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.
Mom, 555-Pound Son Found In Baltimore
page: 1share:
GREENVILLE COUNTY, S.C. -- A mother and her 555-pound son who fled South Carolina after the state planned to take the 14-year-old boy into protective custody were found hundreds of miles from their home on Thursday.
"The understanding was that the individual was of the weight where it was decided by medical authorities that he needed treatment that he wasn't being provided for by his mother," said Matthew Armstrong, of the Greenville County Sheriff's Office.
www.wyff4.com...
This is one of the most heinous crimes against a child. Reminds me of the other story of the mother who refused to get her son the chemotherapy.
They shouldnt be allowed to stop this child from eating. How is it bothering the government? If the child's own mother doesnt want to do anythnig
about it, then the gov. shoudnt. It should up to the child and the mother.
Just like that poor kid who is forced to get chemo. What kind of junk is that? Some people die from chemo.
Just like that poor kid who is forced to get chemo. What kind of junk is that? Some people die from chemo.
This is getting rediculous now the government wants to control your own children,sounding more and more like socialism,and I get a kick out of people
saying that it is fine if they take kid away,they can't even run country properly why stick nose in others buisness
Fantastic parenting this is! That kid weighs over 200 kilos?? I am getting a bit sick of this anti government sentiment over here. It is about the
health of this child!! Oh that kid gets molested by his parent? Well it's betweeN him and that parent. Oh that kid gets raped by his parent? Well
it's clearly a thing between the two of them
I hope that child will get the proper care and the mother too because something must have gone terribly wrong.
I hope that child will get the proper care and the mother too because something must have gone terribly wrong.
reply to post by QueenofWeird
You're making leaps and bounds in generalizations and not helping this discussion at all.
Honestly you cant police everyone. I would rather see CPS efforts elsewhere. There are many more children who are starving that need help.
You're making leaps and bounds in generalizations and not helping this discussion at all.
Honestly you cant police everyone. I would rather see CPS efforts elsewhere. There are many more children who are starving that need help.
reply to post by Tentickles
No leaps, "just" a terribly obese child. And you feel it is up to either the kid or his mother who obviously can't prevent what is happening to her son. More than 220 kilos no problem?? Really!
No leaps, "just" a terribly obese child. And you feel it is up to either the kid or his mother who obviously can't prevent what is happening to her son. More than 220 kilos no problem?? Really!
This is one of the most heinous crimes against a child.
Yes I agree.
Any time the State steps in and takes a child away from a parent, for something like this, it is heinous.
Leave them alone!
YOUR CHILDREN DO NOT BELONG TO THE STATE!
peace
reply to post by AntiConspirator
I know what you're saying ut I think the child shouldn't have a say in this matter.
When I was his ages I would have eaten chocolate all day because I wasn't truely aware of the health implications, I was too young to understand its true effects... This is where my mother would have set a good diet for me and enabled me to learn.
A mother who puts her child in danger is a bad mother. In this case the child's life could well be in danger. He needs the loving (if it exists) from his mother but he doesn't need her bringing him up.
I know what you're saying ut I think the child shouldn't have a say in this matter.
When I was his ages I would have eaten chocolate all day because I wasn't truely aware of the health implications, I was too young to understand its true effects... This is where my mother would have set a good diet for me and enabled me to learn.
A mother who puts her child in danger is a bad mother. In this case the child's life could well be in danger. He needs the loving (if it exists) from his mother but he doesn't need her bringing him up.
Well played by her if she cant help his weight issues you think some one who des not know him can, no way.
Even if its not a issue the government have no right to tell people what and what not to do.
They Should only advise in my opinion.
Even if its not a issue the government have no right to tell people what and what not to do.
They Should only advise in my opinion.
this is crazy... she doesnt deserve a child. Atleast they saved him from a future as pitifull and ignorant as his mothers.
Here is the ULTIMATE question
At which weight do we determine that a person needs to be medically FIXED or that the government needs to step in?
I agree 555 pounds is INSANE!
BUT there are absolutely NO regulations that I am aware of that set a standardized weight limit to exceed for the government to get involved.
SURE a group of doctors can get together and say that if you are under 18 and you exceed 300 pounds than you need to be looked at for medical help and if that is ignored by the parent removal from the home.
BUT THERE IS NONE!
So what someone is saying is that there is no regulation and they are making it up as they go along?
At which weight do we determine that a person needs to be medically FIXED or that the government needs to step in?
I agree 555 pounds is INSANE!
BUT there are absolutely NO regulations that I am aware of that set a standardized weight limit to exceed for the government to get involved.
SURE a group of doctors can get together and say that if you are under 18 and you exceed 300 pounds than you need to be looked at for medical help and if that is ignored by the parent removal from the home.
BUT THERE IS NONE!
So what someone is saying is that there is no regulation and they are making it up as they go along?
The mother is clearly irresponsible, however this sets yet again another bad precedence as the chemo-boy.
What will come next? The state will take children from smokers, drinkers, and children that use profanity.
Makes you wonder why these cases are getting much publicity of late.
What will come next? The state will take children from smokers, drinkers, and children that use profanity.
Makes you wonder why these cases are getting much publicity of late.
Originally posted by FX44rice
The mother is clearly irresponsible, however this sets yet again another bad precedence as the chemo-boy.
What will come next? The state will take children from smokers, drinkers, and children that use profanity.
Makes you wonder why these cases are getting much publicity of late.
GREAT points Rice.
Really leads me to things that I have never thought about before. Where does this end? Is a parent who drinks 12 beers a day considered responsible enough to raise a child?
What about if they drink 9 beers a day? 6 beers? 3 beers?
The floodgates might really be opening up. We are crossing new boundries. Hardcore stuff you brought up RICE.
The same with Smoking! They just banned smoking in public resteraunts here in North Carolina.
What gives a parent the right to expose a child to second hand smoke but not a restaurant random stranger?
Language is the same thing. The FCC prevents many curse words and adult images from being displayed on Television.
Why is it ok for a parent to say it around a child? Maybe the FCC can step in and fine them?
Rice you just opened the floodgates. Here comes hell.
Originally posted by AntiConspirator
Here is the deal though. A parent is required by law to ensure the safety and wellbeing of their child. I am sure you will agree that a child weighing 555 pounds is not safe for that child. I bet you would be hard pressed to find some on who thinks that is an acceptable weight for ANYONE.
A parent is required by law to do the best they can to ensure there child is healty and feeding a kid so much that they weigh 555 pounds is not doing it.
The law gets involved when the parent fails to do what they are required to do. In other words the state ends up doing the parents job for them.
Feeding a child so much that they weigh 555 pounds does qualify under the law as child abuse as it should.Starving the child is against the law and so is feeding them so much that their life is in danger....
That is why the state got involved because the parents did not do their job. Some one needs to protect the kid and get them back to a healthy state both physically and mentally. It is just a shame that some one is not the parents like it should have been in the first place. Because of them, the state (as well as the tax payers) has to do the job for these failures that call them selves parents.
Sure some may die from chemo. With out it, it is a death sentence for sure, now isnt it? If you leave it alone and do not treat it, you will die, period.
What is better for a child, refusing to treat them and they will die 100% chance. Or giving them chemo which has killed people before and most likely beat the chemo (keeping in mind the doctors in that case have all said he can still beat the cancer if it is treated.
Don't treat it you die for sure, if you do, you may and you may not. You have a much better chance if you do treat it though.
This case is the same as above. A parent is required by law to do all that is in their power to ensure the safety and well being of their child.
Refusing him treatment that just may get rid of his cancer is NOT ensuring his wellbeing and safety, especially considering he will die for sure with out it.....
They shouldnt be allowed to stop this child from eating. How is it bothering the government? If the child's own mother doesnt want to do anythnig about it, then the gov. shoudnt. It should up to the child and the mother.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Here is the deal though. A parent is required by law to ensure the safety and wellbeing of their child. I am sure you will agree that a child weighing 555 pounds is not safe for that child. I bet you would be hard pressed to find some on who thinks that is an acceptable weight for ANYONE.
A parent is required by law to do the best they can to ensure there child is healty and feeding a kid so much that they weigh 555 pounds is not doing it.
The law gets involved when the parent fails to do what they are required to do. In other words the state ends up doing the parents job for them.
Feeding a child so much that they weigh 555 pounds does qualify under the law as child abuse as it should.Starving the child is against the law and so is feeding them so much that their life is in danger....
That is why the state got involved because the parents did not do their job. Some one needs to protect the kid and get them back to a healthy state both physically and mentally. It is just a shame that some one is not the parents like it should have been in the first place. Because of them, the state (as well as the tax payers) has to do the job for these failures that call them selves parents.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Just like that poor kid who is forced to get chemo. What kind of junk is that? Some people die from chemo.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Sure some may die from chemo. With out it, it is a death sentence for sure, now isnt it? If you leave it alone and do not treat it, you will die, period.
What is better for a child, refusing to treat them and they will die 100% chance. Or giving them chemo which has killed people before and most likely beat the chemo (keeping in mind the doctors in that case have all said he can still beat the cancer if it is treated.
Don't treat it you die for sure, if you do, you may and you may not. You have a much better chance if you do treat it though.
This case is the same as above. A parent is required by law to do all that is in their power to ensure the safety and well being of their child.
Refusing him treatment that just may get rid of his cancer is NOT ensuring his wellbeing and safety, especially considering he will die for sure with out it.....
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers
lt looks like the hell gates are opening. This type of action coupled with the "Prolonged Detention" legislation being pushed, is essentially stripping our rights from under our noses.
Frustrating thing is I don't have a clue how to stop this Sh#t, nor does anyone else it seems.
While they're at it how bout throwing another $4 Bill of our money at GM right before they file.
lt looks like the hell gates are opening. This type of action coupled with the "Prolonged Detention" legislation being pushed, is essentially stripping our rights from under our noses.
Frustrating thing is I don't have a clue how to stop this Sh#t, nor does anyone else it seems.
While they're at it how bout throwing another $4 Bill of our money at GM right before they file.
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
I am not a Dr. of Oncology or a natural healer but I can tell you this, I know of people who have refused chemo and survived. So I believe your not accurate at all that not taking chemo is a death sentence.
I am also sure it is dangerous for parents letting their children swim without being monitored 100% of time. Maybe the state should take those kids into protective services. How about kids that drink too much soda, aspartame, etc. Take those kids to.
Also take those kids roller blading in their driveways without helmets on into custody for chriz sakes They could Die!
I am not a Dr. of Oncology or a natural healer but I can tell you this, I know of people who have refused chemo and survived. So I believe your not accurate at all that not taking chemo is a death sentence.
I am also sure it is dangerous for parents letting their children swim without being monitored 100% of time. Maybe the state should take those kids into protective services. How about kids that drink too much soda, aspartame, etc. Take those kids to.
Also take those kids roller blading in their driveways without helmets on into custody for chriz sakes They could Die!
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
He wouldnt have a 100% chance of death. He only has a tumor. even if it did develope into full blown cancer, he would have at least a 55% chance of living. This is kid is terrified that Chemo will kill him.
Cancer Death Rate.
Chemo Facts
He wouldnt have a 100% chance of death. He only has a tumor. even if it did develope into full blown cancer, he would have at least a 55% chance of living. This is kid is terrified that Chemo will kill him.
Cancer Death Rate.
Chemo Facts
This is strange, but I almost feel that the government should get more involved in this case than the chemo kid's. I can see someone wanting to
avoid chemo or radiation, and also having religious reasons for avoiding. But why would someone not want to lose weight? "Oh please, not the
stairmaster!!!!!!" I'm not buying it. Reduce your calories to about 1/5 of what it is now, and start exercising blubber butt. He's going to get
cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, ect. unless he loses some weight.
This is not exactly like the chemotherapy police who come and force chemo on you. Its highly arguable whether chemotherapy is really helpful. There is
a 100% chance that a diet will make the child dramatically more healthy. A child of that weight is in clearly in danger of a very early death and
surely the parent is responsible for that.
new topics
-
Nigel Farage now the Most Favoured UK Politician
Regional Politics: 1 hours ago -
Little Johnny and Larry should team up
General Chit Chat: 7 hours ago -
Will Us use alien technology to fight in ww3?
World War Three: 8 hours ago
top topics
-
Elon Says It’s ‘Likely’ He Buys Tanking MSNBC
Political Ideology: 16 hours ago, 16 flags -
Montelukast affects brain, caused 5 year old to attempt suicide
Medical Issues & Conspiracies: 17 hours ago, 15 flags -
Little Johnny and Larry should team up
General Chit Chat: 7 hours ago, 5 flags -
Shane Gillis commercial
Jokes, Puns, & Pranks: 14 hours ago, 4 flags -
Will Us use alien technology to fight in ww3?
World War Three: 8 hours ago, 1 flags -
Nigel Farage now the Most Favoured UK Politician
Regional Politics: 1 hours ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
Well we know Putins ICBMs won't fail in their silos
World War Three • 179 • : andy06shake -
Nigel Farage now the Most Favoured UK Politician
Regional Politics • 2 • : onestonemonkey -
Will Us use alien technology to fight in ww3?
World War Three • 10 • : andy06shake -
Why isn't Psychiatry involved?
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 13 • : ADVISOR -
WATCH LIVE: US Congress hearing on UFOs, unidentified anomalous phenomena
Aliens and UFOs • 152 • : Lazy88 -
Biden's "Reckless" Decision To Escalate Russia-Ukraine War
World War Three • 123 • : BedevereTheWise -
Elon Says It’s ‘Likely’ He Buys Tanking MSNBC
Political Ideology • 74 • : andy06shake -
Montelukast affects brain, caused 5 year old to attempt suicide
Medical Issues & Conspiracies • 10 • : DeadlyStaringFrog -
Jaguar Rebrand Video Causes "WTF?" Moment - Seriously Weird
Automotive Discussion • 21 • : Athetos -
Well, here we go red lines crossed Biden gives the go ahead to use long range missiles
World War Three • 329 • : Imhere