|
South African Fecobaby
Sowetan | Submitted by: athenstexman
"Prompt response by emergency personnel and the police in Mpumalanga resulted in the rescue of a new-born baby dumped in a pit latrine and the arrest of a teenage mother at the weekend... He said the baby, who was covered in human waste, was still alive when the emergency personnel reached her. She was rushed to hospital."
|
From: wulfgarthewhite [Black to White]
Date: 13-Oct-2008 23:35
Waiting for DuhDebble's comment.
From: theallseeingear [Bavid Dyrden]
Date: 13-Oct-2008 23:57
>> "She could not say why she did not report the matter to the police" College fees?
From: robito [Pithy Quote]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 00:02
dailyrotten staff might want to delete a certain previous post to avoid prosecution.
From: dontsqueak
[DS is talking]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 00:12
From: robito [Pithy Quote] Date: 14-Oct-2008 00:02 dailyrotten staff might want to delete a certain previous post to avoid prosecution. ---------------- You can do so at staff@rotten.com And please don't look at that picture.
From: groundnpound [Ghillie Sinclair]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 01:16
The same thing happened in Astoria, Oregon about 10 years ago; fortunately, the baby did not make it. Shit happens when your older brother fucks you in the pussy instead of the pooper. We got quite a few Banjo Boy types up in the Pacific NW - worst part is, when they moved here, they brought dinner with them...possums... 
From: gigi67 [gigi]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 03:45
Glad the baby is okay. Any chance of sticking Mom head-first in the nearest outhouse hole and leaving her there until the trial?
From: mike2039 [mike]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 04:50
She must have thought it was a really big turd.
From: daredevil [CameronVale]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 08:03
From: mike2039 [mike] Date: 14-Oct-2008 04:50 She must have thought it was a really big turd. ---------------------- It was. Gerbiler......I can't believe you failed to reference: 
From: fr4th0
[Fr4th0]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 08:44
"Hlathi said the girl denied dumping the baby and claimed that she went to the toilet in the early hours of Friday morning to relieve herself when the baby allegedly came out and fell into the latrine." You had NINE MONTHS and that's the best you can come up with?! Dumb bitch. Does it really matter? Had she kept the shit-covered shit-machine, it probably would die from AIDS in the next decade, anyway. We need to just clear that entire continent - doesn't matter to me if they're black, white, Arab or purple - kill 'em all and purge the fucking land.
From: marquisdesade [Incarnate]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 08:59
Gives new meaning to the term "Shit Baby"
From: tower [of babel]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 09:11
yeah, somebody recap what was so terrible that it actually had to be purged from the dailyrotten forum
From: tower [of babel]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 09:15
never mind, sufficient recap provided on the flaming rat thread
From: fr4th0
[Fr4th0]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 09:16
From the description and hints, it sounds like a pic I saw over at b0g.org ... If it's the same, it was apparently some nasty fucker shitting on an actual baby. Most likely photoshopped, VERY likely a fake, but even so.... yeah, even Rotteneers have their standards. Reading about it is one thing, but any thumbnails that can be stored in your temporary internet files? WHOLE different story, there.
From: commie
[bastard]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 09:41
I know I'll get some serious hate from just about everyone, but I'm going to play the ultimate devil's advocate here in regards to the baby getting shat on pic. I am trying to be reasonable, so save the reactionary insults, please. I only oppose it being on here because it is considered illegal and I don't want Rotten shut down for any reason. I personally don't think possession or viewing of any image should be a crime. Think about it. Is viewing images of a murder scene a crime? How about a robbery? A kidnapping? What if it's an adult being raped? Or footage of the cops beating a man in the street for no reason? Are these images/video illegal to have? The crime is just as serious, the victims are just as dead/traumatized, and the penalties are about the same...years to life in jail or even death. So why should viewing child porn be any different than viewing any other crime? It's not as if the crime is magically happening again or some bullshit like that. People don't die all over again when you watch video of them being shot, do they? "Every time someone sees it, the kid is being raped again!" What a crock of shit. If you watch a video of some porn star getting assfucked by a massive black cock, does that porn star feel that dick up her ass? I doubt it. The kid isn't being raped again either. The damage is done, and banning all evidence of it isn't going to magically restore that child's innocence. Throwing people in jail for years to be raped and/or murdered for having this evidence doesn't help the kid either. So now we have two lives destroyed instead of just one. Way to go, justice system. I feel Mikeisgreen has the right idea. Someone who rapes/beats/kills a kid should be dragged out back and shot immediately following conviction, as well as someone producing and selling child porn for their own personal profit. But what if someone gets it for free? How does that support any so-called industry? The RIAA claims that file sharing of their precious music somehow 'damages' their profits...so if you really wanted to fuck up the CP industry, wouldn't pirating it just make it less profitable? I don't think people make that kind of sick shit for financial profit anyway. The sheer "ick" factor makes most people scream "BAN IT!" and I understand that reaction...I feel the same way. But if you are willing to ban one thing because it's gross and utterly despicable, who decides the limit of acceptability? You? Me? Religion? The government? Do you really want some other person telling you what you can and cannot see? This 'illegal content' is just a bunch of 1's and 0's that certain programs can render into something distasteful. Should we ban these programs for making it possible? Ban every media player and all image viewers then. That'll stop the CP 'epidemic' for sure, right? Hell, just ban internet browsers, cameras, camcorders, cell phones, Polaroids, oil paints, charcoal sticks, and anything else that can be used to depict underage porn. Problem solved. If you let government get their foot in the door of freedom of information they will bust that fucker wide open and you WILL be in for a world of hurt. You can't just censor shit just because it depicts something "evil". That's the logic behind burning 'heretical' books and 'dangerous' literature. Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Prohibition doesn't work, it has never worked, and I sincerely doubt it will work in the future.
From: tower [of babel]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 10:00
hey, I'm with you 100%. I don't think your position is weird or objectionable. Rather, I think there should be an extremely high burden of proof on someone who claims that merely viewing an image should constitute a crime.
From: fr4th0
[Fr4th0]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 10:11
Commie, that's a well-articulated, thought-out post, and I doubt most people got all the way through it. However, I tend to agree, as many people on here will. While the original act is vile, as are the people who sell/distribute/wank-to-it-daily, but censorship is never the answer. It's just an easy way for those who are in "fight for your mortal soul" can impose yet more restrictions on your freedom(s). It's kind of like the 19 year old with the underage girlfriend, who's dad is a dick and gets him arrested for statutory rape or simliar bullshit. The kid is now labelled a sex offender, and simply because it's apparently OK to discriminate against sex offenders, it's OK to give them a Scarlet Letter for the rest of their lives. Either kill the fuckers, or release them - if you feel they've served their time, that should be it. Personally, I'd like to register my vote of "Kill the fuckers!" I realize I may be in the minority, but I'd like to throw that out there.
From: commie
[bastard]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 10:22
frat: I tried to be reasonable with it...I agree that those who sit and jerk off to CP are sick, but are they somehow 'sicker' than Sandy who finds stuffed animals being shit and pissed on erotic?
From: phoenixrising
[out of the ashes...]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 10:36
"are they somehow 'sicker' than Sandy who finds stuffed animals being shit and pissed on erotic? " They are not sicker, but try to remember, Blue, a stuffed animal can't cry. A baby is a living breathing victim. For the record I agree with you on the censorship thing, sick bastards need to be locked up or like Frat said taken out. In a perfect world we wouldn't even be having this discussion. We would be free of prevs that test our freedoms.
From: commie
[bastard]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 10:58
"Where did my but go" Check your ass, phoe! I understand that there are child victims of rape. But is a 15 year old who takes pictures of herself a victim? Is a 16 year old camwhore who *likes* getting naked for strangers a victim? Should these pictures be considered the same as the violent rape of a toddler? What if it was a grandmother being raped? Isn't that just as bad? Apparently not, since there's no inherent stigma attached with pics of grandma getting forced to take a cock or five. Sex offenders are the new witches, imo. Even being ACCUSED of it is enough to ruin your life and the lives of everyone around you. It's the ultimate scarlet letter, and soon they'll have MANDATORY chipping for these people whether they are innocent or not. "You aren't defending a PEDO, are you? You must be one of them!"
From: loveto
[Jill Awf]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 11:00
damnit! go to work and miss a pic... Just a kid getting crapped on? That's not sexual. It might be Art, though, and certainly seems to be relevant. Anyone involved in the "rescue" of the baby in the article should be required to pay for its upkeep. Obviously the biological mother didn't want it and is incapable of sufficient maturity to raise it.
From: commie
[bastard]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 11:08
http://www.b0g.org/wsnm/news.php?artc=38256 It's on this page, Jill. I'd recommend shrinking your window to something really small...you won't be able to scroll fast enough.
From: loveto
[Jill Awf]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 11:12
Not so foul as what I'd expected. I guess the presence of a naked dick makes it sexual? I don't see why the pic might be illegal, except maybe that it has a dick and a non-attached kid in the same frame...
From: daredevil [CameronVale]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 11:31
BFD.......nothing remotely erotic there. Next.
From: fr4th0
[Fr4th0]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 11:47
Dammit Jill, DD - you're trying to use LOGIC. That doesn't work with the censorship tards. Fundies from ALL sides get to scream out their righteous indignation because they're allowed to. I see nothing sexual about the pic, and neither does probably 50% of the population. 25% does and 'faps' to it, and the other 25% are "morally offended" and fap to it later when no one else is looking.
From: phoenixrising
[out of the ashes...]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 11:49
No, Blue, a houchie teen or even pre-teen has free will. Those pics that you suggest should not be considered child porn, IMO. Except, the law didn't ask my opinion. I think anyone being raped is bad. True some people have been branded that shouldn't have been. They suffer the consequences of laws that are to broad. The law see one and all situations in the same light. That is wrong, again my opinion. I didn't make the laws and I can't change them. As far as the father that takes the recently turned 18yr old to court over his 16 or 17 yr old daughter, shame on him. Turning a kids life upside down is just not right.
From: phoenixrising
[out of the ashes...]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 11:59
Frat, I must be the 101 percentile. I find that pic offensive and I am not going to fap to it later. It made me slightly sick the first time I saw it and it still does. I suppose it's the whole involving the innocent baby thing. Munchkin's shitty yiff pics are gross, but they are just stuffed animals and therefor more tolerable.
From: phoenixrising
[out of the ashes...]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 12:03
I suppose I should add I don't think it is sexually offensive, just plain ole offensive, but then all scat is offensive on some level to me. Which makes perfect since I don't play with shit.
From: fr4th0
[Fr4th0]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 12:04
Phoe, I didn't say I wasn't offended and sickened by the photo, just that I see nothing sexual about it. You can still be in the 50% with us. 
From: other [unclassified]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 12:42
All covered in poo....That wasn't one of Tawana Brawley's relatives??
From: billscatz [Bill]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 15:34
And anyone who thinks maybe this guy needs to get out of the house more often -- raise your hands... Ah, a full house! Egad, what is this the Return of Willard or what? Playing with rats and tying things on their tails... Does he let them run up and down his peepee, too? Almost be he does...
From: dontsqueak
[DS is talking]
Date: 14-Oct-2008 18:04
Non-parents seem to all be against censorship of such photos. If sick fucks want to go look at sites that feature children being defecated on and tied up, by all means...go THERE. Not here. I am not a parent. But, I am an aunt. If someone did that to one of my nieces, posted it on the internet... Well, I would tie them down, poke out one of their eyes, stomp their eye I poked out while their lone one was looking in horror, put the goo of the smashed eye in their eye socket, throw dogshit all over them, and leave.
Updated: 15-Oct-2008 18:41
| 
