NationStates Jolt Archive

http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?i=2650053&l=http://wjz.com/topstories/local_story_063165344.html

What kind of dumbass mother would do this? :rolleyes:

Words can not describe how I feel. I... am just speechless. :eek:

seen it all before that i'm no long shock when hearing of it

For a start, they should make the mother clean up the house. All by herself with only an officer to make sure she does it.

http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?i=2650053&l=http://wjz.com/topstories/local_story_063165344.html

What kind of dumbass mother would do this? :rolleyes:

Maybe she's a really good mother but the kids are just really, really, really bad.

Clearly unfit to be a parent. Poor kids though, they got a rough start...

Maybe she's a really good mother but the kids are just really, really, really bad.

six children, the youngest of which is SIX MONTHS OLD, locked in a room in which they've been in so long that it is full of their own piles of shit, and the food on the counters was ROTTING.

They weren't bad kids. They were likely in there for no less than 3 weeks.
That woman should be tortured in ways that words cannot describe. She should have her gum sewn together with piano wire, and have someone rub sulphur in her eyes. That "woman" should be subjected to the kind of torment not even Satan himself suffered. She should be beaten, burned, whipped, stabbed, choked, hung, and mutilated.

She deserves no respite.

That is just absolutely horrible :headbang: People like that woman should be taken out into the middle of the street and beaten. Why would anyone ever do something so horrible to such young children?

six children, the youngest of which is SIX MONTHS OLD, locked in a room in which they've been in so long that it is full of their own piles of shit, and the food on the counters was ROTTING.

They weren't bad kids. They were likely in there for no less than 3 weeks.
That woman should be tortured in ways that words cannot describe. She should have her gum sewn together with piano wire, and have someone rub sulphur in her eyes. That "woman" should be subjected to the kind of torment not even Satan himself suffered. She should be beaten, burned, whipped, stabbed, choked, hung, and mutilated.

She deserves no respite.

Isn't that a little harsh? Think of the sanity of the poor person who would have to do all that to her... Lock her up and find good and caring fosterhomes for her ex-kids, not complete justice, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Shocking. :eek:

Sounds like that Austrian mother a few months back.
*Didn't click link*

Why is it that all child abusers are hideous?

Maybe there’s a correlation :eek:

Isn't that a little harsh? Think of the sanity of the poor person who would have to do all that to her... Lock her up and find good and caring fosterhomes for her ex-kids, not complete justice, but two wrongs don't make a right.

LITTLE harsh?
No. It's downright Hellish.

But I but you any money instances of child abuse woulddrop to almost zero in the following weeks. You must find the worst offender of the crime and punish them to the ends of reality to send a message. Any 'minor' offenders would go off with a swat on the hand, but if it ever becomes a problem again... tighten the laws again.

Say... child abuse is rare (or slight)? Well then.... take their kids, and give them the right to visitation.

Child abuse is on the rise (or moderate)?
Take the children, lock the parent in prison for 6 months, and don't allow the parent visitation to the children.

Child abuse is pure negligence like this case? Torture the perpetrator until they are on the verge of death, and then keep doing it until it does in fact actually kill the person.

As for the sanity of the administor of the torture? That's easy.

A ) Make it electronic. Set up a machine to perform various torture methods within a closed cell.
or
B ) Make a person already locked in a mental home for their entire life have some fun by torturing the person in whatever sick fashion they desire.


No longer would child abuse be an issue.
Ever.

What did you expect? If a woman is given welfare benefits for having children that she will have the children in order to get the money rather then because she genuinely wants to be a mother. Also, I bet that the father was absent and had left her when she fell pregnant.

Okay, so you can talk about wanting to 'prevent' women like this from having kids and you really want to punish her, but it does not give a practical solution to a problem that is unfortunately very common. I have seen heard about some far worse cases, both in Ireland and in the UK.

So what SHOULD we do about it? Maybe abolishing subsidies for having children, having tougher divorce laws and penalties for birth outside marriage, and also having a person come to each child's home to see their parents when they start school.

Just thinking about it, I would be very suprised if Charlotte Church (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/02/nchurch02.xml) is going to be a very good mother. Just look at the way that she has been behaving over the past four years.
Here's a way to prevent it:
Psychological profiling for all would-be parents.
They're first given an in-depth analysis of their ability as a parent before being given children. This eradicates "bad parents" entirely, and the psychotic lot can all be rounded up and sent to a nice quiet room.

...and who judges?

sounds like eugenics to me.

What did you expect? If a woman is given welfare benefits for having children then she will have the children in order to get the money rather then because she genuinely wants to be a mother. Also, I bet that the father was absent and had left her when she fell pregnant.

Okay, so you can talk about wanting to 'prevent' women like this from having kids and you really want to punish her, but it does not give a practical solution to a problem that is unfortunately very common. I have heard about some far worse cases, both in Ireland and in the UK.

So what SHOULD we do about it? Maybe abolishing subsidies for having children, having tougher divorce laws and penalties for birth outside marriage, and also having a person come to each child's home to see their parents when they start school.

Just thinking about it, I would be very suprised if Charlotte Church (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/02/nchurch02.xml) is going to be a very good mother. Just look at the way that she has been behaving over the past four years. Also, she's far too young and her boyfriend Gavin Henson doesn't look like a very nice guy (just read any news archive about him) and I certainly would not recommend that he should be a father.

SNIP

I'm sorry to bring this to you but harsher punishments have never worked…ever

Hence why things like hanging where gradually abolished

What did you expect? If a woman is given welfare benefits for having children then she will have the children in order to get the money rather then because she genuinely wants to be a mother.

On benefits (in particular US benefits) you can basically afford to live your point that she can become basically a incubator is false because kids tend to cost more even if there barely alive

Also, I bet that the father was absent and had left her when she fell pregnant.

…

but it does not give a practical solution to a problem that is unfortunately very common.

The problem is the only way to prevent this is to have parents treated as criminals and maybe teach people to see the warning signs early

So what SHOULD we do about it? Maybe abolishing subsidies for having children

I’m sorry but that money almost always goes to poor parents who need it to pay for the child’s toys ect

Abolishing child benefits will just make life harder for poorer kids

having tougher divorce laws and penalties for birth outside marriage

So single parents are bad parents I think your jumping to conclusions here

Also a persons home life is absolutely no business to the state

and also having a person come to each child's home to see their parents when they start school.

Unnecessary care workers already check new parents to make sure the baby isn’t malnourished ect adding another stage is nothing more than a waste of time and money

Just look at the way that she has been behaving over the past four years.

Absolutely none of your business or the states

Psychological profiling for all would-be parents.
They're first given an in-depth analysis of their ability as a parent before being given children. This eradicates "bad parents" entirely, and the psychotic lot can all be rounded up and sent to a nice quiet room.

I’m sorry nobody knows how to be a parent and there is no clear way to be one

six children, the youngest of which is SIX MONTHS OLD, locked in a room in which they've been in so long that it is full of their own piles of shit, and the food on the counters was ROTTING.

They weren't bad kids. They were likely in there for no less than 3 weeks.


My post wasn't serious. I have no real opinion on this matter.

Isn't this a bit harsh. I know I'm not dealing with angels and saints here, but this is harsh. What did the kids do that was so horrible as to deserve this? Start a mini-Holocaust, complete with mini-Nazi concentration camps and mini-Nazi propoganda? Why were the kids punished like this? And the dog. Was the dog the reincarnation of Hitler? Geeze?

What did you expect? If a woman is given welfare benefits for having children then she will have the children in order to get the money rather then because she genuinely wants to be a mother. Also, I bet that the father was absent and had left her when she fell pregnant.

Okay, so you can talk about wanting to 'prevent' women like this from having kids and you really want to punish her, but it does not give a practical solution to a problem that is unfortunately very common. I have heard about some far worse cases, both in Ireland and in the UK.

So what SHOULD we do about it? Maybe abolishing subsidies for having children, having tougher divorce laws and penalties for birth outside marriage, and also having a person come to each child's home to see their parents when they start school.

Just thinking about it, I would be very suprised if Charlotte Church (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/02/nchurch02.xml) is going to be a very good mother. Just look at the way that she has been behaving over the past four years. Also, she's far too young and her boyfriend Gavin Henson doesn't look like a very nice guy (just read any news archive about him) and I certainly would not recommend that he should be a father.

Howard Dean had a program, when he was governor, to have councilors visit the homes of mothers to be and give them advice on how to make sure their kids get a good start and where to go for help with taking care of them. It made a huge positive impact on their demographics.

Also, welfare was intended for mothers whose husbands die, at a time when women, for the most part, didn't work.

There's no reason that welfare shouldn't be provided to people who have children and then suddenly find that they can't make a living. Whether it's because the father ran off, died, one parent or the other lost their job and can't find another, or whatever else it might be.

But of course, giving welfare to people as they keep having more kids is going to accomplish nothing in the long run. Especially when it's to people who don't understand that the child costs more than the welfare they generate.

So what SHOULD we do about it? Maybe abolishing subsidies for having children, having tougher divorce laws and penalties for birth outside marriage, and also having a person come to each child's home to see their parents when they start school.

Tougher divorce laws are just going to make it harder for a parent with an abusive spouse (even if you don't take the possibility of a wife abusing a husband seriously you might well have an emotionally disturbed mother abusing the children while the father tries to stop her) to get the kids to safety. Divorce is a symptom of the problem, not the cause. Trying to solve this problem by punishing the signs of it is like trying to cure the flu with an ice-bath. (yes, I've used that analogy before, but the same logical fallacy keeps popping up).

What did you expect? If a woman is given welfare benefits for having children then she will have the children in order to get the money rather then because she genuinely wants to be a mother.

Actually, studies on the subject suggest that the real problem is that women lack access to good reproductive health care. They aren't educated, they can't afford (or can't receive) the contraception they want, and they don't know their options when it comes to preventing pregnancy. One of the most effective ways of reducing the number of children a woman has is to educate her and provide her with information and access to contraception.


Also, I bet that the father was absent and had left her when she fell pregnant.

It does sound like that, yes. So if we have people on this thread advocating that the woman be viciously tortured for her negligence, then shouldn't the father be subjected to at least twice as much? I mean, at least the mother was physically present in some way...the father wasn't even in the picture.


So what SHOULD we do about it? Maybe abolishing subsidies for having children,

...which will result in parents having even less money to provide for their children...


having tougher divorce laws

...which will result in 1) fewer people choosing to get married in the first place, 2) more people staying in bad marriages, and 3) greater hardships for women who are in abusive marriages and need to get away.

Whenever we hear stories about an abusive dad who beats up his wife and kids, there's always some yahoos who spout off about how the stupid bitch ought to have packed up and left. She should have protected her kids from the man who was abusing them. So how exactly will we be helping protect children if we make sure that women have less money (and therefore are less able to get out of bad situations) and are punished more for leaving their marriage?


and penalties for birth outside marriage,

...which can only hurt the CHILDREN who have the bad luck to be born out of wedlock...


and also having a person come to each child's home to see their parents when they start school.

If we had the funding for that kind of social service, then children wouldn't be in these situations to begin with. Unfortunately, we feel it is better to pour money into the pockets of corrupt defense contractors, rather than protecting families and children in our own communities.

six children, the youngest of which is SIX MONTHS OLD, locked in a room in which they've been in so long that it is full of their own piles of shit, and the food on the counters was ROTTING. They weren't bad kids. They were likely in there for no less than 3 weeks.


Seconded...


That woman should be tortured in ways that words cannot describe. She should have her gum sewn together with piano wire, and have someone rub sulphur in her eyes. That "woman" should be subjected to the kind of torment not even Satan himself suffered. She should be beaten, burned, whipped, stabbed, choked, hung, and mutilated.
She deserves no respite.

By denying respect of a fellow human, you are just allowing everyone else to deny respect for any other human. Including having kids living in shit.
You deserve no respect. You bigot.

By denying respect of a fellow human, you are just allowing everyone else to deny respect for any other human. Including having kids living in shit.
You deserve no respect. You bigot.

He has hardly demonstrated bigotry. A superficial understanding of a complicated problem, sure. Bigotry, not so much.

Of course, I'm only looking at the one post.

He has hardly demonstrated bigotry. A superficial understanding of a complicated problem, sure. Bigotry, not so much.

Of course, I'm only looking at the one post.

I agree with you. I used bigotry because somehow medieval torturing and witch-burnings came to my mind... ;)

...and who judges?

sounds like eugenics to me.

You say eugenics like it is a bad thing. Lets face it: some people are just unfit to breed. Sadly enough, being unfit to breed doesn't seem to stop them from doing so..

You say eugenics like it is a bad thing. Lets face it: some people are just unfit to breed. Sadly enough, being unfit to breed doesn't seem to stop them from doing so..
The problem is, who gets to decide who is "unfit to breed"?

There are people who believe that non-religious people are unfit to breed. There are people who believe that black people are unfit to breed. There are people who think that disabled individuals are unfit to breed. There are people who believe that Christians are unfit to breed.

So who gets to choose? Who gets to set the standards for who is and is not allowed to breed? And how do we enforce our rules? Do we force abortions or sterilizations upon people? Do we take children away, and if so where do we put them? Do we punish the parents for having the children, and if so how do we punish the parents without also punishing the children?

THESE are the problems with eugenics. The idea that some people shouldn't be parents is pretty obvious to most of us, but the problem is how to deal with it. Forced eugenics is, frankly, a very naive and unreasonable proposition when it comes to addressing this problem.

And for every one of these stories that makes the news there are a handful more that do not. Of course, you'll hear about the ones in the poor inner city neighborhoods, not the tony suburbs, so it's easy to think that it's just the indigent that do this to their kids, making it much easier to suggest things like forced sterilization, mandatory home screening for any family with children and identifying those who are fit to be parents and who are not.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen the caseloads of child protective service workers and it's not a job that you could get me to do for any amount of money. I'd give anything to see this kind of thing stop. I just think that we're deluding ourselves if we resort to the "welfare queen" stereotype to characterize the type of people who do these heinous types of things.

The problem is, who gets to decide who is "unfit to breed"?

There are people who believe that non-religious people are unfit to breed. There are people who believe that black people are unfit to breed. There are people who think that disabled individuals are unfit to breed. There are people who believe that Christians are unfit to breed.

So who gets to choose? Who gets to set the standards for who is and is not allowed to breed? And how do we enforce our rules? Do we force abortions or sterilizations upon people? Do we take children away, and if so where do we put them? Do we punish the parents for having the children, and if so how do we punish the parents without also punishing the children?

THESE are the problems with eugenics. The idea that some people shouldn't be parents is pretty obvious to most of us, but the problem is how to deal with it. Forced eugenics is, frankly, a very naive and unreasonable proposition when it comes to addressing this problem.

Indeed, who gets to decide, and when? Before the fact or after? If we prevent someone from breeding (on whatever grounds), then we risk preventing the birth of the next great leader. If we wait until after a child is borne and the parents prove unfit, then we have subjected an innocent child to unnessesary pain. The only alternative left is to ignore the issue, and live with an overpopulated planet, and the occasional story of inhuman neglect and abuse.

Indeed. Who should decide.

Indeed. Who should decide.
Me! Me! Sterilizations for everyone at birth! Only those who pass a strenuous series of test will be allowed to have children

http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?i=2650053&l=http://wjz.com/topstories/local_story_063165344.html

What kind of dumbass mother would do this? :rolleyes:

This is why you should have to pass a proficiency and aptitude test in order to be allowed to have kids.

http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?i=2650053&l=http://wjz.com/topstories/local_story_063165344.html

What kind of dumbass mother would do this? :rolleyes:

Bah rubbish, nothing on the mental state of the woman here then?

http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?i=2650053&l=http://wjz.com/topstories/local_story_063165344.html

What kind of dumbass mother would do this? :rolleyes:

Not unusual for Prince George's County, Maryland.

Not unusual for Prince George's County, Maryland.
It's quite disgusting, really. Too bad she didn't use her good judgement to simply avoid having kids...

Why is this thread still alive I thought I destroyed the argument last week so that I don’t have to see the usual knee jerk nonsense

This is why you should have to pass a proficiency and aptitude test in order to be allowed to have kids.

idiots can be good parents its not something that you can really put down to anything

Did anyone consider maybe she had no choice but to go to her job? Because she was caught in that cycle of poverty thing that isn't her fault.

http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?i=2650053&l=http://wjz.com/topstories/local_story_063165344.html

What kind of dumbass mother would do this? :rolleyes:

She'll have to go. *nod*

Did anyone consider maybe she had no choice but to go to her job? Because she was caught in that cycle of poverty thing that isn't her fault.

how does being poor keep her from cleaning her house?

there is always another option besides locking your kids in a room filled with feces.......

besides, that pic of her, looked methy to me.

Did anyone consider maybe she had no choice but to go to her job? Because she was caught in that cycle of poverty thing that isn't her fault.
Then why have kids she can't care for? And as Smunkee said, this does not incapacitate her from giving her kids the most basic of care.

Did anyone consider maybe she had no choice but to go to her job? Because she was caught in that cycle of poverty thing that isn't her fault.

Yes, she had no other option but to lock the kids up in excrement. We should have more understanding. The children should just deal.

What did you expect? If a woman is given welfare benefits for having children then she will have the children in order to get the money rather then because she genuinely wants to be a mother. Also, I bet that the father was absent and had left her when she fell pregnant.

So what SHOULD we do about it? Maybe abolishing subsidies for having children, having tougher divorce laws and penalties for birth outside marriage, and also having a person come to each child's home to see their parents when they start school.

Just thinking about it, I would be very suprised if Charlotte Church (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/02/nchurch02.xml) is going to be a very good mother. Just look at the way that she has been behaving over the past four years. Also, she's far too young and her boyfriend Gavin Henson doesn't look like a very nice guy (just read any news archive about him) and I certainly would not recommend that he should be a father.

Wrong on so many levels...
Not supporting single mothers won't stop it from happening, it just stops them from being, you know, supported. And as for that first thing you said... having kids for money? You'd have to be singularly stupid. It's not like it's going to make you rich. Really, there are much simpler kinds of benefit fraud that do not involve pregnancy and motherhood. I'd argue further with this statement, but I'd just get apoplectic.
And what the FUCK does Charlotte Church have to do with anything, and who the hell are you to judge whether she'd be a good mother or not? Do you know the woman? Do you know Gavin Henson? They don't "strike you" as good parents, from what you've read about them in the media, is that it? Well, you don't strike me as a very nice human being, but I'm sure you have acquaintances who'd tell me different.
Telegraph reader are we? So's my grandad. He's a nice guy actually. Fucking idiot though.