Leaving Infant To Fend For Herself.

Post Reply New Topic

I am bothered by the fact two grown adult parents would leave their infant child to fend for herself in a world that has more than its fair share of harshness just so they could die in a jihad. This very thing happened in San Bernadino when a husband and wife went on a shooting rampage only to be killed by cops. I wonder if the mother suffered from post partum depression?

The parents will never know their own child. She will never know the comfort of them. Why are people so stupid? It totally goes against Theory of Evolution to behave in such a manner.

What a horrid thing to do to your own offspring!

It doesn't go against the theory of evolution. That behavior means the child will be less likely to survive and succeed in life to raise children of their own, so any genes promoting it are being weeded out by natural selection. Of course, a society that takes care of the child, rather than just letting them die, significantly hinders this process. This could ultimately doom it to be conquered by a less squeamish one.

Or, you know, grandparents. like in this exact scenario.

leave them in the forest, they might be adopted by wolves.

This--and the comments that follow it--is not only disgusting, but also unscientific, and you have the nerve to try to pass it along as if it were. What these horrible people did very likely had far more to do with environmental influences than genetic ones--if there were any at all. The idea that this poor child would repeat his/her parents' murderous behavior just because of some DNA is horribly ignorant.

My heart aches for this baby, but in the end, she may actually be raised with more love and care than if the parents were still around.

They did give the kid to their kin to be raised.

What was the evolutionary advantage of being a columbine shooter?

None. You cant stuff it into an evolutionary mold.

But I see what you're saying.

For an adolescent male to do a Sandy Hook, or a Columbine, type spree shooting seems crazy enough.

But for a married couple with a child to do that strikes an observer as being even far more crazy. You now have a stake in the future (your child) so how could do a suicidal act like this?

Since we dont know yet what exactly the motive is its premature to theorize.

But if a person is convinced that its for some holy cause then folks will do baffling things.

I guess they thought the world for the child would somehow be a better place if they...did this act. How it would contribute to making the world a better place for their child certainly is NOT obvious to me though.

I can't get into the mindset of people who act like this. If you want your offspring to survive you do what it takes to make it possible. What they have done has caused nothing but harm. Even if you are disgusted by how people act if you have a child, they come first and everything should revolve around helping the life you created so they can grow, reproduce, passing your genes along so it's this continual cycle. What a short circuit! ISIS doesn't like recruiting parents as fighters nor do they want their fighters becoming parents because even they can see leaving children parentless because of this bs would be an unforgivable mistake even though they commit acts of terrorism against others creating parentless children but to ISIS they are the problems of enemies and infidels. You know on some level they see its ridiculous.

As far as just leaving the child in a safe place, it isn't enough! That child will be plagued with knowing what her parents did and will always be aware. She will never be allowed to know them now. Some people think that's best considering, but it is far better to abandon these ideologies and devote all time and energy to raising a family as anyone can if they choose and then they would be a nurturing influence which is always ideal.

Why even think this? Name one case of Post Partum Depression linked to indiscriminate spree killing.

Post Partum Depression in rare cases can lead to fratricide. Suicide slightly more common. However the vast majority simply depressed, maybe having problems engaging.

Is this not a gender double standard to use this excuse?



Agreed.

The mother is more likely to act with disregard for her baby's well being if she is suffering from depression and it can be triggered by hormonal changes during and right after delivery. It is obvious she wasn't thinking clearly.

By definition anyone going on a spree killing becuase of ISIS are not the most logical people.

This is not how evolution or Darwinism works. Social Darwinism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

This one case is not going to weed out genetic traits.

Mothers of babies that young are usually preoccupied with them due to natural hormonal response occurring for the survival of the species. Very few would be obsessed with something like this right after delivering. It is definitely an indication something is going on. I can't think of any mother I know of who would behave that way after giving birth but hormonal imbalance has been blamed for problems in the mother so she doesn't care about herself or her baby. Mothers are usually preoccupied with their baby, not some weird movement involving violence and death.

You emphathise with the mother, becuase you identify as a woman. This is a confirmation bias.

You are making excuses for her. You are making out that almost no pregnant woman, or recently pregnant woman is compos mentis that pregnancy + an extreme husband equals massacre. Do you think she wasn't aware of the radical views before she go pregnant? How do you know that? How do you know they won't radical before they met?

The reality is most women before and after pregnancy are perfectly sane, even if they are blue. It only extreme cases where they would deliberately harm of neglect the child.

This is pure speculation. You said yourself "Very few would be obsessed with something like this right after delivering" This indication that it is not necessarily the significant factor.

Radicalisation is the significant factor.

Whether it is coercive from either party you don't know. Is is perfectly possible that she is the primary influence. Or it could be the husband.

Have you heard of the Jihadi brides that are essentially self-radicialising? No one makes them do those initial step. You can say the motivation is rebellion or whatever, but they make that choice they get involved in a violent ideology. Why treat men or women any differently in that respect?

There are transcripts from terrorist court cases where the wives are offering active encouragement.