Posted on 09/25/2002 12:05:15 PM PDT by A Vast RightWing Conspirator
Since the Martha Toogood's story is being dissected into the most minute details, here's one aspect not yet discussed:
- Martha gets a spanking from her mommy (some call it a savage beating). Whatever that was, it turns out that not one doctor, not even the prosecutor could find any sign of abuse such as bruises, cuts, broken bones, missing limbs or rigor mortis. In fact there are nude pictures apparently showing Martha as intact as ever.
- The state takes Martha under its own loving wing and... MARTHA IS SICK NOW!!! In fact, Martha is so sick, not even her mother can be allowed to see her.
Can anyone explain what's going on here? Is Martha better off with the authorities in charge? Or is she a victim of the authorities loving care. Perhaps too much love got Martha sick?
Some kids kick their legs like that when they're crying, too.
Good thing there were no cameras around our house, too. Times have changed, that's for sure. But, what Toogood did looked pretty bad. I got hit like that, too, but not until I was much older. A parent shouldn't get that carried away with a four year-old. Spanking - OK. Hitting the face and then grabbing her head and shaking her back and forth - NOT GOOD.
The mother was trying to return two pairs of pants to Kohl's for which she did not have a receipt. (Draw your own conclusions.) Kohl's would not accept them and she became "frustrated".
Meanwhile the child was wandering away and taking things off the shelves. (Possibly preventing the mother from wandering around and taking things off the shelves.) This added to the mother's frustration level.
When she reached the car she "lost it" and hit the child with a closed fist, by her own admission.
Why?
Bite your tongue!! Only in the most EXTREME cases should the state ever take a child! In case you didn't know this, 50% of all child abuse resulting in the death of a child occurs with the child in state custody/foster care. And most of the children in foster care were taken by various CPS agencies on UNSUBSTANTIATED charges of abuse.
I will admit that Martha Toogood is probably in better hands right now - but this is a RARE case.
In fact there are nude pictures apparently showing Martha as intact as ever.NUDE pictures of the child's genitals?? Mommy Dearest had to take pictures of the child's GENITALS??
Mommy Dearest is a petty thief, a liar, and a transient who beats her child and you think the state is out of line by putting Martha in protective custody?
Not taking either side on this issue as I have not seen the video, nor have I heard this woman speak on any television shows. That said, your statement is absolutely ridiculous.
First of all, the first poster made no mention of genitilia. That seems to be something which you are a bit hung up on given the SHOUTING. Most healthy people have nude photos of their children, although in today's PC world, that may endanger their right to parenting. The only people who would find a parent having a nude photo of a 4 year old as remarkable would be someone who has a deep seated psychological issue with child nudity. I suggest you seek help.
Regardless of that fact, the article, as stated herein, makes no indication that the photos were taken by, or even in the possession of, the mother. A clear reading of the article actually suggests the opposite, that some authority figures took those photos and are in possession of them. While there is no way to know for certain by what is posted, given that it is stated directly after stating that the child was found perfectly healthy by doctors, one would be led to conclude that it was the doctors who took the nude photos. (Something that would be done to record the clean bill of health for legal purposes.)
Your next statement is equally distressing. Without knowing otherwise, one would get the impression from your post that petty thievery, lying and moving around are all perfectly legitimate reasons for the state to take custody of a child. Two of the three are not even legal issues. The only illegal act stated, petty theivery, has well established punishments none of which in any state of the union include loss of parenting rights. The only other issue is beating the child. Given that it is the ONLY issue in the entire post that has ANY relevancy to the case, the "Oh pulllease." that you close with seems a bit inappropriate to say the least.
Innocent until proven guilty is a founding principal of free society. The day that a video shown on national television becomes judge, jury and executioner is the day that the first dictator of the United States takes power with a little help from his friends in the digital video editing field.
Child abuse is absolutely reprehensible and deserving of strong punishment. But putting a child in state custody is far from a healthy solution as is illustrated in this case. The question of the child's health is not only valid, it should be the central issue of the case. The best policy would be to place the child in custody of close relatives. While there may be cases when that would be inappropriate, it should be sought as the first alternative. "The state" may be a fabulous nanny for your average welfare bum, but it has repeatedly proven itself terribly inadequate as a parent for young children.
After Castro's demise he'll probably re-emerge as the Cuban version of Ricky Martin.
In fact there are nude pictures apparently showing Martha as intact as ever.
If the story I heard on MSNBC is accurate, I see absolutely no reason for the Toogood family to take pictures of the child's genitals. None.
Slaves are of course free to some extent. They are free to do what ever their masters tell them to do.
In the plantation days slaves were free to hoe and pick cotton and any work assigned. If a slave got up before daylight to do the work for the master before he was required to do so, no Planation Slave master forbid him from doing so. No master cursed the blatent overworking and accused the slave of misbehavior. If a slave continued to do the massa's work after the work day was through he was not punished for it. He might very well be praised. Dlaves that do as the master dictates ore even more are good slaves. Such slaves feel no yoke or no srap of beating. Those slaves are said to be free slaves. They feel no pain of punishment. They are free of punishment. They are free Slaves.
When a slave does what is forbidden for slaves to do, that is the behaviour of a bad slave. Slaves that do what is forbiden are punished. That is what happens to bad slaves.
But slavery is more than having to do work for others as orderd. Slaves have other limitations that free men do no have. Slaves do not own their person. A free person can do with himself what he wishes. A slave's own person is controlled by the slave's master. The slave master may move the slave to any location or totally restrict his movements. Where a slave can go and what he can do is in the perview of the slave master.
An other aspect of slaveery is a slave can not own his own offspring. The Master owns the children. If the slave does anything with or to those born of the slave the slaves children can be removed. It is the sole responsiblity of the slave master. The master may take the children and place them with others any time the slave master so desires.
Slavery requires just two things. Individual behavior must be controlled, approved, or punhised by the slave owner.
Secondly a slave can not be allowed to have title to his chlidren. NO one can e a slave who owns his own children. A slave master to be slave master, must be able to assign control of his slave's chilren to whom ever the slave master choses.
The Unites States has never been totally free of slavery, because the state owns each persons children. Slave parents are allowed to raise the chldren they bear as long as what they do pleases the state. Just as any slave master in the south could take a slaves children away from its slave parent, out government can take children away from us.
If your child reports to the slave masters that you are not following the states rules for child raising, the state will take your children away. The state takes its property and does with it as it sees fit. Just as any good slave master would do.
So by any definition of slavery all children are slaves. For slaves are childrn owned by a master not their parent and all children in the united states are owned by the state.
So at what level are the parents of slaves. Are they slaves too? When if ever does a slave child become a free adult?
When you refer to your children as YOURS, you lie. They are not yours. They are the property of the state. Your chilren are no more yours than the public library is yours. You just get to use it as long as you follow the states rules for being in the library.
I respect your opinon. From this far away and on such little information, I would not judge what is best. I do know from experience that the "state" is not a panacea.
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.