As part of a custody battle, a Tennessee judge ordered a family to vaccinate all three of their children, all of whom had never been vaccinated. Five-year-old Isaac immediately became ill and was eventually diagnosed with severe regressive autism.
(www.theburningplatform.com)
🤢 These people are sick! 🤮
Don't forget the mom, she was complicit. She willingly hurt her children to win.
You put your finger on the key piece of this. I was surprised no one else caught it.
When women are in divorce/custody battles, part of the programming driving them is a wide rage of negative emotions targeted at their spouse. Understandably. (Divorce should be unthinkable--it goes against everything that good/evolved humans try to build in terms of family, community, etc.) This is the case even where the woman has initiated the divorce. The sense of betrayal, and the need to punish/get even, can run deeply.
Lawyers feed on that like the loosh harvesting parasites they are.
I'm always amazed how many people don't realize that getting even with the spouse is part of these situations. On both sides.
This can mean causing harm to the spouse's offspring, as well as the spouse. We see this again and again in the animal kingdom--a female loses a mate, finds another, and the offspring of the first mate are destroyed.
Today we have a social order where a huge cadre of parasites feeds on these biological realities (as they are allowed to exist in the absence of higher standards of behavior and family formation). Lawyers, mentioned above. "Social" "workers." Judges. Teachers. LE. Doctors. Nurses. Politicians.
Pharma well knows this: it constantly pushes for "health" "care" policy that divides family members against one another for gain. And exploits these animal-tier reactions/behaviors.
The notion that a judge could have the power to force medical treatment on anyone is widely accepted by most people. The ones aching for a paternal social order. (And many can't see or admit that, in themselves.)
Sometimes I think that the whole vax thing--bad as it is--is a Trojan horse for even more extensive government interventions that Pharma has always had planned. We see this play out in the tsunami of policies of the past 15 years like Kaiser Permanente's, where 13 to 18 year olds are entitled to Degeneracy Interventions (drug, alcohol treatment; abortion and other sex related treatment; tranny stuff) on their parents' dime...but also can keep secret from the parents the nature and details of that treatment. (Muh HIPAA).
I do not like divorce. BUT...I ardently wish my Grandmother had divorced my Grandfather. He was an abusive alcoholic who burned his children with cigarettes when angry, set fire to money so my grandmother couldn't adequately feed the children, and basically was a sorry excuse for a human being. Thank God -- he suffered a major stroke and became too disabled to kill anyone. But the damage was already done. ALL of my aunts and uncles had major psychological issues and so did my mother.
Now being Catholic -- my grandmother would never have dreamed of divorcing this man. She should have. It would have saved her children a lifetime of misery.
So I must respectfully disagree with your statement that "divorce is unthinkable".
My point was not that the practical act of divorce was unthinkable.
My point was that many people harbor a keen need for certainty in relationships, especially marriage. Divorce violates that--even when it appears/is screamingly needed for the family's greater good.
When that need for certainty and security is violated, they may, or may be likely, to act out in predictable, biological/evolutionary ways, including victimizing of children per OP's example ("I hate my husband, I'm going to work with the court to do something to our offspring that I know he doesn't want."). Poor kids.
My point, if you read my comment again, is that there are countless demonic parasitic forces (lawyers, judges, social workers, doctors, Pharma, etc.) looking to turn these junctures of human anxiety, disruption, etc., into opportunities for money and power.
We are living in a cultural setting where there is no certainty or security of that sort, that's needed by so many people. We no longer have the authority structures in place to create that holding system.
But she didn't. Have you ever reflected on her choice? Or why, I think you're suggesting--she turned that choice over to others? If you blame ecclesiastical authority that takes away her moral agency, doesn't it? If she chose to align with that authority over her situation, that has to be an indication of how profound is the need for that relationship security.
I believe that unless you are raised Catholic, you probably would not have an appreciation for the profound sense of terror the breaking of that particular rule invoked. It has lessened in subsequent generations, but in my grandmother's day, the total control exerted by the church would simply not allow her to consider such an option.
The fear of hellfire was a very real and a compelling reason to put up with all kinds of abuse from her husband.
My husband had an aunt (same generation) whose abusive husband drove her to divorce in spite of the church. The poor woman ended up with electroshock therapy to deal with the emotional upheaval of this "sin" preying on her mind. The church was not known for its empathy to abused women and advised them to stick it out because marriage is a sacrament.
Now personally although I am a Catholic, I can not believe a merciful God would require a woman to stay married to a man who burns her children with cigarettes. But perhaps my understanding of the nature of God differs somewhat from that of the clergy.
Nevertheless -- I do believe in marriage and have been married to the same man for over 45 years. BUT...I was a very lucky woman and God gave me a husband who treated me well. So I can say my marriage is truly "sacramental" and believe it with all my heart.
However, no one will ever convince me that my poor grandmother had a sacramental marriage. I do not believe God intends anyone -- man or woman to suffer a lifetime of grievious harm at the hands of another.
The key term here though Is "grievious harm". I totally agree that marriages should be made with a serious intent for lifetime commitment. And the dissolution of any marriage should not be for frivolous reasons or simply a desire to change partners.