Raving Conservative


Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Parents Starve Baby to Death

More bad child news out of Florida, again.

A vegan couple starved their baby to death by ignoring the doctor's advice and feeding their months-old infant nothing but raw vegatables. Their doctor explained to them that children that young cannot digest raw veggies. Apparently these idiots decided that they knew better and watched their baby waste away and die rather than give him milk or baby formula.

It gets better. They have more children who are visibly malnourished, emaciated even because of the raw vegan diet being forced on them in spite of what medical science has proven to be their nutritional needs. With all of this evidence in front of their eyes how can they have still thought that veganism is good for growing children? Children need plenty of fat and protein to develop properly both physically and mentally. Fruits and veggies are vital too, but they cannot be the only food consumed.

Now for the kicker. Florida's Child Protective Services had been visiting the family, and even saw them just one week before the baby died, and left the kids with the parents. Starvation like this is neglect and abuse, and any competent agent would have had those kids placed in a home that would feed them. This agent is an accessory to murder as far as I am concerned.

This couple is guilty of child abuse and murder. They should be tried for it.

For the life of me I will never understand how people can believe that a vegan diet is good for anyone. Even adults frequently suffer from degenerative bone disease, lose extreme amounts of muscle tissue, and suffer from other debilitating diseases unless the supplement properly. How anyone can force this on children is beyond me. That people would be so much more concerned about animal rights than human health and welfare that they would propagate this myth about veganism being healthy is just plain evil. Look at what its doing. Killing babies and starving children. Damn PETA! Damn ALF! Animal rights extremists suck!


  • So much bad news in the world re: kids.

    Just now on TV, in California, some demented woman threw her 3 kids into the ocean. They're still searching.

    Time for me to turn off the TV for a few days, and finish splitting and stacking the woodpile.



    By Blogger meesterjoneser, at 4:39 AM  

  • Tis a shame, indeed.

    Curious, though: Are you saying you're in favor of gov't stepping in and deciding what these parents should be feeding their kids?

    Just trying to sort out where you/conservatives in general think gov't should and shouldn't intervene.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 7:04 AM  

  • I'm in favor of not letting kids starve to death because of someone's ignorance.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 7:25 AM  

  • i'd say that if the parents are too stupid to properly care for their children, even physically, the government has no choice but to step in. If a child is being beaten, doesn'r the gov't step in to protect the child? what kind of a country would we be if they didn't?

    By Blogger Libby, at 7:29 AM  

  • So, you are in favor, at least sometimes, of gov't intervention when people's lives are being damaged or taken?

    Understand, I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just looking for the principle here.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 8:21 AM  

  • Yes, but with an exception. Lives being damaged is such a broad topic with so many possiblities for individual interperetation that the who, what, how, why, where, etc of the damage must be taken into account before the government may step in.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:44 AM  

  • no, in my opinion, the gov't can't step in for every child being raised 'in a bad situation'! emotional abuse really can't be taken care of by anyone but the parents, and that's good. but if a child's being physically abused (which, also in my opinion, not giving a baby ANY food but fresh fruits & vegetables is physical abuse!)

    By Blogger Libby, at 9:22 AM  

  • Another tragic example of folks letting their ideology blind them to reality. I see no reason adults can't be vegans, if that's what they choose. But to force that on children should be criminal.

    By Blogger Samurai Sam, at 9:43 AM  

  • Libby, you're right.
    Sam, you're right too.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:32 AM  

  • Okay, so is the principle:

    Gov't ought to intervene in a situation when a person's health is being damaged to a degree that they are physically impaired and unable to work (go to school) or their lives are actually taken WHEN it can be proven what the cause of said impairment/death is?

    On an almost related note: Do any of you think there should be laws limiting how loudly a boom box can be played in a public area - even though no one's health is at risk and it's a matter of nuisance?

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 1:18 PM  

  • dan trabue...i'm only talking about kids under 18...and, i'm sorry...what does a boom box have to do with starving your baby to death?
    just a question, i'm not meaning to be a bitch here...

    By Blogger Libby, at 1:44 PM  

  • Great! It's frickin' idiots like these, that give the rest of us liberal hippies a bad name!
    Why wasn't the mother breast feeding the babe, like the rest of us tree huggers? Bitc#!

    By Blogger Gifted-1, at 7:15 PM  

  • Libby:
    We were having a debate on an earlier posting about gov't intervention in regards to "sin taxes" which continued on in to a conversation about people paying for things as they go - specifically, paying for pollution.

    And so my questions are trying to determine what conservative principles apply.

    According to y'all on this feeding topic, it is appropriate for gov't to intervene in to the parental role when it becomes clear that children are being disabled or killed. And I agree, that seems entirely reasonable. Even though those parents were acting in what they perceived to be the best interests of the child, their actions would ultimately lead to death.

    This is analogous, for me, to our auto policies.

    We have policies that result in some 70,000 deaths each year (in the US - millions worldwide) and hundreds of thousands of disablng conditions due to pollution and wrecks. These deaths and disabilities are part of the design of our auto policy.

    Our policies aren't designed purposely to kill anyone - just like those parents weren't purposely wanting their child to die. But our policies WILL result in those deaths, it can be counted on. Just as those parents' actions could be counted on to lead to that child's death.

    And so I'm trying to figure out why the gov't should intervene in the one case, according to y'all, but not in the car case.

    And I was asking about the boom box policy because I suspect that you all think (as do I) there should be policies to stop such nuisance sorts of actions, even though the likelihood of any serious damage is not too large.

    If so, I would ask why, if we can outlaw actions that are merely a nuisance, we can't change our policies to decrease the numbers of deaths and disabilities in our auto policies.

    The standard answer is that to do so would be taking away from our personal liberty. But you've already indicated a willingness to do so in the vegan case and I suspect you would in the boom box case.

    This is seriously not meant to be combative or any such thing, I'm just trying to figure out what principles you have so that we can best figure out what policies make sense given our principles.


    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 5:33 AM  

  • They are being tried and will most likely be convicted. All that needs to be proven is that they should have "reasonably" known that the diet would cause the baby harm. Seeing as the baby grew sicker and skinnier everyday, it's impossible that a jury wouldn't make that finding. I'm confident they will be brought to justice.

    By Blogger Nunzia, at 6:08 AM  

  • Does the lack of answers to my questions mean that you've grown tired of this particular conversation or don't have a good answer?

    Just to recap:
    If you think gov't ought to intervene in some cases (parent starving child, neighbor tossing trash in neighbor's yard, loud boom boxes), each of which involves a loss of liberty on someone's part, why shouldn't gov't intervene to make a better traffic policies?

    I'm honestly curious.


    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 8:16 PM  

  • The governemt does intervene to make better traffic policies. Fortunately it is kept at the state and local levels wgere it belongs. The federal government would be treading on state's rights if it decided to intervene.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 6:32 PM  

  • Maybe we should just regulate dirty-hippies.
    Wait, maybe the gov't should just execute hippies that starve children, instead of intervening in everything, as a deterrent!
    Yay! Executing killers rules!

    To paraphrase Coulter on Politically Incorrect:

    Hippy: (Regarding the execution of a killer) The death penalty is not a deterrent.

    Coulter: It deterred him...

    By Blogger The Conservative UAW Guy, at 7:18 PM  

  • The gov't intervenes by stopping the litterer, fining them and possibly jailing them if it were repeated and blatant. The gov't intervenes to STOP the action.

    The gov't does NOT intervene to STOP the air litterers. Why not?

    And executing hippies IS a gov't intervention, friend.

    By Blogger Dan Trabue, at 5:09 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares