Skip to comments.Judge: No Jail for Newborn’s Killer Because Abortion is Accepted
Posted on 10/08/2012 12:19:55 PM PDT by Paladins Prayer
When the great philosopher G.K. Chesterton said, Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like, he wasnt advocating infanticide but was just making a point. Unfortunately, though, were getting closer to a time when people would take his words literally. An example of this is a judges decision in Canada that a woman who strangled her newborn baby shouldnt be incarcerated because Canadians failure to criminalize abortion indicates that they sympathize with the mother.
...So Justice Veits decision seems to make no sense whatsoever; that is, unless you look beyond the facts of the case and into the philosophy of the times.
First, Justice Veit exhibits something common to leftist judges: reference to a mythical majority consensus to justify the imposition of her own values. In other words, she claims that Canadians generally understand, accept and sympathize with such mothers, but did she conduct a poll? In point of fact, Effert had been convicted of second-degree murder by two juries, which, while not a scientific sample, are certainly a better barometer of public attitude than a judges fancy. Justice Veits claim smacks of when judges rule contrary to the peoples will in rubber-stamping faux marriage and then claim theyre interpreting a constitution to suit the times.
Veits decision also reflects the modernistic mistake of elevating emotion over reason. While she should be governed by transcendent principles such as justice, she instead talks about feelings: how people sympathize and grieve for the mother. But should emotion-based consensus opinion carry the day? Would we visit medieval torture upon a criminal if that was what the public wanted? This would be entirely democratic, but the very reason modern governments craft constitutions is to ensure that we wont be subject to the caprice of the masses....
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
Canada has become a scary place.
Horrible Judge. Just horrible.
Actually, this is a good thing. It will force people to open their eyes and SEE what abortion really is. What’s the difference in killing a child before it’s born or 5 minutes later,.after it’s born? Answer: none.
There are absolutely no words available to describe the evil of abortion / infanticide.
I was going to say exactly the same thing. Kudos for that thought process. Too bad many would not see it as the same.
There is absolutely no difference between the two! Both results in death of a child whether born or unborn!
'EVIL' is all that is necessary...............
I think this is a good ruling, as well.
Abortion supporters, for too long, have been able to hide behind the mythical difference between abortion and infanticide.
This draws a line in the sand. You have to admit that abortion is killing a baby and defend infanticide, or you have to choose to oppose abortion as you would infanticide as morally repugnant.
I heard testimony from a man making the case for the equivalence of abortion and infanticide, and he said some young women approached him afterwards and told him he had convinced them - they were now pro-infanticide.
So the doctor said, "Ok and what do you want me to do?"
She said, "I want you to end my pregnancy, and Im counting on your help with this."
The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady, "I think I have a better solution for your problem. Its less dangerous for you too."
She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.
Then he continued, "You see, in order for you not to have to take care 2 babies at the same time, lets kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If were going to kill one of them, it doesnt matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms."
The lady was horrified and said, "No doctor how terrible Its a crime to kill a child!"
"I agree", the doctor replied. "But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution."
The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point.
He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child thats already been born and one thats still in the womb. The crime is the same.
I disagree. A lot of childhood defects aren’t apparent until the child is one or two or perhaps even three years old. The judge should have recognized that the parent can throttle the child through the toddler stage of development.
Liberals believe that our planet can only support 30 million people. They are getting old and impatient....abortion is going to have to happen to older and older people in order to reach that goal of 30 million people.
Liberals do want to live forever, but they want to live forever on a planet of only 30 million people. What good is it to be a rich liberal and live forever if your limousine is always stuck in traffic and somebody’s snotty-nosed brat is on your beach?
if you can legally kill a baby outside the womb, then you can legally kill an adult.
Infantacide was always accepted in Canada when the Inuit practiced it... Didn’t store enough salmon for the whole family to make it through the winter? ,, throw the baby out on the ice for the dogs to eat...
Another African Wild Dog liberal judge. Those other babies have to die because only rich liberal babies should live to breed.
Academic tripe and I ain’t talking cow stomach, I’m talking academic nonsense and rubbish. It seems that all the education some folks have make them full of educated nonsense and rubbish aka academic tripe. I am so tired of educated fools and their academic foolishness aka folly. It seems people over think things to the point of destruction for all, which appears to be the new definition of equality and fairness as per academic hypothetical tripe.
If you’re talking about the article, this isn’t the kind of stuff they teach in school anymore. It’s the kind of stuff college professors laugh at because it happens to be true. I wish I’d been taught material like this in college philosophy class.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
ncpatriot said:(p>if you can legally kill a baby outside the womb, then you can legally kill an adult.
Absotutely. If you can kill a child in the womb, you can kill a newborn infant. If you can kill a newborn infant, then what's the difference if you kill a toddler, a 10 year old, or any adult. Next step - mass slaughter of the useless eaters. And the whole article is well worth reading, here's another snippet:
But we should expect nothing but the subordination of transcendent principles to emotion when people dont believe in transcendent principles. And many today dont because relativism has swept the West.
If people believe in Absolute Truth as Christendom did until relatively recently, when it just became a dom they will refer to it when making moral decisions. But when they cannot say, Here are these principles that exist apart from man, and transcend him, and thus we must govern our lives with them, what is left to refer to? What will be the yardstick if there is nothing above man?
To be precise, mans emotion.
I'd say man's lust, greed, anger and envy; to be a bit more precise.
My next door neighbor strangles baby, and, sometimes, that is OKAy? Indeed, not the woman, but this judge should be hung.
The West is lost.
If post birth abortion comes to the US then I want no age limit and a moratorium on Dems and the left! /lol