The user, a 31-year-old female who is eight months pr****nt, shares that she and her husband (34M) had saved approximately $12,000 for expected baby expenses, including a maternity leave cushion, crib, and hospital bills.
Last week, the husband suddenly left without warning, claiming he traveled to Florida because his long-sick mother was allegedly not doing well and he needed to be with her.
After six hours of panic, he contacted her, revealing he spent $4,300 from their shared baby fund on flights, lodging, a rental car, and meals.
When the pr****nt wife expressed fear and anger over the secret departure and the depleted savings, he called her "heartless," stating he would have supported her if her mother were in a similar situation.
This led the wife to retort that she hoped his mother d*ed so he would understand the pain of being lied to by someone he trusted.












Get the latest stories delivered to your inbox.
The original poster (OP) finds herself in a position where her extreme fear and anger over her husband's unilateral actions—abandoning her while heavily pr****nt, depleting critical shared savings, and refusing accountability—have led her to express a wish she now regrets due to social backlash.
She feels justified in her frustration over being expected to be the perpetually "understanding" spouse while her needs were completely ignored.
The central dilemma questions whether the OP's reaction, specifically wishing death upon her mother-in-law, crosses a moral line, even when provoked by her husband's severe breach of trust and abandonment.
Should the focus remain on the husband's financial deception and lack of support, or does the severity of her statement make the OP equally at fault in this relationship crisis?
The Internet Sounded Off — and It Got Loud:
The thread exploded with reactions. Whether agreeing or disagreeing, everyone had something to say — and they said it loud.