| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"dont do it mommy please" |
| Date: |
20 Oct 2005 10:47:07 AM |
| Object: |
Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
Mother accused of tossing children into San Francisco bay
One body recovered, search continues
Thursday, October 20, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A woman who was hearing voices
tossed her three young children off a pier into San Francisco Bay,
authorities said. Rescuers had found one body, and the other two
children were feared dead.
The mother, Lashaun Harris, 23, of Oakland, was booked on three counts
of murder, the San Francisco Chronicle reported in Thursday's
editions. Her children were identified as Trayshaun Harris, 6,
Travante Greely, 3, and Joshua Harris, 1.
A child's body was found about four hours after a witness reported
seeing a woman drop the children into the bay near Pier 7 Wednesday,
said Jonathan Guerra of the U.S. Coast Guard. (Watch video of the
empty stroller and alleged crime scene -- 1:39)
The San Francisco Examiner reported Thursday that the body of the
3-year-old had been recovered.
While rescuers searched for the children, an empty stroller was
visible on the pier. A small inflatable Coast Guard boat was hugging
the water front as rescuers used hand-held flashlights to search under
the pier. Larger Coast Guard and San Francisco police boats were
searching the water with high-powered flashlights.
Mayor Gavin Newsom came to the scene to get briefed by authorities and
would only tell reporters, "I'm sick to my stomach," before leaving.
Lashaun Harris told authorities that voices had told her to throw her
children into the water, the Chronicle reported. It was not
immediately known whether she had an attorney.
She had been staying with her children at a Salvation Army shelter in
Oakland, Mary Ann Ramirez, the social services manager of the shelter,
told the Chronicle.
"I just talked to her yesterday," Ramirez said Wednesday. "We had our
usual how are you doing, how's the kids. I would never have guessed in
a million years that today she would do that."
The incident happened in the Embarcadero area, which draws tourists to
the historic Ferry Building within view of Coit Tower and the landmark
Transamerica pyramid. The fishing pier offers views of San Francisco,
the Bay Bridge, ships in the bay, as well as Treasure Islands.
.
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
24 Oct 2005 06:14:25 PM |
|
|
I've got a voice for her...and her family. Please don't have any more
god damned kids. You obviously cannot take care of them, and your
family is obviously incapable of taking them away from you, so don't go
blaming society for not keeping you from murdering your babies. *****
you,lady. And ***** the family too. No sympathy here. I see it everyday.
Kids you just KNOW don't have a chance in hell in this world, because
of their lame brained parents. Please just stop it. Don't make me pay
anymore for your mistakes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Nebenzahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
20 Oct 2005 01:38:20 PM |
|
|
On 10/20/2005 8:47 AM don't do it mommy please spake thus:
Mother accused of tossing children into San Francisco bay
One body recovered, search continues
Thursday, October 20, 2005
This doesn't belong here (ba.transportation).
--
.... asked to comment on Michigan governor George Romney's remark that
the army had "brainwashed" him in Vietnam—-a remark which knocked Romney
out of the running for the Republican nomination—-McCarthy quipped,
"I think in that case a light rinse would have been sufficient."
(Eugene McCarthy, onetime candidate for POTUS)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel J. Stern" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
20 Oct 2005 05:08:50 PM |
|
|
She's 23, can't feed herself, can't house or support herself, yet she's
allowed to have three children until she "hears voices" and so drowns
them. You gotta have a license to go fishing, but they'll let any waste of
protoplasm who can figure out "TAB A --> SLOT B" be a "parent". WOOHOO!
LET'S HEAR IT FOR TURDISHNUL MAWRUL FAYMLEE VAHYEWS! YAAAAAAAY!
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, don't do it mommy please wrote:
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A woman who was hearing voices tossed
her three young children off a pier into San Francisco Bay, authorities
said. Rescuers had found one body, and the other two children were
feared dead.
The mother, Lashaun Harris, 23, of Oakland, was booked on three counts
of murder, the San Francisco Chronicle reported in Thursday's editions.
Her children were identified as Trayshaun Harris, 6, Travante Greely, 3,
and Joshua Harris, 1.
A child's body was found about four hours after a witness reported
seeing a woman drop the children into the bay near Pier 7 Wednesday,
said Jonathan Guerra of the U.S. Coast Guard. (Watch video of the
empty stroller and alleged crime scene -- 1:39)
The San Francisco Examiner reported Thursday that the body of the
3-year-old had been recovered.
While rescuers searched for the children, an empty stroller was
visible on the pier. A small inflatable Coast Guard boat was hugging
the water front as rescuers used hand-held flashlights to search under
the pier. Larger Coast Guard and San Francisco police boats were
searching the water with high-powered flashlights.
Mayor Gavin Newsom came to the scene to get briefed by authorities and
would only tell reporters, "I'm sick to my stomach," before leaving.
Lashaun Harris told authorities that voices had told her to throw her
children into the water, the Chronicle reported. It was not
immediately known whether she had an attorney.
She had been staying with her children at a Salvation Army shelter in
Oakland, Mary Ann Ramirez, the social services manager of the shelter,
told the Chronicle.
"I just talked to her yesterday," Ramirez said Wednesday. "We had our
usual how are you doing, how's the kids. I would never have guessed in
a million years that today she would do that."
The incident happened in the Embarcadero area, which draws tourists to
the historic Ferry Building within view of Coit Tower and the landmark
Transamerica pyramid. The fishing pier offers views of San Francisco,
the Bay Bridge, ships in the bay, as well as Treasure Islands.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James C. Reeves" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
20 Oct 2005 05:36:56 PM |
|
|
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.63.0510201807150.29079@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
She's 23, can't feed herself, can't house or support herself, yet she's
allowed to have three children...
Allowed? Is there a law coming that forbids it?
...until she "hears voices" and so drowns them. You gotta have a license
to go fishing,
Or a license to have hids?
but they'll let any waste of
protoplasm who can figure out "TAB A --> SLOT B" be a "parent". WOOHOO!
LET'S HEAR IT FOR TURDISHNUL MAWRUL FAYMLEE VAHYEWS! YAAAAAAAY!
Or a test to have kids?
Yikes Daniel! You've been in Canada too long!
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, don't do it mommy please wrote:
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
20 Oct 2005 06:32:54 PM |
|
|
James C. Reeves wrote:
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.63.0510201807150.29079@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
She's 23, can't feed herself, can't house or support herself, yet she's
allowed to have three children...
Allowed? Is there a law coming that forbids it?
Maybe there should be. If you can't support them, how is it possibly
in the child's interest to be subjected to that?
The parents' rights to ***** like bunnies supercedes any other
consideration?
...until she "hears voices" and so drowns them. You gotta have a license
to go fishing,
Or a license to have hids?
Sure. Almost any idiot can get a license to drive a car - shouldn't
there be some minimum standard for supporting a child?
but they'll let any waste of
protoplasm who can figure out "TAB A --> SLOT B" be a "parent". WOOHOO!
LET'S HEAR IT FOR TURDISHNUL MAWRUL FAYMLEE VAHYEWS! YAAAAAAAY!
Or a test to have kids?
Yikes Daniel! You've been in Canada too long!
I'm not sure that Canada feels differently about the unfettered right
to screw whomever and squeeze out however many future welfare
recipients.
If folks don't show responsibility, pretty soon, well-meaning lawmakers
step in. Here endeth the history lesson...
E.P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James C. Reeves" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
20 Oct 2005 07:16:53 PM |
|
|
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129851174.379573.277110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
James C. Reeves wrote:
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.63.0510201807150.29079@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
She's 23, can't feed herself, can't house or support herself, yet she's
allowed to have three children...
Allowed? Is there a law coming that forbids it?
Maybe there should be. If you can't support them, how is it possibly
in the child's interest to be subjected to that?
Sounds like China. They do have parenting laws, but then they're communist
too.
The parents' rights to ***** like bunnies supercedes any other
consideration?
...until she "hears voices" and so drowns them. You gotta have a
license
to go fishing,
Or a license to have hids?
Sure. Almost any idiot can get a license to drive a car - shouldn't
there be some minimum standard for supporting a child?
You're kidding, right? Who decides what the minimum is? But, more
importantly, how can something like that be enforced?
but they'll let any waste of
protoplasm who can figure out "TAB A --> SLOT B" be a "parent". WOOHOO!
LET'S HEAR IT FOR TURDISHNUL MAWRUL FAYMLEE VAHYEWS! YAAAAAAAY!
Or a test to have kids?
Yikes Daniel! You've been in Canada too long!
I'm not sure that Canada feels differently about the unfettered right
to screw whomever and squeeze out however many future welfare
recipients.
If folks don't show responsibility, pretty soon, well-meaning lawmakers
step in. Here endeth the history lesson...
Yes, all laws start with good intentions. The untended consequences are
often worse than the cure.
Last I checked, there were already laws dealing with killing ones children.
That law didn't stop her, did it? How would having a law keeping her from
having them in the 1st place have worked any better?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Bud" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
21 Oct 2005 07:53:49 AM |
|
|
Sure. Almost any idiot can get a license to drive a car - shouldn't
there be some minimum standard for supporting a child?
You're kidding, right? Who decides what the minimum is? But, more
importantly, how can something like that be enforced?
Forced abortion, obviously.
.
|
|
|
| User: "richard schumacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
21 Oct 2005 09:49:06 AM |
|
|
In article <1129899229.902681.32240@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sure. Almost any idiot can get a license to drive a car - shouldn't
there be some minimum standard for supporting a child?
You're kidding, right? Who decides what the minimum is? But, more
importantly, how can something like that be enforced?
Forced abortion, obviously.
Or retroactive abortion. Posting a completion bond of, say, $200,000
before one's contraceptive implants could be reversed would also be
useful.
Looking a little further ahead, expiration dates for birth certificates
are coming as part of Social Security reform. For those who wish to
take a proactive role we need a handbook on suicide in estate planning.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
21 Oct 2005 08:06:13 AM |
|
|
Larry Bud wrote:
Sure. Almost any idiot can get a license to drive a car - shouldn't
there be some minimum standard for supporting a child?
You're kidding, right? Who decides what the minimum is? But, more
importantly, how can something like that be enforced?
Forced abortion, obviously.
Oooo, clever. Did it take all of your brain cell to come up with that
completely stupid response?
E.P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Bud" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
26 Oct 2005 07:34:19 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Larry Bud wrote:
Sure. Almost any idiot can get a license to drive a car - shouldn't
there be some minimum standard for supporting a child?
You're kidding, right? Who decides what the minimum is? But, more
importantly, how can something like that be enforced?
Forced abortion, obviously.
Oooo, clever. Did it take all of your brain cell to come up with that
completely stupid response?
I'm not advocating it, and you're the one who suggested a minimum
standard for supporting a child. So what's your enforcement method?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
26 Oct 2005 11:02:57 AM |
|
|
Larry Bud wrote:
gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
Larry Bud wrote:
Sure. Almost any idiot can get a license to drive a car - shouldn't
there be some minimum standard for supporting a child?
You're kidding, right? Who decides what the minimum is? But, more
importantly, how can something like that be enforced?
Forced abortion, obviously.
Oooo, clever. Did it take all of your brain cell to come up with that
completely stupid response?
I'm not advocating it, and you're the one who suggested a minimum
standard for supporting a child. So what's your enforcement method?
It isn't abortion.
E.P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Bud" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
26 Oct 2005 01:01:43 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Larry Bud wrote:
wrote:
Larry Bud wrote:
Sure. Almost any idiot can get a license to drive a car - shouldn't
there be some minimum standard for supporting a child?
You're kidding, right? Who decides what the minimum is? But, more
importantly, how can something like that be enforced?
Forced abortion, obviously.
Oooo, clever. Did it take all of your brain cell to come up with that
completely stupid response?
I'm not advocating it, and you're the one who suggested a minimum
standard for supporting a child. So what's your enforcement method?
It isn't abortion.
Well, let's hear it!!?!?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
27 Oct 2005 10:33:02 AM |
|
|
Larry Bud wrote:
gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
Larry Bud wrote:
gcmschemist@gmail.com wrote:
Larry Bud wrote:
Sure. Almost any idiot can get a license to drive a car - shouldn't
there be some minimum standard for supporting a child?
You're kidding, right? Who decides what the minimum is? But, more
importantly, how can something like that be enforced?
Forced abortion, obviously.
Oooo, clever. Did it take all of your brain cell to come up with that
completely stupid response?
I'm not advocating it, and you're the one who suggested a minimum
standard for supporting a child. So what's your enforcement method?
It isn't abortion.
Well, let's hear it!!?!?
Sure, I'll tell you - just as soon as you answer the question I posed
above. A "yes" or "no" answer is not sufficient - first you must
present a logical rationale for the answer.
Put up or shut up.
E.P.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matthew Russotto" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
20 Oct 2005 09:37:41 PM |
|
|
In article <4uydnVe4JNjorsXeRVn-tA@comcast.com>,
James C. Reeves <jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote:
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129851174.379573.277110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
James C. Reeves wrote:
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.63.0510201807150.29079@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
She's 23, can't feed herself, can't house or support herself, yet she's
allowed to have three children...
Allowed? Is there a law coming that forbids it?
Maybe there should be. If you can't support them, how is it possibly
in the child's interest to be subjected to that?
Sounds like China. They do have parenting laws, but then they're communist
too.
The parents' rights to ***** like bunnies supercedes any other
consideration?
...until she "hears voices" and so drowns them. You gotta have a
license
to go fishing,
Or a license to have hids?
Sure. Almost any idiot can get a license to drive a car - shouldn't
there be some minimum standard for supporting a child?
You're kidding, right? Who decides what the minimum is? But, more
importantly, how can something like that be enforced?
Easy. Kids are required to have Social Security numbers. You apply
for one without a permit, you're arrested and the unlicensed child is
killed like the unperson it is. Find a kid without a Social Security
number, same thing.
Sure it's horrible. But it takes horrible tactics to enforce
authoritarian dictates.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Bud" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
21 Oct 2005 07:53:07 AM |
|
|
Easy. Kids are required to have Social Security numbers. You apply
for one without a permit, you're arrested and the unlicensed child is
killed like the unperson it is.
You're quite the humanitarian, comrade. Heil!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel J. Stern" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
20 Oct 2005 10:15:54 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote:
Easy. Kids are required to have Social Security numbers. You apply for
one without a permit, you're arrested and the unlicensed child is killed
like the unperson it is. Find a kid without a Social Security number,
same thing.
Very dramatic -- you have a flair for it -- but no need for any such a
drastic response. Simply take the child away from the unlicensed parent
until such time as s/he can meet the licensing requirements.
We don't shoot unlicensed drivers, after all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matthew Russotto" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
20 Oct 2005 10:27:37 PM |
|
|
In article <Pine.GSO.4.63.0510202314410.15051@alumni.engin.umich.edu>,
Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote:
Easy. Kids are required to have Social Security numbers. You apply for
one without a permit, you're arrested and the unlicensed child is killed
like the unperson it is. Find a kid without a Social Security number,
same thing.
Very dramatic -- you have a flair for it -- but no need for any such a
drastic response. Simply take the child away from the unlicensed parent
until such time as s/he can meet the licensing requirements.
You still have to pay for the kid's upkeep in that case; isn't that
what you were trying to avoid?
We don't shoot unlicensed drivers, after all.
The licensing laws aren't effectively enforced, either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel J. Stern" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
20 Oct 2005 10:49:48 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote:
Simply take the child away from the unlicensed parent until such time
as s/he can meet the licensing requirements.
You still have to pay for the kid's upkeep in that case; isn't that
what you were trying to avoid?
No, you were trying to avoid the much, much higher costs of allowing the
kids to be left in the care of those who can't or won't properly rear
them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
23 Oct 2005 12:54:11 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:15:54 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote:
Easy. Kids are required to have Social Security numbers. You apply for
one without a permit, you're arrested and the unlicensed child is killed
like the unperson it is. Find a kid without a Social Security number,
same thing.
Very dramatic -- you have a flair for it -- but no need for any such a
drastic response. Simply take the child away from the unlicensed parent
until such time as s/he can meet the licensing requirements.
We don't shoot unlicensed drivers, after all.
We don't take away their cars either.
Having the gov't seizing children from parents who don't meet gov't
approval is quite dramatic in and of itself.
Who will raise those children?
Who will pay for it?
How long do you think it would be before open rebellion took place?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
24 Oct 2005 12:34:27 AM |
|
|
Ben wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:15:54 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote:
Easy. Kids are required to have Social Security numbers. You apply for
one without a permit, you're arrested and the unlicensed child is killed
like the unperson it is. Find a kid without a Social Security number,
same thing.
Very dramatic -- you have a flair for it -- but no need for any such a
drastic response. Simply take the child away from the unlicensed parent
until such time as s/he can meet the licensing requirements.
We don't shoot unlicensed drivers, after all.
We don't take away their cars either.
A human being is more important than a car.
Having the gov't seizing children from parents who don't meet gov't
approval is quite dramatic in and of itself.
Again - we licence all sorts of professions, and for nothing more than
to make sure the paying suckers don't get screwed.
We license driving - which implies a minimum standard. But when it
comes to human beings, we should just say "hey, tough luck for you -
sucks to be a child of your fucked-up parents, huh?"
Who will raise those children?
Yeah, who will raise those three kids? Oh, yeah - nobody. They're
dead. Sucks to be them, I guess. I know - we could get all those
folks who are anti-abortion - they want all these kids to be born, so
maybe they could pitch in to make sure they get raised right.
Who will pay for it?
Who's paying for it now? We all are. And instead of possibly useful
and productive members of society, we get yet another wave of
marginally civilized future public assistance users, or prisoners...
Yeah - let's cry about paying for it like we're not paying anything
under the current system.
How long do you think it would be before open rebellion took place?
It wouldn't. Because all those folks who champion personal
responsibility would be 100% on-board. Really, the only folks who
could possible complain are the poor. And in America, nobody cares
about the poor, except to try and get them to move somewhere else. So,
it'd be a slam-dunk.
E.P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James C. Reeves" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
24 Oct 2005 08:15:38 PM |
|
|
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130132067.061054.73580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It wouldn't. Because all those folks who champion personal
responsibility would be 100% on-board. Really, the only folks who
could possible complain are the poor. And in America, nobody cares
about the poor, except to try and get them to move somewhere else. So,
it'd be a slam-dunk.
E.P.
Hardly. Once a "bar" is established, there are always those with a "good
case" to justify raising it or modifying it in ways that were not originally
intended. History is an excellent teacher in these matters, become familiar
with it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
25 Oct 2005 07:21:41 PM |
|
|
James C. Reeves wrote:
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130132067.061054.73580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It wouldn't. Because all those folks who champion personal
responsibility would be 100% on-board. Really, the only folks who
could possible complain are the poor. And in America, nobody cares
about the poor, except to try and get them to move somewhere else. So,
it'd be a slam-dunk.
E.P.
Hardly. Once a "bar" is established, there are always those with a "good
case" to justify raising it or modifying it in ways that were not originally
intended. History is an excellent teacher in these matters, become familiar
with it.
Logical fallacy: The Slippery Slope.
Logic is a good thing to bring to a discussion. Become familiar with
it.
E.P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
25 Oct 2005 07:51:20 PM |
|
|
On 25 Oct 2005 17:21:41 -0700, "gcmschemist@gmail.com"
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:
Logic is a good thing to bring to a discussion.
You should try that sometime
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
25 Oct 2005 08:26:43 PM |
|
|
Ben wrote:
On 25 Oct 2005 17:21:41 -0700, "gcmschemist@gmail.com"
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:
Logic is a good thing to bring to a discussion.
You should try that sometime
If you think you've got it, then bring it.
Your ad hominem (another logical fallacy) doesn't make your point,
although it shows you at least try to be clever.
Go ahead, Ben - I'll wait for your logical argument.
E.P.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
26 Oct 2005 05:02:34 AM |
|
|
On 25 Oct 2005 17:21:41 -0700, "gcmschemist@gmail.com" <gcmschemist@gmail.com>
wrote:
James C. Reeves wrote:
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130132067.061054.73580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It wouldn't. Because all those folks who champion personal
responsibility would be 100% on-board. Really, the only folks who
could possible complain are the poor. And in America, nobody cares
about the poor, except to try and get them to move somewhere else. So,
it'd be a slam-dunk.
E.P.
Hardly. Once a "bar" is established, there are always those with a "good
case" to justify raising it or modifying it in ways that were not originally
intended. History is an excellent teacher in these matters, become familiar
with it.
Logical fallacy: The Slippery Slope.
Logic is a good thing to bring to a discussion. Become familiar with
it.
Yet the statement he makes is quite true, and we all know, or should know, that
logic, and reality, are not necessarily the best of bed fellows.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matthew Russotto" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
23 Oct 2005 05:50:52 PM |
|
|
In article <3gjnl111l89kgv6vt97va79ec71d7hg3fr@4ax.com>,
Ben <nonspecified@null.null> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:15:54 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
<dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote:
Easy. Kids are required to have Social Security numbers. You apply for
one without a permit, you're arrested and the unlicensed child is killed
like the unperson it is. Find a kid without a Social Security number,
same thing.
Very dramatic -- you have a flair for it -- but no need for any such a
drastic response. Simply take the child away from the unlicensed parent
until such time as s/he can meet the licensing requirements.
We don't shoot unlicensed drivers, after all.
We don't take away their cars either.
Various places have tried it. Cost usually becomes an issue, though.
Having the gov't seizing children from parents who don't meet gov't
approval is quite dramatic in and of itself.
Who will raise those children?
Our wonderful foster care system, no doubt. Except those children
much in demand (healthy infants of particular races), who will be
sol... err, adopted out to the most wealth...err, worthy couples.
Who will pay for it?
Check your paystub.
How long do you think it would be before open rebellion took place?
Open rebellion? Never. But there would be quite a few places where
the child welfare police would have to travel in large and armed
groups, and still worry about snipers.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
20 Oct 2005 07:25:05 PM |
|
|
James C. Reeves wrote:
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129851174.379573.277110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
James C. Reeves wrote:
"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.63.0510201807150.29079@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
She's 23, can't feed herself, can't house or support herself, yet she's
allowed to have three children...
Allowed? Is there a law coming that forbids it?
Maybe there should be. If you can't support them, how is it possibly
in the child's interest to be subjected to that?
Sounds like China.
Doesn't even begin to answer my question...
The parents' rights to ***** like bunnies supercedes any other
consideration?
....and you didn't even address this one at all.
...until she "hears voices" and so drowns them. You gotta have a
license
to go fishing,
Or a license to have hids?
Sure. Almost any idiot can get a license to drive a car - shouldn't
there be some minimum standard for supporting a child?
You're kidding, right?
No. Driving is a responsibility. Parenting is a bigger
responsibility. Shouldn't there be some sort of minimal standards
before people are allowed to attempt to raise kids?
Who decides what the minimum is?
The same folks that decide speed limits?
But, more
importantly, how can something like that be enforced?
Easy - if you have a kid, and don't have a license, the kid gets taken
away.
but they'll let any waste of
protoplasm who can figure out "TAB A --> SLOT B" be a "parent". WOOHOO!
LET'S HEAR IT FOR TURDISHNUL MAWRUL FAYMLEE VAHYEWS! YAAAAAAAY!
Or a test to have kids?
Yikes Daniel! You've been in Canada too long!
I'm not sure that Canada feels differently about the unfettered right
to screw whomever and squeeze out however many future welfare
recipients.
If folks don't show responsibility, pretty soon, well-meaning lawmakers
step in. Here endeth the history lesson...
Yes, all laws start with good intentions. The untended consequences are
often worse than the cure.
Worse than a woman killing three innocent kids? Really, what's worse
than that, from the kids' standpoint?
Last I checked, there were already laws dealing with killing ones children.
Yeah - those have no bearing on a licensing discussion.
That law didn't stop her, did it?
If she didn't have custody, it would have been much more difficult,
huh?
How would having a law keeping her from
having them in the 1st place have worked any better?
Who said anything about preventing the births?
E.P.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
23 Oct 2005 12:52:37 PM |
|
|
On 20 Oct 2005 17:25:05 -0700, "gcmschemist@gmail.com"
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote:
Sure. Almost any idiot can get a license to drive a car - shouldn't
there be some minimum standard for supporting a child?
You're kidding, right?
No. Driving is a responsibility. Parenting is a bigger
responsibility. Shouldn't there be some sort of minimal standards
before people are allowed to attempt to raise kids?
Who decides what the minimum is?
The same folks that decide speed limits?
Yeah - after all, the gov't does such a good job at that.
But, more
importantly, how can something like that be enforced?
Easy - if you have a kid, and don't have a license, the kid gets taken
away.
Didn't they used to do things like that in the Soviet Union and Nazi
Germany?
They may not have had a formal licensing system, but they would take
children away.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
21 Oct 2005 01:54:32 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:16:53 -0400, "James C. Reeves" <jcnospam@nospam.com>
wrote:
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129851174.379573.277110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Sure. Almost any idiot can get a license to drive a car - shouldn't
there be some minimum standard for supporting a child?
You're kidding, right? Who decides what the minimum is? But, more
importantly, how can something like that be enforced?
We actually already do have something along these lines. Child Protective
Services. Yes, I know there are flaws with that system, but the gist of the
sentiment is the same - if you don't meet the minimum standards for supporting
your children, they can be taken away from you. The suggestion that people have
licenses to become parents isn't really all that much of a leap from where we
already are. But the U.S. will never go the enforced abortion route like China
did. At least, not in the forseeable future.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matthew Russotto" |
|
| Title: Re: Woman hearing voices throws children into SF Bay |
21 Oct 2005 10:18:01 PM |
|
|
In article <nt3hl11m5ojrd8rtstoa4mfi9d95iq6q2h@4ax.com>,
Uncle Buck <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote:
<gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129851174.379573.277110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Sure. Almost any idiot can get a license to drive a car - shouldn't
there be some minimum standard for supporting a child?
You're kidding, right? Who decides what the minimum is? But, more
importantly, how can something like that be enforced?
We actually already do have something along these lines. Child Protective
Services. Yes, I know there are flaws with that system, but the gist of the
sentiment is the same - if you don't meet the minimum standards for supporting
your children, they can be taken away from you.
And then dumped into the foster care system, which of course has
vanishingly small numbers of abusive and neglectful foster parents.
The suggestion that people have
licenses to become parents isn't really all that much of a leap from where we
already are.
Sure it is. Big leap from "assumed competent until proven otherwise
by extraordinary evidence" to "assumed incompetent until proven otherwise"
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
