immoral.

I was chatting to some students today and Casablanca came into the conversation. Some had never heard of it and when I mentioned that Ilsa and Rick were lovers in Paris after she heard her husband had died, one girl almost went into shock. "But her husband's only just died! That's a bit fast! Is she some kind of slag? Couldn't she wait a few years?" she kept repeating as if trying to get her head round the idea.

I asked her if she'd ever two-timed a boyfriend and she said, "No way! I could never do that. That's just not on."

I was quite heartened, to tell the truth. It helped restore some faith in today's kids.
 
Originally posted by krizon@Jun 14 2007, 06:33 PM
"And this is Ricky, Dad. Aren't his new tattoos and nose rings grrreat?" Oh, yes, wait for the moment, Pee, wait for the moment... :laughing:
I pity Matildas future boyfriends, me and Paul standing glaring at him without speaking,
 
No criticism taken, DO. I understand what you mean about babies out of wedlock. Personally I don't have a problem with babies out of wedlock but I would not criticise those who do find it immoral.

It is a rather cynical post overall (at least the first part of it is) though with the lots of love comments. It is meant in the appropriate sense of course.
 
Morals are subjective - for example I find the recent decision of the Catholic Church to tell Catholics to stop supporting Amnesty International - as it has suggested limited support for abortion for rape victims - absolutely despicable and profoundly immoral .
 
Originally posted by ovverbruv+Jun 14 2007, 07:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ovverbruv @ Jun 14 2007, 07:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-krizon@Jun 14 2007, 06:33 PM
"And this is Ricky, Dad. Aren't his new tattoos and nose rings grrreat?" Oh, yes, wait for the moment, Pee, wait for the moment... :laughing:
I pity Matildas future boyfriends, me and Paul standing glaring at him without speaking, [/b][/quote]
:laughing:

The extended Orchid household has had similar conversations over the years. All bar one of the young ones are girls and it's generally accepted that whichever young man chooses to marry into the family is taking on quite a responsibility. If he steps out of line he'll have a swarm of uncles- and aunts-in-law to deal with :D

The only one so far has passed with flying colours and sets a very high standard :D :D

(140++)
 
No surprise there, surely, Ardross, from an organisation which purports all children are gifts from God, but thanks to its stance on increasing the Catholic population of the world, watches thousands of them scratching in the filth of South American and Phillipino cities for a morsel. The same organisation which didn't seem to intervene loudly against Gen. Pinochet's reign of pain and terror (left-wing unbelievers can burn in hell, presumably) and whose modern record in matters Teutonic was to deny the plight of others (Jewry, let them burn in hell, too), and gave its full blessing to King Leopold II's adventures in mutilation and brutality in the Belgian Congo (black pagan animists, let them, etc.). All noble inclusions in its holy history, well in keeping with its love of all God's people.

Why, surely, there's nothing more than a young, traumatized, raped girl wants than to carry to term the sperm of a psychotic stranger, is there? The child will be so proud of its father - unless the idea is to 'encourage' the girl through guilt to bear the babe, and then for it to be awarded to some childless couple, ignorant of its origin? But I assume the same Church was behind the, er, 'adoptions' of the babies born to the left-wing students who were murdered shortly after birthing in Pinochet's filthy jails? There's a curious dichotomy at work here about the sanctity of 'all' human life, isn't there?
 
Originally posted by Ardross@Jun 14 2007, 09:18 PM
absolutely despicable and profoundly immoral .
I have to say I find that a bit strong.

The Catholic Church believes in the sanctity of life.

Its duty is to support both the mother and child in such dreadful circumstances.

Amnesty International appears to have opened itself to criticism from the Catholic Church on the matter. It will oppose the imprisonment and torture of innocents in many situations in many countries yet it wishes to condone, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, the unlawful killing of innocents.

Wrap everything else up in whatever glitzy paper you wish, to suit your own views, but your views are man's views, not God's. That is the position of the Catholic Church.
 
DO, I realise that you must defend the religion you've chosen to take to your heart, and in which you believe sincerely. However, I'm more than happy to take a humanist position on the score of enforced maternity, or pretty much any issue, come to that.

If you can imagine the raping take place in Darfur, for example, where poor village girls are taken by rebel troops and repeatedly raped over and over - imagine, if you possibly can, that you are one of these youngsters. Imagine being penetrated repeatedly by your community's enemy, with brutality, insults, and the complete abandonment to your fate, as your family is probably already massacred. Now imagine you find you're pregnant - God knows by whom, because you've been sexually battered so much it could be by one of any hundred. All you are is the biological result of a ripe egg being fertilised by some stranger's sperm. Not someone you love, want to marry, are married to, want to have children with. It's not the 'fault' of the sperm, or the egg, or the embryo. That's just biology. It is, however, the brutish, criminal activity of one of what may be many, many men. It's not God's gift of a little ray of sunshine or any such sentimental stuff. It's just a biological event caused under extreme duress, emotional anguish, and probably considerable physical discomfort. What it isn't, is wanted. The girls in this example are raped by men not from their tribe - imagine, if you will, then, your townswomen and their daughters repeatedly being raped by complete outsiders - just because people are of the same colour, as we've discussed on here already, doesn't make them 'your people'. So imagine your neighbouring women, your own family's women, taken and raped over and over by, oh, let's say, Nazi skinheads. They're white, and they even speak English, but they're not 'your people'. Now imagine your daughter and your neighbour's daughters becoming pregnant by these men.

The Church would put the continued pregnancy before any consideration for these unwilling mothers' enforced pregnancies, deliveries, milk production, likely post-natal depression, and very likely failure to bond. It's quite possibly because the Church is patriarchal to the point of mysogyny that it can sit back in complete ignorance of the needs of motherhood: one is usually fairly basic, and that's that you conceive a child by someone you love, often when you both want it, to love it together, nurture it, and see it grow up together. Your Church would have these girls - possibly as young as 13 - take on single parenting roles in their own childhood or teenage years. Now, would you want this fate for your own daughter?

There are tens of thousands of abortions round the world every year, vast amounts of them occurring in Catholic countries through illegal abortionists. The Church has failed to stem the tide of unwanted children, because it refuses to acknowledge any form of contraception. One little phrase in the Bible has condemned millions of women to overbreed themselves to an early grave, to die having their uteruses pierced by knitting needles or coat hangers, to abandon their babies or young children, or to sell them for almost any purpose. We all know damn well that the Catholic rich buy their contraceptive products and limit their children (hence the decline in the birthrate in Italy since the 1970s) - not by the unreliable rhythm method, but through pharmaceuticals, and can afford a high-class, medically-trained abortionist if one's needed to correct the odd accident.

Where's the morality in any of that, when it's all due to the ridiculous posturing of a patriarchal establishment, smug in the knowledge that none of its priests or Popes will ever be pushing out their 14th child; or will be a frightened rural girl, up the duff and hustled out of her community, wondering how she'll cope; or one of the thousands of recent rape victims, aghast they now carry some savage stranger's child within?

You say it's God's word, but I say there is no God, so as far as I'm concerned it's 'not in my name' to your Church's pontifications.
 
Its quite interesting to look at the list of threads at the moment on Non Racing Chat

1 ; I dont know what to say.... the topic of university education for stupids

2; Obese Children

3; Britains Got Talent

and coming in at 8; Where are their brains.
 
No, where's the apostrophe in 'Britain's Got Talent'? C'mon, punctuation thieves, put it back!

DO - we are a gulf apart on the matter. You take a firmly religious view and won't consider in the slightest any humanitarian issue involved. Perhaps it's because you're a man, and even if you were subjected to sexual battery by strangers, you'd never have to go through your body expanding to accommodate an enforced pregnancy. I have to come down to the basic, genderist point and say that until and unless you are a woman, as part of the offending gender in such matters, you and the celibate male-driven RC Church have no right to impose what you claim is God's will upon women.

Can you point me to the part in Christ's teachings where it expressly proscribes abortion, please. I know the old bit about masturbation (seed falling upon the ground), but I've never known where to find the edict on terminations. We know that abortion occurred historically in that age, and that plenty of babies of that time were born, only to be got rid of in various unpleasant ways, but I'm not aware of an edict even against such infanticide.
 
Kri - it's not a gender thing. The number of women involved in anti-abortion campaigning in Ireland is proof enough of that.
 
Back
Top