Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Shock: No jail time for woman who strangled newborn because Canada accepts abortion, says judge
lifesitenews.com ^ | Sep 12, 2011 | Patrick B. Craine

Posted on 09/16/2011 1:34:41 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2

An Alberta judge has let a woman who strangled her newborn son walk free by arguing that Canada’s absence of a law on abortion signals that Canadians “sympathize” with the mother.

“We live in a country where there is no protection for children in the womb right up until birth and now this judge has extended the protection for the perpetrator rather than the victim, even though the child is born and as such should be protected by the court,” said Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition.

Katrina Effert of Wetaskiwin, Alberta gave birth secretly in her parents’ downstairs bathroom on April 13, 2005, and then later strangled the newborn and threw his body over a fence. She was 19 at the time.

She has been found guilty of second-degree murder by two juries, but both times the judgment was thrown out by the appeals court. In May, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned her 2009 murder conviction and replaced it with the lesser charge of infanticide.

On Friday, Effert got a three-year suspended sentence from Justice Joanne Veit of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. As a result, she was able to walk out of court, though she will have to abide by certain conditions.

According to Justice Veit, Canada’s lack of an abortion law indicates 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 childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.”

“Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother,” she added.

Under Canada’s Criminal Code, a woman who has not “fully recovered” from the effects of birth can be found guilty of the lesser charge of infanticide. To bring forward the infanticide defense, which carries a maximum sentence of five years, there must be evidence that the woman’s mind was disturbed.

According to the Crown, the evidence showed Effert was not suffering mental disturbance. They highlighted the fact that she planned for the birth by getting scissors to cut the umbilical cord and towels, and then hiding in the bathroom in her parents’ basement. They suggested that she had tried to miscarry the child during pregnancy by smoking and drinking. She lied during initial police questioning, claiming she was a virgin.

But Justice Veit agreed with defense lawyer Peter Royal, saying that this was “a classic infanticide case — the killing of a newborn after a hidden pregnancy by a mother who was alone and unsupported.”

Pro-life advocates have warned for years that widespread acceptance of abortion will open the door to greater societal acceptance of infanticide, beginning with the euthanizing of disabled newborns. Infanticide proponent Peter Singer, a top ethicist at Princeton University, has said, for example, “there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby.”

Though he once was considered to be on the radical fringe, Singer’s views are becoming more mainstream. For example, the world’s most prestigious bioethics journal, The Hastings Center Report, published in 2008 an enthusiastic defense of the Netherlands’ practice of euthanizing newborns.

“Where will it end: a one month old child whose parent has decided is not worthy of life, a six month old child, a two year old child, a special needs child or how about a teenager?” asked Hughes.

“It is time that Parliament, whose duty it is to protect and legislate regarding the Constitution, examine its duty with regard to the first constitutional right - ‘the right to life’ and enact legislation which recognizes that life begins at conception and must be protected from that time until natural death,” said Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer of CLC. “The mother’s stress cannot equate to the loss of a lifetime for the child.”


TOPICS: Canada; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: abortion; beyondcomprehension; heinous; infanticide; moralabsolutes; murder; sick; wrong

1 posted on 09/16/2011 1:34:47 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

Sounds logical to me. What’s the difference?

This is merely a 4th trimester abortion.


2 posted on 09/16/2011 1:36:50 PM PDT by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

This is going to be a bit shocking, but hear me out.

I think it’s actually a good thing, in the big scheme of things, that the judge ruled this way,

because he just ripped down the facade that there is some difference between killing the unborn and killing a newborn.

Now, it’s up to society to respond either with revulsion or acceptance of infanticide.


3 posted on 09/16/2011 1:37:58 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

Saw this story on Fox News last night. So sad, someone would have loved to have adopted that baby boy. Canada ought to be ashamed. We are not far behind.


4 posted on 09/16/2011 1:40:44 PM PDT by NEWwoman (God Bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2
or how about a teenager

hmmmm... some teenagers I've known make me question this prohibition... [no, can't go there, even in jest]

5 posted on 09/16/2011 1:42:08 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2
accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.

In the real world being a mother means indulgent, ectasic in the state of motherhood. In the real world providing for a child is uniquely fulfilling as one of nature's greatest experiences, in the real world being a mother means there is no sacrifice, there is no burden, there is nothing onerous, there is nothing at all that a mother would not do in the best, most sincere interests of their child.

6 posted on 09/16/2011 1:45:17 PM PDT by lbryce (BHO:Satan's Evil Twin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

“there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby.”

That’s what I’ve been saying for years. Although in support of the unborn.


7 posted on 09/16/2011 1:45:30 PM PDT by happilymarriedmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: happilymarriedmom

Liberal pro-aborts should not be allowed to hide behind the false curtain that there is a difference.

But, when cornered, they won’t answer. They know they can’t.


8 posted on 09/16/2011 1:47:13 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Not shocking at all! This IS great news. Liberals are getting caught in the imbecility of their own opinions. We have to hang them around their neck. Publicizing this incident goes a long way towards this goal.
9 posted on 09/16/2011 1:49:02 PM PDT by mwilli20 (BO. Making communists proud all over the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MrB

I totally agree with you. If society isn’t outraged at abortion then they shouldn’t be outraged at murder after birth.


10 posted on 09/16/2011 1:50:23 PM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

Anyone ever see that documentary “Dear Zachary”? If you want to learn how far liberalism has gone in Canada and how far it can go, watch that movie. I could-not-believe what the hell I was watching when seeing it. This is the “Utopian society” liberals from the US want and it surprises me not it the least the movie was all but buried.

If you got a Netflix account watch it, or even better go to BTjunkie and download it. Either way, make damn sure you see that movie. That flick converted my cousin who was a life long liberal into a hardcore Conservative. Just gave him a major life slap right across the brain.


11 posted on 09/16/2011 1:51:08 PM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda (Mark Halperin - Learned the hard way what happens when you speak the truth on PMSNBC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
I agree with you 100%. While the story and the court decision are dreadful, there is an upside. Along the same lines, google the following essay title in quotes: “We Do Abortions Here”. You'll be appalled by the content of the essay, but you'll be happy that the author — an abortion clinic worker — tells the TRUTH about abortion. The judge in this case is simply being consistent with the logic behind abortion rights: it doesn't matter if the fetus/baby is a human being, so long as its mother wants it dead.
12 posted on 09/16/2011 1:54:37 PM PDT by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MrB

From the Article: “...Justice Joanne Veit of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.”

This so-called Judge is a she.

“Now, it’s up to society to respond either with revulsion or acceptance of infanticide.”

Now, I think it’s up to the people, through their elected representatives, to write a new “infanticide” law.


13 posted on 09/16/2011 1:57:02 PM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

End times


14 posted on 09/16/2011 1:58:14 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy (For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

End times


15 posted on 09/16/2011 1:58:30 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy (For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

End times


16 posted on 09/16/2011 1:58:46 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy (For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

I agree with you, unfortunately that scale can tip either way. Many people would of course rather see abortion over infanticide and decide “better one than the other” and become even more accepting of the practice.


17 posted on 09/16/2011 2:02:18 PM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MrB

your logic is poison, the epitomy of sophistry.


18 posted on 09/16/2011 2:09:03 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (...then they came for the guitars, and we kicked their sorry faggot asses into the dust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2
According to Justice Veit...the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth...

Proof that you don't have to be an uneducated hick to be a Darwin Award Winner.

19 posted on 09/16/2011 2:11:05 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (...then they came for the guitars, and we kicked their sorry faggot asses into the dust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

I assume only the mother can kill her own infant although to continue with the consistent theme I suppose qualified abortionists also will be able to strangle newborns as well. I wonder how much they will charge for that new and unique service?


20 posted on 09/16/2011 2:18:53 PM PDT by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda

bump for later viewing


21 posted on 09/16/2011 2:34:54 PM PDT by kidd (S&P gives Obama an 'AA+'...Obama's only published grade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand; MrB
This is going to be a bit shocking, but hear me out. I think it’s actually a good thing, in the big scheme of things, that the judge ruled this way, because he just ripped down the facade that there is some difference between killing the unborn and killing a newborn. Now, it’s up to society to respond either with revulsion or acceptance of infanticide. .... MrB

your logic is poison, the epitomy of sophistry. .... the invisib1e hand

Not really.

The Judge did not give permission to kill. The infant was already dead.

If a routine conviction had occurred, that infant's death would have passed, unnoticed, except for an article in the local paper, and the infant would still be dead.

As it is, the ruling has put the entire issue of late term abortion not only in the Canadian headlines but in the American headlines.

The infant, instead of dying without notice, is now the face of a moral debate that will now start in Canada. From beyond the grave, that infant has now been given a voice in that moral debate.

Whether the Judge intended it to be that way is uncertain but the fact remains that such is the end result of the ruling.

22 posted on 09/16/2011 2:43:49 PM PDT by Polybius (Defeating Obama is Priority Number One)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
look, I'm sorry. I'm not going to pretend to give you a moment's credibility, because you argue as though you're an authority, but you haven't done your homework.

You have no concept, apparently, of the nature of authority. And please don't try to "prove" to me that you do. You've already told me all I need to know about it.

23 posted on 09/16/2011 2:47:29 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (...then they came for the guitars, and we kicked their sorry faggot asses into the dust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MrB

I hear you, but it’s still appalling.


24 posted on 09/16/2011 2:50:15 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

bump


25 posted on 09/16/2011 2:59:28 PM PDT by lowbridge (Rep. Dingell: "Its taken a long time.....to control the people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Nearer to here than you think. The baby-killer sympathizing Judge represents Obamunist morality, Obamunist ethics.As an Illinois legislator Obama singlehandedly bottled up legislation for an Illinois Born Alive Protection Act, designed to protect newborns, including survivors of botched abortions. The audio of Obama cooly defending his position—voicing his fear that abortionists might be sued by disappointed “mothers” if they were unable to finish the killing on the operating table—was one of the most chilling things I have ever heard.
26 posted on 09/16/2011 3:05:07 PM PDT by Godwin1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MrB

You’re right, there is no difference.


27 posted on 09/16/2011 3:22:17 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand; MrB
look, I'm sorry. I'm not going to pretend to give you a moment's credibility, because you argue as though you're an authority, but you haven't done your homework. You have no concept, apparently, of the nature of authority. And please don't try to "prove" to me that you do. You've already told me all I need to know about it. .... the invisib1e hand

Who, except you, invisib1e hand, said anything about "authority"?

MrB expressed an opinion, on an opinion forum, and gave an explanation for it.

I expressed an opinion, on an opinion forum, and gave an explanation for it.

All you have done is throw out two ad hominem attacks in a row, one directed at MrB and one directed at me, without even addressing any of the points brought up.

You have added absolutely nothing to this discussion except to play the role of the irate, yapping chihuahua.

In my opinion, MrB, you are correct that this ruling with force a debate in Canada about the morality of late term abortion.

28 posted on 09/16/2011 3:30:04 PM PDT by Polybius (Defeating Obama is Priority Number One)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Who, except you, invisib1e hand, said anything about "authority"?

Exactly.

29 posted on 09/16/2011 3:32:13 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (...then they came for the guitars, and we kicked their sorry faggot asses into the dust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

I wonder what the acceptable age window is. If we have legal post-birth abortion and legal end of life euthanasia, don’t we need specific guidelines defining murder too. Perhaps all laws on murder and manslaughter should be amended to specify that such laws only apply to the unlawful taking of a life between 17 3/4 years of age and 59 1/2 years. That’s where libs want to take this; why not follow the short cut and jump to that standard now?


30 posted on 09/16/2011 5:09:15 PM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

Placemark.


31 posted on 09/16/2011 10:31:13 PM PDT by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polybius; the invisib1e hand

I didn’t expect total agreement on my posted take on this issue, and you folks don’t even know if I’m 100% behind that posting.

I just put it up as an alternative way of looking at the issue. Indeed, infanticide is a highly charged topic,

which is why it is so powerful in the anti-abortion arsenal, and it is also why the pro-”choice” people avoid it like the plague.


32 posted on 09/17/2011 6:40:43 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson