Skip to comments.When mothers keep a deadly secret (Murdering Newborns)
Posted on 08/13/2007 4:35:05 AM PDT by shrinkermd
click here to read article
“Delayed abortion” - is that a new term?
I would have a hard time believing that those who support abortion rights would be upset by the killing of newborns.
And there you have it folks.
There is no bright line. If it is OK to kill the baby two minutes before birth, it is OK to kill the baby two minutes after. We look upon these women as if they are deluded or misguided. Actually, they are more clear minded about this matter than any of us.
I am utterly speechless at acts such as these. This is where abortion has taken us. Devalue human life of the unborn, and we all pay the price as a society.
This gives me a notion that’s hard to express, but I’ll try.
On the one hand I just want to just echo what the others have so rightly said: that I’m speechless, I’m at a loss to understrand this, this is so unimaginably brutal, it’s the fruit of a generation of legal baby-disposal via abortion, “what’s she guilty of, except procrastination,” etc.
On the other hand, I want to say I think the normal, healthy animal instincts in the human species are surprisingly weak. Instinct seems to decree, in other species, that the healthy female mammal will keep her babies in her den or nest or hidey-hold, clean them, suckle them, and defend them from danger. But in humans, this instinct has the power of a “suggestion” rather than the power of a “command,” -— even, a disappearingly weak suggestion in some people.
And so I want to say that as a culture we have to re-commit ourselves to the strengthening of the good animal instincts.
By this I mean strengthening masculinity in boys and femininity in girls, male-female mating through (to use the feminist’s scornful term) “priviliging heteronormativity,” And then strengthen female nurturant behavior by encouraging little girls to play with dolls (not Barbies and Bratz, but real baby-dolls that look soft and huggable and kissable); even, to raise our children at home so that they SEE infant-nurturing happening on a daily basis, lots of it, rather than raising them in daycares and preschools or with the electronic nannies of plug-in entertainment.
It looks like I’m coming full-out in favor of what has been called “gender stereotyping” and against the gender-free, “Free To Be You And Me” autonomy/androgyny thing that has consumed child-culture for the past 40 years.
My argument wanders. I’m reaching, here, maybe over-stating. But still. Does this make even an iota of sense?
How could the mothers of minors be so oblivious as to not notice that they weren’t buying tampax for their daughters? For NINE MONTHS?
Yes, it does.
You are right on the mark as far as I am concerned. But I am an old fogey.
This reminds me of the simple fact that “pro-choicers” are mostly protecting rapists from prosecution.
Why is anyone surprised hat this goes on? It’s the natural extension of “the right” of abortion.
They're not upset at all. People who support abortion loathe children, especially infants.
Well put. I am with you.
Maybe Philip Dick’s “The Pre-Persons” should be required reading in junior high schools.
When resources are scarce other mammals do kill and possibly eat their newborns. Maternal instincts in animals go both ways.
The cases in the article have something in common. An environment perceived by the mother as not conductive to having and raising a child.
I'm glad MY mom didn't know about that "delayed abortion" thing. I wouldn't have been safe even after finishing high school.
Every time I hear the term “delayed abortion” I think about the South Park episode where Cartman’s mom sleeps her way up the political food chain to protect her “abortion rights”.
She ends up sleeping with President Bill Clinton, who says she has the right to an abortion, and asks how far along she is, and she says she wants to abort Cartman.
Anyway, I almost had some sympathy for the 14-year-old. Not quite, but at least I can understand, she was being raped, she didn’t want to believe she was pregnant, she takes out her anger on the object borne of her torture.
Then they threw in the other girl, a college student, obviously bright, who simple murders her newborn. And you know, the first girl will end up in therapy, and the 2nd girl will end up running some fortune-500 company.
so many parts of our society, are with the mindset of having a baby is a really bad thing, I am not surprised that these women are behaving in this manner.
Don't know why that popped into my head...
True, most of which consists of blaming and trash talking the father.
Absolutely. Repolarization is essential - but a generation of feminist-trained educators and politicians may have to die off first.
It may be a new term, but infanticide is an old practice.
When a rabbit or rat kills newborns, it means something is bad wrong; this is always indicative of either a sick animal or a gravely defective environment.
A great deal of our human environment is cultural. Related to my point: we have a gravely defective culture.
“This is where abortion has taken us.”
Infanticide has been around for a long time.
However, if a physician (I use the term loosely) had of plunged scissors into the top of the babies head and sucked its brains out before it cleared the birth canal, it would have been perfectly legal. The first act is murder but the second act is legally sanctioned. Something is not right!
“Trust me with a choice” is specious because nobody -— not the Church, not the State, not the male, and not the female -— nobody can choose the deliberate killing of the young of our species as a legitimate “choice.”
If a woman has a baby she cannot bond to, will not raise and does not want, that’s what adoption is for.
I refer to it as, "Singer-cide"
Quite true. So has abortion. Not to mention rape, vengeance-slaying, the abandonment of elderly and disabled, and the deification of tyrant kings. It's part of what the Decalogue was written to prevent.
” I think the normal, healthy animal instincts in the human species are surprisingly weak.”
Gotta disagree there. The instinct to care for offspring is very strong in man compared to other species. Humans generally provide extraordinary care to their young. It is comprehensive and of long duration. It is necessary, of course, to support the rather long maturation of an animal whose brain takes up so much volume and energy.
Some of the same people who are so incensed at this would think nothing of the baby being killed in the womb the day before birth.
Well, I wouldn't say any. Some of us are quite clear-minded when it comes to knowing that abortion is murder no matter what stage of development the unborn child is.
Perhaps because, under the influence of the relentless propaganda machine, you've forgotten that "choose" is a transitive verb. The act of "choosing" cannot, cannot, be separated from the object that is chosen.
Excepting the extremely rare preteen-victim-of-incestuous-rape situations, a woman who is pregnant with a child she doesn't want has already chosen to have sex under circumstances in which she could conceive a child she's not willing or competent to rear. That is, she has demonstrated that she does not have the discernment to make wise decisions regarding the life of another person.
As you mention, gogeo, she probably shouldn't be in the position of rearing a child, without a considerable development of maturity and judgment. Adoption would be a much better solution for many children born under these circumstances.
Very interesting thoughts.
I agree that cultural support for our best instincts - to care for those in need, whether that’s infants, the elderly, or the sick - is sadly lacking.
I suppose that to some extent, these instincts are correlated with traditional sex roles, but I don’t think so strongly that I’d make that a focus. I find in my family that everyone - boys and girls - wants to cuddle the babies and visit the elderly. (Cleaning up after the sick is not as popular.)
Right you are on every point except, I think, in calling that "instinct" tout court.
More accurate to call that instinct as vastly strengthened and elaborated by culture.
Our brains, which take up so much volume and energy, also enable us to develop morals and manners, customs and cultures, which support and refine the good healthy mammal instincts. And occasionally even empower us, when appropriate, to override instinct for an intellectually-grasped greater good.
For intance, the phenomenon of a society organized to support individuals born with missing or shortened limbs or diabetes or facial deformities (like my adopted son who was born with a cleft lip and palate) is unknown in any other species. Very often, per instinct, they kill their defectives.
So we have cultures. We cultivate, channel, strengthen, and refine our appetites tendencies, and drives. And sometimes redirect them, for good or ill.
Depends on what your traditional sex roles are!
Some societies' highest male exemplar is the samurai, others the pimp, others the Talmud scholar. I would love for my boys' highest exemplar to be their excellent father. (In fact, in discouraging moments ---sigh--- my main hope lies in that.) And above all, Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Got me thinking now. Variety within sex roles. The Community of Saints.
True. Your post #8 emphasized female nurturing, and unspecified features of "masculinity." I'm certainly not denying inborn differences between boys and girls - with three little boys in the house, I'm literally bombarded with inborn differences. (Also blocks, cars, Lego, shoes, and the occasional airborne brother.)
However, I think the qualities we're discussing come from a level of humanity more fundamental than sex differences. God created us male and female, but more basically, He created us in His image of life-giving love. Men and women (to generalize) manifest love in some distinctive ways, but the fountain of love, so to speak, is the same for both.
my thoughts exactly.
My mom told the story of holding her firstborn and being alarmed by how fierce she felt...no one, ever, was going to hurt her baby. I didn’t have that type of reaction, but I did start crying and wanted to protect her from everything horrible in the world. I know that the first words I said, without thinking, to my second born were “It’s okay, mama’s got you.”
There is something incredibly sick about a culture that can force these basic instincts out. There is no reason why we can’t respect the differences between men and women and celebrate them. I mean, isn’t that what diversity is all about?
Brilliant reminder oh Mrs. T-C. I have long lost the ability to think even slightly academically, I blame it all on my 24 week old "choice" who is convinced that my ribs are his special comfort zone.
Actually, what started me on this meander was the memory that as a little girl, I had no contact with babies whatsoever. I was the younger of only two, and youngest of all the cousins; we had no baby-having neighbors, either.
I grew up never even baby-sitting, having zero contact, and then hit adolescence at the surge of modern (Friedan-era) feminism which spiritedly trashed amd repudiated every feminine virtue.
Consequently, I had never even touched a newborn until I touched my own. And I had little idea of how to care for him, except you swabbed one end and fed the other. My own mother was 1500 miles away, and much debilitated and disabled, and sisters and female kindred I had none.
Of course, being bookish, I read my way into the motherly arts; and thanks to the conservative Catholic set I had fallen into (prolifers) I read the right stuff. CCL and the La Leche League tracts, and the attachment insights of Dr. Sears.
I felt acutely my lack of aptness for what should be normal feminine nurturant behavior. And that was partly due to the lack of a competence-building and baby-loving motherculture.
Thank you. I have entire years in which I’m mentally drifty, but right now I’m not pregnant, barely nursing, and usually able to sleep at night. It’s amazing to be conscious :-). Hang in there!
Your post above describes how I felt about my newborn babies, too. When I had a job, I used to go over to the daycare center (Episcopal church, very nice) during my lunch break just to look at my son. Even though he was happy (spoiled rotten by the abuelitas, actually), I hated leaving him, and I gave my notice the day my husband finally graduated from college.
I had very similar experiences, except that I babysat. When Anoreth was born, I was largely clueless. (I also had a job, so she was cared for by people who knew what they were doing - probably for the best, under the circumstances!)
Dr. Sears was a big help to me, when I finally found myself at home full time with children.
Old fogeys ae the salt of the earth.
When God is looking down at us here on earth, I have no doubt that he looks at us old fogeys and smiles, “at least some of you get it.”
At least, that’s my prayer.
Maybe they never did in the first place. My mother didn't buy my sanitary products for me, I bought them with my allowance.
You spent your OWN money, instead of throwing them into the family grocery cart? Actually, if I’d been shopping alone with my Dad, I would have been too embarrassed, at least in my early teens.
My dad did all the grocery shopping when I ws in my early teens. By the time I was doing most of the shopping I had long learned to buy that kind of stuff when it was on sale, which did not always coincide with the family shopping cart.........which I was stocking, but dad was transporting (and paying for).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.