Everyday children are not getting the nutrition they need to sustain their life. Parents are arrested, put in jail and still there are children dying from malnutrition right here in America. By your argument we should just ignore that because parents have a right to decide what their kids will eat. .
No, that isn't what would happen by my argument. I said more than once that *probable cause* has to happen first. the scenarios you describe are:
1. over exaggerated, and the causes are not poor education.
When this happens it is not because parents do not know better, it is because they are abusive, selfish, and usually mentally ill or addicts. their substandard care is obvious in many ways, and social services has the legal right to step in early because there is *cause.*
You are advocating not waiting for cause, but treating every parent as a potential perpetrator of criminal negligence.
It would not be fair to just focus on one kid or a group of kids because of some predefined judgement about them. No. All kids.
Of course it would be fair. It's the only thing that IS fair and constitutional- it's called treating people as though they are innocent, unless you can prove otherwise.
It would not be fair to treat all families like idiots who do not know an apple from a twinkie just because some parents prefer their drugs to feeding their kids. It would not be fair to pull you over for speeding even though you are not speeding just because somebody thinks that you might, after all, many people do.
We do have a vested interest in the success of your kids as well. I would not hesitate to report you or your kids if I saw something that was a danger to them or other people.
Do you see the difference between reporting a suspected criminal or threatening act, and treating *every* parent like a suspected criminal or neglectful creep?
You are talking about having probable cause here. I have already said I have no trouble with acting on probable cause.
There is a reason there is a food stamp program, it's for the government to help improve the nutrition of our children. If you don't need this program then great! I know parents that give their kids McDonalds nuggets, fries, and soda nearly every day. *Is this healthy? No. Is there anything i can do about it?
I know parents like this, too. They are on food stamps, oddly enough. I do something about it when I can. I have the kids over and feed them healthy foods. I talk about good nutrition.
No. But at the very least, let's make sure they have a chance for a healthy lunch every school day. But according to your logic that would be wrong. I'm sorry, if stepping on your toes is what it takes to help our kids get better nutrition then I have no problem doing that.
You aren't stepping on my toes. You are voicing an opinion with which I (and the Constitution) disagree- sometimes. Other times, you are arguing with things I haven't said. Children already have a chance for a healthy school lunch every single school day (and breakfast, too). Schools serve them, or rather, schools serve something that passes for healthy. I don't consider them healthy, but that's another issue.
I did not say children should not have a chance at a healthy school lunch. I said that it is not acceptable for school officials to rummage through the lunch a kid's mom sends to school with him. It's not. That is not somehow preventing that child from having a healthy lunch, since the school provides them.
School officials rummaging through school lunches sent from home will not help kids get better nutrition.
So get your head out of your butt and see that this is bigger than you and your fragile little ego.
That was charming and rational, not. Why must you handle disagreement with such hostility and name-calling?