Ummmm. Yeah.
That article is heartbreaking to read. That poor child, never had a chance. 
The baby deserved to be born to two people who wanted her. Her death is collateral damage from the grossly unfair system of child support, but it’s no different from shooting a robber or an arsonist. And having your life and the lives of your family members ruined by a child support judgment levied for a child you did everything possible to avoid existing is not an inconvenience.
Lol. That’s what I was thinking too.
Sorry, didn’t see this before I posted last. It’s just that I have seen too many lives and families ruined by unwanted children that it just makes my blood boil.
“Hugging” is not the correct verb to use in a situation where a baby died. “Smothering” or “crushing” would be more appropriate.
Whether or not the linked story is the same case, reading that article I felt the child’s age (two years old) made it even worse than if he’d been an infant. An infant is so small and helpless that a momentary act of rage might be enough to kill one, and I can almost see how a disturbed individual might be able to convince himself that an infant isn’t really a person. But a two year old? Two year olds can walk and talk. A two year old could say “Daddy, no!” and struggle to escape when his father started hurting him. The article says that the child did struggle “five or six times” before dying. I hope the father spends the rest of his life in prison.
That may be, but it is absolutely positively NOT the baby’s fault. Either get an abortion early in the pregnancy, or have the child and treat it with love and care. If that means adopting it out because you can’t or won’t care for it, then DO IT.
The man in that linked article murdered a kid in cold blood. He IS scum. Can you imagine the terror of being held, squeezed so tightly you can’t breathe?? Horrifying doesn’t touch it.
I say all this as someone who has no kids, never wanted kids, was terrified by the thought. Don’t like babies, tolerate small children. And I am disgusted by people who deliberately hurt a child because they are mad at their own circumstances.
I’ve know two 3 year old boys who were killed by their fathers. The first one feed the child ammonia laced with cyanide, then took it himself. The second one suffered a fatal heart attack and fell on his son, crushing him. Both fathers died.
If you consider these the same acts, you are disgustingly mistaken.
The first father should have fried; the second committed an unintentional tragic act.
I wouldn’t say that the second father killed his son at all, any more than if he had been pushed off a second-story balcony and landed on top of him. His will was not involved.
Well, that’s just tragic for everyone involved. Everyone who has kids always describes how they love them more than life itself and other terms like that; it makes me believe that any parent who kills their own kids has to be sick in some way.
I’m not sure I would call an ex-friend who did that a monster, but I would think there was something (obviously) very wrong with him.
Except the robber or the arsonist are responsible for the situation they find themselves in, while the baby is not. Your moral compass is broken.
Yeah, he’s a monster. He might have seemed like a nice guy when you were hanging out with him, but clearly you were mistaken.
Not always, plenty of people committ crimes because they have no other way of making a living. Come to think of it, I know several thieves who wouldn’t have that side job if they had enough money left over from their mainstream jobs to live on after their child support/sex extortion was paid.
Regardless, killing anyone as a way to get out if fiscal problems is just, plain wrong.
I would say this is not the exact same thing. Back in the day, before airbags, the kidlet sat in the front seat in a carseat and you could look, interact with the kid while driving. Now days the kid is in the back seat. My kid, who has a kidlet of her own, texts us every day to let us know her kidlet has been dropped off at daycare when her hubby is out of town. It’s easy to forget a kid in the back when the kid is sleeping and you are distracted.
(bolding mine)
Not true. If a man truly doesn’t want children and can’t afford child support, he should keep it in his pants.
I’m not an abstinence-only person by a long shot, but if having a baby is going to be so detrimental to your life that your only other option is to kill it, you shouldn’t be having sex.
There is something seriously wrong with you, but then, you’ve been told that before.
I’d feel like murdering him.
Concur. Detail seems important, yet curiously missing. Have we perhaps been cast as the mice in this, perhaps a game including cats?
You could also get a vasectomy, use two rubbers, use spermicide, make sure the woman you are fucking has a birth control patch on, and is also using a diaphragm, and use the rhythm method. Oh, and pull out. That’s probably pretty much fool proof, and all of it is checkable by a man (although it would take time, to be absolutely sure). But of course, lives are at stake here, so what’s a little time?
I would say, if you have to kill a baby that is born, rather than pay child support, you must either abstain or use EVERY method above. Otherwise you are morally reprehensible. Right, ZPG?