Of course, the 10 month old was being punished because she was a selfish little cretin who won’t quit crying into her mother’s ear whenever she needed a diaper changed or a feeding.
As disgustingly vile as that subhuman of a woman the mother is, ‘cunt’ dosen’t quite cut it for her. Nor is any word in the English and non-English languages is. May the tapeworms gnaw at her reproductive organs rendering her sterile.
Calling her “cunt” demeans the word. She doesn’t deserve the compliment, IMO.
I don’t understand this “She was too stupid” defense.
Say you have an 18 year-old man, with an IQ of 105 (my point is, he is not legally retarded or slow or anything… average intelligence). He goes downtown and starts a fire in some building, and it cannot be contained and ends up killing 2 people.
Would this man be able to claim he was “too stupid” to know that if he started a fire, the building would have caught on fire and killed those people? What if he claims he had never started a fire before, and just didn’t know any better?
I hardly think that’s a resonable defense. This wretched, vile creature makes me sick.
LilShieste
I don’t think she was “too stupid” to realize what would happen to her kids, but I don’t think it was intentional either. Plenty of intelligent people have left a cassette tape or crayon in a hot car, neither because they were too dumb to realize it would melt nor because they intended for it to melt, but because they just didn’t think–the tape just was not a priority for them, and therefore they didn’t trouble themselves to consider the possible consequences. That scenario best explains the idiot’s behavior, to me: her kids just weren’t important enough to her for her to consider their welfare first and foremost. I think whatever punishment she gets should include permanent sterilization, as she’s clearly demonstrated that she is unfit to have charge of a child.
[hijack] why don’t we sterlize murderers, rapists, child and animal abusers, and the like? Their actions show both that they are not fit to raise a child, and that their genetic material is not something that should be propagated. [/hijack]
Yes, in so many words it is a crime to be an idiot. It’s a higher crime to be an idiot with intention, but essentially this woman will do time for being an idiot.
Involuntary manslaughter is this case is essentially saying: You are an idiot.
I wouldn’t mind if we treated idiots more harshly.
If her genetic material is so flawed to begin with, then the deaths of her children is a good thing, no?
I forget – which chromosome is the child-kiling one again? :rolleyes:
pldennison,
Yes, that’s exactly what follows from my suggestion [insert sarcastic smiley here].
There’s a major difference between killing a person and preventing the formation of a person. I said that the latter would be a good thing, not the former. Clear, or would you like more explanation?
Actually it does follow, whether it makes you comfortable or not. If the genetic material is pre-programmed to create child-killers, then those children would have grown up to be child-killers as well. So the fact that they are now dead is a net benefit for society.
Or, it could be that the suggestion that “their genetic material is not something that should be propagated” is eugenic bullshit. Take your pick.
pldennison, I think you’ve misinterpreted my point. I think it’s indeterminate whether or not behavior is genetically influenced; my point was that the behavior of some people is such that if it DOES turn out that behavior is genetically influenced, we’d be at best indifferent to the preservation of their genetic material and so wouldn’t count its elimination from the gene pool as a loss. That is, I meant that we would not have the desire to have it passed on; not that we would have the desire that it NOT be passed on (which seems to be what you think I meant). But, I can’t blame you for interpreting me as you did; I was pretty darn unclear.
That said, I still don’t think it would follow from there being a benefit to society if genetic material M is not passed on that it would be good, simpliciter, if all carriers of M are killed. There are cases where the wrongness of killing a person who wants to live outweighs whatever benefit society would gain from their death; I think this would be one of them.
pldennison, I think you’ve misinterpreted my point. I think it’s indeterminate whether or not behavior is genetically influenced; my point was that the behavior of some people is such that if it DOES turn out that behavior is genetically influenced, we’d be at best indifferent to the preservation of their genetic material and so wouldn’t count its elimination from the gene pool as a loss. That is, I meant that we would not have the desire to have it passed on; not that we would have the desire that it NOT be passed on (which seems to be what you think I meant). But, I can’t blame you for interpreting me as you did; I was pretty darn unclear.
That said, I still don’t think that if there would be a benefit to society if genetic material M is not passed on, it follows that it would be good, simpliciter, if all carriers of M are killed. There are cases where the wrongness of killing a person who wants to live outweighs whatever benefit society would gain from their death; I think this would be one of them.
Er, the first one of those wasn’t supposed to post. If a kindly Mod feels like deleting one of them, please delete the first one. Thanks.