Steven W, 2014-10-13 01:41 »
Some of that was covered in the paragraph before the one I quoted
"Let's put aside for the moment that by far, the most dangerous thing you did to your child that day was put him in a car and drive someplace with him. About 300 children are injured in traffic accidents every day - and about two die. That's a real risk. So if you truly wanted to protect your kid, you'd never drive anywhere with him. But let's put that aside. So you take him, and you get to the store where you need to run in for a minute and you're faced with a decision. Now, people will say you committed a crime because you put your kid 'at risk.' But the truth is, there's some risk to either decision you make." She stopped at this point to emphasize, as she does in much of her analysis, how shockingly rare the abduction or injury of children in non-moving, non-overheated vehicles really is. For example, she insists that statistically speaking, it would likely take 750,000 years for a child left alone in a public space to be snatched by a stranger. "So there is some risk to leaving your kid in a car," she argues. It might not be statistically meaningful but it's not nonexistent. The problem is," she goes on, "there's some risk to every choice you make. So, say you take the kid inside with you. There's some risk you'll both be hit by a crazy driver in the parking lot. There's some risk someone in the store will go on a shooting spree and shoot your kid. There's some risk he'll slip on the ice on the sidewalk outside the store and fracture his skull. There's some risk no matter what you do. So why is one choice illegal and one is OK? Could it be because the one choice inconveniences you, makes your life a little harder, makes parenting a little harder, gives you a little less time or energy than you would have otherwise had?"
You could sit and imagine up a billion scenarios in which some harm, injury or even worse could come to a child. Pretty much anything you do has risk. I will admit, that I think that a four-year-old seems a bit young to leave on his own, but as she says it was only going to be a minute or two. I agree with Kim that the shits really gotten out of hand. I can remember that as a child around 8 years of age, that my younger brother and I would be on our own for a couple of hours before my mom got home. I don't think it's what my parents wanted, but they had little choice. I'm saddened too by the effect that the incident has had on her child.
One of the reasons this got to me is that I have a very thick relative who sits and imagines that everyone is out to get her precious children. She's one of those I-gave-birth-therefore-I-am types.
I don't have kids of my own, but often thought that the advice not to speak to strangers was a bit short-sited. On the extraordinarily slim chance that someone would abduct a child, who are they supposed to ask for help? It seems to me teaching them that most people are good, but you need to be leery in certain circumstances would be a bit better. Eh, what do I know?
Some of that was covered in the paragraph before the one I quoted
[quote]"Let's put aside for the moment that by far, the most dangerous thing you did to your child that day was put him in a car and drive someplace with him. About 300 children are injured in traffic accidents every day - and about two die. That's a real risk. So if you truly wanted to protect your kid, you'd never drive anywhere with him. But let's put that aside. So you take him, and you get to the store where you need to run in for a minute and you're faced with a decision. Now, people will say you committed a crime because you put your kid 'at risk.' But the truth is, there's some risk to either decision you make." She stopped at this point to emphasize, as she does in much of her analysis, how shockingly rare the abduction or injury of children in non-moving, non-overheated vehicles really is. For example, she insists that statistically speaking, it would likely take 750,000 years for a child left alone in a public space to be snatched by a stranger. "So there is some risk to leaving your kid in a car," she argues. It might not be statistically meaningful but it's not nonexistent. The problem is," she goes on, "there's some risk to every choice you make. So, say you take the kid inside with you. There's some risk you'll both be hit by a crazy driver in the parking lot. There's some risk someone in the store will go on a shooting spree and shoot your kid. There's some risk he'll slip on the ice on the sidewalk outside the store and fracture his skull. There's some risk no matter what you do. So why is one choice illegal and one is OK? Could it be because the one choice inconveniences you, makes your life a little harder, makes parenting a little harder, gives you a little less time or energy than you would have otherwise had?"[/quote]
You could sit and imagine up a billion scenarios in which some harm, injury or even worse could come to a child. Pretty much anything you do has risk. I will admit, that I think that a four-year-old seems a bit young to leave on his own, but as she says it was only going to be a minute or two. I agree with Kim that the shits really gotten out of hand. I can remember that as a child around 8 years of age, that my younger brother and I would be on our own for a couple of hours before my mom got home. I don't think it's what my parents wanted, but they had little choice. I'm saddened too by the effect that the incident has had on her child.
One of the reasons this got to me is that I have a very thick relative who sits and imagines that everyone is out to get her precious children. She's one of those I-gave-birth-therefore-I-am types.
I don't have kids of my own, but often thought that the advice not to speak to strangers was a bit short-sited. On the extraordinarily slim chance that someone would abduct a child, who are they supposed to ask for help? It seems to me teaching them that most people are good, but you need to be leery in certain circumstances would be a bit better. Eh, what do I know?