Skip to comments.Woman Admits Aborting Baby
Just a Week Before Due Date
Posted on 07/23/2012 7:58:08 PM PDT by Tau Food
A WOMAN has admitted ending her pregnancy only a week before the unborn childs due date after she bought medication on the internet to carry out the abortion.
Sarah Catt appeared at Leeds Crown Court yesterday and admitted a charge of procuring her own miscarriage.
The 35-year-old bought medication over the internet that would induce the labour, although North Yorkshire Police officers admitted they remain baffled as to her motives. No evidence of the baby has ever been found, according to officers involved in the investigation.
Catt told police she had terminated the pregnancy legally, despite medical records in March 2010 showing her to be nearly 30 weeks pregnant six weeks beyond the 24-week legal limit for a termination.
(Excerpt) Read more at yorkshirepost.co.uk ...
Obama would approve.
Yeah, he probably would.
I really find this shocking - one week before the baby would be full term.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
You’re absolutely right. Partial birth abortion is really infanticide.
I agree that it results from the marginalization of religion. Without religion, there are no structural standards. Everything is reduced to convenience.
She needs a bottle of that poison poured down her throat.
Abortion at any point is infanticide and all abortions are partial birth abortion. IMHO. Just say'n nor arguing.
Sorry, but ALL abortions at ANY TIME is really infanticide. What do you think the woman is carrying, a frog? You're parsing words here . . . partial birth . . . no such thing . . . it either is or it ain't . . . it's alive or it's dead . . . in that case, it's a still birth or miscarriage.
She gave birth, murdered the child, disposed of the body somewhere, and this is her cover story.
You might very well be right. It does sound strange, but I’m not an MD.
I think you’re right.
Research has proven that a child of thirty weeks (ten weeks before term of forty) can already learn to recognize sounds. This was proven via the ‘startle reflex’.
I agree with you. Succintly put.
I completely agree . . . infanticide . . . premeditated, no less . . . 1st degree . . . death penalty . . . no sympathy
I believe that the crime of ‘infanticide’ was introduced in the 1920s because a lot of juries were squeamish about convicting hormonally imbalanced young mothers of murder, which was still carried a mandatory sentence of death in Britain in those days.
Interesting, although I cant quite grasp how introducing the law would make juries more likely to convict...
Because if the jurors felt that the person was guilty, but that the punishment was excessive for the crime, they would essentially nullify the verdict.
Back in the early 19th century, you could be hanged for something as trivial as stealing a silk hankie from somebody’s pocket. As time wore on, juries consisted of people who thought that death for comparatively trivial crimes was too much and these petty criminals were being let of in large numbers because they didn’t want their deaths on their conscience.
The same principle was applied as sympathy for the mentally ill and deranged increased during the early 20th century. I myself believe in the death penalty for pre-meditated murder, but I don’t think I would be at all enthusiastic about convicting a mother with post-natal depression who killed her child whilst her mind was unbalanced if the only available crime that she could be convicted of was that of capital murder.
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.