Oceania Age an excuse?

Did anyone else hear about the little girl who died when her mother and her boyfriend hog-tied her and put her to bed? In many of the news stories people commented that it was because her mother was only twenty.

I think this is total rubbish. I'm twenty and granted looking after babies is hard, especially without a break, but I think most people know not to hog-tie a baby.

Doesn't that sort of thinking show that there is something wrong with them, or at least where they got their morals from? What about the children who go on rampages etc? Is age just a convenient excuse?

 

I've seen 15yo mothers doing a fine job with their kids.

Age (within reason) is not an excuse in my book.

 

Bit like the P-plater that's always having to explain themselves at an accident site even if it's not their fault.

That was an awful story, but I don't think they'd be the oldest people to ever kill their kids. That ACA story the other night pretty much showed that young parents aren't the only bad ones.

 

You have to be licensed to own a dog, drive a car, build a house, sell real-estate, operate a lathe, sell alcohol, and pretty much anything else in life involving a fraction of responsibility and risk ... yet we'll let anyone capable of getting pregnant take responsibility for a child.


Good we have our priorities right.




Edit: speaking of great excuses, loved the one today - the guy who put a woman in a headlock and punched her in the face, blamed it on an 'allergic reaction to alcohol...'

Riiiiiiight.


Gotta love lawyers.

 

Indeed.

 

"the guy who put a woman in a headlock and punched her in the face, "

Darrell Trindall has a few problems. Doubt they're due to medical problems, but much rather alcohol abuse. He's always in the news for some such thing. And the woman was supposed to be his friend.

 

I think the p-plater analogy is a but simplistic, considering most p-platers have not been driving very long, while most parents have been 'human' all their lives.

20 is plenty old enough to take care of a child. Unless the 20 year old suffers a mental defect. A genuine one, because lazy and ignorant are not mental defects.

 

You have to be licensed to own a dog, drive a car, build a house, sell real-estate, operate a lathe, sell alcohol, and pretty much anything else in life involving a fraction of responsibility and risk ... yet we'll let anyone capable of getting pregnant take responsibility for a child.

I do agree in theory, but how can you effectively license something like that?

 

Well, I wasn't really suggesting that we actually license people to be parents. Just pointing out that we seem to care more about what happens to animals* than children. Although, forcing people to get accreditation doesn't sound like such a bad idea.

* animals & machines & people who should be capable of looking after themselves


A more realistic solution would be to create a better sense of community. Remember the old saying, it takes a whole tribe to raise a child? [fantasy] If we had a stronger sense of community, closer ties with the people around us, next door to us, it would be harder for people to do things like that without anyone knowing - or more importantly, people would have enough support that they wouldn't do something like that in the first place [/fantasy]

I have a dream ...

 

Been reading Mike Biddulph's books, Oz? That seems right up the same alley...and quite correct.

I think the solution is going to have to come from people personally seeing their families as their first responsibilities, and work as the servant to this, rather than having the priorities the other way around. As a society we're going to have to realise at some point that people can't live the upper-upper-upper middle class lives portrayed in American movies (which are fantasies in themselves) and expect to raise children with sold foundations to their lives.

 

The reason societies formed in the first place was to raise children, to make sure as many as possible survived to adulthood.

 

This brings to mind my favourite quote from the Movie Parenthood.

You need a license to own a dog, You need a license drive a car, but they'll let any butt reaming ars*wipe be a parent

 

"A more realistic solution would be to create a better sense of community."
Has everyone heard the news today about the 70-odd year old woman who was found by police today in her house? Believed to be dead for two years because she kept to herself.

 

Yeah, but apparently she went to great lengths to make sure people (and the police) would leave her alone and not bother her.

A case of Be careful what you wish for ... ?

 

"I think the p-plater analogy is a but simplistic, considering most p-platers have not been driving very long, while most parents have been 'human' all their lives. "

And drivers haven't been human all their lives? Humans are parents for all their lives? Come on. It's not like a new driver hasn't been around a car before either.

 

hmm...

Well most humans have grown from a baby to adult (or at least adolescent) before reproducing. They've had time to get used to their bodies and emotions, they know what feels good and what feels bad and what hurts.

It's not like once they have a child they are all of a sudden in the driver's seat (so to speak) with only a rudimentary understanding of the forces under their control and have no idea how their actions effect others.

So yeah, I do find it simplistic.

Now if humans reproduced in the first couple of years of their life I think the analogy would stand.

(that took you a week?)

 

Would you leave your child with an unqualified child care worker? Or would you prefer someone with training and experience and qualifications?

How about a babysitter? Would you leave your child with someone who walked in off the street? Or would you prefer someone with experience and qualifications?

What about teachers? Would you send your child to a school that lets unqualified, inexperienced, untrained people teach your child?


We ask for qualifications, experience, and training from someone who looks after children for a few hours, but not from someone who looks after them for 18 years?

Strange.

 

well, not really.

When you think about it, living life and creating new life is what it's all about. Everything else is widow dressing.

How can you regulate parenthood? Would you want to? What next? Thought police?

Is there really anything more abhorent than the thought of taking away someone's right to at least give parenthood a shot?

Some people are just plain NOT FIT to be parents. However, if you start to question them, then you have to let others question you. Do you want other people prying into the most intimate corners of your life, just cos some other people are incompetent?

Parenthood impossible to regulate or legislate against.

 

Again, I'm not suggesting we literally license people to become parents.

I'm simply questioning the logic that says people who have only a brief interaction with a child should be held to a higher standard than people who have a 24/7 interaction with a child.

Is it really a ridiculous idea to suggest that people should have some sort of preparation for parenthood?


Raising a child isn't a hobby.
It's not a matter of "Oh well, I really thought that would work. Next time, let's try..."

If you don't get it right the first time, it's going to have a permanent impact on someone else's life.

So, I'm saying, let's do something to make sure people have every opportunity to get it right the first time, instead of letting a child become a social experiment.


Which is what happens when society disintegrates and you have people living alone and isolated from the community, from the knowledge, support, and experience of people who not only know how to raise a child, but also how to be a parent.


Which is not the society we live in at the moment. So we end up with children having to endure things that no person, let alone a child, should have to.

So, no, I'm not suggesting a parents' license. I'm suggesting a better society.


I can dream, can't I ?

 

Sterilise everyone. No people, no problem

 

Well, Australia's birth rate is currently 1.7 births per woman which is far below the population replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman in order to keep population at it's current levels.

Yet we also need population growth, and whilst immigration can 'retard' the effect of population ageing it cannot forever sustain a youthful, productive population.

So an increase in the birth rate, at least in Australia, would solve a lot of economic problems...

 

Yes, nothing like economic rationalism to solve the problems of the world.

"Congratulations, Mr & Mrs Smith, you have a healthy, bouncing, baby ... consumer!"


Balancing the federal budget is just so the right reason to bring a person into the world.

 

It's about the only way John Howard's ever going to father children

 

Howard: I will never ever have a child.

Keating: This is the child we had to have.

 

"Now if humans reproduced in the first couple of years of their life I think the analogy would stand. "

Yeah, and 16 years of being a passenger and watching a driver at work doesn't rub off in the same way watching your parents raise you or your siblings does? Strewth, the average parent wouldn't have done a degree in Biology to produce their first baby just like the average driver wouldn't be able to put together an engine from spare parts.

It's a simple anaology, because that's what an analogy is. It's basic example of something.

"(that took you a week?) "

Ouch, mate.


No, Really.