Nobby, what IS it with UK social services?Follow

You're all missing the point here.

The reason the state felt the need to take the child was purely about CYA. This is a natural consequence of socialized care. Once the state assumes the burden of care, it also assumes responsiblity for those under its care. So if a single doctor (as in this case) files a report suggesting that a mother may at some point in the future harm her own child, and they *don't* do anything about it, they'll be the ones sued/fired/whatever if that mother ever does harm her child.

If you don't live in a state that tries to take care of everyone's personal welfare, you simply don't have this kind of problem. Sure. You have other problems, but at least the state isn't causing them.


This is one of the many classic warnings conservatives argue about socialized systems that fall on deaf ears when we make them, and when they happen everyone goes "OMG! how could this happen???". Um... Duh. Loss of personal freedom is a natural and automatic consequence of socialized states. When will people take the blinders off and figure this out?

Which is strange. I assume you disagree with the state's decision to take this woman's child away, yet you're unwilling to examine why the state would have a need or desire to do so, or to identify the political methodologies that lead to a state doing exactly those things you disagree with. It just seems somewhat useless to complain about these "bad things" that occur yet at the same time refuse to look at why they occur much less assume a political position in opposition to them. It's like you know that hitting yourself in the head with a hammer will hurt, yet you do it anyway, and then sit around complaining that you've got a headache, all the while refusing to put the hammer down and stop hitting yourself in the head with it.


Like I said. Blinders. Huge ones!

There are some videos on Youtube of this girl being interviewed. She seems normal enough.

I wonder where the pop is and his take on all this???

Well, I didn't know if your original quote meant 'why' young women mutilate themselves and then get knocked up, or 'why' the Human Services agency would be threatening to remove the child from it's mother?

You're next post cleared that up, but...just sayin'



Edited, Jan 3rd 2008 4:05am by Elinda

THere is a big difference between you maybe committing a crime, or Smash for that matter, and between you maybe hurting your child. While this case may seem extreme, we HAVE (the US, Britian, etc) decided that there are circumstances in which protecting a child trumps someones personal rights. It's only ********* until the system fails a child and it's murdered or maimed by it's 'parent'.

For every story you can find that claims the 'system' is being overly protective and trouncing on the rights of parents, you will find another story of an agency being blamed for knowing there was a potential for child abuse and not doing enough about it.

You can't have it both ways. We either allow or social services to do the job we charge them with or we don't.

No she wasn't charged with anything. This isn't about punishing HER, it's about protecting a baby.

are you saying she is a convicted child molester? was she convicted of anything?

and to remove a child from a parent that is not punishment for crimes not commited?

um ok sure what ever.

been a while since i read the details on the story a few months back so do not remember the exact details, but still the bottom line is the state has no right to take a child away from a parent who has DONE NOTHING wrong yet.

I agree.

See if you can hold that and the fact that I also realize it's more likely than not that she'll **** up the kid somehow in your head at the same time without passing out.

She will likely harm the kid.

She has the right to keep it until she does. If she turns out to be the 1 in 1000 people with her conditions who's a great mother, fantastic.

Didn't get any further than that.

the part i bolded is what i have been saying all along.

I agree heartily with the bolded statement.

The problem is that this is *exactly* the methodology that social liberalism uses to make a society "better". It specifically looks at the statistical probabilities and makes adjustments to account for those.

Why do you think in the US it's perfectly OK to give a black student a benefit towards the entrance requirements at a university? It's because blacks statistically reach lower education levels and have lower average salaries. So we apply a specifically non-equal and "unfair" adjustment in order to balance out the statistics.

Why is it we constantly hear about how we should "tax the top X percent to pay for benefits for the poorest Y percent"? Is it "fair" to do that? Is that an example of a state that puts individual rights above the good of the whole? No. It's because once we divide people up into their statistical components we can then add bits where it's missing and take bits where there's extra. The people cease to be individuals with rights and become simply pieces of the whole.


And once you've accepted that ideology, it becomes really easy to do things like allow the government to take property from people because their property would statistically generate more tax revenue in someone else's hands. Or, in this case, take a baby away from a mother because that baby would statistically be better in someone else's hands.


It's all an application of the same logic. It's only surprising to those who haven't yet realized that this is the true underlying agenda of the Left.

Er? With some minor variances, they follow the agenda pretty much perfectly. Oddly, about the best online description of Social Liberalism is on Wiki, so take it for what it is. It's pretty accurate though (although there's a couple things in there that I think are wishful thinking on the part of the article writers, but what can you expect?).

Specifically:



And...




I bolded and italicized a few of the incredibly relevant portions of the description.

The important bits are the idea of "positive liberties" (or positive rights), and the concept that a "lack of success" (as measured by some form of statistics gathering of course!) is viewed as itself being a violation of liberty.

In other words, social liberalists create an equivalence between "real liberties" (ie: freedom from government interference in your daily life), and "positive liberties". Meaning that they are willing to provide said positive liberties (which by their definition are things that balance the economic inequities of society) by taking away individual freedoms.


Examples of this from the democrat party include the push for nationalized health care, the repeated talk of "taxing the top X%" to pay for some program or other. Heck, seatbelt and helmet laws are examples as well. Anti-smoking laws (even in places that don't make any sense). The list goes on and on.

While Democrats may have at one point been a different animal, it's pretty clear that in the last 40 years or so, they have adopted a policy and agenda that is practically line for line social liberalist in nature. They seized on the civil rights movement as a means to gain power. They realized that if they could simply keep pointing people at problems and offer government intervention as the solution to those problems, they could get a large number of people to keep voting them into power.

A better question to ask would be: "What part of Dem party platform *isn't* social liberalism?". Seriously...

Um... Sure Smash. Whatever.


Do I need to link Kelo v New London again? You going to deny that that's not the direct result of the kind of Supreme Court Justices that Dems like getting a bit out of hand with the whole "good of the whole versus individual rights"?

You can apply whatever labels you want, but it does not change the fact that the ideology and methodology of your precious Democrats most definitely includes the assumption that the good of the whole is more important then the rights of the individual. It's not even hard to see blatant examples of this, every single day.

Heck. You champion those exact things all the time. And now you claim they *aren't* the agenda of the Left? How do you figure this?