Parents who leave their kids in cars?

[RD2191]

And they die, how does this happen so often? Should they be punished? It seems as if sometimes it's on purpose. Thoughts?

[RD2191]

http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Seven-month-old-boy-dies-in-hot-car-in-Texas-Walmart-parking-lot-390046301.html

[Pelicans78]

They do get punished for it. Parents have been arrested. It's a horrible suffering crime against the children.

[Trill Clinton]

i'd have to look at each on a case by case basis. i'm sure there are some instances, like i suspect the one in the OP, where the parent honestly forgets they have a baby in the backseat. situations like those i wouldn't call for punishment.

[SpursforSix]

i'd have to look at each on a case by case basis. i'm sure there are some instances, like i suspect the one in the OP, where the parent honestly forgets they have a baby in the backseat. situations like those i wouldn't call for punishment.

I really don't know how someone forgets that. Maybe it's a sign of the times and our brains have been rewired with all the screen time and multitasking. I'm sure it happens but it's just hard to imagine.

And I sure don't agree that should absolve them of any punishment.

[Thread]

And I always reflect back on the moment they realize it. And then dash from the house.

I imagine a lot of these parents end up in insane asylums.

---

We left our son in the car once. Went in the house with the eldest two sons, about a 15 minutes later the wife asked, "Where's the baby?"

"I don't know. He was in the back seat." She runs from the house. I follow her out. Somehow he couldn't get the seat belt unfastened, or, crawl out. Covered in sweat, I've never let him forget it.

He was 14.

tee, hee.

[DMC]

Child neglect, abandonment leading to bodily harm or death. It's your responsibility to remember the little one who cannot take care of himself. "I forgot", even if true, even if coupled with gut wrenching self loathing, isn't an affirmative defense to prosecution.

[DJR210]

i'd have to look at each on a case by case basis. i'm sure there are some instances, like i suspect the one in the OP, where the parent honestly forgets they have a baby in the backseat. situations like those i wouldn't call for punishment.

:lmao you obviously don't have kids, but that's really not the point.. you can't forget your kids you moron :lol It's impossible unless highly drugged or done on purpose

[DMC]

I can name a few instances where the offender should be buried to the neck in a fire ant mound. However if it's truly because of distraction, grim business indeed. I'd put one in my own head.

[DJR210]

However if it's truly because of distraction, grim business indeed. I'd put one in my own head.

That's very honorable of you :tu

[DMC]

That's very honorable of you :tu
I expected "I don't see how you could fucking miss that thing"

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Meh. It's their children. If you created it, it's your property, can't you choose to destroy your own property if you want?

[Blake]

And they die... Should they be punished? .....Thoughts?

Not sure what to think, whether you're trolling or not

[Spur|n|Austin]

9 hours in a car during a Texas summer.. Wow..

[DJR210]

9 hours in a car during a Texas summer.. Wow..

Fucking sad. What a terrible way to go.. Strapped in a car seat while you slowly die of heat exhaustion.. Sitting in a car with the AC off for 5 mins in this Texas heat is torture enough. These parents need to get automatic death sentences the same way as their children got.

[.G.]

Eternal guilt.

[z0sa]

I would assume someone who lets that happen to their kid needs to be locked away from the rest of us. tbh

[DMC]

Meh. It's their children. If you created it, it's your property, can't you choose to destroy your own property if you want?
Too bad your parents didn't know that.

[Thread]

Eternal guilt.

Grim business.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Fucking sad. What a terrible way to go.. Strapped in a car seat while you slowly die of heat exhaustion.. Sitting in a car with the AC off for 5 mins in this Texas heat is torture enough. These parents need to get automatic death sentences the same way as their children got.

Disagree, too radical, IMO... they should get a warning though to better never let that happen again or else risk criminal prosecution.


Problem with today's America is, too many people voting and fighting for laws with their heart instead of their brain.



For instance, Trump's 35% imports tariff makes so much sense, except... how much inflation would it cause? Yes, more guys who can build things here in America would be back at work, but how much would the ultimate consumer suffer because of the price hikes the corporations would charge? Of course we all want the corporations to take the financial hits (not the customers) but that's never going to happen.

[DJR210]

Eternal guilt.

But do you really think a person who does not have the ability to "remember" their kid in a 9 hour window is going to have the ability to have guilt? These scumbags will be back partying and living their shitty life to the fullest the following weekend I'm sure.

[DJR210]

Disagree, too radical, IMO... they should get a warning though to better never let that happen again or else risk criminal prosecution.


Problem with today's America is, too many people voting and fighting for laws with their heart instead of their brain.



For instance, Trump's 35% imports tariff makes so much sense, except... how much inflation would it cause? Yes, more guys who can build things here in America would be back at work, but how much would the ultimate consumer suffer because of the price hikes the corporations would charge? Of course we all want the corporations to take the financial hits (not the customers) but that's never going to happen.

:lol @ "a warning to never let that happen again"
:lol GuitarDude27

[UNT Eagles 2016]

:lol @ "a warning to never let that happen again"
:lol GuitarDude27

Think about it with your brain for a moment, not your heart.

It's THEIR children. Children that wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the parents conceiving, carrying, birthing, and nurturing them. It's their creation, so it's their property to do whatever they want with it without big government interposition.


If both parents choose to dispose of the property they created before they reach independent personhood (typically age 18 or HS graduation), why should big government interfere with this civil liberty?

[I. Hustle]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSUdeU23mh_DywBeWqfBy2_1ebJm-6Y7sHXSU6IVIId00o-hrJG

[DJR210]

Think about it with your brain for a moment, not your heart.

It's THEIR children. Children that wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the parents conceiving, carrying, birthing, and nurturing them. It's their creation, so it's their property to do whatever they want with it without big government interposition.


If both parents choose to dispose of the property they created before they reach independent personhood (typically age 18 or HS graduation), why should big government interfere with this civil liberty?

:lol

[Blake]

Disagree, too radical, IMO... they should get a warning though to better never let that happen again or else risk criminal prosecution.


Problem with today's America is, too many people voting and fighting for laws with their heart instead of their brain.


Lol just a warning for manslaughter

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Lol just a warning for manslaughter

So is abortion (particularly late term) capital murder then?

[Blake]

So is abortion (particularly late term) capital murder then?

No

[UNT Eagles 2016]

No

Either way, you terminated the property you created. Should be perfectly legal if both parents consent.

[Blake]

Either way, you terminated the property you created. Should be perfectly legal if both parents consent.

Following your line of comparative reasoning, women should get a warning on the first abortion and risk criminal prosecution on the next one.

Lol

[I. Hustle]

Either way, you terminated the property you created. Should be perfectly legal if both parents consent.

Are your parents still alive?

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Are your parents still alive?

Mother is, she is very dear to me

[Thread]

Following your line of comparative reasoning, women should get a warning on the first abortion and risk criminal prosecution on the next one.

Lol

Blake, dropping the mouse.

[Chinook]

The abortion angle is more interesting than people give it credit for. Judith Thompson went through philosophical gymnastics to establish that fetuses have only a positive right to life and that the mother was not obligated to sacrifice her negative right to liberty to meet it. Essentially, the mother had a right to expel the child from her person and regain control of her body even if as a consequence, the fetus died.

So children dying by being left in a car, especially accidentally, seems to fall into this category. It's more akin to Thompson's examples if the mother lets her kid starve to death, but the debate should be the same regardless. In both cases, the child isn't being killed -- they're just being left to die. And if that is only a violation of positive rights, then the parents shouldn't be punished. Hell, even if they do it on purpose, their liberty would theoretically win out over the kid's "right" to have someone take them out of the car.

Obviously, we wouldn't go for that in the real world. Most of us think the parents should be punished, definitely in the case of willful neglect. But if that's the case, then the Thompson argument is dead in the water, and the place where the abortion debate has settle should move again.

[I. Hustle]

Mother is, she is very dear to me

Awesome! So there is still a chance that she can destroy her "creation".

[I. Hustle]

The abortion angle is more interesting than people give it credit for. Judith Thompson went through philosophical gymnastics to establish that fetuses have only a positive right to life and that the mother was not obligated to sacrifice her negative right to liberty to meet it. Essentially, the mother had a right to expel the child from her person and regain control of her body even if as a consequence, the fetus died.

So children dying by being left in a car, especially accidentally, seems to fall into this category. It's more akin to Thompson's examples if the mother lets her kid starve to death, but the debate should be the same regardless. In both cases, the child isn't being killed -- they're just being left to die. And if that is only a violation of positive rights, then the parents shouldn't be punished. Hell, even if they do it on purpose, their liberty would theoretically win out over the kid's "right" to have someone take them out of the car.

Obviously, we wouldn't go for that in the real world. Most of us think the parents should be punished, definitely in the case of willful neglect. But if that's the case, then the Thompson argument is dead in the water, and the place where the abortion debate has settle should move again.

I don't think it's that connected though. In one case, you are talking about a child that is still a part of the woman's body. They are connected and one affects the other.

In the case of the morons that leave their kids in the car, they are no longer connected in the same sense. The mother isn't fighting to regain control of her body because the child is already born.

[Chinook]

I don't think it's that connected though. In one case, you are talking about a child that is still a part of the woman's body. They are connected and one affects the other.

In the case of the morons that leave their kids in the car, they are no longer connected in the same sense. The mother isn't fighting to regain control of her body because the child is already born.

Thompson definitely did argue about the woman's right to her body, but her violinist example was also to show that there wasn't a point to establishing a normative line. Once you start saying a woman has the obligation simply because the child is born, you get back into the original debate.

That they aren't connected can be seen as an even bigger reason why the mother isn't fault. Like, you don't have to give a homeless person money, even if they'll die without it, but you have to buy your kids food. Why is that? Why does a parent have a legal obligation to keep their children alive, and why is that not the case before the kid is born?

[DJR210]

Awesome! So there is still a chance that she can destroy her "creation".

:lol I thought it was "property"

[I. Hustle]

:lol I thought it was "property"

In my head, I'm thinking of Dr. Frankenstein.

[I. Hustle]

Thompson definitely did argue about the woman's right to her body, but her violinist example was also to show that there wasn't a point to establishing a normative line. Once you start saying a woman has the obligation simply because the child is born, you get back into the original debate.

That they aren't connected can be seen as an even bigger reason why the mother isn't fault. Like, you don't have to give a homeless person money, even if they'll die without it, but you have to buy your kids food. Why is that? Why does a parent have a legal obligation to keep their children alive, and why is that not the case before the kid is born?

I didn't say they weren't connected at all. Only that the connection isn't the same. We still have legal obligations even if moral obligations are thrown out the window. The mother is obligated to make sure that the child is taken care of since she made the decision to bring it into the world. It doesn't mean she has to stick around. Plenty of people try to adopt children. The homeless person doesn't have ties to you. The children are here as a direct result of a decision that was made by the mother/father.

If Thompson's argument is correct, then we are all excluded from responsibility. I shouldn't have to pay bills or taxes because I didn't choose to be born. I never asked to be given life. That decision was made for me.

[Chinook]

I didn't say they weren't connected at all. Only that the connection isn't the same. We still have legal obligations even if moral obligations are thrown out the window. The mother is obligated to make sure that the child is taken care of since she made the decision to bring it into the world. It doesn't mean she has to stick around. Plenty of people try to adopt children. The homeless person doesn't have ties to you. The children are here as a direct result of a decision that was made by the mother/father.

I'm trying to have a dialectic, not a debate. I agree it's not one-to-one, but I think the central issues in the Thompson thought experiment are the same. And that's big, because that her argument broke the abortion debate wide open. And it never sat well with me. I think it's reasonable to assume that carrying the baby to term implies that the mother is obligated to do what she can to keep it alive, especially if she doesn't adopt it out. However, the father doesn't get that choice, since the male very prominently gets ignored in the decision to have the child. It's just a crazy situation.


If Thompson's argument is correct, then we are all excluded from responsibility. I shouldn't have to pay bills or taxes because I didn't choose to be born. I never asked to be given life. That decision was made for me.

Well that's mostly covered in contract theory. You give up some positive rights so that the government can protect your negative rights. You don't have to pay taxes if you off yourself or even ostracize yourself from anything having to do with society. But you can't expect to have anything relating to modern human comfort and not sacrifice for it.

[I. Hustle]

Well that's mostly covered in contract theory. You give up some positive rights so that the government can protect your negative rights. You don't have to pay taxes if you off yourself or even ostracize yourself from anything having to do with society. But you can't expect to have anything relating to modern human comfort and not sacrifice for it.

I don't know. I watch those off the grid shows and only a certain number of people are allowed to do that. In certain states, it's not even allowed and the ones that are doing it legally have to stop after a certain number of years. You aren't really given that option.

[140]

Avante would never forget about a kid. Gotta give props where props are due tbh

[RD2191]

I read somewhere that it's illegal to live off the grid in Texas. Not sure how true that is.

[Chinook]

I don't know. I watch those off the grid shows and only a certain number of people are allowed to do that. In certain states, it's not even allowed and the ones that are doing it legally have to stop after a certain number of years. You aren't really given that option.

I have no idea what you're watching, but if you decide to just go over to the Alaska wilderness and starve to death, no one would stop you. Now if you mean that you can't live off government land for free, I could see that.

[I. Hustle]

I have no idea what you're watching, but if you decide to just go over to the Alaska wilderness and starve to death, no one would stop you. Now if you mean that you can't live off government land for free, I could see that.

You need to watch those shows. They are on A&E or Discovery or something like that. They are pretty cool.

[SpursforSix]

I read somewhere that it's illegal to live off the grid in Texas. Not sure how true that is.

That could be true. But I don't know. I'm skeptical.

[Avante]

Gotta hand it to the Mexicans, they haul the whole tribe everywhere they go.

[lebomb]

Why couldnt that faggot MS parents forget to leave his ass in the car? :depressed

[koriwhat]

i know quite a bit of mx families that should employ this technique. damn football teams created out of the loins of 2 people. jesus christ!

[.G.]

But do you really think a person who does not have the ability to "remember" their kid in a 9 hour window is going to have the ability to have guilt? These scumbags will be back partying and living their shitty life to the fullest the following weekend I'm sure.

I think the memory will haunt him forever. I also think it's a reach to think he'll be living it up as if nothing happened. Doesn't appear to have some of those casey Anthony genes in him. He locked up and went into shock mode.

[Thread]

I think the memory will haunt him forever.

G

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Awesome! So there is still a chance that she can destroy her "creation".

No, because I've reached independent personhood and am no longer a drain on her time or finances as required by law.


Admit it, the majority of babies dying in hot cars and such are "neglected" because of money. Most of them were unplanned or "mistakes" in the first place. The parents, such as this guy (who works at Walmart, case in point) do not want to expend their very limited time, money and other valuable resources on a little sucking parasite just because they satisfied their natural urge and desire for pleasure and intimacy, i.e. sexual intercourse.

Why should anyone be forced by big government to pay for such a parasite out of their own money and time? People should have viable options, and termination can be a good practical option, particularly when you consider the lengthy outbound adoption logistics process as well as the future threat of human overpopulation. Termination keeps more money in the pockets of such lower and lower-middle class Americans, and reduces societal need and demand for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid and the like. The option to terminate also encourages people to go to work and aid in bolstering the U.S. economy.

On a nature level, males in particular have never, ever been commanded or forced into working to provide for their young. This is true for most species in the world, and was true for humanity until the cancer of institutionalization and big government got in the way.

[Blake]

No, because I've reached independent personhood and am no longer a drain on her time or finances as required by law.


Admit it, the majority of babies dying in hot cars and such are "neglected" because of money. Most of them were unplanned or "mistakes" in the first place. The parents, such as this guy (who works at Walmart, case in point) do not want to expend their very limited time, money and other valuable resources on a little sucking parasite just because they satisfied their natural urge and desire for pleasure and intimacy, i.e. sexual intercourse.

Why should anyone be forced by big government to pay for such a parasite out of their own money and time? People should have viable options, and termination can be a good practical option, particularly when you consider the lengthy outbound adoption logistics process as well as the future threat of human overpopulation. Termination keeps more money in the pockets of such lower and lower-middle class Americans, and reduces societal need and demand for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid and the like. The option to terminate also encourages people to go to work and aid in bolstering the U.S. economy.

On a nature level, males in particular have never, ever been commanded or forced into working to provide for their young. This is true for most species in the world, and was true for humanity until the cancer of institutionalization and big government got in the way.

This has to be a troll post

[UNT Eagles 2016]

This has to be a troll post

Nope, it's just a common-sense, logical, modest proposal.

[I. Hustle]

No, because I've reached independent personhood and am no longer a drain on her time or finances as required by law.


Admit it, the majority of babies dying in hot cars and such are "neglected" because of money. Most of them were unplanned or "mistakes" in the first place. The parents, such as this guy (who works at Walmart, case in point) do not want to expend their very limited time, money and other valuable resources on a little sucking parasite just because they satisfied their natural urge and desire for pleasure and intimacy, i.e. sexual intercourse.

Why should anyone be forced by big government to pay for such a parasite out of their own money and time? People should have viable options, and termination can be a good practical option, particularly when you consider the lengthy outbound adoption logistics process as well as the future threat of human overpopulation. Termination keeps more money in the pockets of such lower and lower-middle class Americans, and reduces societal need and demand for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid and the like. The option to terminate also encourages people to go to work and aid in bolstering the U.S. economy.

On a nature level, males in particular have never, ever been commanded or forced into working to provide for their young. This is true for most species in the world, and was true for humanity until the cancer of institutionalization and big government got in the way.

Nah, Your dad raw dogged your mom until he splooged all in her. Then she spit you out of her vag. That makes you her property forever. You might not know which guy is really your dad but you know who your mom is. You're her property.

[Blake]

Nope, it's just a common-sense, logical, modest proposal.

Lol logical

You'll need links to back up your lol claim that the majority of babies dying in hot cars are neglected because of money

[lebomb]

No, because I've reached independent personhood and am no longer a drain on her time or finances as required by law.


Admit it, the majority of babies dying in hot cars and such are "neglected" because of money. Most of them were unplanned or "mistakes" in the first place. The parents, such as this guy (who works at Walmart, case in point) do not want to expend their very limited time, money and other valuable resources on a little sucking parasite just because they satisfied their natural urge and desire for pleasure and intimacy, i.e. sexual intercourse.

Why should anyone be forced by big government to pay for such a parasite out of their own money and time? People should have viable options, and termination can be a good practical option, particularly when you consider the lengthy outbound adoption logistics process as well as the future threat of human overpopulation. Termination keeps more money in the pockets of such lower and lower-middle class Americans, and reduces societal need and demand for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid and the like. The option to terminate also encourages people to go to work and aid in bolstering the U.S. economy.

On a nature level, males in particular have never, ever been commanded or forced into working to provide for their young. This is true for most species in the world, and was true for humanity until the cancer of institutionalization and big government got in the way.

So basically you are telling us that when you have a kid, you will leave his/her ass in the car. NOTED

[I. Hustle]

So basically you are telling us that when you have a kid, you will leave his/her ass in the car. NOTED

LMAO He'd have to get a chick first. He can't even get one to stick around.

[lebomb]

LMAO He'd have to get a chick first. He can't even get one to stick around.

You do have a point....... his hand cant get pregnant.

[I. Hustle]

You do have a point....... his hand cant get pregnant.

LMAO
https://66.media.tumblr.com/82e1874b6355f0b876ca96f70eef0597/tumblr_mjishjkI2k1rho7sco1_500.jpg

[UNT Eagles 2016]

So basically you are telling us that when you have a kid, you will leave his/her ass in the car. NOTED

Nope because I'm not going to have any mistake children. I'm actually getting married FIRST unlike the dumbfucks of today's Shitmerica.


Marriage before carriage, always and forever. It's the only way.

[DJR210]

Marriage before carriage, always and forever. It's the only way.

You sound like a woman with goals :lol

[UNT Eagles 2016]

You sound like a woman with goals :lol

I don't envy rabid goon dogs like Antonio Cromartie.

[140]

You sound like a woman with goals :lol
:lmao