Results so far:
| No | 32% | 154 votes | Total: 485 votes | |
| Yes | 68% | 331 votes |
Is Britney a danger to her children? No. Society however, most definitely is.
If as much time, energy and money from the media and society, was given to children who really are in danger; rather than focusing on a troubled celebrity, what a difference that would make.
* Is the parent who forsakes the safety of their child for that next drug hit a danger?
* Is the parent who beats their child into submission a danger?
* Is the parent who after a nights entertainment down the local, drives their children whilst over the limit, a danger?
* Parents of Latch key children?
The list goes on.....
Yet how many make the headlines. How many of these same people are stalked and followed to ensure they don't mistreat their children?
Are Britney's children undernourished? Unclothed? Beaten? Left to fend for themselves?
What possible harm could come to them when their every move is followed, scrutinized and judged while in her presence. Or are we as a society, so intent in seeing the fall of the rich and famous we've forgotten our empathy?
If she were your sister, cousin, friend or partner, would you be so easy to condemn? Would you plaster their story over every newspaper cover?
Britney is troubled and she needs help. She maybe a celebrity, but take away the label and she's human, just like you and me. She bleeds like us, walks like us, talks like us and surprise! She hurts like us. The difference is while we get to have our breakdowns in private, she must share hers with millions every day. Having an endless supply of money at her disposal can not help her help herself. That has to be done from the inside.
There have been numerous celebrities with dubious parenting skills over the years. If you want to read a horror story then read "Mommie Dearest". A memoir by Christina Crawford, adopted daughter of screen legend Joan Crawford. It makes Britney look like the parent of the year.
There are good parents everywhere, that if honest with themselves, would admit there have been times they may have placed their children in danger.
* The parent that stumbles and drops their child.
* The parent who says "it's just around the corner" and leaves the seatbelt unfastened.
* The parent who is caught up in conversation and drops their watchful eye around heat or water
* The parent that has one too many but believes they're "right to drive"
* The parent that has been late collecting their children from outside school
* The parent......I'm sure you get the idea.
The difference? Every time you placed your child inadvertently in danger, there was no one to take your photo and announce it to the world.
Children's services are unable to cope with the myriad of cases presented to them. Limited funding and staffing see many cases where children in 'real danger' are left to fend for themselves. Perhaps next time you spend a few dollars on a magazine to read about the plight of Britney's privileged children, you should give a thought for those underprivileged and put that money to better use.
The concern should not be for Britney's children who are not in any danger.
The concern should be for the millions of children across the globe.
* The mentally abused
* The physically abused
* The undernourished
* The homeless
* The latch key children
* The sick
* The impoverished
These are the children in real danger!
Learn more about this author, Irene Moran.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
A downright YES! I can't express it any more than how much others have said about it. Britney needs help, mental help. She is an addict and a bad one. It is evident that has lost her mind, but it should take a toll on her children. Her children need to be raised by their grandparents, or put them up for adoption since she is a danger to them. A mother's role is very important in raising children. Having a seriously broken mother to care for her children is like leaving chicks out in the open to be devoured by a flying eagle. Mothers like Britney is a nightmare to all the mothers around the world; she gives all the mothers out there a bad name. She may have the riches and the fame to go along with it, but if she's not doing her natural duty as a mother to her children, it is and should be the court's decision to make about it.
If she truly loves her children, why is it hard for her to quit the kind of lifestyle she is so deep into? A mother's instinct usually helps her out of whatever pit she is in to save her children, but with Britney, she is way far down; almost hopeless. And because she's a bad mother to her children, her little sister comes up to try to be just like her. There is crisis stamped all over this family and it is a cry for intervention, for help.
With her situation, doctors and psychologists can help her. But if she is not willing to get help and help the doctors and psychologists to help her, she will remain to be Britney Spears as we know it: a blonde-on-lustful-cr ack. Appealing it may seem to all the lustful and pathetic guys who promote her "confused" lifestyle, but it is actually eating it away.
Bottom line is, a mother should NOT be seen and received as a danger or a threat to her children; rather, she should be the adornment of her husband's character, and the inspiration of her children as they grow to love and adore her. Well, so much drama on her when the father of her children is a thorn to the backside. Both Britney and Ken should have their children as high priority in their lives regardless of who's taking care of them. As parents, they should be responsible to raise their children.
My only concern is how they can live a life as a father and a mother to their children when they also live a luxurious lifestyle of spending money, exposing private body parts, and portraying to the world how drugged up and sexually oriented they are. I strongly feel that it is not an appropriate motherly and fatherly figure they should raise their children with.
Learn more about this author, Seven Tafaoa.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.