Uncle beheads 15 month old nephew in a supermarket

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:58 pm

spot;793548 wrote: I infer it because my post 14 was totally ignored. The corresponding case in Huddersfield. The one where the judge rejected the defence of insanity, saying he did not accept that Hawkins killed Ryan in a spontaneous attack. "I'm satisfied that you used him [Ryan] cold-heartedly as a vehicle for avenging yourself on your wife". It's got everything the original case had except it's in England so it doesn't impugn Muslims.

I think that the case you are outlining demonstrates that some people don't need to be deranged in order to kill children but can do it in some form of cold-blooded retaliation. I don't think you post was ignored deliberatly, you are being a bit thin skinned and paranoid on this one I think. I think most people reading the thread would be so mind-boggled by the violence of the first case, they wouldn't be at the stage of analyzing it, or looking at the context and comparing it to other things yet, it takes people time to assimilate things like this, I mean to be honest my first reaction was nothing to do with the politics or any of that stuff, just one of trying to get the image out of my head, its horrible.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:34 pm

kayleneaussie;793559 wrote: Spot go to bed:yh_bye

You have gone right off track with this thread.

Exactly

It was about a violent crime committed on an innocent child. It dosent matter what country, what religion,whether there was insanity involved it was a hidious awful crime.

And thankyou again:-6

You know, not that i have to justify myself.... but the reason i didn't respond to post 14 is over in my who moderates the moderaters thread (the last little bit at the bottom just so that everyone knows )

.

You know it's funny how someone can call me a Racist for starting this thread when all they do pick on and criticize the US, now thats Racist .This thread is about a disgusting crime and the punishment for that crime... it has nothing to do with the US, but yet again someone feels the need to Bash it and me, i'd call that harassment, wouldn't you .

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:36 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;793921 wrote:

And thankyou again:-6

You know, not that i have to justify myself.... but the reason i didn't respond to post 14 is over in my who moderates the moderaters thread (the last little bit at the bottom just so that everyone knows )

.

Let me also direct everyone to post #9 in that same thread.

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:52 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;793921 wrote: You know it's funny how someone can call me a Racist for starting this thread when all they do pick on and criticize the US, now thats Racist. This thread is about a disgusting crime and the punishment for that crime... it has nothing to do with the US, but yet again someone feels the need to Bash it and me, i'd call that harassment, wouldn't you .

This really is getting silly.

Firstly, the reason I thought you chose this particular news item to start a thread on, with absolutely no comment whatever but just a hyperlink, was that the words "Saudi Crime" appear slap in the middle of your one-line OP. It might not have been intended but it certainly shouted at me when I opened the thread.

Secondly, the US description of premeditation is there because I was asked what the relevance of premeditation was to the article and I simply copy/pasted the two-paragraph Wikipedia entry defining premeditation rather than spend longer writing something myself from scratch that was going to get very little interested scrutiny. My mention of the US in this thread has been quite obviously microscopic, tangential and non-critical. You're hitting me because you dislike my opinion and you're using entirely irrelevant arguments to hit me with.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:26 am

Jester;793923 wrote: Kill him, insane or not, he did it, he should die.

Far/ Jester i completely agree with you :-6

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:45 am

We think alike I would add behead him as well he should know exactly what it feels like. Sorry no excuse for this man at all he deserves death.

[QUOTE]Kill him, insane or not, he did it, he should die.[/QUOTE]

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:37 am

You should be invited to behead him, Carla, so that you can carry round for ever after the experience of what you're advocating. It's too easy to dissociate baying for his blood from the event you hope to achieve, the two should be the same.

Killing someone in a momentary blind mist of rage seems to me a far lesser offence to killing someone after deliberate planning and consideration. Every killing ordered or commissioned by society falls into that latter category. Spreading the responsibility among an entire electorate doesn't make it any less morally repugnant.

kayleneaussie · Post by **kayleneaussie** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:47 am

I think regarding this awful crime there are going to be people of different opinions. We have had our say, I dont think we should be arguing about it now. This subject really upsets me greatly mainly because it was innocent baby who died a horrible death.

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:55 am

The last time you came anywhere near me in a thread like this you hit me with an utterly underhand post for the simple reason that you wanted to score a point against the bogeyman spot. Try considering that the uncle was an 15 month old innocent baby himself once, and that his nephew might have ended up a murderer. What life does to people is tragic enough already without the whole world judging the guy on the basis of a newspaper report. I've no doubt he already knows and wishes he'd never been born.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:08 am

My dear Spot I didn't say I wanted to do it, just that it should be done. Seems fitting that he suffer the same way the innocent child he beheaded did.

He didn't care about the life he took in any way shape or form. "Eye for an eye" works for me in this instance.

[QUOTE]You should be invited to behead him, Carla, so that you can carry round for ever after the experience of what you're advocating. It's too easy to dissociate baying for his blood from the event you hope to achieve, the two should be the same.

Killing someone in a momentary blind mist of rage seems to me a far lesser offence to killing someone after deliberate planning and consideration. Every killing ordered or commissioned by society falls into that latter category. Spreading the responsibility among an entire electorate doesn't make it any less morally repugnant.[/QUOTE]

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:21 am

CARLA;794652 wrote: He didn't care about the life he took in any way shape or form. "Eye for an eye" works for me in this instance.
It would help me understand if you explained why society - we're discussing lawful penalties, after all - justifies its violent decisions with the scriptural "eye for an eye" but seems blind to "I tell you, do not resist an evil person". The state constantly steps in with pragmatic violence instead of correction. Nations weren't always like that.

kayleneaussie · Post by **kayleneaussie** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:23 am

Spot I have better things to do with my life than to try and score points against you. I go on a thread if it interests me, I comment if I know the subject. AS a mother and a foster carer this subject hits home.

The uncle was an adult he killed this innocent child in the most hidious way.

I say The Death Penalty.

I am entitled to my opinion you are entitled to yours . Let it rest and dont stir this subject up.

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:39 am

Ah.

mrsK · Post by **mrsK** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:01 pm

spot;794782 wrote: Ah.

Just wondering,going of topic here for a little minute?

I didn't think you could see online movies or videos etc ,so I am assumming you don't know what you have posted & haven't watched the link you just put up.

To me it is a little insulting to kaylenaussie.

If you have since fixed or have a new computer than that would explain,why you can now see the link:D:-6:-6

02-17-2008, 11:56 AM #23

spot

Ichabod

Supporting Member

Join Date: Apr 2005

Location: Brigstowe

Posts: 10,905 Re: Ouch. Malaysian justice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? I don't have a Microsoft computer, I have a very low-powered linux box which doesn't have any software capable of playing Shockwave Flash video. Just browsing pages with normal graphics is a bit of a miracle, if I installed a video player in my browser it would lock solid and either need terminating or a reboot. I have an inability to play the clip. Who is "they" in this case? - it's such a simple question to answer. What makes anyone think it's in Malaya? Is this a video of a judicial process?

__________________

You're it!

I have not seen the pictures but bad things happen in wars. I don't have to apologise for the conduct of my men.

A lot of people spend their whole lives wondering if they've made a difference... the Marines don't have that problem.

Local Time: 09:58 PM

Local Date: 03-06-2008

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:18 pm

mrsK;795290 wrote: Just wondering,going of topic here for a little minute?

I didn't think you could see online movies or videos etc ,so I am assumming you don't know what you have posted & haven't watched the link you just put up.

To me it is a little insulting to kaylenaussie.

If you have since fixed or have a new computer than that would explain,why you can now see the link:D:-6:-6

02-17-2008, 11:56 AM #23

The date there sort of matters when you compare it with http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showpost.php?p=784252

It was only insulting if it's answerable. If the point is plainly true then it's impossible for it to be an insult as well. Perhaps someone would like to answer it? As a mother and a foster carer this subject hits home.

mrsK · Post by **mrsK** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:44 pm

spot;795310 wrote: The date there sort of matters when you compare it with http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showpost.php?p=784252

It was only insulting if it's answerable. If the point is plainly true then it's impossible for it to be an insult as well. Perhaps someone would like to answer it? As a mother and a foster carer this subject hits home.

I thought it would turn out to be something like that.

Silly me, I guess I need to read more,everything in fact.

I would hate to upset anyone with false information,would hate to be thought of as trolling etc.

Thanks for the clarification:D:-6:-6

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:50 pm

And it does, indeed, make my browser lock up and require restarts. There's a couple of threads on FG which I can't avoid going into sometimes which have so many youtube embedded clips that my machine's overwhelmed when I have a flash player installed.

I was waiting to ask why my paternal feelings should be discounted so drastically and considered so irrelevant to a question of logic relating to children but nobody called me on it. As a father I'm severely disappointed. As a human being I don't think the issue arises, of course.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:52 pm

spot;793548 wrote: I infer it because my post 14 was totally ignored. The corresponding case in Huddersfield. The one where the judge rejected the defence of insanity, saying he did not accept that Hawkins killed Ryan in a spontaneous attack. "I'm satisfied that you used him [Ryan] cold-heartedly as a vehicle for avenging yourself on your wife". It's got everything the original case had except it's in England so it doesn't impugn Muslims.

How does this impugn Muslims? By saying "Murder is punishable by death in ultra-conservative Muslim Saudi Arabia"? I say major points for the Muslims for not putting up with it! A slam would be implying that what that fella did is acceptable behavior among-st Muslims and I saw nothing in that story to indicate that..

mrsK · Post by **mrsK** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:20 pm

Jester;795398 wrote: [QUOTE=spot;794613]The last time you came anywhere near me in a thread like this you hit me with an utterly underhand post for the simple reason that you wanted to score a point against the bogeyman spot. Try considering that the uncle was an 15 month old innocent baby himself once, and that his nephew might have ended up a murderer. What life does to people is tragic enough already without the whole world judging the guy on the basis of a newspaper report. I've no doubt he already knows and wishes he'd never been born.[/QUOTE]

Then he shouldnt struggle much when the axe drops.

Far,I hope he does struggle & I hope he see's the axe coming.

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:22 pm

Jester;795398 wrote: Then he shouldnt struggle much when the axe drops.

Which of us does when all's said and done? Who actually manages it? Goethe was the last I heard of doing that and he died in 1832.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:32 pm

Nah ! I hope he sees it coming and trembles in fear as it take his head off.

Just my opinion of course.

[QUOTE]Then he shouldnt struggle much when the axe drops.[/QUOTE]

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:47 pm

Jester;795409 wrote: See now that depends on the blindfold and whether yer face up or down.

Spot I dont get you, speaking of a murderer here, you dont like jail time because its inneffective, you dont like killing them and I'm not sure why... You say to stop crime we must do effective police work and convict them in a court of law, what I have not seen you say is how or what method do we use to correct thier behavior?

I have two notebooks that concern nothing but that single question and they're in the process of being turned into a screenplay. I spent most of last week writing on the subject.

I don't actually have a better answer than that offered by Anthony Burgess in A Clockwork Orange fifty years ago and I have seriously tried to dent his answer. I do think that what he couldn't see as achievable now is, though, and I'm extending what became Stanley Kubrick's film into a 21st century echo. But I'm not clever enough to have a better answer.

What I will do, though, is post the entire thing here in the summer when it's finished and I know I can't improve on it, and then you can mock all you want. I promise it'll annoy you.

The reason I'll post it here is that FG is the only reason I have any opinions in the first place. It's been a university.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:40 pm

This guy is a murder .... he decapitated a baby :-5 what he did is beyond forgiveness so why should he be allowed to live ??? what use does he have in society ???.

Do we just let murderers and rapists roam the streets, let yobbos go around pissing on pensioners and eating pet dogs ( because we can't lock the poor souls up now can we):-5.

What if, we didn't have Police and we didn't have Soldiers, just where would we be

I actually think it's quite frightening that some people want to keep this murdering scum alive but then again they think having sex with a corpse is ok too:rolleyes: :-5

Post by **spot** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 3:42 am

I'm puzzled as to how forgiveness links to survival, or what business anyone other than a relative of the victim has in forgiving the offender. Such a person - one not related - simply cannot do it, it isn't within his power, it isn't his right to forgive anyone if he's not a victim or a relation. Forgiveness is a family issue, not one that can be deployed by the baying masses.

I've never suggested we cease to employ soldiers and the police, I think it's essential we employ soldiers and the police. It's also necessary that what they're allowed to do is changed. What they do at the moment is disgusting, antisocial, non-productive and bad for them.

kayleneaussie noted that "as a mother and a foster carer this subject hits home". I'm sure she's a very good mother and foster parent. Have I at any stage suggested otherwise? I don't doubt it for a second. I don't see how that has anything at all to do with the thread or what we're discussing and I posted the Bill Bailey song to make that exact point. It's not to belittle motherhood, it's to question the implication that motherhood is a jury requirement when a child's murdered. Is it possible to find the clip insulting? I didn't post it intending to insult her, I apologize if she didn't see the connection and took it in some other sense.

I sometimes think, reading ForumGarden, that the entire planet's water supply is filled with drugs to eliminate all trace of the intellect and I'm the only person on bottled water. I'm mildly offended at being asked for empathy by people to whom logic appears to be a closed book.

There are several things wrong with having sex with a corpse, pants, but the act isn't rape. Your hackles raised weeks ago when I addressed that and you still haven't got the point.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:43 am

:-6 Having the right to an opinion does not make your opinion right :rolleyes::-6

Post by **spot** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:52 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;795590 wrote: Having the right to an opinion does not make your opinion rightThank Christ, the penny's finally dropped.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:20 am

spot;795569 wrote: I'm puzzled as to how forgiveness links to survival, or what business anyone other than a relative of the victim has in forgiving the offender. Such a person - one not related - simply cannot do it, it isn't within his power, it isn't his right to forgive anyone if he's not a victim or a relation. Forgiveness is a family issue, not one that can be deployed by the baying masses.

I've never suggested we cease to employ soldiers and the police, I think it's essential we employ soldiers and the police. It's also necessary that what they're allowed to do is changed. What they do at the moment is disgusting, antisocial, non-productive and bad for them.

kayleneaussie noted that "as a mother and a foster carer this subject hits home". I'm sure she's a very good mother and foster parent. Have I at any stage suggested otherwise? I don't doubt it for a second. I don't see how that has anything at all to do with the thread or what we're discussing and I posted the Bill Bailey song to make that exact point. It's not to belittle motherhood, it's to question the implication that motherhood is a jury requirement when a child's murdered. Is it possible to find the clip insulting? I didn't post it intending to insult her, I apologize if she didn't see the connection and took it in some other sense.

I sometimes think, reading ForumGarden, that the entire planet's water supply is filled with drugs to eliminate all trace of the intellect and I'm the only person on bottled water. I'm mildly offended at being asked for empathy by people to whom logic appears to be a closed book.

There are several things wrong with having sex with a corpse, pants, but the act isn't rape. Your hackles raised weeks ago when I addressed that and you still haven't got the point.

Sure spot, the world can often seen like an idiocracy run by idiots, and populated by morons, but it isn't, anyway you don't get to decide on that, and intellect is not the same as wisdom. Not all human experience can be fully understood using the dialectic method.

You should always be wary of that instinct we have to dismiss a viewpoint that is not the same as our own on intellectual grounds, when in fact its on emotional grounds, and certainly you should always be wary of falling into the trap of feeling that you have a superior sense of morality or intellect than everyone else, as that's of course a complete conceit and quite guache. One of the defining intellectual faults of people is that they tend to develop their ideas on the basis of what makes them feel "good" about themselves, whether its actually vlaid or not. As Julius Ceasear realized 2,000 years ago, "men believe what they want to believe", which is why he was often able to out think and outfight his opponents.

For instance you probably find a lot of people here are a little right wing, maybe a bit reactionary, and instinctively rail against it, mostly because you are a little left wing and "progressive" but what of it, its hardly earth shattering stuff is it?

This internal western left-right, capitalist-socialist, liberal-conservative, pro- anti- America thing actually seems to be the normal fault line in all the politcal, economic, military, current events, and criminal threads on FG, the subject matter usually becomming almost irrelevant, whether its about French Healthcare, the Europen Cup, Crime in Saudi Arabia, or American Foreign policy in SE Asia.

I find that I am usually on the right of the argument on a lot of issues, but that's OK, I realize that I am biased and I try to take account of the fact that I have an emotional prediliction to think about things in a certain way. Of course I think that I am right most of the time (I am a man after all), but I certainly don't think that means that other people are necessarily wrong by default because they do not share my views on things, which is why I don't get too worked up about things. Though I do enjoy getting stuck in sometimes, as I, like you tend to find I sharply disagree with cosy consensus opinions, though in my case its the European left-wing consensus based view of the world that I disagree with sharply on a lot of its preconceptions, though there are plenty of other view points and world views that I am biased against, so in that sense I could consider myself an equal opportunities discriminator.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:20 am

There are a few levels of humour I get from from the linked video. One is the irony of someone claiming superior compassion "as a mother" then advocating killing. The other is that Rosie (discussed in the video) didn't actually give birth... not that it means she isn't a mother, just realise that Bailey is a comedian and not a political spokesperson. Finally, it annoys the crap out of men when women discredit the validity of any male's opinion by the sole fact, relevant or not, that they can't give birth.

People who murder have mothers too.

Post by **spot** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:25 am

Galbally;796001 wrote: For instance you probably find a lot of people here are a little right wing, maybe a bit reactionary, and instinctively rail against it, mostly because you are a little left wing and "progressive" but what of it, its hardly earth shattering stuff is it?

Gender fascists was the phrase that sprang to mind earlier. I was very well behaved, I didn't use it.

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:18 pm

The main reason I was drawn to this thread and felt as if I had to respond was because I am a mother!

I don't discredit anyones opinion just because they are a man. but as a mother you know the bond mother's have with their children, it's something that you can't describe. As a mother it makes what happened that much more upsetting to me because I can feel what that mother must have felt I know the horror I would have felt if it were my own child. Maybe it's because I'm a new mother and a first time mother, maybe my hormones are still out of whack but I think most any mother knows what I'm talking about.

I'm sorry that men can't feel the connection that we as women feel to our children it's a wonderful feeling.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:26 pm

Hope6;796364 wrote: The main reason I was drawn to this thread and felt as if I had to respond was because I am a mother!

I don't discredit anyones opinion just because they are a man. but as a mother you know the bond mother's have with their children, it's something that you can't describe. As a mother it makes what happened that much more upsetting to me because I can feel what that mother must have felt I know the horror I would have felt if it were my own child. Maybe it's because I'm a new mother and a first time mother, maybe my hormones are still out of whack but I think most any mother knows what I'm talking about.

I'm sorry that men can't feel the connection that we as women feel to our children it's a wonderful feeling.
Excuse me, but women don't have a monopoly on feelings for their kids. You have no idea how close me and my sons are. i don't think there is any way a woman can feel any more love or connection or whatever you want to call it than I have for my sons.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:29 pm

Hope6;796364 wrote: The main reason I was drawn to this thread and felt as if I had to respond was because I am a mother!

I don't discredit anyones opinion just because they are a man. but as a mother you know the bond mother's have with their children, it's something that you can't describe. As a mother it makes what happened that much more upsetting to me because I can feel what that mother must have felt I know the horror I would have felt if it were my own child. Maybe it's because I'm a new mother and a first time mother, maybe my hormones are still out of whack but I think most any mother knows what I'm talking about.

I'm sorry that men can't feel the connection that we as women feel to our children it's a wonderful feeling.

Sorry Hope, but I can see you getting a lot of 'flax' on this one. There are many wonderful and dedicated dads on here, that would be equally devastated had this happened to their child.

kinks · Post by **kinks** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:21 pm

CARLA;794259 wrote: We think alike I would add behead him as well he should know exactly what it feels like. Sorry no excuse for this man at all he deserves death.

I agree withy ou totally...it has made me feel sick just reading the title.

I haven't read all of this thread, but from what i have read, i can't believe there are people having a debate over this

Post by **spot** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:14 pm

I spent twenty years refusing to be a second-class citizen in the love-the-children handicap race, I'm not going to start now. It's only a handicap race in the first place because of gender stereotyping.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:03 pm

ThePheasant;796393 wrote: Sorry Hope, but I can see you getting a lot of 'flax' on this one. There are many wonderful and dedicated dads on here, that would be equally devastated had this happened to their child.

True, true. If this happened to my child, the Uncle would be horizontal by the time the authorities arrived. No trial needed.

Also, I do believe that there is an incredible bond between a mother and her children. And speaking as a guy (and all dads know this), that something special happens when your first child is born.

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:27 pm

I never said men couldn't have a close relationship to their children, they can care for them very deeply. What I'm saying is the bond a mother has from carrying that child in her body is on another whole level!

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:31 pm

Hope6;796583 wrote: I never said men couldn't have a close relationship to their children, they can care for them very deeply. What I'm saying is the bond a mother has from carrying that child in her body is on another whole level!

Hi Hope,

I'm not sure who you are replying to - but let me say: "I agree with you!" I was going to mention that in my post above...but was interrupted by the phone.

kayleneaussie · Post by **kayleneaussie** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:42 pm

Tombstone;796576 wrote: True, true. If this happened to my child, the Uncle would be horizontal by the time the authorities arrived. No trial needed.

Also, I do believe that there is an incredible bond between a mother and her children. And speaking as a guy (and all dads know this), that something special happens when your first child is born.

Thank you Tombstone I am with you on this one

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:50 pm

This is an odd thread, it really is. I think its important not to lose perspective here. This crime is not anything that anyone, man or woman, in any country on earth would expect to have to deal with at any point in their lives, and thank god its a very rare and extreme event, so outside normal experience you can discount the likelihood you would ever experience it. In fact I don't think its possible to have much of a rational response to such lunatic violence, the only emotion of any use would be pity for the parents, because there is nothing else you can do that would be of much comfort to them, you can blow that guy to kingdom come, or set up a foundation for the child, or try to put a figure on suffering, but its all going to be pretty hollow for those people.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:04 pm

Hope6;796364 wrote: The main reason I was drawn to this thread and felt as if I had to respond was because I am a mother!

I don't discredit anyones opinion just because they are a man. but as a mother you know the bond mother's have with their children, it's something that you can't describe. As a mother it makes what happened that much more upsetting to me because I can feel what that mother must have felt I know the horror I would have felt if it were my own child. Maybe it's because I'm a new mother and a first time mother, maybe my hormones are still out of whack but I think most any mother knows what I'm talking about.

I'm sorry that men can't feel the connection that we as women feel to our children it's a wonderful feeling.

Do you honestly believe that men cannot feel a connection with their children? I quite honestly cannot believe that you could possibly say that

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:07 pm

Jester;796489 wrote: Im with Hope on this one, I love my children and would be devistated if this happend to one of them (shudder), but the bond mother and child have is 'deeper' than I can fathom. Maybe were getting hung up over the quanitifying of it and it might be better to say that it is just a different kind of bond.

No way!

It might be a different kind of bond but there is no way that it is any way a lesser bond.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:15 pm

Bryn Mawr;798151 wrote: No way!

It might be a different kind of bond but there is no way that it is any way a lesser bond.

You must bear in mind that a certain class of American has been brought up on Motherhood, Apple Pie and the American Way. They're the ones we like best, oddly enough.

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:03 pm

Bryn Mawr;798151 wrote: No way!

It might be a different kind of bond but there is no way that it is any way a lesser bond.

I agree with you Bryn....men have very special bonds with their children....sometimes women just don't see that bond:-6