We often read about how a parent is responsible for the behavior of one of its children, but usually only when the behavior is bad or anti-social. Most often that argument is associated with a rapist or child abuser. Authorities seem to almost always blame the parents for the abusiveness of their adult child (but we don't hear that parents are credited for the behavior of a child who has done good...oh well).
Then, we are subjected to ideas that a woman is "justified" for shooting her abusive husband, even without sufficient evidence, mostly because the husband is not available for comment (her parents are not brought into the picture in these cases).
Well, how about an Edwards type of situation?
Elizabeth Edwards has succumbed to breast cancer after a 7 year battle. Her husband was busy making whoopy with a women much younger than himself, and fathered a child with her, all while Elizabeth was "fighting" cancer.
Doctors will tell you that one of the best healers in any sickness is comfort and a stress-free life. All should be done to make life easy and comfortable for the ill. The more serious the illness, the greater need for less stress.
If parents can be "held" responsible for the actions of their grown children: if an abusive child is "forgiven" for their debased behavior because of their parents: if it is explainable that a teacher would be attracted to a teen age boy and introduce him to sex because of her abusive father: then Presidential candidate Edwards should not be "hounded" by the justice department or any other legal arm of the law, for his abusive behavior and total disrespect for his wife and family. OH, THAT isn't happening? You mean Mr. Edwards is not a contributing factor in the death of his wife, who so totally needed a stress-free life? Well then, why not? Isn't he, as much to blame for her to not recover, as a parent is for the debased behavior of their adult children?
Where is the constancy? We legislate harsher penalties for drunk drivers as if a sober person who kills someone with a car is less to blame: we have traffic stops to "catch" drunk drivers as if anyone who is not drunk that day is not going to commit a traffic crime: we have police hand out traffic citations for anyone not wearing a seatbelt, as if wearing one is going to prevent accidents from occuring: people are arrested for public intoxication as if their being sober would make the community a safe place: but we DO NOT cite someone like Mr. Edwards for his illicit, adulterous behavior as being a contributing factor in the death of his wife. Come on folks; If the above is legitimate and understandable, than why isn't Mr. Edwards being charged as an accomplice to murder? Didn't his behavior contribute to Elizabeths inability to recover from cancer, given all the medical treatment she went through? Hey, my wife is a "surviver" of the breast cancer she had over 10 years ago, Elizabeth didn't make it to 10.
Yeah, yeah...you think I'm being a little harsh or maybe twisted in my thinking, but no one has patted me on the back for helping my wife make it to 10. I did everything I could to provide her with a stress-free life, and viola, she's alive! But if I snuffed her with a pillow one of those distressing nights she had, I probably could have gotten away with murder, because after-all she wanted to die and I would only be saving her from all the pain.
Hugh! Maybe John Edwards is actually a hero: he let Elizabeth live to fight day after day. Maybe I am wrong in thinking that YOU are the ones with a twisted mind, actively encouraging legislators with all those ridiculous laws that allows one person or another to kill someone because the killer was actually a victim of his youth. MAYBE John Edwards has a story about his youth that will exonerate his adulterous behavior, thereby becoming a surviving VICTIM of his youth.
All I know is "you can't legislate morality"!
No comments:
Post a Comment