February 3, 2015 at 7:19 pm #35721
carpedebass, On your ” As to the point of posting people to watch over the child, that’s a 24 hour job. That means you have to take two people away from other necessary tasks to watch a child that you cannot trust for days? Weeks? Months? I’m not saying that this is the wrong thing to do…just saying it may not be feasible.”
This is a question every group will have, it all depends on the size of your group. If your group is only 6 to 10 it maybe not feasible to watch a child 24/7, you may have to tell them that you may have to tie them up till you see what they are about. i also think that the age is a big factor. A 1 to 3 year old is a baby but once they go passed that it maybe a problem.February 3, 2015 at 7:24 pm #35723
Another problem I have been thinking about taking in a child is that the child may have had parents that never showed them what a gun of any weapon is so you may have a new problem to deal with. You have to keep all weapons away from them since they may think it is a toy.February 3, 2015 at 7:29 pm #35724
Good points Freedom!February 3, 2015 at 7:51 pm #35729
Freedom, to the point of what parents will do. What if it is a orphan they are using, they don’t care what happens to the child. The child is a prop to suck you in.February 3, 2015 at 8:04 pm #35732
OK. Does anyone see the repetitive nature of this discussion? We are going back and forth with what ifs and such. Of course we are…we don’t really have enough information to make a decision. But here’s the point I want to make next…we live in the information age right now. In a grid down scenario or SHTF event, we will likely have no more information than we do now. Probably less…and yet our decision will have to be instantaneous.
Sure we’ll know a little more about what we have and who is with us as well as details about what is going on right around us, but that’s it. We may not even know why we’re in the situation we’re in at the time. So taking for granted there will be information enough to base a decision upon is a foolish assumption.
Here’s the thing. Make a decision and stick with it. No what ifs…no “could be.” I think we are going to have to get used to making decisions in the blink of an eye. The results of those decisions could well be life or death. But make a decision and act upon it. As to the number of people you have, what if the SHTF now? How many are in your group? That’s how many people you have.February 3, 2015 at 8:08 pm #35734
When people are overwhelmed with their circumstances sometimes they do abandon the children thinking it is the best thing they can do. As Roadracer noted, it happens now. Years ago, a guy at work’s wife came into the office, left their baby daughter off and just left. She never came back. When I was a kid, a wife/mother neighbor of ours took off abandoning her two toddler girls. She never came back. While things like this are not commonplace currently, if you go back 100-150 years you would be shocked at how frequently kids were tossed aside. A primary difference between now and 100-150 years ago is that back then there weren’t any safety nets when personal circumstances became dire. Social conditions from back then are more akin to what we’d see post-SHTF than the world we live in now where social services abound. I’m an amateur genealogist and have extensively researched my family, my wife’s family, and done extensive research for friends too. Some people look wistfully at the past as a time of high moral standards, strong families, and communities that took care of their own, but the reality would break your heart when you do the kind of research I have done for decades. Mom or Dad dies and the younger kids go into orphanages while the older kids (10 or above, sometimes a bit younger) get parceled out to work as servants, farm hands, or whatever. Even orphanages pushed the kids out as fast as they could. Mom or Dad dies and the survivor remarries quickly, often to someone who also just lost their spouse, and rather than a blended family, one set of kids often got chucked out into orphanages or servitude somewhere. Many times grandparents or aunts/uncles took these kids in but only when they had the means to do so. If they were desperately poor themselves, odds are they didn’t take the kids. Another thing to bear in mind is that the norm back then was big families and with it being the rare family that saw all their children live to adulthood. Perhaps it was the frequency with which children died and the sheer number of kids everywhere you turned that somehow made kids less precious than they are now. Perhaps it was just the harshness of the environment. Whatever it was, you don’t have to go back very many generations to see a very different attitude towards kids when people often were far more desperate than we see these days with safety nets and entitlements that would quickly disappear post-SHTF.
Many desperate parents would just be abandoning the kids rather than trying to get to you through subterfuge. Some would be trying to use the kid in order to get your stuff. That is why this is such a difficult topic.February 3, 2015 at 8:13 pm #35736
Wow. Mountain Biker. You just killed my delusion that things were so much better back then. That’s something I did not know.February 3, 2015 at 8:25 pm #35740
carpedebass: Thank you for giving us a topic for discussion and an opportunity to think about a scenerio that one may not have considered before. When I first read your post I had a simple answer, but after reading the responses by others who have been in situations that I have not been exposed to, I had much more to think about. With the discussion to help me decide what steps to take before taking a small child into our group, I now know that serious discussion of what to do will have to take place prior to a SHTF situation. Ron SFebruary 3, 2015 at 8:27 pm #35741
MB is right on the money. This has been happening for ever and will happen even more in a SHTF time. Yes there will be a small amount of bad people doing it for other reasons but I think 99% will be just because they can’t take care of them. Even if they know for a fact that our group has food they are the type that do not kill or go try to take over another group. They may thing that they will die and just want to save there child by sending them to a group that has food.February 3, 2015 at 8:34 pm #35743
Ron S, you are very, very welcome.
Here’s another thought though that has been rattling around in my head. If you cannot take care of the child and the mother leaves, would it not be rational and humane to end it’s life? After all, it is destined to die for sure. You’d be saving it from the pain of having to starve to death or be eaten by wild animals, etc? I know it’s a horrible thought and the fact is, it would be something you would have to live with forever. But it’s not outside the realm of the right thing to do.February 3, 2015 at 8:51 pm #35745
Nope not dealing with that. That’s why my first response was to keep people far away from your location. Just putting the sick old dogs down is bad enough.February 3, 2015 at 8:53 pm #35746
74, believe me…I understand.February 3, 2015 at 8:57 pm #35747
I don’t think so. I will not put down a child. Now we are talking about a little one 1 to 6 years old. We have to save our self’s from becoming as bad as what started all of this. We have to try are best to save the future of the country by saving the children. We do that and they will grow up doing the same for others I hope.February 3, 2015 at 9:14 pm #35748
Well said, Freedom. I understand.February 3, 2015 at 9:49 pm #35749
I’m with Freedom. If I lose because I tried to save a child, so be it. I will face judgement as the man who tried to save a child with a clear conscience. My wife is 100% in agreement. Having the support of your partner certainly makes it easier.
Understand where the others are coming from, but for us, that’s our decision.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.