Child neglect?

[vraiblonde]

Second hand smoke is a demonstrated problem. I don't agree with the law to "fix" it, but there is plenty to back it up.

Laws that tell you how to act for your own good are nanny statesque. I can't think of any I agree with.

Telling people they can't leave their kids in the car is exactly like the smoking issue in that the state is taking the judgement from the parents. I wouldn't choose to smoke with my kids in the car, I also wouldn't leave them in the car on a hot day, i don't need the state to make those decisions for me

You know, back in the day parents smoked in the car, the house, the grocery store...all with children present. Yet kids are a lot more sickly these days, with their asthma, ADHD, whatever. I smoked in front of my kids all the time when they were growing up and they never got sick, and as of Sunday neither were dead.

We were talking the other day about "the good old days" of morality and personal responsibility, yet here we are today disparaging them as "dangerous".

I mean..... :shrug:

 

[Midnightrider]

You know, back in the day parents smoked in the car, the house, the grocery store...all with children present. Yet kids are a lot more sickly these days, with their asthma, ADHD, whatever. I smoked in front of my kids all the time when they were growing up and they never got sick, and as of Sunday neither were dead.

We were talking the other day about "the good old days" of morality and personal responsibility, yet here we are today disparaging them as "dangerous".

I mean..... :shrug:

I'm with you.

 

[vraiblonde]

My mom bought me booze and pot when I was 14. I lived, so it must be okay for me to do that with my kids, right? In later years she gave me meth, LSD, shrooms, and coke. I'm still alive. Should I do the same with my kids? Hell, lets just make all drugs legal since I lived through it.

Okay, you win - your mom was worse than mine.

What I'm saying is that kids are a lot more hardy than their helicopters want to give them credit for. And it's extremely unlikely your child will be kidnapped by strangers and sold as a sex slave. They are more likely to drown in their bathtub or killed by their own parent than some stranger.

 

[Midnightrider]

What's the difference? If you agree with those laws, regulating behavior, you must support all laws. It's all or nothing, right? No compromise, you are either against all laws or you are a hypocrite.

Doubling down on your stupidity huh?

Do you really need someone to explain to you how murder and smoking in a car with your kid are different?

 

[Midnightrider]

My mom bought me booze and pot when I was 14. I lived, so it must be okay for me to do that with my kids, right? In later years she gave me meth, LSD, shrooms, and coke. I'm still alive. Should I do the same with my kids? Hell, lets just make all drugs legal since I lived through it.

Might explain why you want the state to act like your mom now.

 

[MMDad]

Doubling down on your stupidity huh?

Do you really need someone to explain to you how murder and smoking in a car with your kid are different?

No, I need you to admit that being against an ineffective law that is based on emotion yet being in favor of a law that is based on facts and is effective is not hypocritical.

That's my point. Being in favor of the laws that I consider to be valid and needed does not mean that I have to be in favor of every pewling "it's for the kids" crap that comes along.

 

[MMDad]

Might explain why you want the state to act like your mom now.

Right. That's it. That's exactly what I meant. What are you psychotic or something? Reading Tarot cards?

 

[doubtfull24]

Im not kidding :shrug:


A 9 year old is plenty old enough to use a cell phone or get help if there is something wrong. I see no issue with it. For God's sake the store is like 20 ft away. Kids that age used to watch the farm while their parents went to town...are kids these days really less capable of surviving for a few minutes while their parents run into the store? When I was nine I was a mother's helper to a neighbor of mine, and her daughter was around that age..I watched her while she ran down the street to grab the mail or visited a neighbor to borrow something...we even (god forbid) sat int he car while she ran in and out of places running errands. We read books and knew not to opent he door for anyone but her. Miraculously we survived. Not to mention I was already a latch key kid by then myself in the morning and evening. we aren't talking about an infant here.

My oldest is 12 will be 13 soon and I have left him in the car with my almost 2 year old.Not to go grocery shopping but if I was running in to grab milk or pay for gas then I don't see the problem! If my almost 2 year old is asleep and has had no nap should I wake him up to go in the store for a second or let my almost 13 year old sit with him for a few minutes?:shrug:

 

[Midnightrider]

No, I need you to admit that being against an ineffective law that is based on emotion yet being in favor of a law that is based on facts and is effective is not hypocritical.

That's my point. Being in favor of the laws that I consider to be valid and needed does not mean that I have to be in favor of every pewling "it's for the kids" crap that comes along.

The smoking in cars and leaving kids in cares are base on the same thing, an emotional response to a real problem, both based on facts. Both are also nanny state laws.

Neither are anything like murder or robbery.

 

[MMDad]

Okay, you win - your mom was worse than mine.

What I'm saying is that kids are a lot more hardy than their helicopters want to give them credit for. And it's extremely unlikely your child will be kidnapped by strangers and sold as a sex slave. They are more likely to drown in their bathtub or killed by their own parent than some stranger.

I recognize that, but that doesn't mean that we should just accept stupid parents doing stupid things just because we want to thin the herd. Sorry, but I don't believe that crappy parenting should be a death sentence for kids.

And don't say I'm going overboard with that - there have been a number of people in this thread saying that the kids should just be allowed to die.

 

[Midnightrider]

Right. That's it. That's exactly what I meant. What are you psychotic or something? Reading Tarot cards?

Doesn't take a psychic to get that you had a poor example for a parent from the description you just gave.

 

[vraiblonde]

The kid is safer in the car without the parent: car accidents are the #1 killer of children in the US.

Death among children and adolescents: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

Kidnapping by a stranger doesn't even make most lists of what kills kids because it's statistically insignificant.

 

[vraiblonde]

Sorry, but I don't believe that crappy parenting should be a death sentence for kids.

If crappy parenting were a death sentence for kids, there wouldn't be so many dysfunctional adults and criminals around.

 

[MMDad]

The smoking in cars and leaving kids in cares are base on the same thing, an emotional response to a real problem, both based on facts. Both are also nanny state laws.

Neither are anything like murder or robbery.

The smoking thing is not based on science or facts. It is based solely on emotion. Read up on second hand smoke - you'll find that the science behind the knee jerks is tenuous at best, and much of it has been disproven.

The smoking in cars thing is also worthless because even if the science was there, the proposed law would only protect kids while riding in cars. It does nothing for the time the kid is at home.

For kids in cars, the law is written to protect kids from a real threat, and if it is followed the kids will no longer be exposed to that threat. You may think it is not a valid threat, and some even think that letting the kids die is acceptable, but I disagree.

 

[Midnightrider]

The smoking thing is not based on science or facts. It is based solely on emotion. Read up on second hand smoke - you'll find that the science behind the knee jerks is tenuous at best, and much of it has been disproven.

The smoking in cars thing is also worthless because even if the science was there, the proposed law would only protect kids while riding in cars. It does nothing for the time the kid is at home.

For kids in cars, the law is written to protect kids from a real threat, and if it is followed the kids will no longer be exposed to that threat. You may think it is not a valid threat, and some even think that letting the kids die is acceptable, but I disagree.

What is the real threat the kids in this story faced?

 

[bcp]

yay nanny state and the people that support it

your mom left you in the hot car while she shopped,,, didn't she.

 

[somdfunguy]

You might get confused by numbers and statistics but most people can handle the concept of per capita

Wow you really are dense.

 

[doubtfull24]

Why would you invite trouble or the possibility of trouble for no reason other than being lazy? Get the kids out and take them with you or leave them at home with a responsible sitter. Why chance it?

I think there is a big difference as far as how long.Like I said I have left my boys in the car together but for no longer than 5 minutes at the most if that. I am not being lazy at all. However I don't agree with leaving them in the car if you are going to be more than 5 minutes. I always take my kids in if I know it will take awhile or could take awhile.

 

[MMDad]

What is the real threat the kids in this story faced?

No imminent threat in this particular example, at least as reported, other than that not being a place that I would let a 9 YO sit in the car unattended, much less a 2 YO.

The law requires that a 2 YO must be attended by a competent person. A 9 YO does not fit that description. If the child is not being supervised, then the child is deemed to be in danger under the law.

If it was just the 9 YO in the car, this wouldn't be an issue. It's the 2 YO being unattended since the 9 YO cannot legally be considered to be supervising the 2 YO.

In essence, the 2 YO was left locked in a car for an extended period. A 2 YO cannot be assumed to have the ability to care for themselves and cannot escape the car if the need arises. They cannot protect themselves.

 

[Midnightrider]

No imminent threat in this particular example, at least as reported, other than that not being a place that I would let a 9 YO sit in the car unattended, much less a 2 YO.

The law requires that a 2 YO must be attended by a competent person. A 9 YO does not fit that description. If the child is not being supervised, then the child is deemed to be in danger under the law.

If it was just the 9 YO in the car, this wouldn't be an issue. It's the 2 YO being unattended since the 9 YO cannot legally be considered to be supervising the 2 YO.

In essence, the 2 YO was left locked in a car for an extended period. A 2 YO cannot be assumed to have the ability to care for themselves and cannot escape the car if the need arises. They cannot protect themselves.

So no threat to the children. The closest you have is this whole if the 2yo had been alone there was the risk of something happening to him. Sounds way flimsier than secondhand smoke data
What is wrong with the parking lot at Safeway in prince Frederick? I have never known that to be an unsafe place.