anonemouse

Mmmm, Sonic. In my pre-band days, I'd go and get their mozzarella stick combo with sweet tea or root beer and a large order of extra-crispy tater tots. Grease on top of grease on top of sugar. No wonder I was fat.

You ask why they should be punished. Well, I think they should be punished because they stood by and did nothing while their child DIED. In this society, you get punished for causing injury or death to someone. Should a paramedic just decide to let a passenger die, if the paramedic's religion said that people of a certain race aren't worthy of being saved? No, they don't, because a paramedic has to put his patients before his own beliefs. Why shouldn't parents be forced to put their children before their own personal beliefs? You don't automatically get a free ride and an "I'm sorry, you must be so heart-broken by your daughter's death" just because you happen to believe in God. Yes, punishment in this case would be an incentive to give your child medical care, in the same way that fines and having your license suspended is an incentive to get car insurance. I firmly believe that parents who allow their child to die because they "left it in God's hands" should be charged with the same charge that is given to other parents that cause their children's injuries or deaths through gross neglect. And we reconcile it by stating that just like with every other right we have as American citizens, our rights become limited when they interfere with another person's rights.

The pannus is the skin that hangs on the lower abdomen, pretty much from the belly-button down. Belly skin, basically. When you've got a large pannus as a result of drastic weight loss, wearing clothing that otherwise fits compresses it into a large "camel toe" shape. In many cases, if you buy clothing to fit the pannus, it's way too big otherwise, especially in the hips and waist. Hence, shapewear to compress it and/or smooth it so that better-fitting clothing can be worn. Edited to add: The "camel toe" that we're talking about isn't really the type that Ice-T's wife Coco is famous for, where it looks like her pants are 3 sizes too small and riding up her hoo-ha. Our "camel toes" come from having a pannus that is much larger than our waist and hips, making even pants that truly do fit look awkward.

It's amazing how unappetizing something looks when you know it's going to hurt you. I used to be a MASSIVE carb addict. If it was warm and yeasty, I wanted it. Now, even the best yeast rolls don't look good to me 95% of the time.

But it STILL protects the other people in YOUR car. They aren't exempted just because they're in your car. If the parent forced the 15 year old to go through with the surgery when the child didn't want it? You bet they should be charged. The point is, the child with diabetes didn't have a choice about whether she could go to the doctor. People make bad choices all the time. Our society DOES differentiate bad choices from good ones. And if your child dies as a result of a choice you made, that's a pretty good indicator that you made a bad choice. It's not like choosing whether you want a red car or a blue one. Choosing whether or not your child lives or dies should not BE a choice. And to further complicate the issue (or maybe simplify it, I don't know), there are already exceptions to the "religious rights trump all" thing. People belonging to religions that mandate that they keep their face covered have to remove that covering to get driver's licenses. If they refuse, they are not allowed to get a license. Why? Because it's seen as protection for other people. Now, if the ability to easily identify someone is more important than their religious belief that they must remain covered, I don't see why the well-being of their children CAN'T trump a couple's religious belief that doctors are bad.

Bingo. I have to say I feel extreme empathy for the child that died. I feel absolutely nothing for the parents, though. People will say, "They've been punished enough, they have a dead child." Well, hell, they're the REASON their child died.

Now you've got it! The insurance law is there to protect OTHER PEOPLE. The medical intervention law is also there to protect OTHER PEOPLE. The only difference is that the insurance law protects your passengers and other drivers, while the medical intervention law would protect your children. Why should a child pay with his life because of a decision he wasn't allowed to make?

Except diabetes wouldn't have killed the girl if their beliefs hadn't interfered. It's like debating results of an autopsy. Yes, all people die because of coronary failure. Their hearts stop. Why did their hearts stop, though? Did they get shot or did they die of old age? Yes, diabetes was the tool that caused this girl's death. But her death could have been prevented if the parents had taken action. Their belief didn't kill the girl. Their LACK OF ACTION killed her.

I don't see how it fails. The insurance law is in place to protect other people, including the driver's passengers, as the driver is legally responsible for his passengers once they enter his car. The medical intervention law would not protect the parent, it would protect the other person in the situation, the child. That makes absolutely no sense at all. You can denigrate someone's beliefs, but it's okay because you aren't telling them what to do? By the simple fact that you called their beliefs "stupid," you are basically pressing your beliefs on them.

Hey, you yourself have called people's beliefs stupid in this thread. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

I do kinda want to do both. I want a BIG tattoo, though, probably a side piece, and I'm afraid I'll get 5 minutes into it and freak.

As much as I would like to see a law passed - and enforced - that required all parents to take their children to the doctor, I doubt it will happen. But I do think that there should be some sort of punishment in place if something happens to a child as a result of his or her parent's refusal to seek medical care. The best analogy that comes to my mind at the moment is car insurance laws. Many states have laws that state that all car owners must have insurance. Now, most policemen don't just pull people over randomly to check to see if they have insurance, but if something happens and they get pulled over anyway - or if they're in an accident - the insurance gets checked and the driver is punished if he doesn't have it. So, I don't think police should be randomly checking to see if you're taking your children to the doctor. But if a child dies of an illness or some other treatable problem, I do think that parents should face consequences if they refused to have medical intervention.

Definitely will!

I'm short, so I have a hard time pulling off tunics. They make me look like a midget. I did get my first ever pair of capris the other day, though, which I'm absolutely thrilled with. In plus sizes, they were all still too long to look right, even in petite lengths (those stupid manufacturers think that women get taller as they get fatter). I pretty much stick with t-shirts and the occasional button-down (as long as it doesn't have 3/4-length sleeves, which my arms are too short to pull off).

YES! That's exactly what I was thinking in the dressing room, "#@*% GIANT CAMELTOE!" I tried on a body suit thingy (the ones with the built-in bra) a few weeks ago, but didn't get it because I didn't want to spend $50 at the time. It did hold me in (or at least, smoothed me out) quite a bit. *sigh* I think I'm going to have to go back. I have to wear the ones with the bra, though, 'cause the panty girdles just roll down on me. They never hit at the right spot, either, and I get a very obvious indentation.

No one cares?

As much as I think people should be educated on the good, the bad, and the ugly of the band, I also think it's pretty obvious why her band failed. Or rather, why she failed her band. After all, we go on and on and on about how the band is only a tool and only works as well as the banded person works it. If you don't get filled to the right restriction, if you don't eat the right foods, if you don't exercise, you aren't going to be very successful in the long run. The band isn't for people looking for the easy way out. You gotta put some effort into it. And to me, that's the best thing about it, because it FORCES you to make those lifestyle changes that we all found a bit too hard to make when we were unbanded, because you go into this (or at least, you SHOULD) knowing that this is on YOU. And to me, being bitter and angry about still being fat after getting the band is completely stupid, 'cause the band can't do 100% of the work for you. That's YOUR failing, not the band, in most cases. So be pissed at yourself, not at your band, and certainly not at people who ARE successful at losing weight with the band. Being pissed and bitter at a completely inanimate object - one that has done it's one and only job of restricting the amount you can eat - makes no sense whatsoever.

Seriously, I feel so sorry for the folks that have to live close to it, because that HAS to ruin their property values. Not to mention having to live with the stink. It's bad enough just passing it on the interstate.

There's a Purdue chicken plant in a nearby town. It's right next to the interstate, unfortunately. Some days, it's enough to make you gag. I guess there's a drainage pond or whatever there, but it just smells like rotten fried chicken.

There's a Flower's Bakery in my hometown. They make a lot of breads and pre-packaged goodies that you see in grocery stores. I LOVE it when they're making cinnamon rolls. You can smell it for MILES.

True, there is a big difference. One's outright abuse and the other's just neglect. But if religious freedom trumps all, where do you stop? Where do you draw the line? It can be argued that once a parent/guardian refuses to seek care for their child, whatever the child is suffering from becomes their fault, and therefore IS damage that is being inflicted upon one person by another. That could especially be said in situations where the illness is completely and easily curable. I just think it's horrible that someone can be exempt from being punished for another person dying just by claiming that their religious beliefs forbade them from doing something. I just think there has to be a limit, and for me that limit is when it concerns someone that is completely under the control of a guardian or parent and has no option but to do what the parent/guardian decides, regardless of what they might believe or want.

Oh no, it's here. It's the DS thread. (At least, I think that's what everyone else is talking about.)

And I realize that. I know that it will probably never be illegal. I wish it was, though. LIke I've said before, I think people should be able to do whatever they want to with THEIR bodies, but I don't think they should be able to do whatever they want with their children's bodies. There is a limit, like with the example that Gadgetlady posted, where the state SHOULD step in and say, "We won't allow you to do this." I think there is a point where the physical well-being of the child comes before the parent's or guardian's religious rights.

When it comes to their kids? You bet. They can do whatever they want to with their own lives, but they shouldn't have the right to sentence their child to death because they'd prefer to pray instead of have their child take antibiotics. And honestly? I think a Jehovah's Witness refusing to allow their child to have a blood transfusion that would save the child's life IS neglect. Lack of needed medical attention is neglect, IMO. Again, I think people should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want to with their OWN lives, but I don't think they should be allowed to make those decisions for their children. To use a non-medical example, if a woman prefers to live in an abusive relationship, bully for her. I don't like it, but I don't think she should be forced to leave if she doesn't want to. But she shouldn't be allowed to raise her children in that atmosphere. IMO, I think she has to make a decision based on what's best for her children, not what she personally prefers. To refine my earlier statement, I believe that people should be allowed to seek the medical treatment that they believe in FIRST. If that treatment doesn't work, though, I think they should have to see a medical doctor, if necessary, at least when it comes to their children. So have your child see an herbalist or an accupuncturist first, if you wish. But if they don't improve, you SHOULD see a medical doctor.

Who am I? No one. But I fully believe the government has the right to tell citizens what they can and cannot do. And that includes not allowing people to neglect the health of their children. Now, does that mean that someone HAS to go to a modern doctor? I don't think so, necessarily. They could try herbal remedies, holistic healing, accupuncture, etc., first. But I do think it means that they CANNOT ignore a problem, such as their child's illness, and hope or pray it goes away. I think they should go to SOMEONE, whether it's a holistic doctor or something, and if that doesn't work, go to someone that does, even if it's someone that they don't like or wouldn't choose to go to themselves. They shouldn't be allowed to sit there and allow their child to die in the hope that a miracle will take place, when in all likelihood it could have been easily taken care of if they'd just done it. I do think there comes a point where a parent has to think about what's best for their child and not what they would prefer. People don't HAVE to believe in something. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have to do it. Many people in this country don't think they should have to pay taxes, but that doesn't mean they're exempt from paying them.