Reader SH sent this Reuters/ABC News article, astutely noting that while the headline read, “Woman jailed for trying to steal fetus from womb,” she was charged with “aggravated assault on an unborn child.”
Both mother and fetus survived the attack. The fetus became a child and was placed for adoption, as previously planned.
See also, “Left says proof of Right’s takeover: media uses ‘unborn child’ over ‘fetus’.”
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Peggy Jo Connors sounds Prolife.
Maybe I should explain that.
The fetus was more important to her than the life of the mother.
Cameron, did you even look at the article (must be Cameron I here)? The charges included “attempted criminal homicide, kidnapping and aggravated assault on an unborn child.”
Dude. Read.
To me, Peggy Jo Connors sounds pro-choice. The mother was carrying the baby to term so that someone could adopt her, but Connors wanted her to abort her late-term pregnancy…
Yes, I’ve missread before, but this time you have.
“kidnapping”
Any way you look at rasqual, Peggy Jo did not intend to kill the fetus. Would you like to argue otherwise… perhaps Peggy was going to remove the fetus first then kill it?? Seems like an aweful lot of trouble… and why plead guilty to kidnapping if that were the case?
This happened near me. So it has been all over the news for quite some time. She DID want the baby for herself. She had been pretending she was pregnant and had tons of baby supplies in her house. Her plan was not to abort the baby, but kidnap it and claim it as her own.
I don’t think she had any real regard for life. She just wanted a baby and was willing to go to extremes to get it. She had no training, yet was willing to perform a c-section. It is not a pro-life/pro-choice story with regards to Peggy Jo. She was/is a sick woman.
Here is another link to the story. At the bottom you will find the other stories that were reported:
http://www.wpxi.com/news/13364829/detail.html
This happened near me. So it has been all over the news for quite some time. She DID want the baby for herself. She had been pretending she was pregnant and had tons of baby supplies in her house. Her plan was not to abort the baby, but kidnap it and claim it as her own.
I don’t think she had any real regard for life. She just wanted a baby and was willing to go to extremes to get it. She had no training, yet was willing to perform a c-section. It is not a pro-life/pro-choice story with regards to Peggy Jo. She was/is a sick woman.
Here is another link to the story. At the bottom you will find the other stories that were reported:
http://www.wpxi.com/news/13364829/detail.html
This happened near me. So it has been all over the news for quite some time. She DID want the baby for herself. She had been pretending she was pregnant and had tons of baby supplies in her house. Her plan was not to abort the baby, but kidnap it and claim it as her own.
I don’t think she had any real regard for life. She just wanted a baby and was willing to go to extremes to get it. She had no training, yet was willing to perform a c-section. It is not a pro-life/pro-choice story with regards to Peggy Jo. She was/is a sick woman.
Here is another link to the story. At the bottom you will find the other stories that were reported:
http://www.wpxi.com/news/13364829/detail.html
OMG… a voice of reason.
Welcome PB&J.
BTW… make sure you have all the necessary privacy measures in place if you want to post here and counter hyperbole.
Cameron,
You started the hyperbole with your first post in this thread.
The post itself is about the use of fetus vs. unborn child in the media.
You come in and say “HEY LOOK GUYS THE CRAZY WOMAN IS PRO-LIFE”.
PB&J notes that this is neither a pro-life or pro-choice issue, but rather one of a mad-woman.
Then you come in and say “phew, sure am glad there’s a sane person on the board who can keep those wild anti’s in check”.
Do you read what you write?
What do you think Jill was trying to do by posting this here Lauren?
Considering she linked to the post about fetus vs. unborn child I think she was trying to show the different ways the media uses the terms.
I believe her exact point was that the media used the term “fetus” even though the law uses “unborn child”.
This contridicts the article she linked to yesterday(?) that claimed that the media had a pro-“unborn child” agenda.
OK… good analysis Lauren… and I concede I started the hyperbole this time. However, I wasn’t pretending otherwise by welcoming PB&J, so much as trying to save face.
Thanks for the honesty Cameron.