Mother kills 3 1/2 week old baby because the devil told her to...

[citizenralph]

 

I think most people have a big problem with killing a baby that has been brought to term. You should have said '6 months ago'. Thats all. I'm not getting into the pro-choice/life debate.

 

The story said "3 1/2 week old " which is why I used that number. Not sure why 6 months would have made it clearer for you.

[Retrovertigo]

 

The story said "3 1/2 week old " which is why I used that number. Not sure why 6 months would have made it clearer for you.

 

 

While trying to be clever, you failed to make your point.

Hyperbole does not a point make.

If you're going to demonize those you disagree with, use logic and fact. Otherwise, you just seem nutty and illinformed.

[hawkhuff]

 

While trying to be clever, you failed to make your point. Hyperbole does not a point make. If you're going to demonize those you disagree with, use logic and fact. Otherwise, you just seem nutty and illinformed.

 

 

The real fail is the way society sees this kind of thing. Epic fail.

[Retrovertigo]

 

The real fail is the way society sees this kind of thing. Epic fail.

 

 

Agreed, mostly.

[citizenralph]

 

While trying to be clever, you failed to make your point. Hyperbole does not a point make. If you're going to demonize those you disagree with, use logic and fact. Otherwise, you just seem nutty and illinformed.

 

 

Wow, ok, fact is, if she had her Dr kill her baby, in utero, 3 1/2 weeks earlier it wouldn't have been considered murder, and therefore would have not been news. That was my point, both logical and factual. No hyperbole needed. No demonization. Read into it what you want and castigate away.

[zachoff]

 

Wow, ok, fact is, if she had her Dr kill her baby, in utero, 3 1/2 weeks earlier it wouldn't have been considered murder, and therefore would have not been news. That was my point, both logical and factual. No hyperbole needed. No demonization. Read into it what you want and castigate away.

 

 

Are late term abortions really performed "just because"? Seems to me that a doctor wouldn't abort a baby right before it's born unless there were serious problems with the mother's health... But I guess mental health could be lumped into this category so who knows.

 

Also, it's not that she merely killed her baby... It's the way she did it that makes this so disgusting.

[Kerouac]

It's unfortunate. I hope she receives the care and treatment she desperately needs instead of a cell and an equally meaningless death.

[hawkhuff]

 

Are late term abortions really performed "just because"? Seems to me that a doctor wouldn't abort a baby right before it's born unless there were serious problems with the mother's health... But I guess mental health could be lumped into this category so who knows. Also, it's not that she merely killed her baby... It's the way she did it that makes this so disgusting.

Yes, some of them are performed 'just because'.

 

Why do you think that doc caught a bullet or two a few weeks ago? He was notorious for cooking up reasons to suck 'em into the sink.

[L. Ron Hoover]

 

Wow, ok, fact is, if she had her Dr kill her baby, in utero, 3 1/2 weeks earlier it wouldn't have been considered murder, and therefore would have not been news. That was my point, both logical and factual. No hyperbole needed. No demonization. Read into it what you want and castigate away.

 

 

So you're suggesting that it's legal to abort a full term baby on the mother's whim? I'd like to see some actual evidence that this is the case anywhere in the US or the rest of the western world for that matter. You certainly can't do it in Canada and our abortion laws are relatively lax.

 

I'm not advocating abortion by any means, but there's definitely a logical disconnect in what you said here.

 

 

I have a 10 week old baby. This story made me physically ill.

[Goofball Jones]

I agree with you but it isn't reality. Common sense, yes, but not the reality of our 'modern' and 'enlightened' and diverse society. This woman monitored by anyone? Obviously not and if there was monitoring it would come as a complete shock to those who monitored that she would cut up and eat her own. Seems more and more we sympathize with the perpetrator and have all too little pity for the victims who are quickly forgotten. Surely the gentleman or gentlewoman (always hear this in the news and I always ask WTF??) wasn't in control of their faculties. We wring our hands about how terrible these things are then move on to the next one. There was another case reported in the news just this morning in Massachusetts. The second of this type I heard within a month. Someone decides they want your kid so they catch you and cut it out then take it home then invite your friends and family over for a little 'celebration'. Insane? The news sycophants focus on the new 'mother' and how friends and neighbors knew something wasn't right. Ya {censored}in' think? And you're right, who should decide who breeds and who doesn't? This is another way of transferring blame from those who committ the crimes to some system where it becomes diffused until no one is accountable. Nice. Poor society.

 

I know you sit there and pat yourself on the back thinking you're writing some great insights...but trust me, no one here thinks that. So go sell your crazy somewhere else, we're all full here thank you.

[citizenralph]

 

Are late term abortions really performed "just because"? Seems to me that a doctor wouldn't abort a baby right before it's born unless there were serious problems with the mother's health... But I guess mental health could be lumped into this category so who knows. Also, it's not that she merely killed her baby... It's the way she did it that makes this so disgusting.

 

Doesn't matter the reason, abortion is legal including partial birth.

 

Yes, the manner in which she killed and dismembered her son is horrible. I just don't see that much difference between this and partial birth abortion.

[Goofball Jones]

I just don't see that much difference between this and partial birth abortion.

 

Really? You don't see much difference? Because I see a difference. You should really see a difference. Really...

 

[citizenralph]

 

So you're suggesting that it's legal to abort a full term baby on the mother's whim? I'd like to see some actual evidence that this is the case anywhere in the US or the rest of the western world for that matter. You certainly can't do it in Canada and our abortion laws are relatively lax. I'm not advocating abortion by any means, but there's definitely a logical disconnect in what you said here. I have a 10 week old baby. This story made me physically ill.

 

 

Are you suggesting is that there is some distinction in the law that makes abortion illegal based on circumstance?

[zachoff]

 

Doesn't matter the reason, abortion is legal including partial birth. Yes, the manner in which she killed and dismembered her son is horrible. I just don't see that much difference between this and partial birth abortion.

 

 

Sure, technically it's legal, but I've never heard of anyone getting an abortion "just because" at the time of birth or even a few weeks beforehand. Late term abortions are usually performed as a last resort to save the mother's life.

[L. Ron Hoover]

 

Doesn't matter the reason, abortion is legal including partial birth. Yes, the manner in which she killed and dismembered her son is horrible. I just don't see that much difference between this and partial birth abortion.

 

 

The reasons for partial-birth abortion are quite apropos to the topic. Partial birth abortions are not performed at the whim of the pregnant woman as a form of birth control. I strongly doubt that any doctor would perform one where a nearly full-term baby and the mother were both healthy. So your statement that she could have had this done 3.5 weeks ago is quite out of line with reality.

[L. Ron Hoover]

 

Are you suggesting is that there is some distinction in the law that makes abortion illegal based on circumstance?

 

 

I'm suggesting that no doctor would perform a partial-birth abortion on the whim of the pregnant woman without strong evidence that her and/or the baby's lives were in danger.

 

Though I'm sure that the abortion laws clearly state when abortion for no valid medical reason is legal and when it is not.

[hawkhuff]

I know you sit there and pat yourself on the back thinking you're writing some great insights...but trust me, no one here thinks that. So go sell your crazy somewhere else, we're all full here thank you.

 

Great insights, occasionally. Pat myself on the back, no. Well, maybe once in a while. I just know yours are so much more nimble and intuitive.

 

 

So, you speak for everyone? Everyone? Wow......wow...... OK. I guess I will just turn down my lower lip and allow it to tremble a bit, whimper, well up tears in my eyes and go away so sad because no one likes me. :cry: Especially you.

 

You hurt my feelings so much.

 

 

 

Actually you and your opinion, to me, is far less than significant.

[Goofball Jones]

 

Actually you and your opinion, to me, is far less than significant.

 

 

Yet significant enough to respond to. I push the button, you respond. How very interesting.

[Retrovertigo]

 

Wow, ok, fact is, if she had her Dr kill her baby, in utero, 3 1/2 weeks earlier it wouldn't have been considered murder, and therefore would have not been news. That was my point, both logical and factual. No hyperbole needed. No demonization. Read into it what you want and castigate away.

 

 

My apologies. It was early and I was cracky. I didn't mean that you are nutty/ill informed.

Where I come from, aborting a baby carried to full term for no real reason would make the news. Therefore, I saw your statement as a radical exaggeration.

 

Still, I believe there is a difference between this and partial birth abortion.

Maybe not much, but it's just my opinion.

[bassthumpintwin]

Just think, people like you read this in the news and are (rightly so) sickened. But people read about these kind of things happening in the Bible and are "inspired".

 

I don't really get why these kinds of things always have to get twisted and turned into some attack against God, scriputures, or Christians.

 

This travesty had nothing to do with God, scriptural references, christians, faith, or even religion. It had to do with a very sick woman who, as far as I can tell from what little I have read in these various news articles, should have never been allowed to maintain parental rights or responsibilities to a child. (At least not without significant safeties and monitoring set into place.)

 

One article I read said that the father suffered from schizophrenia as well. I have little to no experience with mental illnesses on a personal level, but it is painfully clear that if the mental history of this baby's parents is as the articles say, that steps could have and should have been taken to ensure the safety of this family.

 

My wife told me about another mother (within the last day or two) who had her parental rights removed because she refused to have a c-section, POTENTIALLY endangering the baby during delivery. The baby and mother ended up being fine, but they still took her rights away based on poor judgment that endangered a child, or something to that effect.

 

So a mother has her child taken away for refusing a medical procedure (which, as far as I'm concerned, she has every right to do, whether I agree with the "wisdom" of her decision or not), but a child with two schizophrenic parents is sent home without a second thought?

 

Interesting.

[RSBro]

^^^

 

Good post. It's a pretty pathetic and typical smear "attempt"- and I use that word generously...

 

Apparently this guy thinks the Bible is still a WIP.

[zachoff]

I don't really get why these kinds of things always have to get twisted and turned into some attack against God, scriputures, or Christians. This travesty had nothing to do with God, scriptural references, christians, faith, or even religion. It had to do with a very sick woman who, as far as I can tell from what little I have read in these various news articles, should have never been allowed to maintain parental rights or responsibilities to a child. (At least not without significant safeties and monitoring set into place.) One article I read said that the father suffered from schizophrenia as well. I have little to no experience with mental illnesses on a personal level, but it is painfully clear that if the mental history of this baby's parents are as the articles say, that steps could have and should have been taken to ensure the safety of this family. My wife told me about another mother (within the last day or two) who had her parental rights removed because she refused to have a c-section, POTENTIALLY endangering the baby during delivery. The baby and mother ended up being fine, but they still took her rights away based on poor judgment that endangered a child, or something to that effect. So a mother has her child taken away for refusing a medical procedure (which, as far as I'm concerned, she has every right to do), but a child with two schizophrenic parents is sent home without a second thought? Interesting.

 

Cause da debul wants the Christians to feel bad about their choices in life, duh!! J/K.

 

How do they take away someone's parental rights, anyway? I've never really heard of that happening before now. Do they just take the kid away or give the lady a hysterectomy?

[bassthumpintwin]

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/mom-refuses-c-section-baby-taken-away-492112/

 

A woman in New Jersey refused to consent to a C-section during labor in the event that her baby was in distress. She ended up giving birth vaginally without incident. The baby was in good medical condition. However, her baby was taken away from her and her parental rights were terminated because she "abused and neglected her child" by refusing the C-section and behaving "erratically" while in labor. How is this legal? A New Jersey appellate court has upheld the shocking ruling, and custody has been given to the child's foster parents. The court's decision cites hospital records that describe the mother, V.M., as "combative," "uncooperative," "erratic," "noncompliant," "irrational" and "inappropriate." That's how we acted during labor, too ... but our babies weren't taken away, thank God. The court opinion also focuses on the fact that the mother had been in psychiatric care for twelve years prior to the birth. But, as the Huffington Post points out, her psychiatric state would never have been questioned if the mother had not refused invasive abdominal surgery -- which was entirely within her rights.

 

here's one article about the c-section mom I was mentioning. Looks like she had some "mental" history as well.

 

Still, it looks like they would have taken the baby regardless of mental history.

What a world.

[P1gg1e]

I don't really get why these kinds of things always have to get twisted and turned into some attack against God, scriputures, or Christians. This travesty had nothing to do with God, scriptural references, christians, faith, or even religion. It had to do with a very sick woman who, as far as I can tell from what little I have read in these various news articles, should have never been allowed to maintain parental rights or responsibilities to a child. (At least not without significant safeties and monitoring set into place.) One article I read said that the father suffered from schizophrenia as well. I have little to no experience with mental illnesses on a personal level, but it is painfully clear that if the mental history of this baby's parents is as the articles say, that steps could have and should have been taken to ensure the safety of this family. My wife told me about another mother (within the last day or two) who had her parental rights removed because she refused to have a c-section, POTENTIALLY endangering the baby during delivery. The baby and mother ended up being fine, but they still took her rights away based on poor judgment that endangered a child, or something to that effect. So a mother has her child taken away for refusing a medical procedure (which, as far as I'm concerned, she has every right to do, whether I agree with the "wisdom" of her decision or not), but a child with two schizophrenic parents is sent home without a second thought? Interesting.

 

F'ed up people have kids , sadly no matter how many steps you take or don't some people slip through cracks. You though can take allot of babies away from perfectly fine parents in the process.

 

You walk a fine line when talking about removing babies from parents , that mom in the article asked for help and the family and people around her dismissed her. They all will have to live with this and the what if's for the rest of their lives.

 

We had our youngest at home because our first was treated against our wishes , I was threatened with her being taken away etc... FOR NO REASON. I have no mental history. Just I didn't agree with what they wanted to do in our child's "best interest".

 

Predicting who actually will hurt their kids is vary fine line. What people feel is hurting kids to justify being removed is a matter of perspective until the line is truly crossed in this unspeakable way. How do you regulate and enforce this?

[P1gg1e]

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/mom-refuses-c-section-baby-taken-away-492112/ here's one article about the c-section mom I was mentioning. Looks like she had some "mental" history as well. Still, it looks like they would have taken the baby regardless of mental history. What a world.

 

A friend of mine had her child taken because she refused to allow the state to preform the PKU test...had no issue with the test itself just didn't want the state doing it...took 2 months to get her kid back ( of course they did the PKU ).