› Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Horrible case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Horrible case - Page 2

post #31 of 55
Cindy,so did I,and I still will not leave one of my grandchilder in a car,winter or summer running or not,half a second, no way! What is wrong with people!
post #32 of 55
omg! that is stupid, its the mothers responsibility to take care of the child, she should pay the price for it, accident or not, so i c no harm in putting her in jail for a long time!!
post #33 of 55
Thread Starter 
Here we go again: ANOTHER dumb broad has left her child in a locked vehicle.

Today, in Phoenix, a woman left her 18-month-old son in her SUV, windows up and doors locked, while she was shopping. The outside temp was 112. Passersby saw the child, made sure that he was alive and called 911. Police removed the child and went into the store to find the mother. The baby was taken to a hospital, in distress. He had been in the car for about 30 minutes. The mother was arrested and charged with child abuse.

Some people should NOT be allowed to breed!

BTW: AZ law now allows citizens to break car windows and rescue children, if it appears that they are in distress and/or unconcious.
post #34 of 55
i think that if a person is so out of it or whatever is wrong that they forget to get their child from a car, does not need to have children, i think its awful that people have these kids and will not get out and even try to support them, they are more inersted in their drugs or boyfriends, and the kids get neglected, i see alot of that around here where im from and it makes me so mad it could scream, and there they are pregnet again where does it stop?
post #35 of 55
Thread Starter 
In the two most recent cases, it was not a question of forgetting the kid - they left them in the cars on purpose. If you don't want to take the kids shopping or to a restaurant, get a babysitter!

I remember a couple of cases, from years past, when kids were left in cars, while their parents were in casinos or doing drugs in a motel.
post #36 of 55
I don't know if sterilisation is such a... well, it does sort of raise other legal issues about rights etc. Do criminals still have basic rights? Freedom of choice within certain parameters? I think to a certain extent, they do.
But you know.... I can't imagine the kind of desperation this woman was in that she would sell a child. Lack of education or WHAT????
post #37 of 55
Tybalt, I don't really understand your argument here. Are you suggesting the welfare system be reformed or abolished? The poor don't have the right to have children? Who decides what and who is "poor?"

What if government policy is responsible for creating poor people? Let's say the State of Pennsylvania changes a tax law regarding business investment and this puts a number of companies out of business, resulting in the lay-offs of thousands of workers. These people don't have the right to have children?

And issues of sterilization just opens up a whole nest of worms. The idea that people who are addicted to crack or heroine be sterilized is repugnant to me. I know people who were once addicted to drugs and who are now not, and who are respected and successful members of society.

What about the mentally retarded? Should they be sterilized? My father is a Type I diabetic. Diabetes and all of its related problems are the number one cost to the healthcare system in this country. Because the disease is inherited, should he have been sterilized? We, as a society, have identified many of the genes that cause certain diseases. Should people who can pass on through birth costly or debilitating diseases be sterilized?

I can only assume your answer was meant in a somewhat frustrated and flippant manner, and not thought through.
post #38 of 55
A little off-topic, perhaps, but maybe a quick review of the principles of the Social Contract may help here.

The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics

Copyright © 1994 Jon Roland. May be copied with attribution for noncommercial purposes.

"Between 1787 and 1791 the Framers of the U.S. Constitution established a system of government upon principles that had been discussed and partially implemented in many countries over the course of several centuries, but never before in such a pure and complete design, which we call a constitutional republic....

"The fundamental basis for government and law in this system is the concept of the social contract, according to which human beings begin as individuals in a state of nature, and create a society by establishing a contract whereby they agree to live together in harmony for their mutual benefit, after which they are said to live in a state of society. This contract involves the retaining of certain natural rights, an acceptance of restrictions of certain liberties, the assumption of certain duties, and the pooling of certain powers to be exercised collectively.

"Such pooled powers are generally exercised by delegating them to some members of the society to act as agents for the members of the society as a whole, and to do so within a framework of structure and procedures that is a government. No such government may exercise any powers not thus delegated to it, or do so in a way that is not consistent with established structures or procedures defined by a basic law which is called the constitution.

"While it is possible in principle for such a constitution to consist entirely of a body of unwritten practices, traditions, court decisions, and long-established statutes, in practice no such basic order can be considered secure against confusion or corruption if it is not primarily based on a written document, which prescribes the structure, procedures, and delegated powers of government, and the retained rights of the people, and which is strictly interpreted according to the original intent of the framers.

"Although in principle the procedures may allow for the direct adoption of legislation by vote of the people, this is both impractical and potentially dangerous, especially to the rights of minorities, so that it is generally best that most legislation require approval at some point in the legislative process by a body of elected representatives rather than by direct popular vote, and that any such legislation be subject to judicial review, whereby legislation not consistent with the constitution can be voided. Such a form of government is called a republic, as distinct from a democracy, in which all legislation is adopted solely by direct popular vote. And if it operates under a well-designed constitution, it is a constitutional republic.

Origins of the Social Contract

"Critics of social contract theory argue that almost all persons grow up within an existing society, and therefore never have the choice of whether to enter into a social contract. Not having a choice, they say, makes any such contract void.

"The original proponents of the social contract theory, John Locke, David Hume, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, answered these critics..... To understand how the social contract comes about, we need to look at the kinds of contract that prevail during each stage in the development of a human being in society.

"Each of us begins life under the terms of a special kind of social contract called a filial contract, between a child and his parents, and by extension to his siblings. That contract is established at the moment of bonding between parents and child following birth, and the terms of the contract are that the child will provide the parents certain pleasures that come with parenthood, particularly the satisfaction of helping to form a happy and admirable adult, and support for the parents in their later years, and in turn receives their love, support, guidance, and protection during childhood.

"Although a filial contract can exist in a family that is isolated from any larger society, when the parents join a society, they pool their rights and duties as parents with other members of that society, and thereby become agents of the larger society in the raising of their own children, and accountable to that larger society for doing so properly.

"As a child grows, it encounters other members of the larger society, usually beginning with other children. Whenever any two or more individuals meet with the understanding and expectation that they will live together in harmony and not fight with one another using any available means, they are establishing a social contract among themselves. In most cases they will be contracting with persons who have already established such a contract with still other persons, so that the terms of the contract are not only to live in harmony with those in direct contact, but also with all those with whom each of the parties is already engaged in a social contract, and by extension, to all others that those are in a social contract with, and so on. In other words, the social contract is transitive: if a is in a social contract with b, and b with c, then a is in a social contract with c. In this way each of us is bound under a social contract with all the other members of the society, most of whom we have never met.

"As a person makes the transition from childhood to adulthood, his obligations change to match his abilities, and the filial contract gives way to the larger social contract and obligations to larger communities at the local, provincial, national, and global levels.

"Of course, the social contracts of several societies may not extend to one another, giving rise to tribes or nations, whose members are bound by social contract within their membership, but are in a state of nature with respect to one another. If that state of nature involves active conflict, whether at the individual, tribal, or national level, it is said to be a state of war."

Tybalt wrote on 07-16-2003 02:02 PM

...I am certainly not going to allow the money I do have to be taken to feed someone else's child because they decide to have children that they know they cannot support and live off of their government checks. The idea is obscene, and you know I'm not talking about orphans; I'm talking about the welfare mothers with six illegitimate children by 6 different fathers.

MY answer is, No, you do not have that right, and I defend what is mine from the government and anyone else. I do not subscribe to or participate in your version of the "social contract."
As a society, we have chosen to create a system to "take care of our own." It may not be perfect, and some people may abuse it, but unless we make becoming pregnant out of wedlock illegal (which I'm pretty sure would be unconstitutional), the only "answers" lie in the reform of the welfare system as it currently exists. Perhaps limiting the number of children that are supported by welfare. I really don't know. I just know that children are born by both responsible people and irresponsible people, and it is the children, the innocent ones, who suffer if we as a society decide to deprive them of support.
post #39 of 55
Most people today have childern when they marry and have a job! Then bam 10 years later the job goes away. How are people to know that that job will always be there? They cannot, so they are never to have kids? Even you can see this! Are you saying you will never have kids ,because you cannot know if you will have a job,once they are born?Most people have childern because they love kids not to have someone take care of there childern. Even you canalso see this,yes there are peolpe who have kids to get bigger welfare checks. BUT NOT ALL PEOPLE!!!!
post #40 of 55
And if only rich people have kids,there will be a bunch of smart a** kids to run the world!
post #41 of 55
And let me make something clear to you my husband worked 18 years,and 1 year ago the plant closed,and now his umemployment has run out and we may have to go on public asst. Do you really think we want to do this H**l no but we may have to!!! Thank God my kids are grown up and not living at home,so I don't have to worry about them!
post #42 of 55
Originally posted by Tybalt
You think it's fine that I choose not to have children because I can't afford them, but then it's ok for me to be forced to support someone else's child? I don't think so.... Rewarding the irresponsible by taking money from the responsible is ridiculous.
Well, Tybalt, it seems that your opinions are conflicting each other. You have posted the above opinion more times than I can count, yet you condone, and even encourage sexual activity of youngsters. Exactly WHO do you think is supporting the child of a 14 year-old former student of mine? Right after you slap that boy on the back, have a manly laugh, and wink at each other, you can get out your checkbook. Many, many of these welfare mothers you complain so frequently about began having these kids at 15 or 16. When neither parent is capable of supporting them, they become one more generation in the system. But, I suppose it's a small price to pay for being able to brag to the guys the next day in the locker room.
post #43 of 55
Thread Starter 
I knew, at an early age, that 2 children were all that I was psychologically geared to deal with. As it turned out, that was all that I was financially able to provide for. After Mark was born, I ensured that I would have no more children.

One of my brothers has 4 children, ages 13 to 18. His ex-wife is a cokehead and tramp. Mike's kids have lived with my parents, since they were babies. Neither Mike nor his ex contribute to their support. If anyone needed to be sterilized, it is those two. The ex had her tubes tied, after #4 so there won't be any coke-addicted babies, there. My brother, however, is still strewing his seed indiscriminately and luckily has experienced crop failures.

If you can't or won't feed 'em - DON'T breed 'em!
post #44 of 55
Alot of people on the system started having children at a young age, and came from families with little income to start. Some young girls feel unloved and unwanted and they use sex to find a place in society. Often they want a baby, because in their young minds, the baby is someone who has to love them. I can't condemn them for looking for love, but I can disagree with the methods that they choose. I don't see how one can choose not to contribute to the "social contract" unless you refuse to pay taxes. So while you may disagree with where your money is going, your money, in the form of taxes, still goes there. Just like my tax money goes to fund abortions (covered by Canadian medical insurance), but no funding is given to infertility.
post #45 of 55
Many people in America who believe they are financially secure are only an injury, illness, divorce or abandonment, "downsizing" or economic downturn away from poverty. These people may be in secure marriages, with secure jobs, and have children at that point - only to have disaster strike.

Are we to assume that the only people that should have children are those who are independently wealthy? Also, women have a finite amount of time in their lives to have children; is it irresponsible to have a child while you are young enough to do so with less risk of health complications to yourself and your child, but are not as financially secure? Or is it better to wait, finding out later when you are secure that you are no longer able to get pregnant, or bear a healthy child?

I have no objection to paying taxes to feed families having hard times - there but for the grace of God go I. I know there are people who abuse this system. Sterilization sounds like a good idea for those who wilfully produce drug-addicted children and do things like leave them in cars to die. But, realistically, we can only deal with cases like this after they happen. I just don't see how we could determine who is likely to be an irresponsible parent and prevent him or her from reproducing beforehand without trampling all over individual rights and invading privacy.

There is also an issue of public health - if we do not care for those who cannot (or unfortunately in some cases will not) care for themselves, there may be a great increase in communicable diseases, human waste in public areas, etc.. Do you really want to pass by crowds of diseased, starving people on your way to your own job, stepping through human waste as you walk through the park?

On the main subject, these people that leave children in cars to die should be tried for murder! I cannot imagine how someone could forget a child in their care.
post #46 of 55
From reading all these replies, I had one question. Where is the man who fathers children with 6 different women? Is he here? Although the stories involve mothers, it takes two to make a baby. Why haven't we seen as much outraged directed towards these men?

I have a younger friend who got pregnant at age 20. She and the father of her daughter were not married. Although she may have made a "mistake", she is doing her darndest to make sure her daughter has a good life. She has three jobs and has also taken steps to make sure she will not have another unplanned pregnancy. And the father? He's gone on to have children with 3 other women. He's abdicated all responsibility for my friend's daughter, so she's had to haul him to court for any amount of child support she can get. Yet she's the one that is looked down upon while the father of her daughter is admired for his sexual prowess. I think there is a huge double standard at work here that must be addressed. If in the future any type of regulation is put on the amount of children someone has, it will have to be applied to both men and women, and not women alone.
post #47 of 55
I think that the dead beat dads should have at least 1/3 of their wages garnished to provide support!
post #48 of 55
Thread Starter 
In AZ child support is directly deducted from the noncustodial parent's paycheck. The money goes to the state, which sends a check to the custodial parent each month. This is cheaper than welfare and/or locking up deadbeat parents.
post #49 of 55
Thread Starter 
The subject of my original post has now been charged with manslaughter and is being held on $1 million bail.

Her mother and sister say that she is a "good, responsible" mother and she should be let out of jail. They "don't understand" why she has been held so long. If they weren't "poor Mexicans" and could afford a layer, they are sure that she would be out (maybe, so that she could leave her other two kids in the car to die).

If she is so responsible, why did she have her first child, at age 15 and continue on to have two more, with no sign of a father, anywhere?

In another story, a 26-year-old man is in jail and his 23-month-old son is in critical condition. The man admits to hitting the child and says that he is "sorry". I'LL say that he's sorry - a sorry excuse for a man!
post #50 of 55
There have been cases in Australia where a child, almost always a toddler have been left in cars on hot summer days. I don't understand how it can be done when temperatures reach 60 degrees Celsius within minutes and the colour of the car is IRRELEVANT. At these temperatures a small child can suffer dehydration, heatstroke, overheat or die.

There have also been cases where animals have been locked in parked cars. And one politician in Perth attempted to prove how dangerous this was by sitting in a parked car with all the windows and doors closed to prove how dangerous it was. I think the time duration was for fifteen to thirty minutes but he didn't make it because the heat became too much for him and he came out.

Just thought I'd attempt to talk about the thread's topic again.
post #51 of 55
Awww Looks like we went a bit OT there-

I have read and re-read this thread- I thi nk it's disgusting that people could leave their young children in the car, Mum(Rosy) was reading this with me and she reminded me of the time when we saw a little doggy in the car that was obviousely dying of heat exhaustion(SP?) we attemped to open the doors and stuff and in the end we finally prised the door open enough to get the poor thing some air, We left straight after coz we were late for something , It was really scary , but at the same time we probably saved that dogs life
post #52 of 55
Originally posted by Tybalt

> I don't see how one can choose not to contribute to the "social contract" unless you refuse to pay taxes.<

That's how.

I am sorry, but do you mean that you delibrately don't pay your taxes?
post #53 of 55
Why is it that people who don't want to take care of their children can just keep getting pregnant over and over and people like me who wants a child and can provide for one can't seem to ahve one? I think that anyone who can deliberatley leave their children in a car wether it is winter, spring, summer, or fall should have those children taken away and let them be adopted by people who want children! that's just my opinion though
post #54 of 55
If you have ever spent any amount of time in Tucson, you will notice the volume of heat related warnings given over public media. Heat in closed cars is the most frequent broadcast. Maybe she heard the warnings so much she no longer paid attention to them.

Absolutely unforgiving! Take her kids away and sterilize the woman so she can't do it again.
post #55 of 55
Thread Starter 
It happened in Mesa, this week. A babysitter left a one-year-old in the car, for and hour. She took the two other children into the house and "forgot" the baby. The baby died.

This was not some kid, either. The babysitter is 33. Just HOW stupid and irresponsible can you be??? How do you "forget" a baby?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Horrible case