New parents kill loaf in the hospital

Apparently, the PNA itch was very strong with these two award winners, between Moo not wanting the kid and her partner not being the father.

https://nypost.com/2019/07/22/new-parents-charged-with-strangling-unwanted-baby-in-hospital/

---

So they both strangled the kid right in the hospital when it was only a few hours old, and then rang for help. I'm guessing they probably wanted to try to get rid of the kid and sue the hospital for negligence or malpractice too, without thinking about the fact that the staff would be able to tell they offed the kid. According to another article, staff tried for ten hours to revive the kid (is it normal to do that for that long?), but without success. Sure hope they're both eager to see the inside of a cell because they'll be looking at it for a good long time.

I don't know why they didn't take advantage of the Safe Haven laws in California if they didn't want the kid.

They probably thought the 'suffered enough' loophole would apply to them.

+++++++++++++

Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!

Whenever I hear of things like this I think of the medical types who turn people down for sterilization.

Does the article mention this guy is not the father?

If I were not a regular reader of this page, I would have no knowledge of safe haven laws. I had to look it up online to figure out the requirements in my state. I never hear any PSRs about the law in my state.

It's too bad these people that did not want a baby couldn't have figured out birth control or abortion before this woman carried a baybee to term.

I cannot help but wonder if this is a product of our Breederific culture. You cannot tell me that a family member wasn't aware of this pregnancy. Did they tell this young couple they would love it once it got here? And it was their moral duty to raise the kid? Certainly this couple had encounters with medical professionals who could have advised them about safe haven.

ETA: cfdavep, probably the same people who are refusing sterilizations think nothing of telling someone who doesn't want their baybee to suck it up, instead of telling them about safe haven laws.

Quote
Cambion
According to another article, staff tried for ten hours to revive the kid (is it normal to do that for that long?), but without success.

Wow, that seems...excessive. Say they'd succeeded-- after being deprived of oxygen for nine hours, what kind of brain function would be left? Not a quality life IMO, but if that's accurate, I'm sure it was only performative: "It's an infant, we have to prove we did everything we can." Because life is less valuable as it ages, #truefacts.

I was going to mention adopting the baby out but that could have been difficult to impossible depending on the family of the couple. Some families would shame and berate them for the rest of their lives for doing this and they may have been disowned for doing so. Also, if they live in a small town that is religious the entire town could turn their backs on them.

Quote
bell_flower

I cannot help but wonder if this is a product of our Breederific culture. You cannot tell me that a family member wasn't aware of this pregnancy. Did they tell this young couple they would love it once it got here? And it was their moral duty to raise the kid? Certainly this couple had encounters with medical professionals who could have advised them about safe haven.

ETA: cfdavep, probably the same people who are refusing sterilizations think nothing of telling someone who doesn't want their baybee to suck it up, instead of telling them about safe haven laws.

I agree this is likely a product of our Breederific culture and it is doubtful they knew of the safe haven laws.

I think they were extremely poor and had no way to abort so this was the PNA as a way to prevent the kid from showing up in their lives down the road or to prevent family from adopting it and forcing them to parent it.

Lack of abortion just creates in increase in infanticide same as third world countries and some people in the US are so poor they may as well be third world.

If the guy that was with her was not the father it also may of been a way of also making sure the bio father was not going to be around.

Quote
freya
I was going to mention adopting the baby out but that could have been difficult to impossible depending on the family of the couple. Some families would shame and berate them for the rest of their lives for doing this and they may have been disowned for doing so. Also, if they live in a small town that is religious the entire town could turn their backs on them.

I thought about this too. Both the man and the woman look like they might be of Latino descent (their names imply the same), and I know Spanish-speaking cultures often have a very strong sense of family, so giving a kid away may as well be akin to murder.

Or there's the very distinct possibility that the boyfriend said either the loaf goes or he goes and she chose him, so they plotted to make the loaf disappear for good. Why they killed it in a hospital full of cameras and people with the skills to save lives (as well as the knowledge to determine cause of death) rather than waiting until they got home and chucking it off a bridge is beyond me.

Quote
bell_flower
I cannot help but wonder if this is a product of our Breederific culture. You cannot tell me that a family member wasn't aware of this pregnancy. Did they tell this young couple they would love it once it got here? And it was their moral duty to raise the kid? Certainly this couple had encounters with medical professionals who could have advised them about safe haven.

It's possible that the two of them are immigrants and their families weren't nearby to shame them. They may have not known what to do about an unwanted pregnancy or found out about it too late or were too poor to abort. I couldn't blame a language barrier because hospitals have translators for pretty much every imaginable language and Spanish is the most commonly spoken language here aside from English, so if their English wasn't so hot, I'm sure somebody explained stuff to them in words they could understand. But it's possible that they didn't give any indication that they didn't want the kid either - just came to the hospital, gave birth, and decided they were going to strangle it. Could be they strangled it so they could tell their family the kid died "tragically" in the hospital from "unknown causes" too. I can speculate all night.

This story is still pretty fresh, so there don't seem to be many details just yet. I wonder how many other patients in the hospital went without help because the whole floor was trying to resuscitate a dead baby for the better part of half a day because its parents decided to be pieces of shit.

Quote
Cambion
Why they killed it in a hospital full of cameras and people with the skills to save lives (as well as the knowledge to determine cause of death) rather than waiting until they got home and chucking it off a bridge is beyond me.

Lotto attempt. They had to have been really sloppy with it as it's really easy to murder an infant and make it look like SIDS (brother).

_______________________________________________________________

"It is better not to look like what you are; it is better to look like a bourgeois woman because then all the doors are open for you and then you can just go and make hell." - Marjane Satrapi

The pattern is that states have passed safe-haven laws with great fanfare and publicity, but then the laws never get mentioned again.

Hospitals need to give new parents this information. Maybe the schools could spare a moment from the incessant breeder propaganda to tell students too. Health classes should mention safe-haven laws.

The number of baby deaths at the hands of new parents with these laws in place is simply astounding. I don't understand it, though genetic drift might well explain it. We all know people who are too damned stupid to care for themselves, let alone another person.

Quote
kman
The pattern is that states have passed safe-haven laws with great fanfare and publicity, but then the laws never get mentioned again.

Hospitals need to give new parents this information. Maybe the schools could spare a moment from the incessant breeder propaganda to tell students too. Health classes should mention safe-haven laws.

Because they don't want people to use those laws. Imagine if signs were up in maternity wards about safe haven laws, and students were taught about them in schools. There's a good chance the state might be overwhelmed with unwanted babies. Remember some years back, a state in the USA (forget the name of the state) had a safe haven law for children? People came from all over the USA to dump their kids of all ages at hospitals and fire stations in that state. One guy dumped his 4 or 5 kids, saying he didn't want to take care of them anymore. Somebody drove all night with their 12 year old tween just to dump them there.

It's easier to put the laws on the books, so legislators can say they did it for the babies, then forget about it. Meanwhile, anybody who uses these laws gets named and shamed, and the cops start hunting for them, to force them to change their mind.

I had an uncle who was an alcoholic and involved in minor crime on a pretty regular bais. The guy was on welfare for a LONG time and he accidentally died in a fire. I remember the welfare paid for his funeral and my father saying "well, the welfare office is relieved" as he was a cost to the province. When a person is a cost people virue sigal and play games to make it look like they are concerned, but the state doesn't want another loaf. If they offed the kid, it no longer has to be supported

I definitely blame the breeder propaganda bullshit

two cents ¢¢

CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!

people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong

Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children.

The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.

Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.

People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke

Adoption agencies have strict criteria (usually). Breeders, whose combined IQ's would barely hit triple digits, have none.

Quote
Peace
Remember some years back, a state in the USA (forget the name of the state) had a safe haven law for children? People came from all over the USA to dump their kids of all ages at hospitals and fire stations in that state. One guy dumped his 4 or 5 kids, saying he didn't want to take care of them anymore. Somebody drove all night with their 12 year old tween just to dump them there.

Yup, that was the 2008 Nebraska Safe Haven Law where they forgot to specify an age range, so people were traveling from all over the country to abandon their kids legally in Nebraska from infants up to age 17. Within about four months, three dozen kids were dumped before they changed the law to say people could only dump babies no more than a month old, and I wouldn't be surprised if people still drove to Nebraska after the age limit was added to leave their brats there.

I don't know about other hospitals, but the one in my town has several signs up in the ER letting people know they are a Safe Haven location. But yeah, I agree that if more people knew about the Safe Haven law as common knowledge, the state would get overwhelmed pretty quickly with unwanted babies. Teens crapping out loaves at home and ditching them at the hospital before Mom and Dad figure things out, glue babies from middle-aged women that didn't do their job and the dad left anyway, alcoholics that don't want to deal with their FAS loaves, and I'm sure PLENTY of both men and women who will take a baby without the other parent's permission to a Safe Haven just to fuck with them.

people abandoning older brats: hahahaha, we told you so. you are the ones, back when the buggers were shitting their diapers and puking on everything, 'oh you'll luv it when it's here'....and similar slug breeder brained bull crap

two cents ¢¢

CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!

people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong

Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children.

The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.

Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.

People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke

Adoption agencies have strict criteria (usually). Breeders, whose combined IQ's would barely hit triple digits, have none.

I expect these types of incidents to increase in the US where they are trying to ban abortion. More desperate people will do this as a way out.

Just checked, and all 50 states have some form of safe haven law. All 50 states. Most states have set time periods after birth for using their safe haven law provisions at 3 days, 7 days, or 30 days, but there are plenty of exceptions. A few use 14 days, and a small number have set even longer times.

When you look at the charts about these laws, you realize this couple who killed their child in the hospital had no excuse. None. In fact, because there is a shortage of healthy infants for adoption, that makes this couple's actions even worse.

Yeah, there just is NO good excuse to kill a kid. You can find safe havens, even drop them off at a church doorstep in the middle of the night or something. I'm just afraid that some people will resort to this kind of behavior. It's a way to take the easy way out. "Oh, Junior just stopped breathing...we've suffered enuf!" Kind of thing. I'm worried that some people will think that's easier to deal with than telling their friends and family that they dropped the kid off at a safe haven.

Quote
mumofsixbirds
I'm just afraid that some people will resort to this kind of behavior. It's a way to take the easy way out. "Oh, Junior just stopped breathing...we've suffered enuf!" Kind of thing. I'm worried that some people will think that's easier to deal with than telling their friends and family that they dropped the kid off at a safe haven.

Maybe they thought they could pass the kid's death off as SIDS...that would garner them more sympathy (and possibly a GFM) than giving it up to a Safe Haven. We as a society are not kind to people who choose not to be parents, whether it's by being CF, having an abortion, or giving the child up for adoption. Could be "SIDS" looked like a better out to them. Not that I'm trying to defend them killing their kid! If you're going to have it, take care of it, and these people deserve what they get. But I really wonder if they thought they could suffocate the child and pass it off as crib death rather than face off against criticism for not wanting it in the first place.

Quote
kittehpeoples
Maybe they thought they could pass the kid's death off as SIDS...that would garner them more sympathy (and possibly a GFM) than giving it up to a Safe Haven. We as a society are not kind to people who choose not to be parents, whether it's by being CF, having an abortion, or giving the child up for adoption. Could be "SIDS" looked like a better out to them.

Very good point. They would likely be crucified if they aborted, surrendered the kid for adoption or left it at a safe haven, but a baby suddenly dying is seen as a tragic, but more "acceptable" means of not having a child. Which is probably why so many people were so fond of offing their loaves and calling it SIDS before the authorities started catching on. They'd rely on the mistaken belief that no parent would ever hurt or kill their own kids, but people are wising up more and more, and instead of greeting murderous parents with sympathy, they're met with suspicion.

I'm guessing they didn't know that the staff in the hospital would be able to tell the kid was suffocated either.

Quote
Cambion
Very good point. They would likely be crucified if they aborted, surrendered the kid for adoption or left it at a safe haven, but a baby suddenly dying is seen as a tragic, but more "acceptable" means of not having a child. Which is probably why so many people were so fond of offing their loaves and calling it SIDS before the authorities started catching on. They'd rely on the mistaken belief that no parent would ever hurt or kill their own kids, but people are wising up more and more, and instead of greeting murderous parents with sympathy, they're met with suspicion.

I'm guessing they didn't know that the staff in the hospital would be able to tell the kid was suffocated either.

Yeah, we as a society wised up about SIDS. Now if we could just get everybody to recognize sizzlers as PNAs....

I'm not horrified by infanticide. I think it should be done with minimal pain, and abortion is always preferable, but I don't have any moral objection. I feel that the gulf between infancy and self-awareness is far greater than the gap between infant and fetus, and more relevant when it comes to evaluating personhood.

I do judge people who are irresponsible, especially if they initially wanted a pregnancy and changed their minds later, which suggests they really didn't think the matter over at all. There's the opportunity to use contraception and the opportunity to get an abortion, and it's rare that a person does everything right and still ends up with carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.

I don't know how they thought they'd get away with it. In a case of death like this, the doctor would see petechiae, especially in the eyes. It's not that difficult for a trained pathologist to determine that the cause of death wasn't natural. I would have gone with using the Safe Haven option. There is NO excuse just to murder your kid.

Quote
Peace
Remember some years back, a state in the USA (forget the name of the state) had a safe haven law for children? People came from all over the USA to dump their kids of all ages at hospitals and fire stations in that state. One guy dumped his 4 or 5 kids, saying he didn't want to take care of them anymore. Somebody drove all night with their 12 year old tween just to dump them there.

That was Nebraska. Typical of the breeder mentality in that state. (Yes, I've been there. My ex-husband's family lives in Omaha, and I spent a miserable year there before moving back to Arizona.)

Maybe this makes me an asshole, but I think abortion should be allowed right up until actual birth. Shit can happen that can make a woman not want to have a kid past the 20-week mark, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that a woman doesn't find out she's pigged up until after it's too late (the ones who claim ignorance while in labor I don't believe for a second). People who really really don't want kids will find ways of disposing of them and generally it's not pretty. Would it not be more humane to abort them if they're genuinely unwanted?

I know people will say to go with adoption, but is that really better? To make a kid be raised in the system with no family or loved ones or possessions that won't get stolen and a VERY high probability of not getting adopted, shuffled around foster homes (many of which are abusive and neglectful because the families only want the fostering stipend) and then kicked out at 18 with nothing and no support network?

Abortion at any point in pregnancy seems the most humane thing to do for unwanted fetuses instead of forcing them to life and making them suffer. I can't imagine it sits well for system kids to know that the one person who should want them - their own mothers - didn't want them. I know a lot of mothers who surrender their kids do want them, but knowing your mother gave you away probably still stings. Had late-term abortion been an option, the newborn in question wouldn't have had to be strangled to death by two lunatic parents.