I do not see this as an attack on the one income family, or anything like that.
Of course you don't. You think the elites are so obvious? They count on sheep like you see on this thread to buy their b.s. But still you see people here criticizing him for not using birth control and other things. They buy into the fundamental points of the anti-family liberal elite: that families are not organic extensions of our relationship with God, but rather political and social arrangements among humans which can take on a variety of forms: "lifestyles." So if you agree on the principle, the only thing left is to agree on the degree. But I don't expect many to understand this. It takes a bit of thinking beyond the headlines and the empty emotionalism that dominates much of the debate.
Yours: Of course you don't. You think the elites are so obvious? They count on sheep like you see on this thread to buy their b.s. But still you see people here criticizing him for not using birth control and other things. They buy into the fundamental points of the anti-family liberal elite: that families are not organic extensions of our relationship with God, but rather political and social arrangements among humans which can take on a variety of forms: "lifestyles." So if you agree on the principle, the only thing left is to agree on the degree. But I don't expect many to understand this. It takes a bit of thinking beyond the headlines and the empty emotionalism that dominates much of the debate.
This isn't about lifestyle, it's about common sense. Randy Yates demonstrated that he's short in this area by not opting out of having more children when his wife clearly had serious mental problems following giving birth. She also had attempted suicide twice. Leaving his kids alone with a woman with that track record wasn't smart--it was outrageously stupid. Having more kids with her after suicide attempts and ppd wasn't smart, either.
One more thing--I'm not a sheep, thank you very much!
Amazing insight,Zviadist. It's your world and we're just living in it, right? Your comments sound elitist and emotional.
To me, this is also laced with a form of thought control, for they're saying that you should have known (in your mind) that she wasn't right and, thus, you're responsible. If you ask me, it is only one more step being incremented in the total thought control. That is, where one can be arrested based solely on what they think.
His wife, however, should be punished. After all, she murdered her children, and she's going to have to accept the punishment dealt to her.
I really get tired of hearing the excuses for Andrea Yates behavior. Excusing the inexcusable, in my opinion, is wrong. Furthermroe, placing blame on the individual who didn't commit the attrocious act is placing the blame on the wrong person.
I can just see NOW coming out and speaking on behalf of this child murdered. Oh yeah, they already did that. My only guess is that they'll now villify the husband, and try to paint him as the bad guy.
In sum, no one knows what he was thinking prior to his wife murdering his children. Furthermore, it is most likely that he didn't expect any sort of action to take place. There are various degrees of psychosis and can you honestly say that you'd believe that your spouse would do something so attrocious, regardless if she was "mentally ill"?
I'm of the opinion that laws should be based on actions and not thoughts.
Of course you don't. You think the elites are so obvious? They count on sheep like you see on this thread to buy their b.s
Before I was joking about you being off your meds. Now Im not so sure. Have you ever been treated for paranoia?