Wonder Woman agrees. No Heroine use.
Posted on 08/16/2007 3:00:02 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084
Yesterday a couple in Santa Clara were arrested by police and their bail was set at 3.5 million for torturing and abusing a 22 month old boy. The hild was taken to the hospital with 'extensive bruises and burns.'
From the sheriff's deputy:
"There were a lot of bruises in different stages of healing and also some burns on the child's body in different stages of healing," he said. "Some of the photos that I was able to look at with the investigation, they're horrible photos and it pains me that someone would do something like that to a child."
Based on your definition of why a government exists, this couple should be released and their child should be returned to them, because it's none of the government's damn business, right?
This is clearly a cut and paste job - unless you source all of this yourself. Can you cite your source?
Sending a child to a gooberment skool is child abuse.
Allowing a child to play without all the latest safety equipment strapped on is child abuse.
Neurotically bundling up a child in all the latest safety equipment is child abuse.
Drinking alcohol in front of a child is child abuse.
Let's just get to the bottom line; bringing another son or daughter of Adam with his load of sin into the world by concieving them is child abuse.
In France or Sweden maybe. There's nothing American about that thought whatsoever.
You ever hear of cracking a window?
I smoke with my kids in the car, but the window is cracked open so that all the smoke go outside.
Why is simple physics so hard for some folks to understand.
Wonder Woman agrees. No Heroine use.
You are correct to say that cities and states are allowed to intervene in some cases of child abuse, where there is a compelling interest in protecting the child against serious and immediate danger. But we seem to differ on what constitutes "child abuse" to a degree sufficient for government intervention. A parent who smokes in a car with his/her child there is not committing child abuse ipso facto, and should not be subject to a police officer stopping the car and issuing a traffic ticket (if that's all this typical airhead of a councilcritter has in mind). The motivation behind his proposed law is more "revenue enhancement" (a favorite term of Dummycrat-left politicians), not "protecting the health of the children."
Their choice of what the government should force people to do, to conform to their own likes and dislikes.
Freepers that support government control over personal lives, should be ASHAMED!
I’m starting a new initiative that both adults and kids, especially the latter should wear crash helmets inside the car. Seat belts do not address head injuries.
To those who would protest that this would make it hard to use cellphones, higher priced helmets could come with a builtin phone.
It’d also make it virtually impossible to smoke, not to mention eating, drinking and putting on makeup.
Unfortunately, people would still be able to text message. But, perhaps taking a page out of AQ’s book and amputating thumbs or other guilty digits would take care of the “problem”.
There must be other problems out there, kneepads and elbowpads for pedestrians in case they fall and hurt themselves, with a helmet so their precious skulls aren’t hurt while falling on hard city pavements.
Inshallah, bin Blair.
Or should be expressing their anti-freedom opinions on the DailyKos!
I was using a helmet to protect my head if anything went wrong while testing a new airplane last year. The airplane crashed and my head was protected, but the impact crushed my spine. I demand that all airplanes have spinal supports!
The control over private lives is NOT an enumerated power granted to the Federal or State governments. Any Freeper that thinks that they were ever granted that power, needs to read the actual documents.
Drunk driving is hardly victimless, at least not on public roads.
The only thing I disagree with Eric is that the things you name (eating right, quit smoking, and exercise) are things every responsible individual should take an active part in so that he/she lives the very best life he/she is able. Not everyone is blessed with good genes; some people work in very sick/unhealthy environments (think miners, printers, etc.) and they should WANT to take care of their bodies. I don’t mind the government promoting wellness at all. I think it’s in everyone’s best interest, not to mention the people who love and/or depend on you who have a vested interest in your health.
I am frightened at how the government could eventually deny people health for all sorts of reasons, including their own bad decisions. It’s time people started being accountable and intellectually honest about their own participation in ruining their health. Some things we cannot control, but some things we can and choosing what to put into my body remains completely within my power at this point. I try to make intelligent decisions because, well, frankly, I think I’m WORTH it.
It is also my opinion that I should be able to make a decent living helping to make well those stupid enough to indulge in such self destructive behavior.
THERE WAS NO VICTIM!
DUH!
Drunk driving laws, when there is no victim, are an outstanding example of "potential crimes." You are declared to be a criminal, not for any harm to another person, but because "YOU MIGHT, JUST MAYBE, UNDER AN UNUSUAL CONVERGENCE OF EVENTS, CAUSE AN ACCIDENT!"
So, for this invented and pretended harm to others, you may:
Go to jail. Loose your job. Loose your home. Loose your property. Loose your family. Possibly even get raped while in jail.
All of this, because you "MIGHT" harm someone.
>>NOT an enumerated power granted to the Federal or State governments.
Pfft, seen any evidence of that thinking?
Bah, face it, Americans are now statists, we love the goobers telling us what to or not to do.
You are going to stand on the Constitution in opposition to our efforts to ensure a risk free society in order to help the children? Dammit, man, what value are rights if we don’t make every effort to make this world safe.
Would you live in a risk drenched world or a world where risk is carefully managed and minimized by our betters in the Great FEDSTATELOCALGOV?
Why do you hate children?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.