No, it's not the dogs themselves, it's the aspect of humanity that has come to appreciate and cherish them that restored his faith. Cause if we can love puppies, we're not all that bad after all.ItsAChiaotzu said:
Woman of nine childen says she cant be expected to keep them all safe after one passes away.
- Thread starter Doom-Slayer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you can't keep track of nine children then maybe you shouldn't have had nine kids! Now I'm kind of waiting for this type of thing to happen to the Duggars, I mean they're probably going to have 20 kids if they have anything to say about it.
You know I was with her until the 9 children thing. Hate to say it, but shit happens and people die even when everyone behaves responsibly. There's always that chance that the moment you blink that baby will lunge for a wall socket, and keeping perfect vigilance 24 hours a day while still doing things that let you provide for your child is impossible. You can minimize the risk but every once in a while, a responsible, intelligent, caring mother is going to have a dead baby. The problem here is that the implication she is making is that her ability to care for her kid is compromised by the number of children she has. This is not acceptable. However, I AM willing to grant her some leeway insofar as she just lost her beloved child and is desperate for an explanation, and maybe she isn't at her best for explaining things. I can have pity for that.
Of course the real sticking point here is that it sounds like she left her child in a dangerous swimming pool, and leaving a child like that is unacceptable. But then again, there's nothing to be done about it now, im sure it seemed completely reasonable at the time, and she has to live with that mistake. What else can, or should, we stack on top of that?
Of course the real sticking point here is that it sounds like she left her child in a dangerous swimming pool, and leaving a child like that is unacceptable. But then again, there's nothing to be done about it now, im sure it seemed completely reasonable at the time, and she has to live with that mistake. What else can, or should, we stack on top of that?
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,170
- 143
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
Not necessarily, depends what part of the world you live in. Here in Europe we have an aging population so we actually need more babies to support the future generations once they get onto a pension, and larger populations help the economy too.blalien said:
OT: Personally I think this was a tragedy but I agree with the courts decision, this woman had already been through the hell of losing a child and I think that's bad enough without adding a jail term on too. Also for the sake of the other 8 children, it would cruel to separate them from their mother without a very good reason.
I am generally more of a cat person. but god damn those puppies are cute. I'm not saying I want one, but I want a friend to have one so I can still pet them and everything, but don't have to clean up after them.Sassafrass said:I don't have any stories like that because one person doesn't equal the entire of humanity to me.
Anyway, seeing as I don't have any stories like that, lets focus on the good things.
Like huskies.
Aren't they just adorable?
Having a child get lost etc, thats out of the parents hands and anything that happens is accidental, since watching them 24/7 is unreasonable to ask. Having too many kids and then actually -not being able- to watch them is where my problem lies. Having a just under 2 year old toddler in a pool, and NOT watching them for 3 minutes is way too long. 30 seconds maybe, but in 3 minutes you could go out and make a sandwhich and a drink, thats way too long.ACman said:
Ive babysat kids before and its tought work, but if you watch them and check up on them frequently it makes things far easier. And im not saying we should restrict how many kids people have, hell she can have 20 if she wants, but ONLY if she is able to watch them, clothe them, feed them and keep them safe. And this woman proved she cant handle that and shouldnt have this many kids.
I won't lie, I had this tab sitting open, forgot about it, clicked on it and your post was one of the first ones I laid my eyes on and when I read it, I instantly thought of erasers when you said "rubber".UrieHusky said:
OT: 22 month old kiddie winks kinda really need constant watching. Her own reaction didn't seem particularly sympathetic, mind you... odd. Either way, nine kids? Gee whiz...
This.lacktheknack said:
No, you can't keep your eyes on your children all the time to make sure they stay safe. But if you leave a 22 month old in the pool while you're in the house, I don't care if you're within earshot, you're negligent. Need to go into the house to do something? Take the kids out of the pool. You will not hear a child that young drowning with other kids in the pool. And by the time anyone notices they will probably be dead.
You don't have to keep your eyes glued to your children if you remove them from obvious potential dangers when you can't watch them closely.
Then don't have more children than you can properly look after. [/Captain Obvious]
You have to take the adequate level of precaution such that your child will not or is highly unlikely to hurt themselves in some kind of easily avoidable accident in those moments where you can't watch them.
Exactly. And if the pool wasn't properly fenced, then she had to get it fenced before she let toddlers wander around where they could fall in. Otherwise, you're being negligent in the necessary precautions for your children's safety.Vivi22 said:
You have to take the adequate level of precaution such that your child will not or is highly unlikely to hurt themselves in some kind of easily avoidable accident in those moments where you can't watch them.
Ah good, I was hoping someone would post this before I did, and save me the trouble of being exasperated.lacktheknack said:
The whole "Because I have 9 kids..." is a slippery slope, because who determines 9 kids is too much? What about 8 kids? 7 kids? etc. etc. ?
The abilities of the parent(s) is what determines "is too much", and if she is unable to keep all 9 of her children safe 100% of the time, then she is unfit to have any of her fucking children, and should lose them all. Also, (as others have said) she should make it her priority to watch the children that are in the most potentially dangerous situations, and are unfit to watch after themselves. That is why you usually have 1 volunteer per 5 kids on elementary field trips, and 1 teacher per class on high school field trips.
If I was the judge, I would have gaveled her to death and said "Oh, I am sorry. Because I have to pass sentence on several hundred people in a year, I am unable to keep myself entirely sane. So I cannot be held accountable for turning your empty skull into a piece of abstract art"
Why would you have 9 kids in general? Geez.
I don't really feel like sharing stories about losing faith in humanity. I find it too depressing.
D'aaaaaaawww :3
I don't really feel like sharing stories about losing faith in humanity. I find it too depressing.
This guy has the right idea.Sassafrass said:I don't have any stories like that because one person doesn't equal the entire of humanity to me.
Anyway, seeing as I don't have any stories like that, lets focus on the good things.
Like huskies.
Aren't they just adorable?
D'aaaaaaawww :3
Yeah! How dare you expect to be held legally responsible for your offspring?
Awwwwwwwwww...Sassafrass said:
These are more adorable:Sassafrass said:I don't have any stories like that because one person doesn't equal the entire of humanity to me.
Anyway, seeing as I don't have any stories like that, lets focus on the good things.
Like huskies.
Aren't they just adorable?
Anyway,
I actually wonder why she WOULD have nine children. Cheaper by the dozen much?