Stop Dumping Babies

[mass09]

Link

ANC asks mums not to dump babies
Jul 21, 2010 1:45 PM | By Sapa
The ANC in Gauteng implored new mothers who did not want their babies to stop the "horrendous" practice of dumping them in the veld, dustbins and pit latrines, in response to a picture in The Times on Wednesday of a dead baby found in Soweto.

"We want to build a caring society, it cannot be correct that the future generations are dumped like garbage. We equally do not understand why people rush to dump babies when they can take those babies to orphanages for adoption," said provincial spokesman Dumisa Ntuli in a statement.

They understood that women faced difficult situations, but there were alternatives like legal abortions, prevention, family planning, and use of condoms to prevent HIV/Aids, as well as seeking advice from hospital social workers.

"Therefore it cannot be compassionate that innocent babies are [arbitrarily] dumped in bushes, toilets, pit latrines, rivers. We must end the tragedy of infant abandonment and give affection and support to babies."

They asked the department of health to help trace the mothers who would have registered at hospitals, and for the police to find the mother of this particular baby swiftly.

Meanwhile, Media Monitoring Africa said the newspaper should have established the facts surrounding the death of the baby before publishing the picture with comment.

"MMA believes the serious issue of child abandonment needs to be addressed by the public and by policy makers. While the publication of this image has succeeded in igniting a debate on this topic, it published the image before the full circumstances of the case had been established," a statement read.

The baby was reportedly found still with her umbilical cord and mother's placenta, and had been burned.

The Times editor Phylicia Oppelt said they deliberated carefully about publishing the picture, by photographer Halden Krog, but decided to go ahead to honour her life "to shout out that she did not deserve to be dumped like a piece of litter".

The MMA quoted Dr Harry Moutrie, director of Enhancing Children's HIV Outcomes, as saying the newspaper should have waited for an autopsy to establish whether the infant died as a result of a termination, was stillborn, died of exposure or was killed.

MMA supported The Times's contention that the publication could only be made in extraordinary circumstances, but it could have had the same effect on page three.

The newspaper had also opted for the "shock factor" and ignored the emotional distress that the image may have caused to children or adults who have experienced infant-related trauma.

According to a report inside the newspaper, the baby girl was found by a scavenger and residents interviewed said such finds were not uncommon.

An article on the baby had elicited over 100 comments on the newspaper's website shortly before 1pm.

Comments ranged from accusations that the publication was trying to sell advertising, was being insensitive, was racist, and contributed to the infant's dehumanisation.

They compared it to the press's reluctance to print pictures of Princess Diana when she died, and asked why the remains of three white people who burnt to death in Johannesburg earlier this week were not also published.

One wrote that situations such as these were caused by girls who "irresponsibly hump away but can't handle the consequences".

Others congratulated The Times for running the picture, saying it was a "horrible tragedy" and another asking that the readers imagine the "sheer desperation of the mother" who did that.

Meanwhile, Limpopo police reported that a 25-year-old woman was arrested on a charge of murder after the newborn baby she allegedly threw into a bin died.

The woman gave birth on Tuesday and allegedly left the child in the rubbish bin in Lebowakgomo.

Sick Folks!

 

[DreamKing]

Stop [-]Dumping[/-] Making Babies !

 

[grok]

A mother leaves her new-born baby in a rubbish bin & I'm not allowed to call them savages???

 

[grayston]

A mother leaves her new-born baby in a rubbish bin & I'm not allowed to call them savages???

Not until you know the exact circumstances regarding why she did such a thing, no.

For example, it wouldn't surprise me if a some of these dumped babies were the product of rape. Not the kid's fault and yes it still counts as murder, but if we ignore the circumstances surrounding such awful deeds we'll never figure out why they happen in the first place. And then we'll never be able to figure out how to stop them happening.

And that would be sad.

 

[moose007]

yeah thats pretty messed up...and even if she was raped,there is a thing called abortion.

Dumping your baby and burning it is damn savage,it takes a despicable person to be able to do something like that,regardless of how she got pregnant..

 

[copacetic]

Yet people still bitch about abortion.

 

[ponder]

Reminds me of http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/251358-Culture-and-Democracy

 

[Sherbang]

Stop [-]Dumping[/-] Making Babies !

Just out of curiosity, do you have any children DreamKing? I assume you won't be having any, if not?

 

[blunomore]

Children are toys to the majority, they are seen as assets, not responsibilities as they should be. It is for the government to ensure that people are capable of taking care of their children, provide for allow their rights and needs, before they are allowed to have any! Reiterate: A forced abortions policy!

Seems like citizens have no duties and responsibilities then ... ?

 

[ponder]

Just out of curiosity, do you have any children DreamKing? I assume you won't be having any, if not?

That's a incorrect view of things.

If people have the financial means & family security then by all means go ahead and have 1 or 2 kids. If however you are living in abject poverty and cannot provide for a child then you should not have kids. You having that kid puts them at a severe disadvantage even before it's born.

 

[Happy Camper]

Seems like citizens have no duties and responsibilities then ... ?

My thoughts precisely! People should think long and hard about having a child, its a full time responsibility for at least the next 18 years of your life. It is for this very reason I don't have kids, I suck at commitment! Not going to put my child through any of my ****e!

 

[blunomore]

huh? Of course they do, with everything when it effects an other. Drivers licence, Certificate to become a doctor, fishing permit... If something effects another person, be that person a child(there is no suhc thing as a 'your own', you don't own another person), or any other person in society, it is open to debate, and as here, it should especially be so.

Then maybe we should reconsider saying things like "It is for the government to ensure that people are capable of taking care of their children, provide for allow their rights and needs, before they are allowed to have any" ... and we should acknowledge that some part of the responsibility lies with the citizens!

 

[ponder]

If you've got the finance, have as many as the finance and you own capabilities could hold, the more the better. The only problem is efficiency in this world, we need to become something like 6 times more efficient on all fields to at least live american, If you think that you could raise your child through to university/tertiary and perhaps you already are running a successful family business too, then i do think that it would be a great thing to have as many as can fit, it is through these children that will mitigate the ill effects of an unsustainable population as these people will better efficiency and thus make things more sustainable and thus bring a higher quality of life for all.

I was referring more to average joe soap which will still battle to put two kids through university but it's doable. If you are super wealthy you can have as many as you like as long as you support them.

 

[blunomore]

really, and how much? how much so with a driving license? how much so with a certificate to practice surgery? and how much so really even with a fishing license?

So ... you advocate no duties and responsibilities for citizens ?

 

[Phenom]

I was referring more to average joe soap which will still battle to put two kids through university but it's doable. If you are super wealthy you can have as many as you like as long as you support them.

Yes, perhaps, but really haw many will go and battle? even so, the best is to ensure that the child will be able to seat a place in society where he/she will bring new innovation to the front, and as this the father/mother better be able to provide a competitive upbringing.

 

[I am Penguin]

Stop dumping? How about stop Pumping. .... Eish I eforgot, Zuma ePresidente!

 

[Phenom]

So ... you advocate no duties and responsibilities for citizens ?

I'm saying that child baring is right on the top of the list, right there with licence to practice surgery, and right there with the importance of having a drivers license before you are able to drive on your own. Far far above even a personal license to fish (and yes the environment is also important).

And yes, i think tat it is so, however there is one sad responsibility that we can't (at least as far as our current political innovation takes us) get away form and that is a democratically elected government, for this and this alone we should rely on society, and for everything else, and everything that is not completely to do with oneself and oneself alone, a democratically elected government has to say. If you want to argue wiith the government, fine that should be allowed too, however it is still for the government to ensure that we live man auq man, for the only reason that no body else fairly could(would likely be about big man - little man).

 

[LazyLion]

Well, what do they expect when the concept of Abortion teaches them that a baby's life is worth nothing.

the concept of abortion teaches them... "Why not just dump it? If it's just a thing... and not a human life... who cares where you dump it?"

If you want them to respect the baby, then teach them that it is a human life. It's not a thing one minute (before birth) and then a human life the next minute (after birth).

 

[Sherbang]

That's a incorrect view of things.

If people have the financial means & family security then by all means go ahead and have 1 or 2 kids. If however you are living in abject poverty and cannot provide for a child then you should not have kids. You having that kid puts them at a severe disadvantage even before it's born.

I disagree. There are millions of poor people who have made wonderful parents, struggled to bring up children, send them to school, etc, but succeeded against the odds.
There are also many rich people who make terrible parents, are abusive and uncaring, raising total burdens on society despite their wealth. Being wealthy has nothing to do with being a capable parent.

By your thinking only the wealthy have a right to breed but this just entrenches inequalities (not to mention inbreeding).
And tell me ponder, who is going to do all your manual labour, work the mines and clean up your rubbish if poor people aren't allowed to breed?
I'm sure your kids would love to clean the toilets at the mall for a living right?

 

[Phenom]

Well, what do they expect when the concept of Abortion teaches them that a baby's life is worth nothing.

the concept of abortion teaches them... "Why not just dump it? If it's just a thing... and not a human life... who cares where you dump it?"

If you want them to respect the baby, then teach them that it is a human life. It's not a thing one minute (before birth) and then a human life the next minute (after birth).

There is a huge difference, the baby might be sentient and is already past the line to where we could decide to whether he/she oculd be sentient, the baby is also likely to grow up to be sentient, they are not killing the child. Difference as to abortion is that there is no sentience, and never was any sentience, and thus the option to abort is still on the table. It's not a baby until it's born, and it's not a person(a life and worthy of protection) until it becomes sentient. A person is not a heart beat, a mouse also has a beating heart, and nothing is to say that a mouse is less sentient than a fetus would be.

A: A person is only a person if that entity is sentient or at least had been sentient and somehow could recover it
B: A fetus has less neural activity and far less than that which had been which you could buy as raw meat at a takaways or supermarket, it also doesn't have any real neural structure either, thus there is nothing that said that it is more snetinet than my zinger burger had been sentient.

If something is not sentinet, and neither has been sentient any thing more than take aways, and is not planned (option to mother and society) to be sentient, then it is not a person. If it was planned that that fetus should become sentient, then obviously the fetus should be protected as to protect the person which will be born later in life. however we cannot kill something that doesn't and is not going to exist, but we could harm something before it does.