No more jail for Edmonton woman who concealed birth

	posted by Matt on 07:30 PM November 8th, 2005
	federico writes "Do you think that letting a baby die is murder? Infanticide?! Think again! Obviusly is not if you're a woman, specifically the mother. Incredibly, Justice Terrance Clackson said, "While this is about loss of life, this is not about murder," and also noted that Anderwald's crimes involved deception but not violence. The article contiues stating that "After [passing out] she woke up, she put the baby in a garbage bag beside her bed, had a bath and watched TV" and "Co-workers said she was happy [the day after]". Of course the tearjerker line follows as the deception manual prescribe: "I wish I could change the past and bring Angela back," she said, using the name she gave the child." Click "Read more..." for more.

	Now, leaving aside the consideration of the fact that "Scott Peterson was sentenced to death earlier this year for killing his wife and their unborn son. Their bodies were found..." as CNN puts it, given the understanding that an unborn baby has (depending on the gender of the killer) more human value than a born one, should we consider the fact that "Anderwald [the mother] was originally charged with second-degree murder, but the charge was reduced to infanticide after a preliminary hearing. On Oct. 7, she pleaded guilty to the lesser charges of causing the death of a baby by neglecting to obtain assistance in childbirth and disposing of the body of a child," as an assumption that it is acceptable and non-violent to suffocate a human being?

<  NH Commission on the Status of Men Releases Report | BBC: Becoming a father 'civilises' men  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Perhaps she should "keep it in her pants" (Score:2) by Raymond Cuttill on 08:04 PM November 8th, 2005 EST (#1) The infanticide act of 1836 was made law in the UK because juries did not want to convict women of murder when they killed their own baby in the days when the punishment for murder has hanging. So a lesser charge was created. Obviously it also became Canadian Law. This women is however has not been convicted of infanticide or any crime of violence. She is classed as mentally unbalanced (I’m not clear what the evidence for that is) but anyway, she is not being told to “keep it in her pants”. She is free to have sex and to get pregnant but according to the ruling she needs help when she gets pregnant. One can wonder about how she will treat the child she may have and whether she may neglect the child or be a good nurturing mother to the child.

Re:Perhaps she should "keep it in her pants" (Score:0) by Anonymous User on 01:51 AM November 9th, 2005 EST (#2) Apparently only we men are capable of violence against men, women and children. Gee, where could I have heard that line of bullshit. Oh, that's right: school, work, church, the government, TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, parents, friends, relatives, girlfriends, t-shirts, billboards, books, laws, politicians, and on, and on, and on. Too bad we can't ask the dead child what he or she thinks, SINCE THIS SICK BITCH KILLED IT AND WILL LIKELY DO IT AGAIN. When will we finally start to demand that women be held accountable, at the very least, for the taking of another human life? Is that asking too much for a life of legal superiority, two sets of gender privileges and no responsibilities?

Words Fail Me.... (Score:0) by Anonymous User on 03:47 PM November 9th, 2005 EST (#3) How is it that this woman isn't rotting away in jail? This is absolutely mind-boggling and sickening. If she were a man, there would be no sympathy, no attempt to understand his mind. When a man kills a child, he should be punished. When a woman kills a child, she should be analyzed and treated because there's no way a woman in her right mind would do that to her child! (insert lots of eye-rolling)

[an error occurred while processing this directive]