Unatended kids inside car during summer

[lkb0714]

Originally Posted by EvilCookie

Do you drive with your kids? If so, you're placing them at a much, much greater risk than leaving them in a car for a minute, for the sake of convenience. Why not just walk or take the bus then, clearly this is the much much safer alternative.

Apples to oranges.

The person who leaves their kid is compounding the risk of driving with the risk of leaving a child unattended just because they are lazy.

The comparison isn't driving vs leaving a child unattended. The correct comparison is leaving a child unattended or taking them with you.

Do you let your kids sleep in their bedroom alone at night? Why don't you sit and keep guard all night, what if someone breaks in and grabs them?
Do you let your kids climb on playground equipment? Play sports? Swim? Go to school? Go to friends' houses? These are all activities where there is a fairly significant chance of getting hurt or injured, even fatally.
Do you let your kids be around other people? You know then they're at a risk of catching an infectious disease, many like TB or meningitis or MRSA are extremely dangerous. Not to mention their teachers or friends' parents or coaches may be secret child molesters.

Your need to get absolutely ridiculous in an attempt to make a point has been noted. If you cannot understand the difference in risk between taking a child into the store versus leaving them unattended, then you won't understand the concept of an "apt analogy".

There is no denying the simplicity of this, you are choosing to risk your child's life so that you aren't inconvenienced.

None of those other "examples" ::shudder:: are on par with that. There is nothing enriching to your children to leave them in a car unattended. There is enrichment FOR THE CHILD to be found from playing, swimming, school, etc. Your leaving your child behind is simply for your benefit while they take all the risk.

Risk to child and corresponding benefit to child is not the same thing as risk to child BENEFIT TO PARENT. IF you cannot understand that, I don't know what else there is to say.

[lkb0714]

Originally Posted by Sundaydrive00

Do you even know what you are talking about anymore? No one should ever have to go into debt because some loser decided to take what is not theirs. I find it completely insane that any one would ever think such a thing. You are not punishing the parents, you are punishing the children who are not able to be rescued because their parents aren't upper class. And no one is saying that they value convenience, or even money, over the safety of their children.

You appear to not understand how these things work.

Example, a parent and child goes camping/hiking in the local state park. It is parents responsibility to check weather and conditions but they do not. Something, POTENTIALLY FORESEEABLE, happens and they need rescue. The rescue happens, and in some states, adults are billed for the cost of the rescue.

What does not happen is people pay for the rescue up front or they are not rescued.

The idea is it holds the adult in the situation financial responsible for their negligent choices. If it is a deterrent and makes parents who do not value their children as much as their own convenience maybe it will make that group of parents think twice.

[lkb0714]

Originally Posted by somebodynew

I don't think that the poster is being literal. But I would contend that there are some people in this thread that are saying exactly that.

I think you are talking about me. I am not sure that is what I am saying as I am sort of confused by the reasoning of some parents.

On the face of it, these parents who think it is okay to leave their young children unattended in a car while they go in the store, are saying that the convenience of leaving the children behind does outweigh the risk to the children.

It is undeniable that there is a risk, a very small one, but a real one. So if a parent chooses to roll those dice, aren't they saying that their convenience is worth more than the risk to their children?

Is there another way to interpret their actions? I cannot see one but maybe there is?

[Sundaydrive00]

Originally Posted by lkb0714

You appear to not understand how these things work.

No, I know how these things work. I just don't see why you would want to punish the victims of a crime. In your example of people hiking, there is no criminal, no one but the hikers are causing the bad situation. When a child is kidnapped, somebody is doing the kidnapping. Victim blaming is not how to solve these problems, and forcing parents to go into debt (and further hurting the child's quality of life) because of some low life is a horrible idea.