Mother faces murder charge after baby found in trash

[Praxius]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...0716/newborn_trash_080717/20080717?hub=Canada

QUEBEC CITY -- A young Quebec mother whose baby was found dead in a trash can behind her apartment this week has been charged with second-degree murder.

Marie-Eve Bastille, 22, made a court appearance Thursday in Quebec City.

She is also charged with one count of concealing the newborn's body in addition to a charge of negligence to obtain assistance in child-birth that was laid Wednesday.

The young mother was under surveillance at an area hospital after the grim discovery on Monday, but has since been transferred to a detention centre infirmary.

Her bail hearing is set for Sept. 22.

*tosses it out there*

And I bet if abortions were made illegal, more of this would be happening.

 

[scratch]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...0716/newborn_trash_080717/20080717?hub=Canada



*tosses it out there*

And I bet if abortions were made illegal, more of this would be happening.

Sadly Prax, this goes on more often than we can imagine.
IMO--If found guilty---life without parole.
s.

 

[Praxius]

Sadly Prax, this goes on more often than we can imagine.
IMO--If found guilty---life without parole.
s.

Oh I know it happens a lot.... usually I hear of two cases each week related to this.

But life without parole? There's a lot of well known mental issues that many future mothers go through for many different reasons, esspecially if they're pregnant with a child they don't want, that can cause them to go through killing their new born and simply disposing of it in a nearby garbage bin..... AKA: It's never really planned out well.

Many reasons stem from pressure from parents or other family members with strong religious views, the father isn't who it's supposed to be, the father left or abandoned her, don't believe in abortions, no financial assistence or income to substain herself, let alone a newborn.... in fact there are many odd reasons in their heads for doing this.

I just found this report:

New study estimates 85 newborn killed or left to die per year by parents, usually their mother
http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/mar03/herman031703.html

An estimated minimum of 85 newborn babies are killed or left to die by one or both parents -- usually their mother -- in the United States each year, according to a first-of-its-kind new study. The real figure is undoubtedly higher, authors of a report say, noting that all dead babies may not be found as often they are discarded in trashcans, woods or other remote areas.

At least some of the deaths could be prevented if all states passed and publicized "Safe Haven" laws that allow parents to transfer unwanted newborns to hospitals or health workers anonymously without being charged with infant abandonment, researchers conclude. As of 2002, 42 states had passed such laws, but money to advertise them was scarce.

Led by principal investigator Dr. Marcia Herman-Giddens, the study focused on information gathered from 1985 through 2000 on homicides among children under five days old through the UNC-based Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Chapel Hill and supplemented by the State Center for Health Statistics. Herman-Giddens is a senior fellow at the N.C. Child Advocacy Institute and adjunct professor of maternal and child health at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health.

A report on the research appears in the March 19 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Other authors are Jamie B. Smith of the UNC Injury Prevention Research Center, Dr. Manjoo Mittal of the State Center for Health Statistics, and Mandie Carlson and Dr. John D. Butts, chief medical examiner.

Herman-Giddens and colleagues found at least 2.1 per 100,000 newborns were killed or left to die by a parent in North Carolina each year. That represented 34 known cases over the 16-year span. The national figure came as a mathematical extrapolation from the N.C. data.

"Several of our findings surprised us somewhat," Herman-Giddens said. "One was that almost 21 percent of the women were married. Half were unmarried, and the marital status of the remainder was unknown.

"Another surprise was that 35 percent of the women or girls identified had other children, and another was that almost a quarter were known to have received at least some prenatal care," she said. "Their average age was 19.1 years, and more than half were 18 or older."

A widely held belief is that most mothers who kill or abandon their newborns are younger, single teenage girls, Herman-Giddens said.

"This means that that as a state and as a nation, we need to re-examine our assumption that people who do this are only scared single girls," she said. "They are certainly a component, but by no means the only one. We didn’t realize this before because no one before had the data needed to do this kind of study in the United States."


Other findings were that:

· Asphyxiation and strangling accounted for 41 percent of the deaths, and another 27 percent resulted from drowning -- either deliberately or by delivering an infant into a toilet and leaving it to drown.​

· Almost 60 percent of victims were boys, which also was somewhat surprising.​

· Forty-one percent of infants discovered were white, and 53 percent were black.​

"We think this study will be useful for several reasons and will help in prevention," Herman-Giddens said. "It will help agencies target populations that might benefit from knowing about the ‘Safe Haven’ laws. This could be done economically, for example, distributing information when people apply for marriage licenses, receive prenatal care and participate in adolescent pregnancy prevention programs."​

Support for the research came from the N.C. Child Advocacy Institute in Raleigh and a federal grant awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice through the N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety and the N.C. Governor’s Crime Commission.

Herman-Giddens first made national news six years ago as chief author of a study indicating that U.S. girls of both white and black races appeared to enter puberty earlier than they did in years past. For unknown reasons, black girls on average start maturing about a year before whites do, that study showed.

Work the social scientist published in 2001 showed something similar appears to have been happening in U.S. boys.

To me, the reasons why mothers end up doing this need to be delved into further before we start hanging people or putting them away for life.

I'm not saying any of the excuses or reasons why are justified, nor am I promoting the killing of new borns in anyway, but if people can get away with murder because of temporary or perm. insanity, then I think some form of therapy or other type of help for these people would do some good.

 

[scratch]

Oh I know it happens a lot.... usually I hear of two cases each week related to this.

But life without parole? There's a lot of well known mental issues that many future mothers go through for many different reasons, esspecially if they're pregnant with a child they don't want, that can cause them to go through killing their new born and simply disposing of it in a nearby garbage bin..... AKA: It's never really planned out well.

Many reasons stem from pressure from parents or other family members with strong religious views, the father isn't who it's supposed to be, the father left or abandoned her, don't believe in abortions, no financial assistence or income to substain herself, let alone a newborn.... in fact there are many odd reasons in their heads for doing this.

I just found this report:

New study estimates 85 newborn killed or left to die per year by parents, usually their mother
http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/mar03/herman031703.html



To me, the reasons why mothers end up doing this need to be delved into further before we start hanging people or putting them away for life.

I'm not saying any of the excuses or reasons why are justified, nor am I promoting the killing of new borns in anyway, but if people can get away with murder because of temporary or perm. insanity, then I think some form of therapy or other type of help for these people would do some good.

All very good points Prax. I'll back off on life but she has to do some time and seek professional guidance.
s.

 

[tracy]

It's tragic. Safe haven laws are truly a godsend here. I've seen 4 babies left at hospitals by their parents in the 4 years I've lived here. Those kids would probably have ended up in a garbage can if not for the safe haven law. Instead, they were all adopted by loving foster parents who had been waiting years for a baby.

 

[karrie]

*tosses it out there*

And I bet if abortions were made illegal, more of this would be happening.

No Prax, there wouldn't be more of this. If mothers were forced to carry to term, there'd be more babies up for adoption, and more illegal backalley abortions. Saying that a woman willing to have an abortion is also willing to just let a full term baby die at birth, is a MAJORLY shaky connection, and a horrible judgement call on the character of women who go for abortions.

 

[quandary121]

Sadly Prax, this goes on more often than we can imagine.
IMO--If found guilty---life without parole.
s.

i agree with you here scratch sad but true, and i think it is a sad reflection on the world we live in ,women's liberation has encouraged this problem, as men no longer have to feel responsible for there actions, and leave when they find out that a child is going to be born, thus leaving the mothers with the hard decision of what to do when they are pregnant and vulnerable, years ago the man would have had to stand up to his responsibility, and the women's liberation movement has given them the escape route needed, to release them from there responsibility, i blame women's lib,and cant help but feel sorry for this woman too ,but yes she deserves to sever the full turm because of this regretable action.

 

[karrie]

This isn't liberation's fault. This is a failure of society to give liberation anything more than lipservice. In a truly liberated society a woman could state clearly and proudly, 'I've gotten pregnant but I can't keep it', and give it up for adoption. A woman wouldn't need to feel shamed about having gotten pregnant, or be looked down upon for not being able to take care of it. A truly liberated society wouldn't limit a woman's career potential because of her being a 'breeder', or pay her less than a man for the same work. Liberation my arse.

 

[quandary121]

This isn't liberation's fault. This is a failure of society to give liberation anything more than lipservice. In a truly liberated society a woman could state clearly and proudly, 'I've gotten pregnant but I can't keep it', and give it up for adoption. A woman wouldn't need to feel shamed about having gotten pregnant, or be looked down upon for not being able to take care of it. A truly liberated society wouldn't limit a woman's career potential because of her being a 'breeder', or pay her less than a man for the same work. Liberation my arse.

opps did i touch a nerve

 

[karrie]

opps did i touch a nerve

A bit yeah. Not a nerve so much as stuff left unsaid. So much of the abortion debate that I leave alone is exactly this issue. And I leave it alone because I don't want to sound like a man basher. But, in a truly liberated society, abortion wouldn't be such a necessary option. In a truly liberated society, women wouldn't be held down by their reproduction, and the solution wouldn't be invasive procedures that risk their health and their future ability to have children (and yes they've gotten safer, but they're not 'perfect'). Liberation is a crock, a facade, a placation. If we were truly liberated then a natural bodily process like pregnancy wouldn't be a source of shame if it didn't occur at 'just the right time'.

 

[Praxius]

No Prax, there wouldn't be more of this. If mothers were forced to carry to term, there'd be more babies up for adoption, and more illegal backalley abortions. Saying that a woman willing to have an abortion is also willing to just let a full term baby die at birth, is a MAJORLY shaky connection, and a horrible judgement call on the character of women who go for abortions.

I Disagree.

Common sense would state that if abortions were illegal, and the only way someone could get one would be by a "Back Ally Abortion" many woman wouldn't want to subject themselves to something that could cause them further health complications, such as tainted operating tools, a quack who doesn't know what he's doing could cause you to not be able to have any children in the future based on how much they might screw up.... heck, death is also a possibility.... and when faced with those odds and risks to one's health, chances are there would be an increase in these sorts of cases where the mother ends up killing and discarding of the new born..... I didn't say all of them would, but a good % of women who seek abortions who now can't, might very well take this choice based on the fact that the problems this child would bring them when born (Which were the original reasons for the abortion) would still exist.... and depending on their determination or mental anguish they might put themselves under for whatever reason to avoid these problems, there would be an increase in people committing this sort of act, regardless of your own morals on the subject.... it's simple reality.

 

[Zzarchov]

A truly liberated society wouldn't limit a woman's career potential because of her being a 'breeder', or pay her less than a man for the same work. Liberation my arse.

I disagree on this. Men are equally killing their career potential if they become a "breeder", in that they look after a child.

Men who have homecare duties also get paid less.

Its not so much a gender issue as a "work" vs "work and homelife" issue, and alot of women still choose to be the one who stays home with the kids. That isn't any kind of legislative issue, it just seems to be the way people would rather live, though it is changing.

 

[Praxius]

A bit yeah. Not a nerve so much as stuff left unsaid. So much of the abortion debate that I leave alone is exactly this issue. And I leave it alone because I don't want to sound like a man basher. But, in a truly liberated society, abortion wouldn't be such a necessary option. In a truly liberated society, women wouldn't be held down by their reproduction, and the solution wouldn't be invasive procedures that risk their health and their future ability to have children (and yes they've gotten safer, but they're not 'perfect'). Liberation is a crock, a facade, a placation. If we were truly liberated then a natural bodily process like pregnancy wouldn't be a source of shame if it didn't occur at 'just the right time'.

Excuse me? Speaking of hitting nerves... you're gonna sit there and blame men for calling women "Breeders?" WTF is that? I've never called or labeled any woman a "Breeder" in any shape or form of the term..... it takes two people to create a fetus, and both are breeders if anything.

Apparently men are the one's promoting abortions? Who's the one who usually holds the authority of that decision? The person carrying the child.... AKA: The Mother/Wife/Female. The man usually have very little say in the matter.... yet it's our fault? That makes a load of sense.

If there is a demand, there will be a supply.... and if there are women who want to have abortions, be that by their own flip of the coin decision, be that by some health risk including death, or by any other reason anybody can fathom, there will be people to perform the request. To just finger out one gender in this topic as being the one's who made society the way it is today, is not just offending, sexist, but it's also pretty ignorant.

What? Woman still don't have the right to choose, vote, decide things on their own these days? Woman can't or haven't yet made changes in the world? The Female Gender hasn't had a part in any of what we now know as our society? It's just men I suppose?

Typical.

Oh, and another thing I'll bring up..... one thing I've heard plenty of in the past here and elsewhere, is that apparently men promote abortions more so then women. Well I find the people who usually say that are the women who never had to think about the concept of abortion or where it had to play a direct role in their furtures.... that their lives worked out just fine, therefore other women's lives should be the same.

And if Men tend to promote the abortion side of the argument more, it's because of women like this and those who follow religous reasons who make these women keep quiet, because they're the one's who are made to look like the bad guys, because of other women who didn't have to make such a decision in their lives..... or it's due to religious people pointing their fingers at them and borderline outcasting them out of the community because of their choices.... so they remain quiet on the subject compared to most of the men who fight for them who can not be directly affected on their opinions on the matter compared to the women who it directly affects.

It's not much more different then many women's views of porn.... apparently it's all the mens fault that women go into the porno industry and made as sex objects.... you know, even though it's not just men who buy into this market, and that these women chose themselves to go into this profession and were not forced.... not to mention the men who are in the videos are in the videos just as much as the women and if one is a sex object, then both are.

But then again, it's far more easier to blame men, cuz we just don't care and know better.

 

[karrie]

Excuse me? Speaking of hitting nerves... you're gonna sit there and blame men for calling women "Breeders?" WTF is that? I've never called or labeled any woman a "Breeder" in any shape or form of the term..... it takes two people to create a fetus, and both are breeders if anything.

I never said men, I said society. Women are just as likely in a corporate position, to not want women who are planning families in positions which are meant for advancement.

I won't bother with all the rest, since it's more along the tangent of having misunderstood my point.

 

[tracy]

I think I get you Karrie and for what it's worth I agree. It isn't about man bashing. Men are as pigeon holed as women in our society. The difference is the tools they have to deal with their roles are different than the ones women have.

I think it's a shame that people can't discuss a woman's issue without people getting defensive about men though.

 

[karrie]

I think I get you Karrie and for what it's worth I agree. It isn't about man bashing. Men are as pigeon holed as women in our society. The difference is the tools they have to deal with their roles are different than the ones women have.

I think it's a shame that people can't discuss a woman's issue without people getting defensive about men though.

You're absolutely right, it's next to impossible to discuss women's issues without it sounding like an 'us vs. them' thing. I stand up for men's rights on a regular basis. Man bashing drives me nuts.

 

[quandary121]

I never said men, I said society. Women are just as likely in a corporate position, to not want women who are planning families in positions which are meant for advancement.

I won't bother with all the rest, since it's more along the tangent of having misunderstood my point.

Sorry Karrie i seem to of got you into a debate on the issues of men verses women here,for some reason..??? what i was trying and failing to point out was women's lib has caused the role of the sexes to become so liberal that the MEN don't have to carry there responsibility in what happens to the children that he has fathered ,any further then just that the fathering off. Women now through there liberalisation have to take full responsibilities for their actions regarding childbirth, where as before in the stability of a marriage the father would have been responsible for bringing up his family ,now that the is no partnership involve the woman is left holding the baby proverbially speaking..so I'm not saying women should not have rights ,just look what having rights have brought you, women's lib has failed women's rights ,in that it has done away with the need of the father to be responsible for there actions.

 

[karrie]

I disagree on this. Men are equally killing their career potential if they become a "breeder", in that they look after a child.

Men who have homecare duties also get paid less.

Its not so much a gender issue as a "work" vs "work and homelife" issue, and alot of women still choose to be the one who stays home with the kids. That isn't any kind of legislative issue, it just seems to be the way people would rather live, though it is changing.

absolutely Zz... 'breeders' get penalized in our current society. People who put their family life above their career, but more importantly, who people suspect will put their family life first, get penalized. But, you said it yourself, alot of women still make this choice, and societal view anticipates it in women more than they do in men. plain and simple.

 

[karrie]

... women's lib has failed women's rights ,in that it has done away with the need of the father to be responsible for there actions.

Marriage for the sake of 'support', to a man who would have run out had he not been shamed into staying, often just means that the woman now has a baby and a baby to support and take care of. Historically speaking, those marriages were not good ones. Those are not supportive helpful husbands, even if they've decided to put on a facade for the sake of looking socialy acceptable. The law still holds them responsible to a degree, where it can.

What you're essentially saying is that 'women's lib' has made men less honorable or stupid, but it hasn't. Men are the exact same humans they ever were... just the images the few put forward have changed. Which one is more honest?

The problem is that some facades have been dropped and new ones have been adopted in their place.

 

[Zzarchov]

I've got a counterpoint,

Why should breeders (men or women who plan families) NOT torpedo their careers?

A "breeder" (again, genderless) is someone who decides that work is less important than another aspect of their life (in this case family), and give that other aspect of their life priority.

If I decide to forgo the luxury of having a family to focus on work, why should I not receive preferable treatment over those who work less, having decided their own personal affairs are of higher priority?

No one HAS to have kids.