opinion: children are being hurt
I have written about this before, but it doesn’t seem to fully absorb into people’s minds. So, I am going to use this forum to say, once again, that it is my belief that if you are not effectively and purposefully, environmentally responsible then you are contributing to the abuse of your child and the other children on this planet.
I have felt this for a long time. I have made a point in my life to fully understand science, specifically the science and health behind global warming. With each article I read about children’s exposure to chemicals, or increase in unnecessary diseases like diabetes and asthma, or the growing concern over food shortages or the decline of water, I make the logical conclusion that who will be most affected by these issues is our children.
I have spent much of my time on this site being polite; trying to educate and hoping that the public starts to understand the severity of climate destabilization. But that hasn’t seemed to be effective. I used to worry about saying things controversial. I was apologetic to my friends with children when I hinted at my theories. However, as I think about it more and more, I can’t help but think that this one is accurate.
So, I decided to look up the legal definition:
- Any recent act, or failure to act, on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or
- An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.
So, I ask you, do you not see how not doing everything imaginable to change how we are currently living is a form of child abuse?
The act or failure to act which results in death or serious physical harm.
This site has spent a lot of time writing about phthalates, bisphenol-a, food shortages, water shortages, and air quality. In many cases, especially the cases of toxic poisoning, study after study has shown the negative impact to children through premature cancers, genital deformities, male extinction, and the list goes on.
If the result of such acts is physical harm to a child then I conclude that by using the products that contain chemicals that are known to hurt infants, you are abusing your child.
If a parent would go to jail for purposefully starving their child, then I argue by not providing your child with the best food in the present, and ensuring high quality of food in the future, you are abusing your child.
If you, as a parent, were to find out that a neighbor had done something inappropriate to your child, you would go after that neighbor with all of your force. But, when your neighbor drives an SUV, polluting the air and creating a place where your child can’t live, you let it go by without a second glance. You and your neighbor are negatively impacting the future of your child and that is neglect and abuse.
I can probably come up with an argument to prove in many cases that you are inflicting abuse on your child, or neighbors child, by your lifestyle. It is quite pathetic that there is some level of acceptable abuse that we put onto the children of this world. We have made a silent assent that convenience is more important than your child’s health. We have made a silent assent that corporations can manipulate us into buying harmful products and that we will not hold them accountable. We have made a silent assent that we will not demand that we, as a community, are accountable and responsible to future generations.
You are going to argue that child abuse is violent and sexual, by nature. And, I would come back to you and ask you to read the legal definition. Read it over and over and over again until it sinks in. Anything you do (or fail to prevent) that causes physical harm or damage is abuse. Being passive and ill-informed is not an valid defense.
By exposing your child to something that is toxic, causing physical harm is abuse. By not investigating everything you bring into your home to ensure that it does not harm your child is neglect.
My hope is that I make you angry. I don’t care if it is being angry at me, or angry at some corporation, or angry at our government or angry at yourself. Be angry. Anger is the place in which people tend to start doing something. I want you to get so angry that you start learning more and researching, in a way to defend your actions, because you will find that the science backs me up. I want you to get so angry that you learn everything you can about global warming, find out that this is real, that we are in a dire position, and learn that every action you take is not inconsequential.
I want you to get so angry that you prove me wrong, because in all honesty, I want to stop caring about your child, since you seem to not care about them.
what are we doing to our children
November 3, 2008 by cshells58
Filed under environment science, Food
I know that I am going to upset a lot of people with this position. And, I want to be clear that I am saying this from the stand point of having us wake-up and look at what we are doing to our children.
Why is it that over-feeding our children poison in the form of “food” is considered different than other forms of child abuse? Why is ensuring that they have no home (and by that I mean, Earth) to grow up in, any different than abandonment?
A new study has been released that says 6 out of 10 children are now on medication for Type 2 Diabetes, what used to be known as Adult Onset Diabetes. It is estimated that a child born today is going to have a mortality rate 30 years younger then their parents. Yep. A parent may outlive their child simply based on what a child is born into now; obesity, pollution, plastic poisoning, lack of water.
I cannot even imagine the psychological trauma inflicted on a child because they are overweight. I can’t imagine the fear a child lives with wondering if the planet will be here for them. And yet, we allow it as if it is normal and acceptable. If it causes early death and physical harm to your child, is it not abuse?
I really am saying this as an inquiry. And, maybe it is okay if I ruffle your feathers, if it makes you think about this. I do not see the difference in the physical and psychological aspects of the two forms; one may be violent, but don’t they both do equal damage?
You can go HERE for the article that started this inquiry.



