Mother gives birth to child, stabs it in the neck

She obviously wasn't ready to have children yet so she killed it. Her parents probably would have called her a whore or something and she thought that she couldn't withstand the humiliation of their verbal abuse so she slaughtered her helpless newborn infant.

She needs a team of counselors to raise her self esteem and bags of money, an $85/month state provided furnished apartment to get her away from her obviously abusive parents, and free access to abortion cause we all know she'll be pregnant again in a month or two and we don't want her slaughtering any more children.

She might also need a book deal and a tour of the day time talk circuit to tell how courageous and brave she is, and why slaughtering the innocent child was the best thing for it and her. We definitely don't want to hear anyone else's views while she smears the reputation of everyone she doesn't like and blames them for her murderous ways.

You see, all this is because some man wanted to f*ck her and coerced her and lied to her and not because she is irresponsible and promiscuities.

All women have the right to kill children you see. I mean, pregnancy is uncomfortable and inconvenient. Giving birth hurts. All this is a burden to women, so it gives them the extra special right to decide who lives and who dies. If a woman kills a child it's because she would have abused it terribly if she had allowed it to live and death is better then growing up under those circumstances. So it's the right thing to do for the child.

Think I'm joking? This really is how we treat murderous child killing women. Only men get the death penalty for killing kids.

Mildly retarded, completely and utterly let down their entire life by the State, horribly abused as a child, never given treatment even after arrests, clearly and indisputably mentally ill - none of that matters at all - if you happen to be John Couey - the State is going to kill you. If anyone should have gotten N.G.B.R.I. it should have been that guy. But since laws were passed long before his conviction in the name of the girl he killed that was never on the table. Just a political message mattered not the facts.

"It"?

--
Silence is the voice of complicity.
Just Another Disenfranchised Father

I bet it was a baby boy. The press would've been all over it if it had been a female, but a boy? Call it "it" and throw it away.

http://petepatriarch.blogspot.com

In truth, I was surprised by the objectification of the child. "It" serves to avoid taking any focus off the mother. I think it says a great deal about an attitude to children in general that no-one thought to ask or pass on the gender of the child, male or female. (I find it a little paranoid to automatically assume "it" was a boy.)

--
Silence is the voice of complicity.
Just Another Disenfranchised Father

Of course the baby is an 'it'. That's the same noun used to describe a fetus when aborted and isn't this the same sort of method used for an abortion - the doctor violently jabs the fetus with a hooked metal/spike?

I can see rad feminists making a case that this woman was merely performing a post partum abortion on herself and consequently it should be made legal/allowable.

Nevermind that having the right to abortion is already an inherently unequal protection enjoyed by women under the law with no equivalent right for men. No, no, that's not enough. Rad feminists won't rest until that right extends to total control over who lives or dies even after they've come out of the womb. Now that's power. You go girl!

*barf*

This is just another sad case of a woman who should have had an abortion. I'd be interested in knowing why she didn't have one. Could it have been all of the propaganda put out by the religious mystics that want to ban abortion? Might she have suffered from some sense of religious conflict or guilt? Could it have partially been a result of the difficulty of and danger associated with obtaining an abortion (risk of clinic bombing or assault on the way in or out of the clinic)?

I feel badly for the women in these cases; in a different society they might have received the help they had needed long before birth.

Of course, we hope that she receives the same treatment and punishment as a man would receive in a similar case. (She'll probably receive much better treatment and much more sympathy.) However, I do feel badly for her since I'm a big believer in legalized and unrestricted abortion.

BTW guys, the fight for "choice for men" or "paper abortions for men" is intimately connected to the battle to keep abortion legal, easily accessible, and accepted. You can forget about ever having "paper abortion for men" if people regard abortion as morally wrong and if the government and populace barely allow it to be legal, very grudgingly. Even if only women can have abortions, keeping abortion legal still benefits men when women have abortions. If abortion were made illegal, it would also be a huge disservice to men...and not just fathers...but also taxpayers (gotta pay for infants on welfare and pay for public education and the criminal justice system, etc.).

Since infants come into the world devoid of an abstract human personality or a conceptual (human-level) consciousness, it isn't completely inappropriate to refer to an infant as an "it". A newborn really doesn't have a person inside of it.

However, if you believe in religious mythology then you might argue that a magical super god being "breathes" a "soul" into the embryo at the very moment of conception and that thus killing a 1 day old embryo (with a morning after pill) would constitute murder even though a mere cell mass isn't anthropomorphic and lacks a brain.

Has anyone noted the media refering to newborns as "he" or "she" when a man has done the killing? Does the media consistently refer to newborns as "he" or "she" in the case of men and as "it" in the case of women?

Hi WhipperSnapper, it feels like your last comment about "keeping abortion legal" was aimed at me so I felt I should respond with my opinion on the matter.

I'm not morally against abortion but I do see it as being a last resort, inefficient solution that we should strive to make unnecessary through abundant/ubiquitous contraceptive methods. I *am* pissed off that women have had this 'right' for 40 years when men are still forced to live by the old antiquated laws holding them fully financially responsible for the child. Why should women have all the rights and men only have the responsibilities?

However, let's get real here - I don't expect to be receiving my constitutionally guaranteed equal protection under law within the next 10-20 years, not with pricks like Joseph Biden running the show. I'm far more optimistic about the male pill being made available within that time frame. That's the last, best hope for men to finally have some semblance of the right women have enjoyed for so long, to choose whether or not to become a parent.

Just think, if this psycho's boyfriend had been given the option to be on birth control, then maybe this tragedy would never have happened.