State Threatens Mother to Seize Infant For Feeding Homemade Goat Milk Formula

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Absolutely. A free society MUST make every effort to protect it's freedoms at every level. It is pure folly to expect the government to make that kind of decision, for YOUR best interests, FOR you. If you willingly give up your right to be wrong about an opinion, you also at the same time give up your right to be RIGHT about your opinion. You have lost your right to ANY opinion as to how you run your own life.



It is just that easy for America to lose it's freedom one step at a time.

Exactly. So don't give up those rights. In this scenario, had that mother been able to prove she had made an infant formula that was adequate, I hesitate to think any interventions would have taken place. But her "formula" was truly sub par. Sometimes fighting for your rights ensures you keep them.

For years, women fought to breast feed in public. It's now a protected right. They fought to be given time and appropriate space to pump breast milk in their workplace. It's now a federally protected right.

The key to fighting for rights, IMVHO, is they have to be right (as in correct) to start with.

Originally Posted by Magic

Exactly. So don't give up those rights. In this scenario, had that mother been able to prove she had made an infant formula that was adequate, I hesitate to think any interventions would have taken place. But her "formula" was truly sub par. Sometimes fighting for your rights ensures you keep them.

For years, women fought to breast feed in public. It's now a protected right. They fought to be given time and appropriate space to pump breast milk in their workplace. It's now a federally protected right.

The key to fighting for rights, IMVHO, is they have to be right (as in correct) to start with.

I would be interested to have someone show me where in the US Constitution and/or Bill of Rights, which together define what SPECIFIC powers are granted to the federal government, just WHERE the feds have any constitutionally legal jurisdiction in matters such as this.

This appears to be yet another example of road paving to Hell using good intentions. By the feds presuming the right to tell you that you CAN do something, it becomes the foot in the door setting precedent to where they presume to have the right to tell you what you CANNOT do.

Originally Posted by Lucille

There are religions which for instance, have issues with seeking various types of medical care. Some refuse transfusions. Some do not seek medical care at all. No malicious harm is intended, but very ill children die just the same if they need medical care and don't receive it because of their parents' beliefs.

Or if the parents do not believe in childhood vaccinations for those few diseases that have historically had significant rates of mortality, the child may contract the disease and die without the protection that the vaccinations give, or with some diseases such as polio have difficulties for their entire life if they survive.

There are groups that for one reason or another really believe that sexual relations with children are OK. Again, no malice, they just see this in a different way than many of us.

The older I get, the more I see that there are no easy answers. Clearly our government has gotten to the point where it is overreaching its role. But in addressing and correcting that issue, in my opinion one must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Are you really saying that you hold your view whether it is right or wrong, or for better or worse? Are you are saying that the above examples of nonmalicious harm do not warrant interference even if they are wrong, in order to protect freedom?

Originally Posted by WebSlave

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by WebSlave

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Do you have any insights on how to handle some of the issues I outlined, other than implying that we all do not want to head toward Hell, which I agree with?

By your answer above you seem to be saying there should be no interference, for example, from the government in child sex abuse. How would you handle that issue, or is it your opinion that a free society just has to accept such sexual abuse of children as a cost of freedom?

Kerri,

I know all of that about the car seat and Hospital. I'm a father multiple times over. What I was stating was firsthand knowledge of someone who was stopped a couple of years ago who hadn't had a car seat. The ticket for such was around $400. No further followup from any agency. It was only treated as a driving offense. Had nothing to do with the requirement leaving the hospital after birth. It is militantly checked, I know. And Yes, I personally found it offensive for someone to come check my car to see if I was properly transporting my children.

I don't need my choices monitored. Got to protect everyone though. Infringe on everyone to protect everyone.

Nobody wants to see a child hurt. I don't think many would advocate not putting your child in a car seat. As far as losing rights under the example you gave, I know what my position is but it is 4:00 in the morning here and I think I need to to wait to try and articulate my opinion well. Going to type this quickly then I need to get some sleep.

Breastfeeding:
Three of mine made it to the three year mark as well.

The recommendation from American Academy of Pediatrics, is a year at minimum, I think. Two years and beyond from the WHO.

I don't remember the exact stats, it has been many years since I read them. I think The US was at 1 to 1.6 as the average time. I think majority of Americans was around 12 months.

What if we (your family, my family) were deemed hurting our children by breastfeeding so long? I mean if it becomes a recommendation to not feed longer than two years Would you state your rights are being violated?

Today, you have some on both sides of that fence. Doctors that are for and against longer breastfeeding times. The wind could change and we could be easily seen as unfit parents. Just as the wind on formula has shifted multiple times. You might not think it could happen but it most certainly could.

It's easy to like the recommendations when you personally agree with them.
Particularly if you also agree with the science behind them.

At one point there was science behind the unfitness of a homosexual to raise a child. There was science behind a unwed mother to raise a child and countless other examples.

Today the government recommends and has no problem with the crap Monsanto is putting in baby formulas. They say their science is correct.

I and millions like me say it isn't. Years from now who's going to be right?

Who's to say what that mother decided for herself is any different what the manufactures of baby formula are feeding children today.

The only answer that I can see is freedom of choice. Noninterference from the government. Unless malnourishment is evident and visible. Abuse is visible. The actual harm is visible. If not, then I believe the government needs to step away.

No-matter what your beliefs are, it still a dangerous proposition to give the authority to regulate everything to someone else. In that regard, I have to agree with Rich.

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

Kerri,

I know all of that about the car seat and Hospital. I'm a father multiple times over. What I was stating was firsthand knowledge of someone who was stopped a couple of years ago who hadn't had a car seat. The ticket for such was around $400. No further followup from any agency. It was only treated as a driving offense. Had nothing to do with the requirement leaving the hospital after birth. It is militantly checked, I know. And Yes, I personally found it offensive for someone to come check my car to see if I was properly transporting my children.

I don't need my choices monitored. Got to protect everyone though. Infringe on everyone to protect everyone.

Nobody wants to see a child hurt. I don't think many would advocate not putting your child in a car seat. As far as losing rights under the example you gave, I know what my position is but it is 4:00 in the morning here and I think I need to to wait to try and articulate my opinion well. Going to type this quickly then I need to get some sleep.

Breastfeeding:
Three of mine made it to the three year mark as well.

The recommendation from American Academy of Pediatrics, is a year at minimum, I think. Two years and beyond from the WHO.

I don't remember the exact stats, it has been many years since I read them. I think The US was at 1 to 1.6 as the average time. I think majority of Americans was around 12 months.

What if we (your family, my family) were deemed hurting our children by breastfeeding so long? I mean if it becomes a recommendation to not feed longer than two years Would you state your rights are being violated?

Today, you have some on both sides of that fence. Doctors that are for and against longer breastfeeding times. The wind could change and we could be easily seen as unfit parents. Just as the wind on formula has shifted multiple times. You might not think it could happen but it most certainly could.

It's easy to like the recommendations when you personally agree with them.
Particularly if you also agree with the science behind them.

At one point there was science behind the unfitness of a homosexual to raise a child. There was science behind a unwed mother to raise a child and countless other examples.

Today the government recommends and has no problem with the crap Monsanto is putting in baby formulas. They say their science is correct.

I and millions like me say it isn't. Years from now who's going to be right?

Who's to say what that mother decided for herself is any different what the manufactures of baby formula are feeding children today.

The only answer that I can see is freedom of choice. Noninterference from the government. Unless malnourishment is evident and visible. Abuse is visible. The actual harm is visible. If not, then I believe the government needs to step away.

No-matter what your beliefs are, it still a dangerous proposition to give the authority to regulate everything to someone else. In that regard, I have to agree with Rich.

Real quick before I'm off.

Recent news story.

Mother and father has healthy two year old girl. No abuse. All accounts great parents to the child. Probably fed a healthy dose of Monsanto GMO laced baby formula. Government approved.

Sat down after putting their child to bed. Father smokes a joint and the neighbor smells it and calls the police. Girl taken from both parents. Court places child in foster care. No abuse of child or neglect. Also, mother was not smoking.

Baby girl, abused by foster parent for a couple of months. Little girl has head smashed in. She's dead.

Not common? I beg to differ. Abuse is rampant with the children the state takes away from parents. Like I stated in my first post on it. They have no moral authority to make determinations. Their state of affairs is not in order to make judgement calls on the populace.

My opinion is your more likely to be abused at the states hands then a parent who makes wrong or different choices.