Daily Archives: 01/14/2013

Dead Baby Jokes: Roe’s Logical Next Step

Remember dead baby jokes? Well, unfortunately, this is no joke.

Q: What’s more disgusting than a dead baby?

A: The mom that kills the baby and the judge and the “law” that lets her walk.

That’s right, no joke. This really happened. According to CBC news:

The Wetaskiwin, Alberta., 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.

In her ruling, the “honourable” (now that is a joke!) Joanne B. Veit stated:

The fact that Canada has no abortion laws reflects that 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, if the “onerous demands” of child rearing are too much to handle, move to Canada where the legal system has apparently provided an opt-out by legalizing post-fetal, 4th-trimester abortion. Yes, that’s right! You too can rid yourself of that unwanted pregnancy even after your pregnancy is over!

4th Trimester? AHAAnd why stop at the 4th-trimester?! I hear the terrible-twos provide quite the “onerous demands.” And what about the “onerous demands” of a special needs child? Not to mention those onerously demanding teenagers! Furthermore, what about the “mother without support” that also has to take care of an elderly relatives with an incurable illness? Surely the “onerous demands” of these situations justify and legitimize a post-fetal abortion.

Veit also stated: “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.”

That may seem absurd, but Judge Veit’s statement actually lines up with Canadian laws on infanticide. According to the Criminal Code of Canada a woman who kills her child can claim mental illness and be charged with “infanticide” which has a maximum sentence of five years. Infanticide is defined as:

A female person commits infanticide when by a willful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed.

Two previous juries had found Effert guilty of murder in the 2nd degree, but an appeals court reduced the conviction to infanticide and Judge Veit suspended the suspension.

This two-and-two-make-five kind of logic is actually quite consistent with the current thinking among pro-abortion baby killers. In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer argued that babies “are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons” (emphasis mine). That is exactly what “Roe” said in 1973 regarding the unborn baby, they are not persons. Singer is just following the logic of Roe v. Wade to its ultimate end. Singer went on to say that “the life of a newborn is of less value that they life of a pig, or a dog, or a chimpanzee.” And if you think Peter Singer is someone of little consequence, think again. He currently holds an honored chair inethics at Princeton University. No joke!

Singer is not alone in his position. Michael Tooley and Jeffery Reiman, also “ethical” philosophers, have stated similar positions. Tooley posits that human infants do not qualify for personhood status and Reiman believes that infants do not “possess in their own right a property that makes it wrong to kill them.”

Many of your run-of-the-(baby killing)-mill pro-aborts believe that a baby in the womb is nothing more than a parasite that is draining the life from the mother…er…host, which is a direct infringement upon the host’s “right to life.” Extending that reasoning out to its logical conclusion and a new born baby also infringes upon that “right.” They will also argue that an unborn child cannot live outside of the womb and is therefore not a viable human being. Based on that most toddlers are fair game for abortion.

What’s quite funny about all of this is that Effert will spend some time behind bars. Up to 16 days for throwing the body of the dead baby over the a fence into a neighbor’s yard. That’s right, the neglectful treatment of the body of the dead baby is a more serious crime than is the actually killing of said baby.

Are you laughing? Yeah…me neither.