Campaign starts to adopt dog that killed Alberta baby

[V]

My wife would murder me in my sleep if I allowed this to happen in my household.

She hasn't even let our two cats out of the basement since we had our latest newborn for fear of them smothering the kid.

I feel bad for the parents because this has to be completely devastating, but this was a completely preventable incident.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Lithium

What kind of parent has a 2 day old human accessible to a dog in the first place?
The mother should be in quarantine, not the dog.

Originally Posted by puckluck

Shoot the parents first.

Are charges being laid against the person who was in charge of the kid?

i guess we can tell who doesn't have kids.

[moon]

Originally Posted by V

My wife would murder me in my sleep if I allowed this to happen in my household.

She hasn't even let our two cats out of the basement since we had our latest newborn for fear of them smothering the kid.

I feel bad for the parents because this has to be completely devastating, but this was a completely preventable incident.

What do you mean "allowed this to happen"?

It doesn't sound like their was any negligence at all and outside of being insanely/unnecessarily overcautious it seems pretty tough to have avoided this.

There are millions of dogs living with babies all the time and rarely does this ever happen.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by moon

What do you mean "allowed this to happen"?

It doesn't sound like their was any negligence at all and outside of being insanely/unnecessarily overcautious it seems pretty tough to have avoided this.

There are millions of dogs living with babies all the time and rarely does this ever happen.

No negligence outside of having a dog and a newborn in a house at the same time, no.

[Lithium]

Originally Posted by moon

i guess we can tell who doesn't have kids.

Don't need children to have common sense.

[moon]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

No negligence outside of having a dog and a newborn in a house at the same time, no.

Now having a dog and a newborn in the same house is negligence?

I guess the cops will busy arresting all those parents with dogs then. Who cares that nothing happens 99.9999999% of the time.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by moon

Now having a dog and a newborn in the same house is negligence?

I guess the cops will busy arresting all those parents with dogs then. Who cares that nothing happens 99.9999999% of the time.

It has always been a bad idea. It's not the worst thing you can do, but a newborn is safer in a house without a dog than in a house with a dog. How is that not obvious?

[moon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

It has always been a bad idea. It's not the worst thing you can do, but a newborn is safer in a house without a dog than in a house with a dog. How is that not obvious?

I guess it isn't obvious because as mentioned the millions of dogs that have lived with kids and done nothing.

I guess technically it is safer but that can be said about a million things that are in houses.

I would say based on the amount of dogs in houses with babies versus the amount of dog killing baby incidents that the threat is virtually 0.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by moon

I guess it isn't obvious because as mentioned the millions of dogs that have lived with kids and done nothing.

I guess technically it is safer but that can be said about a million things that are in houses.

I would say based on the amount of dogs in houses with babies versus the amount of dog killing baby incidents that the threat is virtually 0.

A handful of babies killed each year by dogs is a handful too many.

COMPLETELY preventable.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by moon

I guess it isn't obvious because as mentioned the millions of dogs that have lived with kids and done nothing.

I guess technically it is safer but that can be said about a million things that are in houses.

I would say based on the amount of dogs in houses with babies versus the amount of dog killing baby incidents that the threat is virtually 0.

Wow guy, quit pretending dogs can't be dangerous.

Dog Bites in Calgary Climb 20% in 2011 over 2010

Those are just reported bites in the city. I'm sure lots of bites go unreported. To have a dog around a newborn seems insane to me.

There may not be a lot of deaths, but one should be enough to open people's eyes to the possible danger of having a relatively dumb carnivorous animal in the same house as a helpless infant.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by fotze

So you moved out for your kids infant years?

You set yourself up for that one.

I wish!

[Olao32]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

A handful of babies killed each year by dogs is a handful too many.

COMPLETELY preventable.

Give me a break. By your logic anyone who has a dog should assume it will one day kill their child. Or, place such a significant probability on it that it warrants giving up a member of their family to prevent a hypothetical situation. Yes, i said a member of your family as anyone who has pets can attest to the fact they truly do become an active part of your every-day life, common interactions etc. Nevertheless, there is a slight possibility, off to the shelter for "Rover" who likely ends up with a needle in paw.

I suppose if you have a new born, you cannot drive with them in the car because you know what, it's possible that you get into an accident and there is a possibility they become injured. Likewise for carrying them up the stairs to put them to bed for example; you know i have tripped up and down the stairs once or twice in my life; better cut that out for their sake.

What i am trying to demonstrate is this is an isolated incident. With your comments, you and many others in this thread, insinuate it is common place for that accident to occur and everyone should follow your guidance. I grew up with a dog, majority of the people I know also have and guess what, most of the time the complete opposite happens and the dog bonds with the child and becomes extremely protective of him/her.

Furthermore, i bet each of the examples i gave above are more prevalent, you just don't hear of them because they are not news worthy.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Olao32

Give me a break. By your logic anyone who has a dog should assume it will one day kill their child. Or, place such a significant probability on it that it warrants giving up a member of their family to prevent a hypothetical situation. Yes, i said a member of your family as anyone who has pets can attest to the fact they truly do become an active part of your every-day life, common interactions etc. Nevertheless, there is a slight possibility, off to the shelter for "Rover" who likely ends up with a needle in paw.

I suppose if you have a new born, you cannot drive with them in the car because you know what, it's possible that you get into an accident and there is a possibility they become injured. Likewise for carrying them up the stairs to put them to bed for example; you know i have tripped up and down the stairs once or twice in my life; better cut that out for their sake.

What i am trying to demonstrate is this is an isolated incident. With your comments, you and many others in this thread, insinuate it is common place for that accident to occur and everyone should follow your guidance. I grew up with a dog, majority of the people I know also have and guess what, most of the time the complete opposite happens and the dog bonds with the child and becomes extremely protective of him/her.

Furthermore, i bet each of the examples i gave above are more prevalent, you just don't hear of them because they are not news worthy.

This is getting ######ed.

Stairs are necessary.

Cars are necessary.

Dogs are not.

Everybody baby-proofs their house when the baby comes. While putting the Drain-O on a top shelf and locking the Mr. Clean in a cupboard, they should probably take a look at the drooling, sharp-toothed, small-brained bozo panting in the corner while they're at it.

[Olao32]

Originally Posted by Sliver

This is getting ######ed.

Stairs are necessary.

Cars are necessary.

Dogs are not.

Everybody baby-proofs their house when the baby comes. While putting the Drain-O on a top shelf and locking the Mr. Clean in a cupboard, they should probably take a look at the drooling, sharp-toothed, small-brained bozo panting in the corner while they're at it.

Thank you for being judge and jury over necessity. Is it a necessity for you to have a child? No, it's a personal choice. As is having a pet.

But perhaps you're right. My fierce beagle might one day bite little Jonny for tuggin on his ears to hard, or pulling his tail. Better just give him up now just to be sure. #### i remember doing that to my mut growing up and I got a nip or two. Guess what, i deserved it... and it didn't kill me like many in this thread are suggesting is so common.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by fotze

I doubt its even a handful.

I bet its way safer (like a couple orders of magnitude) to have a baby in a household that does not have a car.

The best way to not have babies die is to not have any. Babies die from sleeping.

I also bet that having hot dogs poses a much greater risk to a kids life than dogs.

Two story houses probably kill more kids.

and no, a handful is not too many.

List of Dog deaths reported in the media in the United States.

There's certainly a handful of young children deaths by dogs every year, solely in the US.

That a dog attacking a newborn and killing the baby is called "A dog just being a dog", is pretty good reason in my books not to have dogs around newborns.

A hot dog isn't "just being a hot dog" if a child chokes on one. A car isn't "just being a car" when one crashes, killing the baby inside.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Olao32

Thank you for being judge and jury over necessity. Is it a necessity for you to have a child? No, it's a personal choice. As is having a pet.

But perhaps you're right. My fierce beagle might one day bite little Jonny for tuggin on his ears to hard, or pulling his tail. Better just give him up now just to be sure. #### i remember doing that to my mut growing up and I got a nip or two. Guess what, i deserved it... and it didn't kill me like many in this thread are suggesting is so common.

Dogs can be dangerous. That's indisputable. Babies are defenseless. That's indisputable.

If you want to minimize the risk to your baby, turf your dog. I can't break it down to a more basic level than that. If you want to accept that risk on behalf of your defenseless baby, fine. But to pretend there is no risk is goofy.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Wow guy, quit pretending dogs can't be dangerous.

Dog Bites in Calgary Climb 20% in 2011 over 2010

Those are just reported bites in the city. I'm sure lots of bites go unreported. To have a dog around a newborn seems insane to me.

There may not be a lot of deaths, but one should be enough to open people's eyes to the possible danger of having a relatively dumb carnivorous animal in the same house as a helpless infant.

I am not sure who is saying that dogs can't be dangerous I am saying is that looking at the stats of babies deaths due to dog bites they really are not dangerous at all and such a minor threat that it is ridiculous to think that a dog with a history or no issues with babies/kids would kill a baby.

One should open the eyes but then when looking at all the facts it should also show that there really is no danger at all.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Dogs can be dangerous. That's indisputable. Babies are defenseless. That's indisputable.

If you want to minimize the risk to your baby, turf your dog. I can't break it down to a more basic level than that. If you want to accept that risk on behalf of your defenseless baby, fine. But to pretend there is no risk is goofy.

To pretend that the risk is anything more than 0.00000001% is silly as well.

We all know you hate dogs so you have no ability to be rational on this topic but in terms of threats to a baby the dog is much. much lower on the list of things that are commonly found in a house.

[moon]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

That a dog attacking a newborn and killing the baby is called "A dog just being a dog", is pretty good reason in my books not to have dogs around newborns.

A hot dog isn't "just being a hot dog" if a child chokes on one. A car isn't "just being a car" when one crashes, killing the baby inside.

i would say a hot dog choking a kid is as much a hot dog being a hot dog as a dog being a dog is.

If all it is is a dog being a dog how come it is so incredibly rare of an occurance?

How come there have been millions of dogs living with babies and yet none of them have killed a baby?

If it was just a dog being a dog than would this thread even exist? Or we would just be saying "oh another dog being a dog" no need for a thread on CP?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by moon

I am not sure who is saying that dogs can't be dangerous I am saying is that looking at the stats of babies deaths due to dog bites they really are not dangerous at all and such a minor threat that it is ridiculous to think that a dog with a history or no issues with babies/kids would kill a baby.

One should open the eyes but then when looking at all the facts it should also show that there really is no danger at all.

I actually agree that the risk of death is pretty damn close to zero. But the risk of injury on top of the very slight risk of death makes me leery of having dogs around babies and I question the judgement of people who don't come to the same conclusion.

Seriously, the amount of baby-proofing we as parents do borders on ridiculous as it is. From bumpers on the corners of tables, to the elbow/knee/hand/wrist pads on bikes, five-point harnesses on strollers, etc. Removing a dog from the house is one of the more logical things you can do to protect your baby.