It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Father Drops off 9 Kids at Hospital Under Nebraska Safe Haven Law!

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
We have a safe haven law in Massachusetts and I am sure some of the mothers drop their babies off because they are young and selfish. Still better than raising a child they don't want. heaven help those kids.

PS..I have two teens I would be willing to lend for awhile. Sounds glib but sometimes I can understand.




posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


I addressed that very issue in the post right after the one you made. It is true, there are many people that are the way you think they are. I think that is good. We are good, proud, and honest citizens of this planet. Although technology has made farming and ranching easier, technology costs a bunch of money when you talk about combines, hay bailers, milking machines, and cattle shutes.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Yeah where is the Pro Life crowd always touting adoption anyway? Hmmmmmmmmm


I'm prolife and would prefer if people who can't properly support a child (let alone NINE!) would just keep their dick in their pants. Then there would be no need for adoption OR abortions. Plus there are other alternatives that don't involve killing a conceived life.

If you can't properly raise children, you shouldn't be taking the risk. Creating a life and destroying it because of a "mistake" is selfish and irresponsible, especially for adults who are supposed to be leading as examples. Teens see that and perpetuate the process.

Hopefully the kids who were hurt by it will learn the lesson of their parents, instead of repeating the process.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


I agree to a point. The conflict for me comes when I'm told that none of the U.S. citizens will work for the same or comparable wages. You have to admit, everyone feels like they should make more than they do, sometimes more than they are worth. I know a 16 yr old boy that actually believes if he doesn't graduate from high school, he will still be able to go out into the world and make $100K/yr. He isn't willing to do manual labor, he thinks he will get a cushy office job. That is the 2-headed problem we as honest working U.S. Citizens have to battle. There are too many people that feel they are "entitled" and there is a low cost solution in the illegals, so our country is losing the morals that made it so great at one time.

It's entirely possible this man was affected by the exact 2-headed monster. Maybe he lost his job to someone that was cheaper, or maybe it was outsourced.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by RealityisanIllusion]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
This is not the first time this insane law has made the news. 10 days ago I found this gem.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This law will be abused to no end and should be removed from the books, in my opinion



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
"a move officials say illustrates the problems many feared when the rule went into effect."

That quote really bothers me.... I mean this is why we have safe havens. Children are children...any age any amount. I believe he did the right thing. None of us can tell us what he is thinking or what he is going through at the moment. At least he didn't pull an Andrea Yates. I have to say though sometimes I want to say I agree with where is it China? With the 1 child rule?

And can child placement facilities keep the children in contact with each other? I mean I can understand if a couple can not take them all but, can't the older one's keep dabs on where they all are? Or when they get older they are told they have a sister or brother here or there so that they are not a complete void in each other's lives ? hmmm



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by onepissedoffsaint
 


The one child thing isn't a terrible idea, I only have one child, I'm divorced but I do provide very well for her and I will always do that, even after I'm gone as she is the sole beneficiary on my will. But, as stated previously, we still don't know the specifics of this deal. It may have been the most logical and lovable scenario for this man.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jwstarry
 


Yeah, well, what happens when that 15-year old goes off the ranch on their own and shoots up their high-school? Then everyone turns and blames the parent. "Oh, you should have seen the signs, you should have done something, rabble rabble rabble."



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Well, it said the children's ages went all the way up to 17. Something must have happened for this guy to have raised kids this long only to drop them off in the hands of strangers. I really don't care what the guys reasons are though, if he don't want them then give them away, its your life live it however you please.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by onepissedoffsaint
 


Usually in cases like this they will never see eachother again. I know a woman who has spent her entire life seeking out her twin brother to no avail. They were seperated at age seven.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by RealityisanIllusion
 


I say two kids. Me and my brother went through a lot of crap together, and I probably would not be here today if it weren't for him.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


I agree, in many cases it's better to have 2 children, I'm not against a large family, a small family, or a 1 child family.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Abortion and prolife aside it was his "right" to have the kids. Do we actually know they are all his.

This thread could surely go off topic really quickly...loser dad vs good dad doing the right thing. prolife vs prochoice.

Not a debate I care to enter.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Well the story doesn't tell the circumstances that this man find himself in for me to make an opinion of the issue.

While the law was intended for "infants" we should blame the system for expanding its intended target.

I guess that in the worst case scenario this man find himself homeless and penniless to care for his children, better to give them ot the state than see them go hungry.

With all the financial problems facing this nation I will not doubt that its going to be more families that will commit all kind of actions under duress stress.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Some good, alternative viewpoints here. Food for thought.

I guess my biggest issue here is the NUMBER of children this guy just kept having, over and over, and THEN he just abandons them for the state to take of. Why the heck would you bring NINE kids into the world unless you were sure you could provide for them? Why the heck not get a VASECTOMY after half that amount if you're not 100% dedicated to raising them into adulthood?

It almost sounds like this law could be an excuse for certain individuals to be "breed-happy" with no responsibilities whatsoever.


While I can see your point here, it is possible that he truly believed he could take care of his family, no matter how big. He had an excellent job, things were going great, life was good... And then his job was outsourced.

So he looked for another job, managed to get one at the Evil Clown at min. wage, and tried to keep going. His savings slipped away, covering the expenses, and finally, with no luck getting a better job, he hugs his kids, explains the cold facts to them, and says they will be fed if he takes them and drops them off...

Not saying this IS what happened, but that it MIGHT have. And until we know the details of his life, we cannot judge.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Its in the best interest of the children, he wouldn't have been a good parent anyways. But the money that he made to support them will now be coming from taxes, which sort of sucks. He shouldn't get away without paying some sort of child support.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join