Right and Wrong and the Inbetween

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

My mother-in-law once a story of a woman who was an at-home wife and lived with her kids and husband next door to my mother in law. Her husband would give her money to buy food for the kids. Those kids rarely got fed because instead of feeding her kids, she fed her coke addiction. When her husband became fed up with this after she repeatedly swore she'd stop, he beat her to near death. Was what he did right? Not exactly. Why do I say this? Well, there was other ways to deal with that, however, being driven to violence due to the neglect of your children (which was indeed his driving factor in nearly killing her) is commendable. He didn't just beat her to beat her, or because he was angry about work. Indeed, he was never a violent man, and loves his kids deeply. Indeed, he also loved his wife, which is why he gave her so many chances. But there's a point where enough is enough, and after the umpteenth time of coming home after working your ass off for your family to find your wife stoned out of her mind and your kids hungry, well... even the most docile of people have their breaking points.

Should this woman be treated as a victim, her husband as a monster?

See, the real issue, however, is not what happens to them, but what happens to the kids. They'll have to go through the system, and will likely be taken in by horrible people who want nothing more then the checks.

So, who's right here? Who's wrong? Who's right? Is anyone?

[prairiefire]

Should this woman be treated as a victim? No. Her children are the victims. She needs to be sterilized before she brings anymore children into this world to neglect.

Is her husband a monster? No. He's human, and if he's given her so many chances to clean up and she still let his children suffer he has the right to be angry. Should he have beaten her, probably not. But he's human, and protecting ones children should be the strongest compulsion in any animal, even if it is severely lacking in the "mother."

Can any of the family take them in? It's usually better if the kids stay with family. I would imagine dad would get out of jail pretty quickly (considering the climate of "no one needs to be punished for their crimes" attitude lately). He would stand a better chance if he has no other history of violence of regaining custody of his kids once he's out than a strung out junkie mother who doesn't give a crap about her kids.

[DarkCabaret]

Should this woman be treated as a victim, her husband as a monster?

See, the real issue, however, is not what happens to them, but what happens to the kids. They'll have to go through the system, and will likely be taken in by horrible people who want nothing more then the checks.

This woman is NOT a victim! She chose to go out and use the drugs, no one forced her!

Her husband like prairiefire just said is only human! I know if I were him, I probably would have done the same damn thing. She swore to him that she would stop using, and she didn't. He should have just thrown her into rehab and left her. I don't necessarily agree with beating because there are alternate things you can do for druggies. I should know, my cousin has had a lot of problem with coke. He's been in rehab at least 5 times and for some reason he won't stop. I have not talked to him or his parents in a year so I don't know if things got better, or if they got worse. It's hard having a family member who uses such a horrible drug.

Also with the children, now a days SRS checks families out. If you don't pass their standards you don't get the kid(s). My best friend was thrown into a foster home, and thank god she ended up in one that treated her good. She kept a job, and was doing really good. Not all foster families only want the money, you take someone who can't have children and for some reason can't adopt. It's perfect for them.

[StoryJunkie]

I don't know, little one. Life is sometimes a great tragedy.

My grandmother told me the story of a woman who had children from a previous marriage, yet her second husband wouldn't even allow her to feed those children, only the ones he made with her. Bizarre. Although that has nothing whatsoever to do with your story, it reminded me of this one. People are strange sometimes. Sometimes, the reasons are very apparent. Righteousness can be a hard thing, I think.

[Guest Agaib]

I don't really think that figuring out who to put those labels on is really a very important question. In fact, its quite irrelevant. In this case what people need to consider is what is legally justifiable in a healthy society. We can't have husbands killing their wives for any reason. If the children are in an unhealthy situation the husband's parental duty is to leave with the children and inform the proper authorities. Obviously its not easy to think of what exactly is the perfect action in the heat of the moment so perhaps the circumstances should be taken into account during sentencing. As someone else pointed out the ones who come out with the raw end of all of this is the children. When that husband killed his wife he also harmed his children through his actions.

No one here is a "monster." Only people who made very bad decisions. In the words of John Steinbeck "There ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue. There's just stuff people do."

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

I don't really think that figuring out who to put those labels on is really a very important question. In fact, its quite irrelevant. In this case what people need to consider is what is legally justifiable in a healthy society. We can't have husbands killing their wives for any reason. If the children are in an unhealthy situation the husband's parental duty is to leave with the children and inform the proper authorities. Obviously its not easy to think of what exactly is the perfect action in the heat of the moment so perhaps the circumstances should be taken into account during sentencing. As someone else pointed out the ones who come out with the raw end of all of this is the children. When that husband killed his wife he also harmed his children through his actions.

No one here is a "monster." Only people who made very bad decisions. In the words of John Steinbeck "There ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue. There's just stuff people do."

She's not dead. "near-death" and "death" are quite different, no?

[Guest Agaib]

Near-death and death aren't the same no. I must have mis-read it. Still, near-death doesn't really make it much better. As well as "near starving" the children.

[Guest Monsterking]

i feel that you are all correct end of story

Peace out and may the furs be with you "WOOOOOO!!"

[shinigamiinochi]

sounds like my uncle. He was a poor ass farmer in Nebraska, cliched but true. He had eleven kids, but instead of using the money to make life better, he bought a shit load of alcohol and cigarettes. He also beat up and raped his youngest son because he's gay. Three years ago, my uncle died and no one went to his funeral. My mom got really angry at my cousins for this and told them that he was their father and he didn't matter what he did, they should respect that. I beg to differ. My cousin (the youngest one) told me that if he had been in charge of the burial, he would get him cremated because his dad believed that if he got cremated, he would never get into heaven. I'm pretty sure that, if heaven according to the christian ideal exists, he's not getting in. So, yeah, just because you're family doesn't mean you have to like, love, or even respect each other. Especially is said family member is an asshole.