[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
it's a horrible case, and amazing the child survived.

i wondered if there were more facts to it though--why was the mother in jail in the first place? She said the child was being watched by neighbors--did she really call them to ask them and did they drop the ball?

In cases like this, where you're only allowed one call from jail, did she leave a message for the neighbors asking them to watch the child, but the neighbors were away and she had no way of knowing? Why didn't she call the father?

There are all kinds of horrible mistakes that can happen in this world. This may not have been intentional abuse, like those 5 kids you once pointed out who had to escape from their house where they were being locked in closets.

Thank you. I can't believe this basic observation wasn't made earlier in the thread. At least one person around here requires some basic facts before deciding which people get to live and die.

iWrite, you're original post makes you sound like a reactionary halfwit. If you feel that is an unfair portrayal, you might want to try using your brain a bit more before dispensing revenge under the guise of justice.



As for the eugenics proposals, anyone want to list the brilliant luminaries born to abusive parents throughout history? Or the psychotic monsters born into Normal Rockwell-eque families?

[iWrite]

If I am "reacting" it's because of the FACT that this occurs ALL OF THE TIME -- as the mod mentioned.

If you want to call me a "reactionary halfwit" that's fine.

This isn't an isolated case. Pick up your local Sunday paper and scan it. It's in the news constantly. People are always having kids then abusing or abandoning them.

If you don't understand this then you might want to stand in front of the mirror and say "reactionary halfwit" to yourself a few times.

As far as the mother, bullsh*t, she didn't give a damn about her kid.

"I thought the neighbors were watching her." Yeah, right. People are allowed phone calls from jail. People can contact her. Maybe she is an idiot and did think the neighbors were watching her kid but the FACT remains that a crime and a serious crime was committed.

Excuses aren't any reason for breaking the law. She didn't make SURE her child was taken care of. She could have told the freaking jail warden, a guard, SOMEONE, "Hey, my child might be home alone. Could you call my kid's father and make sure she's okay?" A jail is full of cops and she didn't care enough to make SURE.

There is no excuse, period, for what happened. None.

I hope they lock her *ss up for a few years. Loser.

[Xeo]

Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea of sterilizing convicted child abusers. If it became law, then it wouldn't be the govt. taking away their right, it would be the people themselves taking away their right. It's just like when you lose the right to freedom, or life, by committing other crimes.

That said, it's not necessarily going to stop people. It could make people think twice, but that's about all the thought of jail-time does, too. As others have said, the crime has to be committed before anything like this could even take place, since you cannot sterilize people on a whim. On top of that, child abuse convictions are often followed by extensive jail-time with little chance of parol.

So when it boils down to it, there isn't a point to implementing a law like this.

[Captain Obvious]

Just rip out her ovaries with a coat hanger.

I think people who are in prison or dependent on the State for welfare as their only source of income should relinquish their right to have children. If they are not able of taking care of themselves then they should not be given the further chance to try and take care of children.

Of course it won't happen but I can dream.

[talisker]

Originally posted by iWrite:


This isn't an isolated case. Pick up your local Sunday paper and scan it. It's in the news constantly. People are always having kids then abusing or abandoning them.

That's true, but are the same parents doing this again and again, or more specifically are parents who have been convicted of child neglect / abuse doing this again, and doing it to children that weren't born when the original conviction occured? Because these cases are the only ones that your sterilisation "solution" would have any bearing on, as you can't preemptively sterilise (unless we have a "Minority Report" justice system)

[Developer]

Originally posted by Xeo:
Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea of sterilizing convicted child abusers. If it became law, then it wouldn't be the govt. taking away their right, it would be the people themselves taking away their right.

I assume you also have no problem with thieves getting there right hand cut off then.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Developer:
I assume you also have no problem with thieves getting there right hand cut off then.

If that hand were only being used to steal, then yeah, sure. But hands are not like the sex organs. Once you sterilize the person, the ONLY thing you take away from them is their ability to have children. You can't say the same for cutting someone's hand off.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by iWrite:
If I am "reacting" it's because of the FACT that this occurs ALL OF THE TIME -- as the mod mentioned.

If you want to call me a "reactionary halfwit" that's fine.

This isn't an isolated case. Pick up your local Sunday paper and scan it. It's in the news constantly. People are always having kids then abusing or abandoning them.

If you don't understand this then you might want to stand in front of the mirror and say "reactionary halfwit" to yourself a few times.

So the mother is to be forcibly sterilized because child abuse is rampant, not because of the the particulars of this case?

Yeah. That's not reactionary.

Originally posted by iWrite:
As far as the mother, bullsh*t, she didn't give a damn about her kid.

"I thought the neighbors were watching her." Yeah, right. People are allowed phone calls from jail. People can contact her. Maybe she is an idiot and did think the neighbors were watching her kid but the FACT remains that a crime and a serious crime was committed.

Excuses aren't any reason for breaking the law. She didn't make SURE her child was taken care of. She could have told the freaking jail warden, a guard, SOMEONE, "Hey, my child might be home alone. Could you call my kid's father and make sure she's okay?" A jail is full of cops and she didn't care enough to make SURE.

There is no excuse, period, for what happened. None.

Again, all you have here is total speculation about what did and didn't happen.

I'm not saying she is innocent. I'm saying you don't know shyte about the details of incident.

Maybe she screamed all night but no one listened? Maybe she wasn't given a phone call? Maybe she made a phone call to the neighbors but they didn't do what they said? Maybe she went into catatonic shock and didn't speak for 3 weeks? Maybe she's retarded? Maybe somebody else lives there who was assumed to be in control? Maybe she's a truly twisted person who didn't care one way or the other?

The only thing clear to me at this point is that you don't know anything about it. Now that she's been charged, an investigation will determine just what she is and isn't guilty of and punishment will be meted out to suit the crime. And it will be done by people wh operate on reason, objectivity and based on law, not emotional responses to some sensational news blurb devoid of even the most basic facts surrounding the incident.

As for eugenics, anyone on this board the child of abusive parents? Know anyone who is? Wish they had never been born?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by iWrite:
SICK.

Now, why don't all of you lilly-livered bleeding hearts pipe up and defend the parents in this situation like you did above?

It is sick and horrible; that's not debatable. However, you obviously read things into peoples' posts, as I don't recal reading about anybody defending these atrocious criminals. You seem to let your emotions rule everything.

[iWrite]

Yes, my emotions are involved KarlG. You'd have to be a zombie to read that story and not feel something in your gut.

Or another story that someone else posted after that.

Captain Obvious, Xeo, Logic, and myself all seem to be more or less on the same page about this (and to a certain extent, also, Millenium):

People who do commit atrocious and horrific crimes based on child neglect should be prohibited from being around their own child, or having more children, until it has been established that they are able to care for them. Period. It's that easy.

Like I said, I love the idea of using state-monitored birth control on these people. Either they agree to it or they stay in jail. It could be probation-enforced the way an ankle bracelet is for sex offenders. Personally, I think people committing heinous acts of child abuse are in the same league as child molesters. They should both be treated in the strictest manner possible that will control their behaviors.

[talisker]

Originally posted by iWrite:

People who do commit atrocious and horrific crimes based on child neglect should be prohibited from being around their own child, or having more children, until it has been established that they are able to care for them. Period. It's that easy.

Like I said, I love the idea of using state-monitored birth control on these people. Either they agree to it or they stay in jail. It could be probation-enforced the way an ankle bracelet is for sex offenders. Personally, I think people committing heinous acts of child abuse are in the same league as child molesters. They should both be treated in the strictest manner possible that will control their behaviors.

You seem to have moderated your position somewhat, which is good news. What you're saying now is prohibit these people from being around their own child until they can demonstrate they are capable. Good idea, and as far as I know this happens in most countries. There's certainly a lot of work to be done to ensure it always happens effectively, but it seems a sensible option.

You're also talking about enforcing birth control, which again is an idea that has been tried (eg. using contraceptive implants) and may also have its merits, although fairly difficult to implement I'd imagine.

But in any case, all a lot more reasonable than your previous pemanent sterilisation idea.

[iWrite]

What about modifying my point? I said this on the first page, actually.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Again, all you have here is total speculation about what did and didn't happen.

I'm not saying she is innocent. I'm saying you don't know shyte about the details of incident.

Maybe she screamed all night but no one listened? Maybe she wasn't given a phone call? Maybe she made a phone call to the neighbors but they didn't do what they said? Maybe she went into catatonic shock and didn't speak for 3 weeks? Maybe she's retarded? Maybe somebody else lives there who was assumed to be in control? Maybe she's a truly twisted person who didn't care one way or the other?

The only thing clear to me at this point is that you don't know anything about it. Now that she's been charged, an investigation will determine just what she is and isn't guilty of and punishment will be meted out to suit the crime. And it will be done by people wh operate on reason, objectivity and based on law, not emotional responses to some sensational news blurb devoid of even the most basic facts surrounding the incident.

Just wanted to point out I agree that we know nothing about this case and cannot jump to conclusions about it.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
That has to be the height of presumptuous idiocy.

Congratulations.

Yes.

We anti-death-penalty and pro-human-rights acvocates love sexual molestation and mutilation.

We approve of, further, and partake in ritual scarring and rape of small children, followed by their slow starvation.

We love that stuff.

**** you.

-s*

+1

And..

Originally posted by wdlove:
Child abuse is a terrible problem. I just hope that eh child will be OK!

Best two posts of today no doubt! +1

I must say I am quite shocked by what people have said here. Forced sterilizing? What kind of human view is that? We know Hitler was capable of doing such things, but I thought we was supposed to be civilized people. Put the abusers in prison the rest of your life if you have to. Or even better give'em treatment if it can improve them. But over run human rights and put the state in charge of saying when it's OK or not. Like courts or the people in charge never judge wrong? Phew!
The human rights is to protect the so low level basis of human needs that if a country can't respect them, the system of such a country is no good IMHO!

[Xeo]

Originally posted by sniffer:
Put the abusers in prison the rest of your life if you have to. Or even better give'em treatment if it can improve them. But over run human rights and put the state in charge of saying when it's OK or not.

Can you explain why you feel taking the right to freedom way is better than the right to have children? I'm genuinely curious.

If the idea is permanence, then I see where you're coming from, but how often does one convicted of life in prison truly get out based on innocence? I would argue not very often.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by Xeo:
Can you explain why you feel taking the right to freedom way is better than the right to have children? I'm genuinely curious.
If the idea is permanence, then I see where you're coming from, but how often does one convicted of life in prison truly get out based on innocence? I would argue not very often.

I am not pro life sentence. But I know it's accepted in i.e. the states. Forced sterilizing is a terrible hit on the persons dignity and has nothing at all to do with treating the problem. An interview I saw in a documentary with a pedophile in prison the pedophile told the interviewer that he didn't believe sterilizing could noway in the world remove a pedophile's sexual lust for children. "The sickness is up here!" he said while pointing a finger to his forehead.
The pedophile had self been terrible abused in every think able way as a kid.
Do you know how they train fight dogs? They beat the crap out of them every day since the day they was a puppy, combined with loyalty training, they create beasts. Basically you can destroy people just the same way. Now what does this have to do with the case we are discussion? In my believe it's a basic misconception that punishment like this will change anything, except hitting the criminal's dignity one extra time.
We don't know what is wrong with the mother, but I think we all agree she needs help.

[simonjames]

On a slight tangent - the people who think gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to have children should consider this situation and then the fact that the g&l people who want to be parents would provide a loving and caring environment for kids - not one of neglect, dry pasta and rice.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by sniffer:
I am not pro life sentence. But I know it's accepted in i.e. the states. Forced sterilizing is a terrible hit on the persons dignity and has nothing at all to do with treating the problem. An interview I saw in a documentary with a pedophile in prison the pedophile told the interviewer that he didn't believe sterilizing could noway in the world remove a pedophile's sexual lust for children. "The sickness is up here!" he said while pointing a finger to his forehead.
The pedophile had self been terrible abused in every think able way as a kid.
Do you know how they train fight dogs? They beat the crap out of them every day since the day they was a puppy, combined with loyalty training, they create beasts. Basically you can destroy people just the same way. Now what does this have to do with the case we are discussion? In my believe it's a basic misconception that punishment like this will change anything, except hitting the criminal's dignity one extra time.
We don't know what is wrong with the mother, but I think we all agree she needs help.

OK, I see where you're coming from now. Also, I don't think sterilizing all child abusers would solve anything. People who go around attacking random children with heinous crimes shouldn't be sterilized. They need help and punishment. They aren't having kids of their own so keeping them from having them certainly doesn't solve the problem. But in some cases, where a parent sexually abuses his/her children for years is definitely up for that type of punishment. Why allow that person to have one more child they can sexually abuse? When you have the choice to lock someone up for all their life, wasting the tax payer's money, or sterilize them and lock them up for a much shorter time, I'd really have to wonder why locking them up all their life is better.

But, I don't believe sterilization is the answer. I'm just not of the opinion that it's as absurd as many of you do. I see some reasons why it makes sense, and wouldn't be opposed if it happened.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by Xeo:
OK, I see where you're coming from now. Also, I don't think sterilizing all child abusers would solve anything. People who go around attacking random children with heinous crimes shouldn't be sterilized. They need help and punishment. They aren't having kids of their own so keeping them from having them certainly doesn't solve the problem. But in some cases, where a parent sexually abuses his/her children for years is definitely up for that type of punishment. Why allow that person to have one more child they can sexually abuse? When you have the choice to lock someone up for all their life, wasting the tax payer's money, or sterilize them and lock them up for a much shorter time, I'd really have to wonder why locking them up all their life is better.

But, I don't believe sterilization is the answer. I'm just not of the opinion that it's as absurd as many of you do. I see some reasons why it makes sense, and wouldn't be opposed if it happened.

You are completely wrong if you think that pedophiles (or do you mean general abusers?) can't have children of their own. It's not like they are asexual against people of their own age. In many cases they are just screwed up. It's like thinking a shoe fetish person is incapable regular sex etc. We have different view on whether forced sterilizing should be applied or not in certain cases. I am totally against it because it conflicts with the humans rights, and applying such practice is simply a crime in itself, and there should not be exceptions. After a criminal have finished their sentence you don't have any guarantee they wont do abusive or criminal activities things again. The only thing you can however do is lower the odds for it to happen again. To get the best result it would probably cost a lot of money, and there is no easy way out of it IMO. But OTOH doing things quick and half way is generally more expensive IMHO. I am no expert on the treatment area, but I doubt experts on the area would agree with you. It's obviously that the mothers problem(s) is not between her hips.

[edit: BTW: I too see where your are coming from, and I respect your opinions. We mostly differ on the forced sterilization issue. ]

[gadster]

Originally posted by iWrite:
<snip>Maybe we should bring back foster HOMES subsidized by the state. Even if they're privatized by companies like Wackenhut, which is big into investing in privately managed jails and prisons.<snip>

Oh yeah. How about a privatised system for mandatory sterilization as well!!! Then it wouldn't be the scary gub'mint with their eyes on your gonads, it'd be a corporation with shareholders to appease. Nice one.

Although I don't see how the revenue stream is viable. But, I'm sure those crazy guys 'n gals at Wackenhut could make it work.

[iWrite]

So now the REAL story comes out this morning:

Turns out that mother was leaving her 2 year baby home alone EVERY SINGLE DAY while she went to work. She left her home alone because "she had no babysitter."

Turns out that she ADMITS she never contacted a neighbor or anyone else that her baby was home alone...because she "was afraid she would go to jail."

She was arrested at work for grand theft and aggravated battery and she never told ANYONE that her daughter was home alone because she "was afraid she would have to stay in jail longer."

The baby ate EVERYTHING she could get her hands on -- including raw eggs. She even peeled the labels off of jars and cans that she couldn't get open because she was so hungry. She drank out of the toilet.

Now, if anyone wants to feel sorry for the mother -- as they defended her in this thread yesterday "We don't know her state of mind and what REALLY happened" -- you go right ahead and the rational and logical thinking people among us will KNOW you have a screw loose.

She should NEVER be allowed to have another child EVER.

[bracken]

Originally posted by iWrite:
I suspect that a lot of people who post here don't even have children, period.

I do.

Two of them and a third one on the way.

*bow* *salute* *clap*

One thing that I notice about some people with children: they think just because they brought life into this world that they are gods. It's the "I'm a busy, busy mom and, you just don't know how many errands I have to take Billy and Jilly, and I'm going to cut in from of the grocery store line ahead of you" syndrome.

[suprz]

Originally posted by Developer:
You are a complete idiot. Ever heard about something called human rights?

and who was there to protect that childs human rights to survival, and to have a happy and healthy life?.....hmmmmmm?????

[Mr Grimsdale]

put something in the water on the indian sub-continent

that'll sort things out

[suprz]

Originally posted by iWrite:
She should NEVER be allowed to have another child EVER. [/B]

absolutely not!

[iWrite]

suprz: Well said.

Mr. Grimsdale: Made me laugh!

As far as someone thinking that because we have kids we're "gods" that's the furthest thing from the truth. We're not perfect parents -- and we admit it. But we try to do the "right things" as much as possible.

We have our issues and problems like everyone else -- and always need a babysitter also.

[andi*pandi]

great. Now we have more facts, and it does seem that she's stupid. However, was it so wrong to actually wait for facts before deciding to burn her at the stake?

I'm a parent too you know. I'm offended by every "baby drowns while mother smokes a cig, baby suffocates in car while daddy plays the horses" type story, but it makes me sad more than mad. There are days when I just can't read the news, I feel for the kids so much. That doesn't mean I've given up my ability to be rational.

here's proof that sometimes the Nanny State mentality can go wrong, and why I'll never support mandatory sterilization:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/29/cu....ap/index.html

If these folks had been sterilized, and then the state realized their mistake, how do you give them back their fertility? This poor kid was kept away from his parents for 6 YEARS. How do you give that back? The state messes up way too often.

(Just so I can't be completely pigeon-holed into the "liberal pansy" mold, I am in favor of Norplant or something reversable for child abuse cases and optional for welfare families who have 2 children already. State funded, of course. )

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by suprz:
and who was there to protect that childs human rights to survival, and to have a happy and healthy life?.....hmmmmmm?????

You're confusing the rights of the child with the rights of the parent.

The child has a right to grow up in a safe and protective environment. I suspect that this will be provided in future by the state or by foster parents, which is a good thing.

The parent needs to be punished for abusing and neglecting the child. This too will happen within the confines of the law.

None if this negates the basic human right of the parent to procreate in future, should she so desire. What will and should happen is that social services will keep a close eye on her future performance as a parent.

[icruise]

I don't want to turn this into a purely political debate, but the opinions expressed by iWrite and others seem to fit into the way of thinking of many conservatives. They would rather punish than prevent. They'd rather lock people up than rehabilitate them, and they'd rather build more prisons and make tougher laws than look at some of the root causes of crime.

In this case, I can't help but think that making better child-care available, and perhaps creating parenting classes and so forth would be a better idea than just sterilizing people. Sure, there will always be wackos, but if child abuse is as widespread as I think it is, wouldn't it make more sense to find ways of preventing it than to wait until after it happens? After all, it's already too late for the kids involved.

[suprz]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
You're confusing the rights of the child with the rights of the parent.


The child has a right to grow up in a safe and protective environment. I suspect that this will be provided in future by the state or by foster parents, which is a good thing.

The parent needs to be punished for abusing and neglecting the child. This too will happen within the confines of the law.

None if this negates the basic human right of the parent to procreate in future, should she so desire. What will and should happen is that social services will keep a close eye on her future performance as a parent.

*unfortunately, social services being what they are, and the cases of children "falling through the cracks" as far as being protected by social services is ever rising. The sterilization of the parent would be a more absolute answer* The parent infringed upon the rights of the child and the law should be able to step in and infringe upon rights of the parent in these extreme cases and therefore negating the possibility of this parent ever doing this again. This would be one less burden on our already failing social services agencies.

[icruise]

Yes, but the point is: why are the social services agencies failing? Why are these things happening? These aren't unchangeable universal facts. Maybe if we diverted some of the money going to tax cuts and the military to, say, education and healthcare, we wouldn't have these problems. In any case, I find the idea that we have to resort to barbarism/fascism to solve this problem to be rather insulting and disturbing.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by sniffer:
You are completely wrong if you think that pedophiles (or do you mean general abusers?) can't have children of their own.

No, I didn't meant to imply they can't have children. I was simply stating that sterilizing a pedophile which doesn't have any children doesn't solve anything. They haven't shown any proof that they would abuse their own children. They just have a problem with sexual desires towards children. Sterilization can't solve that. I was trying to clarify my point so you, and others, didn't think I was arguing in favor of sterilizing everyone involved in a child abuse crime.

That said, I'm not FOR forced sterilization at all. I'm simply playing devil's advocate and arguing in favor of it because I see where it could make sense. Also, I wouldn't be dead set against the idea if it were to become law. Basically you could say I'm on the fence. I have the same view towards the death penalty. I don't have any desire to kill criminals, but it makes sense in some situations for it to exist.

For both of these crimes, it seems more economical on the whole to take the easier, permanent solution rather than jail for one's whole life. When it comes to crimes like these, I care about as much for the criminal as he/she did about the victim.

This only causes me issue because some people are innocent, and innocent people shouldn't suffer. If we could guarantee everyone who was found guilty WAS guilty, then I wouldn't care at all if they were sterilized, executed, or anything else.

[iWrite]

andipandi: That's what I said also: Probationary birth control monitored by the state. Said it on the first page. Norplant is an EXCELLENT idea. It's akin to an ankle bracelet.

Seriously, don't you think so?

[talisker]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Now, if anyone wants to feel sorry for the mother -- as they defended her in this thread yesterday "We don't know her state of mind and what REALLY happened" -- you go right ahead and the rational and logical thinking people among us will KNOW you have a screw loose.

The statement "We don't know her state of mind and what REALLY happened" was completely valid based on the scant information you were able to provide yesterday. Having that point of view is NOT A DEFENCE of the mother. (Hey, this using big capital letters to show I'm REALLY RIGHT is fun, although it does feel a little bit like I'm shouting and becoming overcome with self-righteous anger) Understand that people who disagree with you even slightly are not "bleeding heart liberals" or pro-child abuse, and you'll probably be happier.

[thunderous_funker]

What do we do about mothers who let their babies grow up to be cowboys?

Is hangin' too good for 'em?

[sniffer]

Originally posted by Xeo:
This only causes me issue because some people are innocent, and innocent people shouldn't suffer. If we could guarantee everyone who was found guilty WAS guilty, then I wouldn't care at all if they were sterilized, executed, or anything else.

I feel that's very strong words. Don't you feel any sympathy or feel any hope for guilty of crime people at all? No one is born evil and people are more than just their actions you know. And should we blindly inhuman people when they first are guilty? What about self defense? Cultural ideas of what is right and wrong? What about kids doing crime, accidentally playing with guns and kills someone? What about people with good chances of recovering to a normal life?
I think you over simplify things a bit to much with that point of view IMHO.

[bracken]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
I'm a parent too you know. I'm offended by every "baby drowns while mother smokes a cig, baby suffocates in car while daddy plays the horses" type story, but it makes me sad more than mad. There are days when I just can't read the news, I feel for the kids so much. That doesn't mean I've given up my ability to be rational.

Us that aren't a "parent too you know" aren't offended at all when babies get drowned. I'm glad you pointed out how and why you can "feel for the kids" so much. Using birth control makes me don't give a rat's ass about babies getting killed, only parents can make the distiction between good and evil.

[iWrite]

Uh, huh?



Don't understand what you're saying there, bracken.

[talisker]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Uh, huh?



Don't understand what you're saying there, bracken.

Bracken:

He's using sarcasm to indicate how ridiculous it is when people say stuff like "I'm a parent too, so I understand how awful it is to abuse children." If someone needs to be a parent to understand that then I'd seriously question whether they're fit to raise children.

[thunderous_funker]

Us that aren't a "parent too you know" aren't offended at all when babies get drowned. I'm glad you pointed out how and why you can "feel for the kids" so much. Using birth control makes me don't give a rat's ass about babies getting killed, only parents can make the distiction between good and evil.

Does that help?

[iWrite]

No. It doesn't "help."

I have to say that people who are parents have MORE OF AN UNDERSTANDING about the mental processes that an abused child goes through...unless you've studied child psychology in depth.

For instance, we PERSONALLY KNOW how much anguish a 2 year old being left home alone would go through.

We PERSONALLY KNOW the stages a child grows through, including separation anxiety, and how damaging it can be to a child.

That's all. It has nothing to do with levels of compassion or empathy, just UNDERSTANDING.

[thunderous_funker]

I'm not a parent, but I'm also personally familiar with those things. How? Well, first of all because I was a child. Secondly because I spend time with children.

Those of us without kids don't live in the imaginary Bulgaria of the film Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang where there are no children to interact with and be close to.

We also have fully developed capacity for UNDERSTANDING.

Just as there is no criteria for becoming a parent (a condition you seem to lament), becoming a parent doesn't suddenly confer upon you some greater mantle of UNDERSTANDING, compassion, empathy, morality, common sense, intelligence, sexual prowess or anything else. Just means you swapped gametes and waited 9 months like the stupid bastards you want to sterilize for being "unfit".

Your desire to be a great parent is commendable. But this "I know better" routine is really tiresome.

[talisker]

Originally posted by iWrite:
No. It doesn't "help."

I have to say that people who are parents have MORE OF AN UNDERSTANDING about the mental processes that an abused child goes through...unless you've studied child psychology in depth.

For instance, we PERSONALLY KNOW how much anguish a 2 year old being left home alone would go through.

The majority of parents have no more experience of these things than non-parents, as neither will abuse their children or leave a two year old at home.

The main understanding parents will have that non-parents don't is an understanding of the strength of feeling that they have for their children, and the pain that they themselves will suffer should anything happen to their child. But that isn't the issue here, and has nothing to do with the child's welfare, more the parent's.

If you believe in the "parents have more understanding" theory then as a parent you must understand why people abuse and neglect their children, more than I do as a non-parent. As I don't have children how could I understand these monsters? Bet your argument doesn't seem so attractive now.

[iWrite]

Whatever.

I can see that "real smart" people hang out here.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by iWrite:
Whatever.

I can see that "real smart" people hang out here.

"One of us! One of us! One of us! One of us!..."

[sniffer]

What that suppose to mean, iWrite?

[iWrite]

Nothing, really.

Just want to see what other smart comments people can make.

Me, I'm just hanging out. With my kids. My kids that are really happy and fun to be around.

[sniffer]

That's cool! Have fun with your kids iWrite.
Probably I'll have one or two my self one day.

[iWrite]

Yeah, they can be a pain in the *ss when they want to be annoying, like when my little one took permanent marker and wrote all over the freshly painted white walls in our family room, but they're pretty cool most of the other time!



Just made barbecued chicken, homemade macaroni and cheese (the kind with the crispy cheese on top), and corn on the cob and watched "Daddy Daycare" with Eddie Murphy. Cute flick. Kids laughed a lot and us adults rolled our eyes a lot.

Anyway, have a good one, all.

[andi*pandi]

Originally posted by bracken:
Us that aren't a "parent too you know" aren't offended at all when babies get drowned. I'm glad you pointed out how and why you can "feel for the kids" so much. Using birth control makes me don't give a rat's ass about babies getting killed, only parents can make the distiction between good and evil.

um, hello, bracken? Earth to Bracken? I wasn't talking to you. That comment was directed at iWrite, to point out that although we are both parents, even though we had that in common, our points of views were different. In no way did I say that those that aren't parents are ignorant scumbags.

Youse got issues, son.

OT:
Mac&cheese sounds lovely, iWrite! Good chilly weather food. I made fajitas and rice, and damn it was good. Now for some ice cream!