There’s a difference between being stupid and being neglectful or harmful. Regardless of intent, if you seriously harm a child, you need to be held accountable. I am suddenly reminded of that sick fuck who took his baby and threw him out the window, smashed his head against his car and threw him into a canal where the 3- month old drowned (if he wasn’t already dead yet). It’s a tale of unimaginable torture, pain and brutality. My question is, would anybody entertain the idea of letting that guy off if he claimed to simply be having a bad day??

My gut reaction is one where I think that some counter-culture, el la naturale parents have contributed to the following story of neglect, but then I think that it is more indicitive of: A. Really bad parents and B. Really stupid parents.

Babies were not meant to be vegans nor were they meant to suffer the consequences of radical ideologues. Haven’t we learned anything in the last few days of middle east debaccle? Radicalism is bad. Extremes — bad. Refusing to give your baby anything that’s been in the same room as an animal (hyperbole) — bad. Imposing your own whacky tobaccy beliefs on your baby — bad.

This whole idea of, “Well, they loved their baby (or children) though. Can’t you see they’re good people deep down?” is bullshit and we shouldn’t tolerate it. The parents of suicide bombers claim to love their kids too. Wake up America. The lines of moral clarity are becoming indistinguishable when it comes to the abuse of children.

Of course, the parents in question, the ones that nearly starved their baby to death to save a chicken, did serve their time considering their neglect didn’t lead to death. It probably would have if authorities didn’t step in however. My main beef (no pun intended) with the following story is the arguement that these were actually loving and caring parents who wanted what was best for their children. They may have served their time, but good parents they are not.

She’s a healthy 6-year-old now, well enough to be on hand when her vegan parents - convicted of nearly starving her - were freed yesterday by a Queens judge. Little Ice Swinton’s father and mother were released on orders from the state’s highest court, which tossed their felony conviction for lack of evidence. “Daddy’s home,” said Joseph Swinton, 35, after he and his wife walked out of state Supreme Court. “It feels great.” But Swinton and his wife, Silva, also 35, could not see Ice or her brother, Ini, 5, because they lost custody of the children after their conviction.“I want to go inside, I want to see Mommy,” Ice was heard telling her grandfather outside the courthouse in Kew Gardens.“Not now. Later,” he told the pretty girl, unable to explain that a court order still only allows her to see her mother once a week.In 2002, when she was 16 months old, Ice weighed just 10 pounds and was severely malnourished. The Swintons were arrested and charged with first-degree assault and child endangerment. They said their family’s vegan diet was not harming the kids.Swinton had served four years and his wife three years when the Court of Appeals in Albany earlier this month threw out the assault conviction, leaving only the misdemeanor counts.“They were devoted parents, loving parents, but misguided,” said Joseph Swinton’s trial lawyer, Ronna Gordon-Galchus. “They should not have been prosecuted in a criminal setting.”

“I’m always thinking about both my children,” Silva Swinton said as she hugged supporters after her release. “I was just trying to be the best mother I could be …. I’ve been looking forward to this day for a long, long time.”

 

 

Bookmark to: