[flagged]
No one knows that, and it's a disservice to humanity to push this narrative.
She committed crimes, and is being rightfully punished. That doesn't mean as a human she looses the right to have a family. I imagine facing a very long stretch in prison that will take you past the point where it's possible to start a family motivates you to consider starting one.
But that's not to say it was a "good" or moral choice for her to make - I feel for any child who parents are incarcerated.
As much as people like to see criminals as 2d villains, they are humans with fundamental human drives.
> Holmes' defense team cited her "two very young children" in its latest argument for why Holmes is not a flight risk and should remain out of prison while she appeals her fraud conviction.
Until she says what and why she was doing what she did (and even then) we don’t really know - mayhap she realized her chance of having children afterwards would be severely reduced.
The whole history of philosophy has been a discussion of morality - which drives to promote and which to suppress in order to live a life that benefits both the individual and the community the individual lives in.
Robert Nozick discusses these matters in The Examined Life: Philosophical Meditations.
What reality do you live where that is not pure 2d villain material?
There's no complexity here - society, the justice system, courts, social worker and basically everyone are okay with taking kids away from one parent.
We do it all the time.
After all, it's not as if they are taking away both parents.