Killing children

@KellyJay said
She killed her very young kids, sent him on a trip, and killed them. Again, is it because they were her kids that it’s not murder, because we have grown so used to that?

I said earlier that I think she should've been convicted. She clearly planned out the murder. However, she was not in her right mind while she planned it.

What you're missing is that she indeed had a mental illness and was even in a psych ward for 14 days who discharged her for dumb reasons I already mentioned.

While I would've voted for her to be guilty, I can understand why most of that jury chose to acquit her. I don't think this was a case of malicious intent. It was a tragic case of mental illness.

@vivify said
I said earlier that I think she should've been convicted. She clearly planned out the murder. However, she was not in her right mind while she planned it.

What you're missing is that she indeed had a mental illness and was even in a psych ward for 14 days who discharged her for dumb reasons I already mentioned.

While I would've voted for her to be guilty, I can under ...[text shortened]... t her. I don't think this was a case of malicious intent. It was a tragic case of mental illness.

Clearly anyone who plans to murder others is not in a “right” mind.

@KellyJay said
She killed her very young kids, sent him on a trip, and killed them. Again, is it because they were her kids that it’s not murder, because we have grown so used to that?

And where did you earn your psychology degree?

Because you're talking out of your ass.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
What you mention is not a felony…you are allowing your handlers to make you look foolish

Hypocrite.

@KellyJay said
She killed her very young kids, sent him on a trip, and killed them. Again, is it because they were her kids that it’s not murder, because we have grown so used to that?

Only someone irrational enough to believe there is no difference between a 15 minute old zygote and a 6 year old child would assert such an insane proposition.

This tragic case don't bolster your crusade to restrict the reproductive rights of women and it takes an immense amount of cynicism to attempt to use it in such a manner.

@vivify said
I said earlier that I think she should've been convicted. She clearly planned out the murder. However, she was not in her right mind while she planned it.

What you're missing is that she indeed had a mental illness and was even in a psych ward for 14 days who discharged her for dumb reasons I already mentioned.

While I would've voted for her to be guilty, I can under ...[text shortened]... t her. I don't think this was a case of malicious intent. It was a tragic case of mental illness.

"In Massachusetts, the defense may apply when a person’s mental condition prevents them from understanding or controlling their actions at the time of an alleged crime, including during an episode of psychosis."

https://news.northeastern.edu/2026/07/31/daniel-medwed-lindsay-clancy-trial/

Would you have voted guilty under that standard? Remember you must find that the defense was disproven beyond reasonable doubt in that State.

@no1marauder said
Only someone irrational enough to believe there is no difference between a 15 minute old zygote and a 6 year old child would assert such an insane proposition.

This tragic case don't bolster your crusade to restrict the reproductive rights of women and it takes an immense amount of cynicism to attempt to use it in such a manner.

It is a human life at every stage of development. The point stands: would another woman who supports her now feel the same way if she killed their kids instead?

@no1marauder said
"In Massachusetts, the defense may apply when a person’s mental condition prevents them from understanding or controlling their actions at the time of an alleged crime, including during an episode of psychosis."

https://news.northeastern.edu/2026/07/31/daniel-medwed-lindsay-clancy-trial/

Would you have voted guilty under that standard? Remember you must find that the defense was disproven beyond reasonable doubt in that State.

She knew she couldn’t kill them in front of her husband; she knew and planned it.

@Suzianne said
And where did you earn your psychology degree?

Because you're talking out of your ass.

Did she kill them- yes or no? Did she send her husband out to do it, did she have to chase one of them down to do it? Where did you get your degree?

@no1marauder said
Only someone irrational enough to believe there is no difference between a 15 minute old zygote and a 6 year old child would assert such an insane proposition.

This tragic case don't bolster your crusade to restrict the reproductive rights of women and it takes an immense amount of cynicism to attempt to use it in such a manner.

😍 🙂

@no1marauder said
"In Massachusetts, the defense may apply when a person’s mental condition prevents them from understanding or controlling their actions at the time of an alleged crime, including during an episode of psychosis."

https://news.northeastern.edu/2026/07/31/daniel-medwed-lindsay-clancy-trial/

Would you have voted guilty under that standard? Remember you must find that the defense was disproven beyond reasonable doubt in that State.

Clancy's actions were clearly planned out, such as when she asked her husband to run errands so she could kill the children while he was away. That she waited until he was gone shows she had control over herself regarding when she would commit the act.

Clancy clearly knew her actions were wrong based on the fact she sought professional help for thinking about those acts, and did so multiple times, and also told her husband about those thoughts.

@KellyJay said
It is a human life at every stage of development. The point stands: would another woman who supports her now feel the same way if she killed their kids instead?

It is a human life at every stage of development.
Well, you better have a talk with God then numb-skull. Over 50% of humans are naturally being murdered before they are BORN, according to YOU!


AI Mode Conversation: what percent of fertilized eggs make it to full pregnancy? what percent of fertilized eggs make it to full pregnancy Under natural conditions?
only about 40% to 60% of fertilized eggs survive to result in a full pregnancy and live birth. The vast majority of those that do not make it are lost very early in the process, often before a person even realizes they are pregnant. The odds of a fertilized egg making it to a full pregnancy depend heavily on whether conception happens naturally or through In Vitro Fertilization (IVF).
1. Natural Conception In natural human reproduction, the human body is highly selective about which embryos progress. The breakdown of natural embryo loss includes: Before Implantation: Roughly 10% to 40% of fertilized eggs fail to reach or successfully implant into the uterine wall.
After Implantation: Once an embryo successfully implants—initiating what is medically recognized as a pregnancy—there is still a 10% to 20% chance of natural miscarriage, most often due to random chromosomal abnormalities.
2. IVF Conception (The "IVF Attrition Rate"😉In a laboratory setting, the drop-off rate (often called the attrition rate) is highly visible as embryos develop over several days. A typical breakdown of how fertilized eggs progress through IVF includes: Embryo Stage Success Rate What Happens Fertilized Egg to Blastocyst30% – 50%Only about half of fertilized eggs successfully divide and grow into a day-5 or day-6 blastocyst. Genetic Viability (Euploid)30% – 70%Of the remaining blastocysts, the percentage that are chromosomally normal varies drastically by age (e.g., ~70% for under 35; ~30% for age 40).Transfer to Full Pregnancy40% – 65%Transferring a single genetically normal embryo results in a successful pregnancy and live birth roughly 60% of the time. Ultimately, whether naturally or via IVF, the early stages of development are the most volatile, with chromosomal abnormalities being the primary reason a fertilized egg stops growing. 🙄

@vivify said
Clancy's actions were clearly planned out, such as when she asked her husband to run errands so she could kill the children while he was away. That she waited until he was gone shows she had control over herself regarding when she would commit the act.

Clancy clearly knew her actions were wrong based on the fact she sought professional help for thinking about those acts, and did so multiple times, and also told her husband about those thoughts.

regardless of guilt it looks like she attempted to reach out for help seversl times. it looks like just as it is in the uk provisions for mental crises in the u.s. are woeful, especially for new mothers.

@Sprogladog said
regardless of guilt it looks like she attempted to reach out for help seversl times. it looks like just as it is in the uk provisions for mental crises in the u.s. are woeful, especially for new mothers.

Agreed.

@vivify said
Clancy's actions were clearly planned out, such as when she asked her husband to run errands so she could kill the children while he was away. That she waited until he was gone shows she had control over herself regarding when she would commit the act.

Clancy clearly knew her actions were wrong based on the fact she sought professional help for thinking about those acts, and did so multiple times, and also told her husband about those thoughts.

Planning and mental illness are not mutually exclusive.

I did not follow the case much and even someone who watched every detail presented on news shows would have far less information than the jury.