Go to What Country Am I In?
- Add a comment
- Go to Another Texas Mother Kills Her Children
There are agencies that follow up reports of abuse, lindo, but as far as
being good at detecting this sort of thing -- no, we don't have anything of the type. These agencies almost always come in after the fact, after an abuse, after the damage. They might stop this particular damage or abuse at some time but these agencies rarely ever work preemptively or preventively. And this is unfortunate, but if they intercede where there is no justifiable proof, then you're going to have civil and legal problems...
posted by
saul_relative
on June 9, 2007 at 4:50 PM
| link to this | reply
saul relative
i really don't understand how can some get to this point without showing any signs of depression or abuse. I always thought that there are agencies that sniff out abusing parents, obviously they are not as effective as they should be since the results are fatal.
posted by
lindo
on June 9, 2007 at 1:06 PM
| link to this | reply
Of course, it is, Wavy. Sadly, children are being born every day to
parents having children for selfish reasons, not pragmatic reasons. In the end, they all suffer, especially if the parents have any parental sensibility, but continuing to have children to assuage some assinine religious tenet or emotional black hole of loneliness (or whatever) is damned near criminal...
posted by
saul_relative
on June 2, 2007 at 12:41 PM
| link to this | reply
What's your point, Jenasis? That America is a place where idiots can have
as many children as they want, even though it's usually the children that suffer the stupidity of the parents and not the other way around? I'm only advocating common sense. Strap on a condom or take a pill, but stop breeding when you reach the limit of your financial umbrella.
posted by
saul_relative
on June 2, 2007 at 12:38 PM
| link to this | reply
I do have a problem with the dropping of bombs on innocent people.
But I seriously doubt if many of those people can really afford the number of children they have. Still, for the sake of argument, let's say they can. I have no problem with people raising as many children as they want as long as those children are well-cared for and not abused. Killing their children, I believe, constitutes some form of abuse, I would think.
As for the bombings, 'collateral' damage is not acceptable if those "damaged" are innocents, and I voice my outrage. But I have no control over it, no more than I have control over a man getting shot downtown or a woman getting raped on a farm. I don't have control over moralistic simpletons with severe depression who think they're victims and kill their children, either. However, I do beleive there are ways to change the way people think about these things. And I try my utmost to do this. Not only because I beleive that my view may be a little more enlightened (maybe not), but thatit will make people think.
posted by
saul_relative
on June 2, 2007 at 12:32 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: There it is, WavyDavy. I have a child and his needs are met within my
I absolutely agree with you saul relative. It's the children that suffer.
posted by
WavyDavy
on June 2, 2007 at 9:15 AM
| link to this | reply
You are still in AM-ER-ic-a. And my oldest child is named JOSH-u-a.
posted by
Jenasis
on June 1, 2007 at 9:04 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul_Relative,
You speak from both sides of your mouth! What does this woman's act of despicable desperation, have to do with the number of children a person
conceives? You have no problem with dropping five hundred pound bombs on innocent people who possess the ability to raise their own! Selective moral indignation is a very common malaise that afflicts you people!
posted by
Glennb
on May 31, 2007 at 9:37 PM
| link to this | reply
If we knew her reasoning, TAPS, we might understand the why of it, but we
could never, as reasonable people, ever reconcile understanding with actualization of such an heinous act. We can even understand delusion and fear; we just can't bridge the chasm of thought between that understanding and the act, something Estrada somehow managed to do.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 31, 2007 at 12:35 PM
| link to this | reply
Saul_relative
Such as this, what you have listed in the post, is beyond understanding. One can surmise all day long but never understand.
posted by
TAPS.
on May 31, 2007 at 11:59 AM
| link to this | reply
There is that element, Mademoiselle. People should never place themselves
in this position, either through religion, poor planning, unprotected sexual practices, or selfish reasoning. Children are a responsibility, one of the many factors of which is financial. But there are broader issues, like emotional, psychological, environmental (all of which can can be affected through financial stimuli, or lack thereof). Bottom line: Think before you f**k -- lives depend on it.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 31, 2007 at 11:46 AM
| link to this | reply
There it is, WavyDavy. I have a child and his needs are met within my
financial capability. My fiancee and I together have two children whose needs are met within our financial capability. Be fruitful and multiply does not mean be irresponsible and have as many damned children as you can pump out. And if your religion forbids you contraception, I suggest conversion to a more realistic religion or praying for forgiveness. I don't feel sympathy for those who have child after child when they know they can't afford them; I feel sympathy for the children for having to know poverty and fear and hunger and idiotic parents.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 31, 2007 at 11:38 AM
| link to this | reply
This Estrada woman, victim of whatever, had no right to kill those
children, Glennb. Chronic victims are self-perpetuating, rarely changing or attempting to change their circumstances, relegated to the victimhood they've created for themselves, mentally and physically. I cannot presume to know Estrada's circumstances, but not one of them gave her the right to murder her children.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 31, 2007 at 11:30 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul_Relative,
It did not take you long to drag out the shut-ins and white trash! The madness begins at the top my lost ones! You people have very little else to hold on to, so you blame the victims!
posted by
Glennb
on May 31, 2007 at 8:56 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Ah, but it is the poor, Mademoiselle, who seem to have more children and
If you aren't financially and emotionally capable of raising children; you shouldn't have them. Many fathers don't help either. The children suffer as they always seem to do. It's pitiful and tragic.
posted by
WavyDavy
on May 31, 2007 at 8:26 AM
| link to this | reply
I think it also can often leave the mothers feeling "trapped" (with no way out) ...
which, of course, can then lead to them doing something drastic and horrible.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 30, 2007 at 10:46 PM
| link to this | reply
Ah, but it is the poor, Mademoiselle, who seem to have more children and
have no problem with others having more children, and one of the reasons for them remaining in the poorhouse. The number of children you have should be based on your annual household net income. If you can barely afford to live in an efficiency apartment with your girlfriend and eat Oodles of Noodles three times a day, then your dumb ass needs a psychiatric evaluation if you and your partner decide to have a child. In fact, as soon as that child reaches the age of majority, can get a job and pay taxes, one of the parents should be shot. Yeah, that'll stop it...
posted by
saul_relative
on May 30, 2007 at 9:12 PM
| link to this | reply
It gives Texas a black eye, bandanafish, that's for sure.
posted by
saul_relative
on May 30, 2007 at 8:54 PM
| link to this | reply
This is one of the primary reasons I've never been in favor of allowing the poor to have children.
Seems to me nothing good can ever come of it.
"No comment."
posted by
Mademoiselle
on May 30, 2007 at 1:50 PM
| link to this | reply
That's sick. And it really makes one wonder...
in such church-oriented state, especially heavy around Dallas-FT metroplex area, things like these would happen so (relatively) often...
posted by
bandanafish
on May 30, 2007 at 11:14 AM
| link to this | reply