Laos won't execute pregnant prisoner

Well, here's an interesting one, from Laos, where abortion except to save the life of the mother is illegal. According to CNN:

orobator.jpg

A British woman facing possible execution in Laos will escape the death sentence because she is pregnant....

The country's criminal law prohibits courts from sentencing pregnant women to death.... The woman's trial... is likely to happen next week.

Samantha Orobator, 20, was facing death by firing squad for drug trafficking.... She was arrested August 5....

Orobator was alleged to have been carrying just over half a kilogram (about 1lb) of heroin.... Those found guilty of carrying that amount normally face the death penalty....

So here we have a case of a preborn baby saving the life of the mother. If the mom aborts her baby, she'll be aborted.

What if this were America? What if a mother on death row wants to abort her baby? An execution would take care of that. But to my knowledge every state disallows execution of pregnant women (why?), while at the same time allowing pregnant women to execute their babies.

Legalized abortion sure complicates things.

[Photo courtesy of the Associated Press]


Comments:

It's simple. Talk to any level headed person, and they will tell you "Abortion is murder." That's the truth. There it is. The end. Abortion is not murder to pro-choicers because they don't want to call a spade a spade. They don't want it to be so. They live in a clouded world of denial. Abortion is murder. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, but that's the harsh reality. Pro-aborts try to switch up truth for lies all the time so that they may continue with their political agenda.

Posted by: heather at May 5, 2009 9:41 AM



I remember years ago when Charles Manson and his "family" were found guilty of the killing of Sharon Tate and others.

Sharon was 8 months pregnant when she was murdered.

A prison official said at the time, around 1970, that it would be dangerous to put Manson in general population of the prison. Apparently convicts viewed the murderer of a pregnant woman with the same contempt they did a child molester and would readily kill both if given the opportunity.

Even convicts have standards.

Posted by: Mary at May 5, 2009 9:51 AM


...I should include child killers along with child molesters.

Anyone who would harm or kill a child, born or unborn, was in danger.

Posted by: Mary at May 5, 2009 9:57 AM


Mary, great point!

Posted by: heather at May 5, 2009 10:03 AM


"Even convicts have standards."

even higher standards than pro-choicers!

Posted by: Jasper at May 5, 2009 11:37 AM


Very interesting, Jill. Thanks for posting this story.

The Bible explains our inner knowledge of right & wrong as being inherent in all human beings. (See Romans 1:18-32 & google the doctrine of general revelation.) God gives us a conscience. Every human being KNOWS it is evil to slay an innocent person. Our judicial sentiment tells us that it's a grave injustice to punish an innocent for the guilty actions of another.

Posted by: Patte at May 5, 2009 11:48 AM


A prison official said at the time, around 1970, that it would be dangerous to put Manson in general population of the prison. Apparently convicts viewed the murderer of a pregnant woman with the same contempt they did a child molester and would readily kill both if given the opportunity.

Even convicts have standards.
Posted by: Mary at May 5, 2009 9:51 AM
*******************************************

This is true, even today. Those convicts are the most at risk from the rest of the prison population, typically.

Posted by: Kel at May 5, 2009 2:05 PM


Kel,

From what I've heard and read, these convicts are better protected now, usually put in some kind of isolation from the prison general population. I understand rapists are also at the bottom of the prison social structure. Apparently the convicts have little use for those who prey on women and children.

Personally, I think the convicts have the right idea and I'd love to see these predators turned loose in the prison general population.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 5, 2009 2:26 PM



Sorry, anonymous was me!

Posted by: Mary at May 5, 2009 2:27 PM


"Even convicts have standards."
-----------------------------------

Patte's post makes sense...makes one think, where do these 'convicts' in the general population get their 'standards'?

Were these brainwashed into them when they were kids, while in juvenile detention or other jails/prisons OR is there REALLY something inherent in human nature stating that children (born or unborn) should be protected at all times?

If these "convicts" (who are societies' outcasts and are living a very basic existence) consider these child molesters/ baby killers lower than them......then why would educated, civilized, pro-aborts defend PP and their abortionists for doing the same (or even worse)?

Is there something wrong in their inherent Human Nature?

These are rhetorical questions, by the way...no need to answer.

Posted by: RSD at May 5, 2009 3:27 PM



from www.prolifeintn.blogspot.com

Slip of the tongue...baby, no I mean fetus


What an interesting post from Feministing.com. When you ask a question that parallels a life question....they get all hung up and slip up and say baby. Whoops, did not mean to say baby.... look at the comment from the reader....

Death Penalty and Abortion
In a bioethics class I'm taking, we were talking about the death penalty, and the discussion progressed to include abortion. Someone raised the question: "If a woman on death row happened to get pregnant, should we still execute her?"I'm pro-choice, and support embryonic stem cell research. But, my gut instinct to the question was "No, of course you can't kill her baby!" Then I realized the inherent inconsistency there- in the other cases, I don't think of the embryo as a baby. I'm not sure how to rectify this.So, what do you think? What if the woman was 8 weeks pregnant? 8 months?Note: I'm against the death penalty in all cases, but that's another discussion entirely.
Posted by orgostrich - March 18, 2009, at 09:06AM in Deep Thoughts


miki_mouse said:
I definitely agree that if a pregnant woman is killed, it is only one count of murder under the law, because a fetus does not have the same rights as a human being. That said, we do place some value on a fetus, and if that woman (on death row) wanted that baby to live, I don't think we have the right to kill her while she is still pregnant. Same as if we forced a woman to have an abortion, it is still wrong even though it is right if she wants the abortion. People wait for years on death row, I think it would be simple enough that if she wanted the baby to live, to just stay her execution for a couple months after she gives birth.


miki_mouse replied to miki_mouse :
I didn't really mean to call it a baby in the last sentence. I meant if she wanted the fetus to be born so it could turn into a baby, of course.

Of course!

Posted by: Maria at May 5, 2009 4:58 PM


Hi Maria,

I remember the when the Manson murders occured.
Sharon Tate begged for the life of her BABY, not her fetus.
The public at that time viewed her son as a BABY.
Her parents spoke of the death of their GRANDSON, not their daughter's fetus.
On the gravestone it mentions Paul Richard Polanski as Sharon and Roman Polanski's son, not Sharon's fetus.

Apparently 40 years ago, people could see the obvious. Now its a matter of debate. How times have changed.

Posted by: Mary at May 5, 2009 5:33 PM


Since the conversation seems to have turned to the perceived mentality of pro-choicers, here's my beliefs on the subject:

There's a huge difference between those who I consider pro-choice and pro-abortion. Those that I would consider pro-choice acknowledge that abortion takes the life of a human being and that abortion is an unfortunate byproduct of a largely dysfunctional society. They believe that in rare and extreme circumstances that abortion should remain a legal option. They do not celebrate abortion or view it as a symbol of feminine strength or progress, but rather as an occasionally necessary evil. They acknowledge that abortion is often hurtful to women and families. They would never have nor recommend an abortion and hope that a woman would chose to parent or adopt, but believe that some women are in such hopeless situations that abortion is understandable. I disagree with these people regarding the notion that killing innocents is ever acceptable, but I do understand them and feel I can debate honestly and openly with them.

Those that I consider pro-abortion deny the humanity of unborn babies and prefer euphemisms over science. They view abortion as a good or neutral tool used for the overall good of society and individuals. They scoff at the mention of the baby as an entity of value and deny/ignore evidence of abortion causing harm. They believe abortion is essential to women and consider any regulations in favor of life to be a threat against feminism. They seem apathetic or annoyed by ideas regarding encouraging women to parent or adopt. I honestly have no interest in talking with people of this mentality because they refuse to debate what abortion actually is and use distracting and dishonest rhetoric to avoid the heart of the issue.

Posted by: Janette at May 5, 2009 5:52 PM