Posted on 03/01/2002 1:45:51 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
Good point. I have a friend here in Florida (where this type of so-called religion is also very common) who was married to a minister, who used to lock her in a closet to "discipline" her. She has a pretty voice, but he forbade her to sing in church because she might get "vain." Her life was a minefield of restrictions and forbidden things, harmless or good things that were forbidden by her husband, that is.
And his family was 100% on his side, since, naturally, this was where he had learned that women are creatures who need to be trained by being shoved into the hall closet and padlocked in. I'm sure that you're right, and that the in-laws, who obviously knew what was going on in that household, contributed a lot to this awful scenario.
From reading this testimony, I'm inclined to think that maybe he is a stealth Muslim.
I tend to agree with you. Even with five children, a parent needs time for themselves--and less than a half an hour a day doesn't cut it for decompression time. I mean, were bathroom breaks included in those three hours? Bathing time? Was she able to bank her time so that if she didn't use all three hours in a week was she able to carry that over to the next week? And I bet she had to account for every penny she spent (with money the husband doled out to her), and was grilled if she couldn't account for it.
Her personality seems to have been totally submerged in her husband's. She lost her sense of self, and with someone who had psychological problems to begin with, coupled with post-partum psychosis, she was like a tinderkeg. "A traditional wife" doesn't mean that the husband makes all the decisions without any input from the wife besides her assent (because he's told her that's what "a traditional wife" role has to be)--even if it's not in her best interest--then labels the decision "ours."
I'm very curious to see what kind of rebuttal case the prosecution puts on. I'm sure they have some rent-a-shrinks lined up, but I'm curious as to why they didn't put on any in their case in chief.
No, wrong..... unfortuately she's not as DEAD as her 5 children!
embrace her all you want... How many liberals would want this poor woman (barf) babysitting their kids? If you want her free, offer her a job while you're at it.
I think based upon what I have read about this case that she is guilty, but surely severely mentally ill and probably legally insane, but that is a closer call. I think Mr. Yates is morally guilty of murder, but legally only of some sort child abuse, reckless endangerment or the like. I suspect when he meets his Maker, he will be in for the same sort of surprise as some of the Moslem terrorists who find paradise uncomfortably warm and devoid of the expected houris.
I really believe that will all the freaking social programs in our society today, there had to have been someplace, or someone out there who could have seen this coming or done something before it got to this point. She was seeing a mental therapist or something, and a medical doctor...friends (true friends) and family (HER FAMILY if they are more mentally stable than HIS) SOMEONE had to have seen this coming.
Because her husband said "we" decided to have as many children as nature would allow. By my rough calculation, that'd mean they would've ended up with about 15 more children.
Do I like the way he treated her? No, and every woman who has ever known me would tell you it is the exact opposite of the way I (or any other gentleman) would behave.
Do I think his fascistic behavior was in keeping with Scriptural precepts? Or course not -- unless, like liberals, he simply struck from God's word that which was not in keeping with his decidedly demented views.
But, do I think she was a total "victim" who deserves naught but our sympathy? Well, frankly, that's absurd. All along the way, she quite obviously took part in their decisions -- including the decision to get married. When you see the boat you are on is headed for the falls, it is best to jump off at some point -- any point! -- before it hits the rapids. She chose not to. Instead, she chose -- yes, libs and feminazis -- chose to kill her innocent children instead.
IN my humble and saddened opinion, she deserves to die. And he deserves to be shunned by all who know him -- especially by any woman who hopes to lead anything even resembling a sane existence.
She's guilty and if she gets away with it then every mother who has a hard life and doesn't have the emotional strength to handle it is going to get away with murder.
Embrace ? No more like pity. In her mental state, I can't think of anyone who would allow her to watch over their kids, with Mr. Yates being the only exception. He knew of her condition and allowed his children to remain in a very dangerous situation.
I didn't say she should be free, ever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.