9 m/o dies from eczema

bstone

Forum Deputy Chief
2,066
1
0
You need to have a license to drive a car. You need to have a license to get married. Makes sense you should need a license to have babies.
 

amberdt03

Forum Asst. Chief
503
2
0

Sasha

Forum Chief
7,667
11
0
i really hope that isn't a serious statement.
Why not? People who operate a car are first tested on competence and can get their license taken away when proven to be irresponsible with it, yet we let them birth human lives willy nilly and turn a blind eye when they're irresponsible and border on abusive (even a lot of abuse gets a blind eye.).

People SHOULD have a license to have a baby, there are too many people out there who shouldn't be parents and are.
 

bstone

Forum Deputy Chief
2,066
1
0
i really hope that isn't a serious statement.
After working on the ambulance at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago for 2 years I can firmly tell you it's an incredibly serious statement.
 

subliminal1284

Forum Lieutenant
234
0
0
i really hope that isn't a serious statement.
I totally agree with that, you cant adopt a child or even adopt a animal from the animal shelter without proving you can provide them with a good home, I dont think people should be allowed to have babies unless they can prove they are financially secure and can provide the child a decent home.
 

amberdt03

Forum Asst. Chief
503
2
0
they can prove they are financially secure
if you wait till you're financially secure, you'll never have kids. thats something every parent i know has told me.
 

subliminal1284

Forum Lieutenant
234
0
0
Depends on your definition of financially secure, I was referring to people living in a run down house in the ghetto living off food stamps and welfare, some even have more kids to get a bigger welfare check. 9 times out of 10 those kids will grow up to be criminals because thats the type of envoroment they have been around their whole life. If you're considered to be at the poverty level you should not be allowed to have kids whatsoever.
 

amberdt03

Forum Asst. Chief
503
2
0
If you're considered to be at the poverty level you should not be allowed to have kids whatsoever.
well if that's the case then i wouldn't be here today.
 

silver

Forum Asst. Chief
846
53
28
Depends on your definition of financially secure, I was referring to people living in a run down house in the ghetto living off food stamps and welfare, some even have more kids to get a bigger welfare check. 9 times out of 10 those kids will grow up to be criminals because thats the type of envoroment they have been around their whole life. If you're considered to be at the poverty level you should not be allowed to have kids whatsoever.
uhmmm

"Most Americans (58.5%) will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75."
from the book: The great risk shift: The new insecurity and the decline of the American dream.
 

VFFforpeople

Forum Captain
326
0
0
To the original post, that is horriable, any punishment is to good for them. You need to have common sense to have children, I have 3. My first two years I lived under the poverty line with them. Now we live better of than prior, but still improving. So, yes I can see what you are saying about financially able and blah, truth is you never will be ever, and if you are then you will lack in some areas more important than money (I know, shocking something more important than money). That is unconditional love, and respect for them. This story makes me angry and yet sad at how one can just watch their child suffer..my daughter sneezes and I grab webmd or call my buddies who are higher medical training lol. (knowing that it is nothing serious).
 
OP
Kookaburra

Kookaburra

Forum Lieutenant
173
0
0
To the original post, that is horriable, any punishment is to good for them. You need to have common sense to have children, I have 3. My first two years I lived under the poverty line with them. Now we live better of than prior, but still improving. So, yes I can see what you are saying about financially able and blah, truth is you never will be ever, and if you are then you will lack in some areas more important than money (I know, shocking something more important than money). That is unconditional love, and respect for them. This story makes me angry and yet sad at how one can just watch their child suffer..my daughter sneezes and I grab webmd or call my buddies who are higher medical training lol. (knowing that it is nothing serious).
Yes, the parents were both well-off PhDs. Money doesn't guarantee anything.
 

bstone

Forum Deputy Chief
2,066
1
0
Yes, the parents were both well-off PhDs. Money doesn't guarantee anything.
They might have PhDs but they were idiots. Period.

On a simple quiz for new parents:

If your child is sick, do you:
1) Take him to the doctor
2) Take him to a crystal healer
3) Feed him stick and mud
4) Ignore him

Any answer other than 1 would say "no kids for you!"
They would have answered anything but 1.
 

"Doc" Fox

Forum Probie
22
1
0
Why not? People who operate a car are first tested on competence and can get their license taken away when proven to be irresponsible with it, yet we let them birth human lives willy nilly and turn a blind eye when they're irresponsible and border on abusive (even a lot of abuse gets a blind eye.).

People SHOULD have a license to have a baby, there are too many people out there who shouldn't be parents and are.
I'm a father of three daughters, and after some of the stuff I've seen other parents do with ther kid(s), I have to go with Sasha here, and I agree that people should have a licsnse, or at least a common sense class for parents. That's my two cents on the issue, but I'm glad that the parents above are having to awnser for there actions.
 

firemedic7982

Forum Lieutenant
120
0
0
Why not? People who operate a car are first tested on competence and can get their license taken away when proven to be irresponsible with it, yet we let them birth human lives willy nilly and turn a blind eye when they're irresponsible and border on abusive (even a lot of abuse gets a blind eye.).

People SHOULD have a license to have a baby, there are too many people out there who shouldn't be parents and are.
She has a point.

+1
 

Amack

Forum Crew Member
85
0
0
This is like comparing apples to oranges. Firstly, no singular individual retains control over others and their actions. People will always be stupid, or immature, or whatever adjective you care to employ for someone's sweeping incompetence. Secondly, you can't cure it. Human nature is human nature, for better or for worse. There are those of us who strive to ask the questions "why"? and in this circumstance, we long to decipher why "anyone in their 'right' mind would allow such maltreatment of their child"... The answer is simply explained with some brevity...within any society, there will always be deviant members, or in other words, members believed to not conform to societial norms and/or tenants. Actions of said "deviants" can be surgically ananlyzed, debated, interpreted, and rationalized or justified by different parties with different beliefs and worldviews. (Which, again, reverts back to human nature and the perpetual perplexing obsession to seek "why")

Thirdly, you can never place a restraint or regulatory sanction on a human physiological process. To suggest, enacting a regulated liscensure of the human act of copulation resulting in procreative effect, would be just as absurd to lobby sanctioning of bowel movements .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bstone

Forum Deputy Chief
2,066
1
0
This is like comparing apples to oranges. Firstly, no singular individual retains control over others and their actions.
False. Judges exert this authority constantly.

People will always be stupid, or immature, or whatever adjective you care to employ for someone's sweeping incompetence.
True.


Secondly, you can't cure it. Human nature is human nature, for better or for worse.
Breed it out of us. Please.

There are those of us who strive to ask the questions "why"? and in this circumstance, we long to decipher why "anyone in their 'right' mind would allow such maltreatment of their child"... The answer is simply explained with some brevity...within any society, there will always be deviant members, or in other words, members believed to not conform to societial norms and/or tenants.
Perception of being a deviant is often subjective. However, withholding medical treatment from a child who could certainly be treated and cured is not subjective- it's objective in the observation of being cruel and deviant.

Actions of said "deviants" can be surgically ananlyzed, debated, interpreted, and rationalized or justified by different parties with different beliefs and worldviews. (Which, again, reverts back to human nature and the perpetual perplexing obsession to seek "why")
Abuse of a child need not be subject to surgical analysis.

Thirdly, you can never place a restraint or regulatory sanction on a human physiological process. To suggest, enacting a regulated liscensure of the human act of copulation resulting in procreative effect, would be just as absurd to lobby sanctioning of bowel movements .
This happens quite often by the judicial system. Bowel movements do not produce a sacred life. Copulation does. Thus, those who copulate ought to be subject to examination for purposes of assessment for correct parenting.
 

Amack

Forum Crew Member
85
0
0
False. Judges exert this authority constantly.


True.



Breed it out of us. Please.


Perception of being a deviant is often subjective. However, withholding medical treatment from a child who could certainly be treated and cured is not subjective- it's objective in the observation of being cruel and deviant.


Abuse of a child need not be subject to surgical analysis.



This happens quite often by the judicial system. Bowel movements do not produce a sacred life. Copulation does. Thus, those who copulate ought to be subject to examination for purposes of assessment for correct parenting.

Judges do not exert direct control over individuals...free will is intangible, and certainly as are the subsequent actions therein.
Judges do, enact the interpretation and execution of the law, and in that right, I agree that ,within their granted power, decide upon an individual and his/her sentencing and consequence(s), and assert control over an individual's future (imprisonment, fines, death penalty etc.)


Perception. Perception is relative, absolutely. However, there is such thing as "Societal Norms", or in plain terms, actions and behaviors that society as a whole agrees upon to be "usual" or "mundane" or "accepted practice".
An example is the common call we all get for EDPs...why did somone call 911 in the first place for someone running around on stilts with a tennis racket in hand in a cemetary...simply because, culturally...that isn't commonly accepted or known practice in a place of reverence,respect and
rememberance. (I know that the above example is a bit absurd, but im sure you follow my point)

A counter-argument that i will address for the above is that....cultural norms DO vary...so that's why I emplpoy the term "accepted practice" loosely, to allow theoretical margin for differences that occur socio-geographically across the world.

As far a child abuse being scrutinized or as I had formally put it "surgically analyzed", it certainly does....which ties into societal norms again with the old-world cultural practices of coining, cupping, or even Jehovah's Witnesses withholding blood transfusions on the basis of religious belief. Child abuse is serious, therefore it demands serious inquiry. What you or I believe is child abuse, may not be in the eyes of another culture, religious following, etc. ( Again, "Societal Norms")


And Lastly, copulation for any reason (for pleasure or procreation) cannot be restricted between two consulting adults by any law (at least in this country). To do so would be an infringement of Constitutional law. Which is why you will never see any "pre-screening for parents" ever.

The legal ideaology is reactive (e.g. Social Services, foster care, etc)... not proactive.
 

Top