Yes. It's always better to take away children, than to help the family.
What do kids need their families for? I mean, honestly. Let's not act like things like reactive attachment disorder can happen to children who LOSE their parents because people would rather take the child than help the parents.
Let's not look at the terrible, horrifically life-altering pain of losing your family just because they are poor. No, let's just pretend that it's best for the child, nod sagely, and leave the poor parents to rot in hell, the child to rot in foster care, and call it a day.
Anyone who advocates taking a child from their parents for any period of time, when there is no violent abuse involved has no knowledge of how losing one's family does to a child.
As a nation, and as communities, we can afford to make poverty temporary for our fellows.
We can NOT undo the terrible damage done by the permanent situation of denying a child the BASIC HUMAN RIGHT of being with his or her family.
That's a RIGHT of a child. The RIGHT to their family of origin.
Before you violate that right, as with any human right, please come up with something better than, "you lost your family because they were poor and we couldn't be bothered to help them," or "sorry kid, I know you miss your mother, but you're a fatass."
Neither of these come anywhere near justifiable reasons to brutally strip children of the RIGHT to the family that they know and love.
Children don't understand "we took you away for your own good," they only understand that the family they love is gone, ripped from them in a single moment, leaving only an horrific hole in their heart and their lives. The result is terrible shock, pain, and a lifelong struggle with abandonment issues.
And for what? Oh yeah, cause their parents committed the devastating sin of being poor and not knowing how to get the right help, or being refused the right help.
Somehow, making the child pay the agonizing, soul-devouring cost of being torn from their family, because their family is poor, seems disproportionate to me.
And that doesn't even begin to touch on the absolutely life-destroying and excruciating pain of losing a child. A pain worse than death. If we are going to take away the children of poor people, why not just execute them? It would be kinder in the long run.
Not to mention, it would be cheaper in the long run, too. So why stop at just destroying their lives by ripping their babies from their arms. Have we no compassion at all?
I dare any of you to look someone who has lost their child in the face and tell them that they'll be just fine. Because I lost a baby 15 years ago, and I'll NEVER be just fine. No, I didn't lose him this way, but I lost him. And the pain never goes away. I still weep brokenly at his birthday, on holidays... heck, randomly throughout the year, even.
I also lost my mother and father as a child, and was adopted. Then I lost those parents at 13 and was taken by the state.
I have nobody. I wouldn't mind being poor, and being loved. But instead, all the family I have is my husband and my daughter. That's it. There's not a single person in my life that I can sit around and talk about my past with. None.
No one in the world has always known me. NO ONE.
For what do I pay this terrible price?
You would make this boy pay this horrible price because he's fat? It's THAT big of a crime to be fat that you lose the only person in the world who loves you-- because someone else decided she wasn't good enough at loving you?
You would make a child become an adoptee, and experience the pain and grief of knowing for their entire life that they weren't wanted... because they committed the terrible crime of being born to someone poor?
You would make a woman live for the rest of her lifetime with the horrible, agonizing grief of losing a child, for the crime of being poor? For the crime of making love?
What price is NOT too high for the terrible crime of being poor and daring to make love in spite of it?
And at what point do these become human beings that you are stealing the families of, instead of numbers and statistics and just "those poor people"?
How about we take your family away if you get poor? That's easier than helping you, you know. And heck, it's just a kid, what do you want it for anyway? I mean, think of all the poor childless couples out there.
It's just a mother. No problem to replace her. Piece of cake. You won't notice the difference when we take your mother and give you another one, right?
Because after all, people are replaceable, aren't they? Especially the poor ones, or the fat ones, right?
This child is a PERSON. And just because he's overweight doesn't make him LESS OF A PERSON. And taking someone away from their family, is an act of violence to the person taken from their family.
It was an act of violence against this boy to take him from the mother who, god bless her heart, loves him.
Maybe she didn't love him the way that you expect someone to love their child, but that doesn't mean she doesn't WANT to and TRY to do the best she can for him.
The price is FAR too high for the crime.
Don't think so? Think about having YOUR family taken away from you. Imagine being overweight, and the price being losing everyone who loves you.
Now does it seem fair? I bet it doesn't, when it's YOU that has to lose your family. All of a sudden, being fat just doesn't seem like such a horrific crime, does it.