jump to navigation

Fourth trimester abortion September 14, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, disaster, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society.
trackback

A Canadian judge is all down with it – because, we, as a culture, naturally emphathize with a mother who has an ‘unwanted’ pregnancy, and understand why she would strangle her own child:

From the Court of Queen’s Bench (the appellate court) in Alberta:

The Wetaskiwin, Alta., woman convicted of infanticide for killing her newborn son, was given a three-year suspended sentence Friday by an Edmonton Court of Queen’s Bench judge.

Katrina Effert was 19 on April 13, 2005, when she secretly gave birth in her parents’ home, strangled the baby boy with her underwear and threw the body over a fence into a neighbour’s yard…

Effert will have to abide by conditions for the next three years but she won’t spend time behind bars for strangling her newborn son.

Indeed. As Judge Joanne Veit puts it:

“While many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support,” [so, ‘onerous demands’ now justify murder] she writes… “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.” [apparently, this judge ‘grieves’ a little more for the mother than for the dead child, to the extent that she just signaled that murdering your own child after birth will result in little or no legal sanction]

Gotcha. So a superior court judge in a relatively civilized jurisdiction is happy to extend the principles underlying legalized abortion in order to mitigate the killing of a legal person — that’s to say, someone who has managed to make it to the post-fetus stage. How long do those mitigating factors apply? I mean, “onerous demands”-wise, the first month of a newborn’s life is no picnic for the mother. How about six months in? The terrible twos? [There is a growing segment of the pro-abort crowd that seeks to justify ‘post-birth abortion,’ heretofore known the world over as murder.  Essentially, a mother always has an inherent right to murder her own child, according to these people]

Speaking of “onerous demands,” suppose you’re a “mother without support” who’s also got an elderly relative around with an “onerous” chronic condition also making inroads into your time?

And in what sense was Miss Effert a “mother without support”? She lived at home with her parents, who provided her with food and shelter. How smoothly the slick euphemisms — “accept and sympathize . . . onerous demands” — lubricate the slippery slope.

We are becoming so much more and more like the evil disciples of moloch, the horrible child sacrifice religion of the Canannites, Phoenicians, and Carthegenians.  Who wants to be ‘of’ this world, or even in it, frankly?  If I didn’t have to be, I wouldn’t be.

Comments

1. Mary - September 14, 2011

When life is not respected inside the womb, it will not be respected outside the womb either. This is why parents of large families hear comments such as ‘you have too many kids’…
Yes, it will lead to accepting murder at any age (depending on how much money you are worth).

Accepting abortion and the increasing sexualization of the world (reduction in morals) make for a dangerous concoction.

2. Cori Hyland - September 15, 2011

Spirit of Moloch is alive and well.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: