Baby found dead in vehicle. Mother apparently forgot to drop off baby at day care.

grandfolksherald.com ^ | Thu, Jun. 29, 2006 | Lisa Gibson

[going hot]

but not implausible...

Perhaps not, but that is one stupid, brain dead retard. How can somebody with insufficient amount of neurons to hold a thought even have a job to go to, or hold a phone conversation while driving?, or hold a conversation at all?

It would make more sense if this was in fact a post partum abortion. Not saying it was, only that "it's not implausible."

[nopardons]

You MUST have gone to public school...your level of reading comprehension is sub-par; neither have you the ability to reason and are completely illogical. You are all raw nerves and emotion.

Quite unlike your benighted suppositions, I was a stay at home mother. And also unlike you, I know history, know what it is like to have and raise a child into adulthood, and have not condemned nor name called people who are unable to be a stay at home parent.

You want to know who the real monster is, it is you. And you are also self centered, arrogant, pompous, and supercilious; completely lacking understanding and compassion for those who don't agree with you 110%. Your puerile little temper tantrums are not only childish, but exactly like what one finds on DU.

Historically, women have hired others to look after their children, used slaves to look after their children, and throughout the most of recorded history, shipped out their children to other families ( even what you might consider lower middle class people...I suggest you go read up on apprentices ), who trained them to be knights or taught them a trade; well, sort of. LOL

And just WHAT is so wonderful about having a five year old look after a baby, or a twelve year old looking after babies or toddlers, as the mother worked in the fields or in a factory? Perhaps you prefer hanging swaddled to a board babies hanging on trees or a peg? Yes, that was also what many poor women did, as they worked in a field or around the house.

Your overtly sentimentalized views of child rearing, never really existed. Even in the not so distant past, when few women worked outside the house, many mothers had someone to help them look after their children; even if it was only a baby nurse, for the first two or three weeks after giving birth.

No, it wasn't "people like you ( me )" who have "ruined" your cartoon, sitcom dream world. Rather, it has been hysteric, girly-men whingers, such as you, who give a bad name to CONSERVATISM, who ruin this forum; n00b. And your pathetic class warfare and pretend victimhood are deplorable , contemptible, and disgusting.

Please............don't reproduce. ;^)

[beeler]

It was STAY AT VHOME MOTHERS and old fashioned fathers, who not only turned a blind eye, two generations ago, to what was happening and allowed their kids to do whatever they wanted to do, that set us on the road to where we are today

These are your asinine words. Anyone who suggests that stay at home mothers are the cause of moral decay in this country is either a complete moron, highly confused, or simply duped.

Can you not agree with this one statement?

"It is better to have a parent raise a child, as opposed to any stranger, when it is at all possible, at any cost short of a self-destructive one."

And I'm the one operating on emotion? That's laughable, read your own words. You might as well make a guest appearance on Oprah.

[nopardons]

Did the idiot children, who followed the siren song of the hippies and Yippies have stay at home mommies?

Hmmm...why yes, they did.

Did those mommies instill morals and responsibilities in their children?

It sure doesn't look like it.

Did those mommies and daddies pay for their kids to have all kinds of expensive things, stop the dumbing down slide/ propaganda indoctrination in schools, and even bother to read fairy tales and good children's lit to their kids? No, no, and absolutely NOT!

I could easily spend the next hour and 1/2 typing explicit examples and refutations of your uneducated, highly emotional, drivel filled post, but it's not worth the bother. You would only ignore the facts and keep making senseless personal attacks.

Without acknowledging the fact that some women really have to put their children in daycare, in order for them and their children to survived, you just call them "monsters". Would you have been happier if they had murdered their kids, when their husbands died or left them? Should they have gone on welfare? What's YOUR answer to this real life problem?

Did YOUR mommy put you in daycare, or does your disorder stem from poor potty training?

Instead of putting words in my mouth, I suggest that you try, for a change, to read and absorb what I and others have posted. And BTW, some people should NEVER have any children....you fall into that category.

[beeler]

As Michael Medved would say, let's focus like a laser beam on the question I asked. I'll try again...

"It is better to have a parent raise a child, as opposed to any stranger, when it is at all possible, at any cost short of a self-destructive one."

C'mon, you can do it. Do you agree with this statement or not?

The rise of feminism occurred during the 60's and 70's, and with it the daycare phenomenon started and accelerated in the 80's. Is it a coincidence that the current moral decline corresponds exactly with the rise of daycare and the surge of abandonment of children by their mothers (and/or fathers)?

Were there more stay at home moms during the 70's? Sure, also the moral state of our country wasn't as bad then as it is now. Clearly, the moral decline of our country runs parallel to the rise in the use of daycare. I'm not saying that daycare is chiefly to blame but rather, it's simply one of many institutions created, funded, and lauded by the Left that collectively has lead to a worsening of our culture and country.

Are there people who genuinely need and use daycare? Sure. My point is that these people are the exceptions to the rule and therefore, they are irrelevant in the debate over the merits of daycare as a whole and it's affect on our society. But the idea that it is a good thing to have strangers raise your children when it is entirely possible to raise them yourself is indeed a monstrous one. And those that practice this are monsters. They may not realize it. They may have subscribed to the ideas of 60's and 70's feminism that the raising of children by women is a bad thing. But nonetheless, they are monsters, or at least are behaving in a monstrous way toward their children.

I'm sorry (not really) if it makes you uncomfortable to hear someone making such a stark judgment call. This phenomenon of what is essentially speech codes is also a result of feminism, especially the feminization of men by the Left. Used to be, people were not afraid to call things like they see them. But now, as is evidenced by your reaction to my judgment call, if a man makes a judgment of something traditionally in the realm of women, it is wholly acceptable and even encouraged to attack them and tear them to shreds. In my opinion, we need more judgment, not less. Were my comments meant to be provocative? Absolutely. If I'm not enraging the Left, I'm doing something wrong. Because as you can see, even in the FR boards, the foundation of Marxist thought has sway. Did you know that Lenin supported the separation of parents from their children in a compulsory form of daycare/government schooling? What better way to destroy the foundations and principles of a society in order to make socialism more palatable than to separate a child from the influences of family and tradition?

[nopardons]

Okay, let's, by all means, focus like a laser beam on the statement that YOU made, which painted, with far too of a broad brush, every single person who put a child into daycare. You called them all, ALL OF THEM, "monsters". There were no shades of grey, no ifs, ands, or buts...ALL OF THEM ARE MONSTERS; so said YOU!

You can't weasel out of this, no matter how much you might try to....now. LOL

Unlike war babies, many of whose mothers did work during WW II, the Baby Boomers' mothers did NOT work. By the '70s, these "children" were well into their 20s and had NEVER had a mother who worked, nor were they ever in daycare. No matter how you want to slice it, this is a fact. It's also , thanks to Dr. Spock ( who did NOT raise his children the way he told everyone else to raise theirs. ) the time when things began to break down and fall apart.

Language? Language took a descisive downturn in the mid 1960s, thanks to a RED DIAPER BABY, who led the "FREE SPEACH MOVEMENT" in Berkley. He wasn't a "feminazi" he was a stinking Commie.

Current moral decay? CURRENT? Moral decay began to be a gigantic disease in the 1960s! What had, for centuries, been held at the fringe of fringe society, blossomed, as a virus, in the late 1960s. It had almost nothing at all to do with feminazis, but a whole LOT to do with the pied pipers of hippy/Yippie "culture"; aided and abetted by the MSM.

You have NO idea what life was like in the '60s or '70s. And no, reading books about that time, though somewhat helpful, will NEVER give you a true feeling for it. And while I doubt that you've even read anything factual about that time, I suggest that you do so.

You also read factual history about other time periods as well. From what you've posted, it is patently obvious, that you lack any actual knowledge about how children have been raised and by whom, throughout recorded history.

I am NOT advocating that everyone place their children in the care of others; however, yes, I have called you out, re your childish name calling, ignorance, and arrogance.

Few, FEW people need daycare? Really? On this thread, alone, quite a few women have told you their stories. Get off the computer and actually take a look at reality! Unfortunately, many women need to work. They aren't doing it in order to buy the latest Channel bag, that trip to the major cities of Europe, that ski vacation, nor to buy tins of Beluga caviar. They are doing it so that their children can EAT!

Never attempt to "teach" me history and NEVER assume that you know something that I don't. LOL

Fess up......you not only went to public school, but were put into daycare!

[beeler]

So do you or do you not support my hypothesis? By all means, let's debate it. Also, you seem to be supporting my ideas about feminism and other socialistic diseases coinciding with daycare and the moral decline of our culture. Is this the case? It would be much more interesting if you could engage in debate on the issues I have presented rather than attempt to assert how much better you are than anyone else. And yes, few need daycare. And of those, the majority need daycare because of bad life decisions. There may be a negligible amount that need daycare due to things completely beyond their control. I'd love for you to present any amount of examples who fall into this category.

[nopardons]

Nope....let's go back to the beginning and your calling everyone who puts a child in daycare a "monster". Until you apologize, PUBLICLY, to those whom you have unjustly smeared, there can be no further discussion.

Read back through this thread, and by name, apologize to every mother, who for valid reasons, you impugned.

And BTW...you have yet to state any factual, substantive positions. Neither have you been able to refute anything that I have posted. ;^)

[beeler]

I've clearly, and repeatedly stated my view on this issue:

"Are there people who genuinely need and use daycare? Sure. My point is that these people are the exceptions to the rule and therefore, they are irrelevant in the debate over the merits of daycare as a whole and it's affect on our society. But the idea that it is a good thing to have strangers raise your children when it is entirely possible to raise them yourself is indeed a monstrous one. And those that practice this are monsters. They may not realize it. They may have subscribed to the ideas of 60's and 70's feminism that the raising of children by women is a bad thing. But nonetheless, they are monsters, or at least are behaving in a monstrous way toward their children."

I refuse to promote the victimization of Americans who know better. I refuse to be an American who would rather not pass judgment and watch their country crumble around them. I refuse to be a conservative who supports the lesser of two evils when the best evil will surely result in the death of our Republic. The sad thing is that you're representative of the average "good-guy" in this crusade and that doesn't leave a lot of hope for the rest of us.

[nopardons]

You're a little boy, who is digging in his heels, because he just knows, KNOWS, that he and he alone is the only one who knows anything...when in fact, you are just a pathetic little twerp who doesn't have any children.

I read through all of this thread, before I replied to you. You NEVER apologized to the women, on this thread, one of whom gave far too much personal facts, to refute you. You need to apologize to her and to the others here!

As to the rest of your supercilious attitude, name calling, and unadulterated spurious posts, they prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are just a bloviating, boorish, ill educated oaf. And one who craves attention.

Just apologize and be done with it.

Oh yes, and please, do the world a favor and don't EVER have any children.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Some feminazi will come to her defense claiming that the pressures of motherhood and work are just too much.

[beeler]

You're a coward for not responding to the substance of my comments. I hope your children inherited their backbone from their father.

[durasell]

Funny how you have to pass a test to drive a car, yet any imbecile can pop out a kid.

[nopardons]

You are a poltroon!

I've refuted you and in spades.

You've posted nothing but hysterical, emotional drivel, and impugnations.

APOLOGIZE !

[beeler]

Answer this, dupe:

"It is better to have a parent raise a child, as opposed to any stranger, when it is at all possible, at any cost short of a self-destructive one?"

If you fail to answer this question directly and explicitly, you take the award as the most foolish and pathetic coward to ever grace the pages of the FR forum. Let's see if you can foment a cogent and adult response for once. Your answer should begin with one of either two words: "yes" or "no." We can continue from there.

[nopardons]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww...are you gonna hold your breath and turn blue next?

APOLOGIZE !

[durasell]

"It is better to have a parent raise a child, as opposed to any stranger, when it is at all possible, at any cost short of a self-destructive one?"



depends on the parent. there are some parents I wouldn't trust with an ant farm.

[after dark]

"Funny how you have to pass a test to drive a car, yet any imbecile can pop out a kid."

Well, no. The imbecile must have a uterus and eggs.

The imbecile must have money to either buy sperm or find a man to volunteer sperm.

Popping out children is not as easy as you assume.Otherwise more imbeciles would have children.

[after dark]

"depends on the parent. there are some parents I wouldn't trust with an ant farm."

You need to visit a normal daycare center. They remind me of those homes where old people are kept.

Seriously, with the exception of parents who beat their children or sexually abuse their children, why would you ever want to separate children from their parents?


Biology insures that people love their own offspring. Most people never see the good things that a loving parent will ever see in their child.

[KantianBurke]

Excellent point. If you can't afford to take care of the little one and thus have o send a 5 MONTH OLD BABY to day care...how's about you hold off on a pregnancy till you can!!!