Mother Strangles Newborn..

[gerryh]

“The fact that Canada has no abortion laws reflects that ‘while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childrbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support,’ she writes.

Soooooooooooo, by quoting the Judges reasons, you are implying that the Judge was trolling?

 

[karrie]

Soooooooooooo, by quoting the Judges reasons, you are implying that the Judge was trolling?

It feels, at gut level, like someone trying to make a horrible point about the lack of abortion law, yes.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

It feels, at gut level, like someone trying to make a horrible point about the lack of abortion law, yes.

Is it the judge's job to make a point or troll? I assumed (there I go again) that Judges were supposed to be objectively looking at the case at hand not making their own unwanted social comentary on an unrelated law.

 

[Colpy]

Bill Hicks on Abortion - YouTube

another ignorant fu ck.

How so?

Really?

GEEZUS!

Are you guys having a debate, or dancing some kind of vocal CHA CHA CHA?

Fer fcuks sake!

Gerry is right, although he should spit it out.

Hicks was not even funny enough to inspire the slightest smile.

Obviously, he thinks a "hands-off" approach to all abortion is the correct attitude, and spends the entire set heaping derision of the worst kind on those that disagree. Were this even funny, one could excuse that......but he is not even slightly amusing.

So Christians are laughable shmucks at the very best, but more likely to be repressive sexual perverts, while those folks that think it is perfectly fine to scramble a baby's brains with surgical instruments, as long as you do it before it emerges from the birth canal, are protecting someone's "rights". The LOGICAL progression of which is the judge's attitude towards the strangulation of a new born, which is what started the entire conversation.

Another ignorant fcuk.

 

[gerryh]

Is it the judge's job to make a point or troll? I assumed (there I go again) that Judges were supposed to be objectively looking at the case at hand not making their own unwanted social comentary on an unrelated law.

and what "unrelated law" would that be?

 

[EagleSmack]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Compared to an abortion where there is no pain inflicted at all....right?:roll:

Not if they get the SPIKE in the brain before the baby's face gets out of the birth canal Gerry.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

and what "unrelated law" would that be?

Have you been reading the thread?

 

[karrie]

Is it the judge's job to make a point or troll? I assumed (there I go again) that Judges were supposed to be objectively looking at the case at hand not making their own unwanted social comentary on an unrelated law.

Sure it is. And all judges follow that to the letter right?

 

[gerryh]

Have you been reading the thread?

Again, what related law.

 

[karrie]

Not if they get the SPIKE in the brain before the baby's face gets out of the birth canal Gerry.

Okay.... I know that partial birth abortion is the most gruesome and distressing for people, but seriously... .17% of all births are partial birth, and doctors typically only perform them when the baby will not survive outside the womb, and its head is too deformed to give birth to normally. The alternative is cesarean for an already doomed baby, or, cutting the baby up inside the mother and delivering it piece by piece. It's not the 'Hey, this'll be a hoot' procedure that people make it out to be, and is actually one of the huge reasons Canada has no abortion laws.... because if we start legislating the abortions that are really necessary, and leave the convenience abortions (because vacuuming a whole fetus up is better than vacuuming part of it out?), we make zero sense.

 

[captain morgan]

It feels, at gut level, like someone trying to make a horrible point about the lack of abortion law, yes.

I'll wager that proponents of both pro-life and pro-choice are livid at this retarded ruling that inexplicably incorporates abortion issues... From what I read, no one prohibited this woman from seeking that option; she chose not to abort and consequently made the choice to murder her infant.

Like RCS mentioned, had it been the distraught father of the child that killed the baby, there would be state sponsored lynch mobs scouring the country side looking to deep-6 the bastard.

 

[lone wolf]

She tossed the body over a fence. What's to debate?

 

[EagleSmack]

She just better thank her lucky stars that she killed her baby and not a kitten or a puppy. Then she would be F*ed.

 

[captain morgan]

She just better thank her lucky stars that she killed her baby and not a kitten or a puppy. Then she would be F*ed.

Well, with this ruling, I suppose that we can interpret it as a giant leap backwards for women's rights.

 

[gerryh]

She just better thank her lucky stars that she killed her baby and not a kitten or a puppy. Then she would be F*ed.

Yup, killing an animal is absolutely HORRIBLE. Fetus's and baby's are worth so much less.

 

[mentalfloss]

It depends on how much pain the child feels as well as the demands of society at that time.

We're no different than salmon farms.

Also, I can't wait to strangle some children in a videogame. Make it happen Nintendo.

Obviously, he thinks a "hands-off" approach to all abortion is the correct attitude, and spends the entire set heaping derision of the worst kind on those that disagree. Were this even funny, one could excuse that......but he is not even slightly amusing.

So Christians are laughable shmucks at the very best, but more likely to be repressive sexual perverts, while those folks that think it is perfectly fine to scramble a baby's brains with surgical instruments, as long as you do it before it emerges from the birth canal, are protecting someone's "rights". The LOGICAL progression of which is the judge's attitude towards the strangulation of a new born, which is what started the entire conversation.

 

[JLM]

Yup, killing an animal is absolutely HORRIBLE. Fetus's and baby's are worth so much less.

That's debatable..........."you can pick up a starving dog and feed it and it will not bite you...............there lies the difference between a dog and a man".........................Mark Twain.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Again, what related law.

The judge was judging a murder case of a newborn baby (not fetus) who was killed by the mother and thrown over her fence into the neighbours yard.

The judge appears to have tied this to an unrelated law or lack of law about abortion. This is clearly not within the scope of what she should be judging. She is not societies concience or guide. She is a judge. She should judge the case she is assigned.

 

[gerryh]

The judge was judging a murder case of a newborn baby (not fetus) who was killed by the mother and thrown over her fence into the neighbours yard.

The judge appears to have tied this to an unrelated law or lack of law about abortion. This is clearly not within the scope of what she should be judging. She is not societies concience or guide. She is a judge. She should judge the case she is assigned.

There it is, I see you decided to do some homework. Very good.

 

[Goober]

There it is, I see you decided to do some homework. Very good.

Many people are not aware of how many late term abortions are performed in this country - past 24 weeks - Or that sex selection also takes place - or that when pregnant with twins one is aborted by some.