Mother starves newborn to death

indra book.jpgHere we see a segue between the abortion and euthanasia mentalities. There is no difference between a 9-month-old preborn and a 9-month, 2-day-old postborn except location and how she breathes, is hydrated, and is nourished.

Nor are the mental capabilities between a disabled person like Terri Schiavo and a newborn any different.

Yet in both cases it is legal to kill the former but illegal to kill the latter. Why? Why was this so bad? From WKBT, July 14:

The two people arrested on... July 11 for their role in the death of a young infant made their first appearance in court on Tuesday.

19-year-old Indra Book and 21-year-old Adam O'Connor have been arrested after an investigation by La Crosse police.

Police say during August of 2007, Book gave birth to an infant in her home in La Crosse. The infant died within a few days. Book and O'Connor allegedly tried to cover up the death....

"She tried to breast feed the child twice, she was unsuccesful," District Attorney Tim Gruenke said.... "(She) then decided not to feed the child knowing the result, put the child in a cooler, and put it in the garbage in the spring."

Book is arrested for a charge of first-degree murder and hiding a corpse. O'Connor is arrested for being party to the crime of hiding a corpse and obstructing an officer. Book is being held on a $50,000 cash bond, while O'Connor was released on a $5,000 cash bond....

Police say their investigation and the arrests are a result of a tip....

TMJ4 added:

The two could've give up the baby anonymously under the state's safe haven laws.

[HT: reader Robert King; photo courtesy of the La Crosse Tribune]


Comments:

Perhaps she was considering sending her baby to Obama.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at July 16, 2008 10:31 AM


That comment is in poor taste and bordering on disgusting, CC. I'd think this story would be a little beyond the realm of cracking jokes.

Posted by: Amanda at July 16, 2008 11:03 AM


I agree. A tasteless comment.

Posted by: Bee at July 16, 2008 11:10 AM


Jill said the only difference between a pre-born baby and a born baby is location, that would be like the difference between a knife being inside of you or outside of you. I'm not saying a baby is anything like sticking a knife into you, but can you see there's a big difference between something being outside of you then inside of you?

That's why cancer is removed. It can't hurt you if it isn't in your body. It effects the woman, the woman's body when a baby is inside of her. It's not like just wearing a bracelet and taking it on or off. Your analogy is a bad one.

Posted by: Jess at July 16, 2008 11:17 AM


CC, do you find something funny about dead babies?

Posted by: Jess at July 16, 2008 11:19 AM


Why Jess is it legal to kill a baby inside its mommy up until its due date and illegal to kill a baby after it has been born??

Posted by: Carla at July 16, 2008 11:44 AM


I am sickened by this story. Sickened that it happened a few hours from me as well. God help us.

Posted by: Carla at July 16, 2008 11:51 AM


Carla, because it's inside it's mother. Carla would you rather have cancer inside your body, or outside in some lab? According to you it doesn't make a difference. Would you rather be in your house, or in the middle of some desert in 120 degree weather? According to you it doesn't make a difference.

Why don't you understand some women don't want babies inside their bodies? INSIDE their bodies?

Posted by: Jess at July 16, 2008 11:59 AM


Carla, would you care if someone held you underwater for a few hours? According to you location doesn't matter, so you wouldn't have a problem with it.

Would you care if some prostitute came over to your house and slept in the same bed as your husband while you slept on the couch? according to you it wouldn't matter.

Posted by: Jess at July 16, 2008 12:02 PM


Jess,
It's a baby inside the mother. It's a baby outside the mother. It's.A.Baby. It's.A.Baby. It's.A.Baby.

It's not a knife or cancer or a prostitute, my house, the desert or me underwater....or my husband on a couch.

One more time. It's.A.Baby.

Posted by: Carla at July 16, 2008 12:08 PM


Carla,

..maybe if it's a baby cow, Jess would care....

Posted by: RSD at July 16, 2008 12:12 PM


Jess: Jill said the only difference between a pre-born baby and a born baby is location, that would be like the difference between a knife being inside of you or outside of you. I'm not saying a baby is anything like sticking a knife into you, but can you see there's a big difference between something being outside of you then inside of you?

Why Jess we certainly can see! Thank you Jess for your warning to abortionists to keep those sharp instruments/weapons of destruction outside of the body! Yes, as you say..."a big difference between something (like a knife) being outside of you than inside of you! We get it then, that you DO realize just how harmful such things can be "for babies and other living things". You might even say then, as you did, that such things are harmful to mommies too, inside them, and therefore ought to remain outside. Thank you. We too never did think such invasion of the body with such instruments was very safe for either!

Posted by: KC at July 16, 2008 12:35 PM


RSD,
um...not goin there...:)

Posted by: Carla at July 16, 2008 12:42 PM


Jess,
You never cease to amaze me.
Carla, Kudos. You took the words right out of my mouth.

Jess,

If and when you are pregnant and have your first ultrasound will you compare that baby inside of you to a cancerous tumor or a knife wedged in your side? Or will you be excited to be thinking you are carrying life in your body that you had hoped and dreamed about?

If and when you do birth a child and you gaze into it's eyes for the first time, will you then still compare it to a knife taken out of your body or a cancerous tumor?

Your logic makes no sense. Where do you get these thoughts?

Posted by: Sandy at July 16, 2008 12:48 PM


Hi Sandy!!
Can you stay awhile?? :)

Posted by: Carla at July 16, 2008 12:50 PM


As with Andrea Yates, it can't be ruled out from the information available that this wasn't a Post Partum Psychosis case - I can't believe the only charged the father with the smaller crimes, when he could have just as easily prevented it.

Jill, as you've repeatedly claimed you have compassion for women who abort, I hope you seriously don't mean to imply that there is no difference between this and having an abortion...

Posted by: Amanda at July 16, 2008 1:14 PM


It is just as heinous if it is PPP. Not everything can be blamed on a syndrome or a psychosis.

She knew if she didn't feed her baby it would die. Duh. Think we all know that.

Posted by: Carla at July 16, 2008 1:18 PM


Hi Carla!
I will try to peek in!.

Amanda,
Would you say that the girls who dumped their babies in the toilet at prom were suffering from PPP too? I think it was more like PPP "Prom Partying Preferred" syndrome.

The abortion movement has nullified life. This is what we have to deal with.


Posted by: Sandy at July 16, 2008 1:47 PM


Carla, just yesterday you said this:

"I do not consider Andrea Yates a monster either. In need of help, absolutely."

If this turns out to be a similar case, what's the difference?

Posted by: Amanda at July 16, 2008 1:49 PM


Sandy,

I have not seen any research that shows Post Partum Psychosis kicks in that quickly. Usually, right after birth, the oxytocin levels are high enough to mask physical pain and any psychological stuff brewing underneath. The vast majority of research on PPD indicates the signs begin when Mom gets home from the hospital and the reality of having a baby and not being pregnant anymore sets in - goes un noticed so often because our society doesn't view fathers in a way that most companies feel the need to grant paternity leave, so he goes right back to work and Mom is often alone at home with a 4 day old infant...and then of course there's cases like Andrea Yates, where the husband KNOWS, and just doesn't give a crap.

Posted by: Amanda at July 16, 2008 2:09 PM


Amanda,

Carla, just yesterday you said this:
*
"I do not consider Andrea Yates a monster either. In need of help, absolutely."
*
If this turns out to be a similar case, what's the difference?

The woman themselves don't have to be monsters to make the act itself monstrous.

The point of the article is that we have lost all sense of reality. Had George Tiller gotten ahold of her on Tuesday instead of Thursday, this wouldn't even be a story.

The real question is, what is the difference between Tuesday and Thursday. Either the woman that would abort on Tuesday should also be charged with murder, or this girl that starved her child on Thursday should go free.

To us they are ALL horrendous, but we would think that even the most hardened pro choicer would be able to see the inconsistency here. It's irrational. And it's the law of the land.

Posted by: mk at July 16, 2008 2:24 PM


Amanda,
Are you a Psych major? Just wondering because like I said not everything has to be a syndrome or a psychosis. It may explain or describe certain behaviors but hardly JUSTIFIES the monstrous acts these women do to their already born children.

We have devalued life at every stage of existence.

After all 4 babies I have had my husband was instructed to watch me closely and call immediately if it seemed I had lost my marbles.(After 4 children I already have...but I digress)My doctor always asked if I had relatives, friends and neighbors to be there for me.

Why do you come here? There are plenty of prochoice blogs. If you say it enough will you believe the things you type? It is almost as if you are trying to convince yourself to stay prochoice. At other times you sound as though you almost could be prolife. You wrote once that you couldn't wait to hold an employees baby. In fact, you wrote SQUUUUEEEEE!(or something like that)

There is much to be said about life experience, dear Amanda. When and if you have children you will be changed in ways you can hardly imagine. Changed more than this blog could ever change you.

Posted by: Carla at July 16, 2008 2:43 PM


The difference is the location of the baby MK.

Not born, okay to abort. Born; not okay to kill.

The problem pro-lifers have with the Tuesday/Thursday argument is you also want to say that an abortion 8.5 months earlier is "exactly the same thing." If you're willing to allow abortions in the first trimester without restriction, I'm willing to outlaw abortions in the third trimester without exception. Deal?

Posted by: Hal at July 16, 2008 2:46 PM


Hi MK!!!!
You are a superstar!

Posted by: Sandy at July 16, 2008 2:52 PM


Hal,

You're right. To us it is the same thing. What I don't understand is what magically happens between week 3 and week 33, that is different between what happens between week 39 and week 40.

When does something change, and what is this "something", that makes it okay at some points, but not okay at others?

Again, it's irrational. If it's a human life at conception, and a human life at birth, what is it that you see that gives you the right to take that life at any point. Just doesn't make sense, intellectually speaking.

Posted by: mk at July 16, 2008 2:55 PM


Sandy,

I was just thinking about you (and our trip and all the laughs) last week. I hope you're planning a repeat this January!

And hey, it takes a superstar to know a superstar! :)

Posted by: mk at July 16, 2008 2:56 PM


Amanda,
If it doesn't kick in right away, then how could this young mom have been suffering from it?

Posted by: mk at July 16, 2008 2:58 PM


"Are you a Psych major? "

It wasn'y my major, but the public health major with the focus in maternal/child health involved a class in maternal psych. I also had to have special DSS training on PPD because of the population I was dealing with in my internship.

"Why do you come here? There are plenty of prochoice blogs."

Because 1. talking to people who agree with everying I say is boring, 2. talking to people who refuse to admit there is a middle ground on this is infuriating, and 3. Like I've said a million times, I'm on the fence. I manage to piss off both sides.

"If you say it enough will you believe the things you type? It is almost as if you are trying to convince yourself to stay prochoice."

I don't type anything I don't believe. I am absolutely unwavering in my support of contraception, and abortion in cases of rape, incest, and health. That will NEVER change. The big internal argument I have is whether or not I consider consentual sexual intercourse a consent to pregnancy - and I'm really still not sure - especially with YOUNG girls.

"At other times you sound as though you almost could be prolife."

No, apparently not - RSD, Mike, and several others have already told me repeatedly I don't have what it takes, I'm evil/lost, etc. But I would guess that more rational people (Elizabeth in particular because we've talked about it privately) know where I stand. When I posted a while back on my feelings about late term abortions, Jill called me a liar. So did Bethany. Lauren believed me though (thanks Lauren!)

"You wrote once that you couldn't wait to hold an employees baby. In fact, you wrote SQUUUUEEEEE!(or something like that)"

Ohh Carla, PLEEEEASE don't tell me you're one of the "all pro choicers hate babies" types?!?!

Posted by: Amanda at July 16, 2008 3:01 PM


I love your honesty, Amanda. Thank you for just telling me how you feel. I appreciate it very much.

I don't know that I am any "type" :) Just wondering cause you were sooooo excited...the baby you held could just as well have been killed if the mommy didn't want it. See it in the news everyday.

Some here get annoyed. I get annoyed. Sometimes it's like banging your head against the computer, literally. There is no middle ground for me either. I often wonder WHATS IT GONNA TAKE?? But then I focus on getting to know people and trying to understand exactly what they believe and why and challenging their thinking.

I am not saying Run Along Now Amanda because I do enjoy a civil conversation and you make me think A LOT. I have also realized that you think a lot as well. Maybe too much. ha I promise you if your heart changes and softens toward all life from conception to grave your brain will wrap around it as well.

God bless you. I am praying for you.

Posted by: Carla at July 16, 2008 3:15 PM


A couple more things Amanda,

I am not sure where I stand on contraception either. There is So Much to think about. I used to think abortion was ok for rape and incest and health too. Then I started meeting women who have experienced all of that and then some.

My grandma had this advice for me. Never say Never. :)

You can always email me or Facebook me, you know.

Posted by: Carla at July 16, 2008 3:27 PM


Hey MK,
I miss you!
Can't wait to do DC and the march all over again. Way toooo much gooooooood humor during that trip. My side hurt for a month.

If we need to look at other housing options for next year I have a great lead on an apartment on Capitol Hill. Details to follow. All are welcome!!! It wouldn't be the same if we didn't all cram into somewhere again.

Gotta Run!!!

Posted by: Sandy at July 16, 2008 4:31 PM


In all fairness to the Abortionists, until week 5 there is no scientific data to back up OUR beleif that the fetus is infact a lifeform. However, after five weeks the baby develops a stable heatbeat, and until proven otherwise has the constitional rights to LIFE, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

BTW I just resently stumbled across this site, hi all!

Posted by: shawn at July 16, 2008 4:36 PM


There is no difference between a 9-month-old preborn and a 9-month, 2-day-old postborn except location and how she breathes, is hydrated, and is nourished.

Only if the mother is just a nourishment machine.

Here's a difference: A baby is outside of the mother's body, so things can be done to and for that baby that do not physically affect the mother. The baby can be taken to Texas while the mother stays in Canada. The baby can be given special medication without any entering the mother's bloodstream. It is possible to affect the baby as a separate person.

My reasons for being here aren't exactly the same as Amanda's... My reasons for coming here are a little easier to explain: I saw Ms. Stanek's blog linked from another site. She was asking why scientists weren't using iPS more. I came over here because there was a good and clear answer to her question, but I figured that she wouldn't notice it on her own.

Posted by: DRF at July 16, 2008 4:36 PM


..maybe if it's a baby cow, Jess would care....

RSD, I have enough love for a baby cow and a baby person. I could make a little safety seat and have the baby ride the cow. They could be best friends.

Sandy and Carla, I'm not saying it's not a baby. It is! But it's inside your body and therefore you should be able to abort it. If you take a drug to cause your uterus to expel its lining, baby included, then that's you swallowing the pill, your uterus shedding your uterine lining. It's all you!

Posted by: Jess at July 16, 2008 4:45 PM


mk: 2:24: The real question is, what is the difference between Tuesday and Thursday. Either the woman that would abort on Tuesday should also be charged with murder, or this girl that starved her child on Thursday should go free.

To us they are ALL horrendous, but we would think that even the most hardened pro choicer would be able to see the inconsistency here. It's irrational. And it's the law of the land.

Tuesday/Thursday is the best argument against abortion I've heard in a long time!!!

Posted by: Janet at July 16, 2008 5:05 PM


Do you guys really not see the difference between someone who is attached inside of your body and someone who is living on their own outside of you?

Posted by: Jess at July 16, 2008 5:09 PM


No, Jess (5:09:), the baby inside of you is completely dependent on you in the same way your hamsters are dependent on you for nutrients, a warm environment, etc.... You'd never dream of killing them because you got tired of having them around. A fetus is a living being. A fetus is not the same as a cancerous mole, for example, that you want removed from your face because it is ugly, or a decayed tooth that you have pulled because it is hurting you.

Posted by: Janet at July 16, 2008 5:15 PM


Jess,

The issue is not whether or not we see the difference between where the baby is, the issue is whether or not it remains a baby regardless of where it is.

Tuesday/Thursday...Belgium/Spain...outside circumstances might change, but the infant remains the same.

In no other scenario does the location of a human being make it morally right to kill them.

You know that Jess. I know you know that, deep in your heart. You're too smart NOT to know that.

The question is not WHEN is it okay to kill a baby. The question is not WHERE is it okay to kill a baby. The question is not under WHAT circumstances is it justified to kill a baby.

The question is, is it EVER okay to kill a baby.

And of course, the answer is?

No.

Posted by: mk at July 16, 2008 5:19 PM


Jess,

If you take a drug to cause your uterus to expel its lining, baby included, then that's you swallowing the pill, your uterus shedding your uterine lining. It's all you!

Would that it were true Jess. But it's not all you. From the minute you consented to sex, and a baby was created, it ceased being all about "you"...

But that's the issue, isn't it? The abortion generation is incapable of realizing that everything in this world isn't all about "you"...

We share.

Posted by: mk at July 16, 2008 5:22 PM


No, Jess (5:09:), the baby inside of you is completely dependent on you in the same way your hamsters are dependent on you for nutrients, a warm environment, etc....

That's not true, Janet. Jess can give her hamsters to someone else if she gets tired of them. They are not dependent on HER, specifically -- they are just dependent on SOMEONE. Thus hamsters are like babies that have been born, not like babies that are still in the womb.

Posted by: Alexandra at July 16, 2008 5:24 PM


"Thus hamsters are like babies that have been born, not like babies that are still in the womb. "


I would like to point out that it doesnt really matter. If you lived in the middle of no where and couldn't get someone to take care of your hamster, does that give you the right to kill it?

Posted by: shawn at July 16, 2008 5:32 PM


Alexandra,

You can't change nature. It's a bummer, sure. But that is just the way that it is. Babies grow inside their mothers. Period.

If you don't want babies, you don't make them. Killing then is not a viable option. Not making them? Good.

Killing them? Not so good.

What kind of people are we that we can even be discussing this? Seriously.

It's called taking responsibility for ones actions. It's a grown up concept. Something mature adults do.

They suck it up and do the right thing even when, sometimes ESPECIALLY when, it hard. That's what separates the children from the adults.

And I'm not talking about the extremely rare instances where the sex was not consensual. That's a red herring. That's a whole other topic.

We are talking about the 99.9% of pregnancies that occur because the mother made a choice. The choice to engage in the act that makes babies.

It IS all about choice. But for some reason a whole lot of people are unclear on what the choice was. It is not the choice between killing or not killing your offspring. It is the choice between creating or not creating your offspring.

You want contraception? Fine. Promote it. Pass it out on the streets. Put it in the water. Force feed it to the masses. But when it fails, and it does, remember, you CHOSE to use birth control and then have sex. If it results in a baby, you have no one to blame but yourself!

It's sooooo simple. It just is. Really.

Posted by: mk at July 16, 2008 5:35 PM


Sorry. It's really hot here.

Posted by: mk at July 16, 2008 5:37 PM


Alexandra,

"Thus hamsters are like babies that have been born, not like babies that are still in the womb.

No. Babies that are born are EXACTLY like babies in the womb. Which is what I'm trying to say. The baby doesn't change. The baby is the same. The baby is a baby is a baby is a baby. There is no difference in the babies. None.

Their location is different. Yes. But the baby is the same baby...that's why it's wrong.

What kind of logic says that where you are changes who your are or whether or you can be killed?


Posted by: mk at July 16, 2008 5:42 PM


If I get on a flight to Sweden, will I be someone else when I land? England? The moon?

I will still be me. I might be as hot in Sweden, but I will still be me.

Posted by: mk at July 16, 2008 5:44 PM


mk: You want contraception? Fine. Promote it. Pass it out on the streets. Put it in the water. Force feed it to the masses. But when it fails, and it does, remember, you CHOSE to use birth control and then have sex. If it results in a baby, you have no one to blame but yourself!

Sorry. It's really hot here.

You're on fire! No air conditioning for you today! Lol!

Posted by: Janet at July 16, 2008 5:47 PM


What kind of logic says that where you are changes who your are or whether or you can be killed?

What kind of logic says that one person can legally demand the use of another person's body?

No. Babies that are born are EXACTLY like babies in the womb. Which is what I'm trying to say. The baby doesn't change. The baby is the same. The baby is a baby is a baby is a baby. There is no difference in the babies. None.

I do actually agree with this. I think that if a baby can survive outside the womb then there is no reason for an abortion because the mother can terminate the pregnancy without killing it.

Posted by: Alexandra at July 16, 2008 5:57 PM


Alexandra,

What kind of logic says that one person can legally demand the use of another person's body?

The logic lies in the baby being able to say...HEY, YOU CREATED ME! Now deal with it...

Posted by: mk at July 16, 2008 6:05 PM


Jess,

Now you see...the popes not such a bad guy!

Posted by: mk at July 16, 2008 6:24 PM


MK, what about someone who drives drunk and injures another person? Should they be forced to donate organs to the person they injured?

That koala bear is too cute.

Posted by: Alexandra at July 16, 2008 6:27 PM


mk! The koala is trying to claw away from the pope! It looks terrified! And he doesn't even have any koala snacks!

I would have preferred it if he was feeding a little goat some hay. But nice try : )

Posted by: Jess at July 16, 2008 6:47 PM


Welcome Shawn.


Stay tuned for more.

Posted by: carder at July 16, 2008 6:58 PM


Alexandra,

The first thing I have to say is that an organ is not worth the same as a human life.

So taking an organ is not the same as taking a baby.

SoMG has used this, but they aren't comparable.

One is giving something that you have.

One is getting rid of something that you have.

OR

One is taking something that you have.

One is forcing you to keep something that you have.

To be equal, you would need to ask is it right to force a person to TAKE an organ from someone. Or is it right to force someone to GIVE up their baby.

Both of which would be answered, No.

However, having said that, I'm not sure that if a drunk driver was responsible for someone needing an organ to live, and they were a match and it did not cause their death, that it wouldn't be unreasonable to require them to give up that organ.

But again, it's not the same argument.

It would be a fitting punishment tho, wouldn't it?

I mean how many times have we heard the argument agains the death penalty that it won't bring back the loved one...Well, in this scenario, it might!

Posted by: mk at July 16, 2008 7:14 PM


Jess,

And he doesn't even have any koala snacks!

That's because you can't eat an hour before receiving communion...he was just looking out for the little fellas soul...:)

Posted by: mk at July 16, 2008 7:19 PM


In all fairness to the Abortionists, until week 5 there is no scientific data to back up OUR beleif that the fetus is infact a lifeform. However, after five weeks the baby develops a stable heatbeat, and until proven otherwise has the constitional rights to LIFE, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

Hi Shawn. I'm Pro-Choice, but I would say it's a "lifeform" after conception.

You're wrong about the constitutional rights, though. The Constitution doesn't apply to the unborn.

Posted by: Doug at July 16, 2008 7:24 PM


mk, I wasn't equating the baby to the organ, I was equating the use of the woman's body to the organ. Think more in terms of plasma donation than organ donation, maybe.

Posted by: Alexandra at July 16, 2008 7:27 PM


Alexandra: what about someone who drives drunk and injures another person? Should they be forced to donate organs to the person they injured?

If they were going to the koala bear exhibit then they get a pass.

You could ask the same thing about old people that drive when they shouldn't, and young people who drive like maniacs, and all sorts of people who talk on cell phones and don't concentrate on driving.

Posted by: Doug at July 16, 2008 7:28 PM


Like I've said a million times, I'm on the fence. I manage to piss off both sides.

Amanda, I don't think you piss off Pro-Choicers much at all. You're too level-headed.

Posted by: Doug at July 16, 2008 7:33 PM


Alexandra,

I do understand what you are saying. But again, for the analogy to work you would have to force someone to house the organ, not force them to remove it.

Because you wouldn't be "using" their body, you would be removing something from it.

The baby is using the mothers body at the mothers invitation, whether she realizes it or not.

It would be like me donating my blood plasma and after you have it, declaring that I want it back.

The baby is there. No outside force put it there. It's not like you go to sleep and in the middle of the night aliens creep into your room and implant the baby against your will.

You performed an act that led to the childs creation to begin with. This is not the same as randomly requesting someones organ or plasma.

Posted by: mk at July 16, 2008 7:45 PM


Right, MK. It is passive vs. active death. In the organ case, by not removing an organ, you are passively allowing the person to die. You are not taking any willful action to bring about their death.

However, in an abortion, you DIRECTLY and WILLFULLY kill an innocent person AS AN ENDS to a mean. The fetus is killed PRECISELY in order to accomplish a certain goal (not being pregnant or whatever). There is NOTHING else where directly and willfully killing an innocent person as an ends to a mean is justifiable.

So the difference is in ALLOWING a person to die naturally and KILLING a person directly.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 16, 2008 8:13 PM


MK, you wrote: "SoMG has used this, but they aren't comparable."

Any two things are comparable. If you name any two things, I can compare them. I can even compare apples and oranges: apples are crunchier than oranges.

Abortion and withholding transplantable/transfusable organs/blood have commonalities and differences, like any other pair of concepts.

Posted by: SoMG at July 16, 2008 8:34 PM


MK, you wrote: "What kind of logic says that where you are changes who your are or whether or you can be killed? "

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm... The logic of property rights?

You wrote: "It would be like me donating my blood plasma and after you have it, declaring that I want it back."

No. It is more like donating some plasma and then declining to donate more later.

Posted by: SoMG at July 16, 2008 8:39 PM


You want contraception? Fine. Promote it. Pass it out on the streets. Put it in the water.

I know that I am digressing from the subject at hand( I love reading mk's great responses ) but has anyone read or heard about the effect of estrogen on the fish population? Apparently estrogen from the pill is excreted and ends up in the water supply where it is affecting male fish and their ability to reproduce. If no one wants to discuss the physical, psychological,material, emotional, or spiritual impact of artificial contraception on the human person then maybe people will start to care because of its effects in the environment.

Posted by: Eileen at July 16, 2008 9:36 PM


Back to the original story -- why didn't these people just give that baby up for adoption?!!!

Posted by: Eileen at July 16, 2008 9:38 PM


"She tried to breast feed the child twice, she was unsuccesful," District Attorney Tim Gruenke said.... "(She) then decided not to feed the child knowing the result, put the child in a cooler, and put it in the garbage in the spring."

This is what legalized abortion has wrought: babies are a commodity just like anything else; if they are inconvenient before birth or after, they can be disposed of like a piece of garbage.

Mother Teresa of Calcutta said that the fruit of abortion is nuclear war. Do we not see where we are headed? Iran?

Posted by: Eileen at July 16, 2008 10:00 PM


"She tried to breast feed the child twice, she was unsuccesful," District Attorney Tim Gruenke said.... "(She) then decided not to feed the child knowing the result, put the child in a cooler, and put it in the garbage in the spring."

If you look closely at the video, after the DA says these words, it looks like Book says something to the effect of: "That's (so) not true". Maybe someone good at reading lips can verify that! I guess time will tell.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Eileen, I agree. This case is so sad, and not even uncommon anymore.

Posted by: Janet at July 16, 2008 10:47 PM


If you look closely at the video, after the DA says these words, it looks like Book says something to the effect of: "That's (so) not true". Maybe someone good at reading lips can verify that! I guess time will tell.
Posted by: Janet at July 16, 2008 10:47 PM

Janet, It also looked like she was smiling while she was saying it, whatever it was.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 17, 2008 1:31 AM


SoMG,

Yes, of course you can compare any two things, but to make an analogy work the two things you are comparing have to resemble each other. I'm sure there is some big fancy word for what I'm trying to say.

For instance, you can compare an apple and an orange if you're discussing citric fruits. Apples just don't work. If you're talking about the difference in types of shoes, you wouldn't use a banana to illustrate this. You'd use shoes.

Abortion TAKES something.
Organ donation GIVES something.

You can't very well illustrate the act of taking something forcibly from someone by giving an example of forcibly giving something to someone.

As for property rights, possession is 9/10 of the law right? Well, for 9 months, that unborn baby possesses the mothers body...so I guess it is as much the babies body as the mothers...

Not to mention, we did away with the notion of people owning "bodies" a long time ago. Husbands no longer own wives, slave owners no longer own slaves. Human beings are not products...How sad that you think that they are.

You've never really answered my question...

Why, with all of your brains, talent and passion, do you choose to destroy instead of create. Your flippant answer about creating freedom doesn't cut it, as you saw from my response.

Posted by: mk at July 17, 2008 6:42 AM



I knew there was a name for it...

Identity of Relation.

Morality

Analogical reasoning plays a very important part in morality. This may be in part because morality is supposed to be impartial and fair. If it is wrong to do something in a situation A, and situation B is analogous to A in all relevant features, then it is also wrong to perform that action in situation B. Moral particularism accepts analogical moral reasoning, rejecting both deduction and induction, since only the former can do without moral principles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

Posted by: mk at July 17, 2008 6:50 AM


Thanks Doug!

But unfortunately the PBA Ban was going through right when I was active with PP, and when I said "Well, haven't we been the ones emphasizing this is a rare procedure, reserved for extreme situations? Essentially this just makes what WE have been saying all along anyway a law, so I don't really see the big deal."

And I got the "OMGZEZZSERS U AR TAKING TEH CHOISEZ AWAY FROM ALL OF THE WOMENS!!!" response.

I didn't get invited to any of the NARAL/PPNY functions after that.

Posted by: Amanda at July 17, 2008 7:02 AM


I, for one am glad. Amanda. :)

Posted by: Carla at July 17, 2008 7:23 AM


"And I got the "OMGZEZZSERS U AR TAKING TEH CHOISEZ AWAY FROM ALL OF THE WOMENS!!!" response."

Haha, wow...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 17, 2008 8:18 AM


Bobby, I was exaggerating slightly, but not as much as you might think. Maybe just a few less "Z"s

=)

Posted by: Amanda at July 17, 2008 9:55 AM


Put mommy and daddy BOTH in prison where they belong. Maybe it'll send a message.

Posted by: Mike at July 17, 2008 10:45 AM


Pssst....Amanda....are you ignoring me? :)

Posted by: Carla at July 17, 2008 11:39 AM


SoMG,

In answer to your question from another thread (Which query from MK was I referring to?), the query that MK keeps repeating: you've got brains, talent, and are gifted in other areas.

So why abortion?

(And I know I'm paraphrasing).

She's sincere. She's not trying to get you to say something so that she'll pounce on you and and shout "You see? You see?"

MK is very maternal. She would just as soon give you a hug if she met you in person than spit in your eye. And yes, she'll debate her adoptive heart out.

Know that she's seeking an understanding about you. Given that you've really opened up in the last few months, it would be a progresive move on your part.

But of course, if that's not your cup of tea, simply say so and she'll respect that.

Did I just make sense?

Posted by: carder at July 17, 2008 12:07 PM


Another thought, SoMG.

If sharing on an internationally viewed blog would be compromising your private nature, then corresponding with MK via private email could be an alternative.

Or anybody for that matter.

Posted by: carder at July 17, 2008 12:33 PM


Mike, how do you know she's guilty? Were you there?

She did really seem to mouth "That's so not true."

Posted by: Jess at July 17, 2008 4:57 PM


K. C.

"Why Jess we certainly can see! Thank you Jess for your warning to abortionists to keep those sharp instruments/weapons of destruction outside of the body! Yes, as you say..."a big difference between something (like a knife) being outside of you than inside of you! We get it then, that you DO realize just how harmful such things can be "for babies and other living things". You might even say then, as you did, that such things are harmful to mommies too, inside them, and therefore ought to remain outside. Thank you. We too never did think such invasion of the body with such instruments was very safe for either!"

Why do you feel compelled to do this? You know exactly what Jess was trying to (indeed, what she did say). Do you get some kind of perverse pleasure out of trying to annoy and belittle people whom you disagree with? This is a very juvenile and self-serving tactic; it serves absolutely no purpose.

Posted by: A. at July 17, 2008 5:03 PM


A.: 5:03: Really!

Posted by: Janet at July 17, 2008 6:34 PM


truthseeker:1:31: Janet, It also looked like she was smiling while she was saying it, whatever it was.

I watched the video again. You may be right. There was definitely a nervous laugh or smile after she made the statement. It's weird how some people smile at the most inappropriate times. Its a nervous thing, IMO.

Posted by: Janet at July 17, 2008 6:40 PM


Sally, I don't know if the "n" word can be used as a verb, but your comment has nonetheless been deleted.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 17, 2008 9:09 PM


Sally,

I realize that that comment has been deleted, but I gotta say something.

You are so negative, so unbelievably ornery, so out for a fight...

Two posts above the one where I said I wouldn't be as hot in Sweden...I had just apologized for being snippy because it's hot here in Chicago...I said, Sorry, I'm really hot.

Honestly, are you like this in real life? lol

No, your words aren't too big. But your ego might be...

Phooey.

Posted by: mk at July 17, 2008 9:15 PM


I didn't get invited to any of the NARAL/PPNY functions after that.


I'm sure you were allllll broken up about that one Amanda. hehehe.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 17, 2008 11:05 PM


Jess: Well let's see now: She had a baby...and then it MYSTERIOUSLY managed to crawl into a cooler (at only a FEW DAYS OLD, mind you), then the baby was able to magically transport itself from within the cooler into a spring...and die.

Oh yes...this kind of thing happens on a daily basis. Mommy and daddy had nothing to do with it.

Oh wait...I know: Their HAMSTER did it !!!

Warning to all: Newborns can be suicidal. This condition is exacerbated by association with pet rodents.

Posted by: Mike at July 18, 2008 3:19 AM


the PBA Ban was going through right when I was active with PP, and when I said "Well, haven't we been the ones emphasizing this is a rare procedure, reserved for extreme situations? Essentially this just makes what WE have been saying all along anyway a law, so I don't really see the big deal."

And I got the "OMGZEZZSERS U AR TAKING TEH CHOISEZ AWAY FROM ALL OF THE WOMENS!!!" response.

Amanda, I don't know how "rare" you (the collective you) were saying that D & X abortions were, but I do know they had been done as early as 14 weeks - one big variable being the size of the fetal head.

I don't see that PP would have advocated for such a law, since there are situations where the procedure presented less risk for women versus others.

Posted by: Doug at July 18, 2008 2:39 PM