betsy Posted May 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 No, I didn't delete them...when I quote you, only your own words are left in the quote box. This is not my fault, I assure you. And have you never noticed this function before? And no, you did not cite anyone who said that the reason they supported a woman's right to choose was to oppose abortion. They are opposed to those of the religious right who oppose abortion...because they oppose abortion. Not because they're religious. Nothing you posted disputes that pretty obvious and uncontroversial truth. You are wallowing in a conspiracy theory undergirded by that victim complex that Kimmy has so astutely written about. Oh yeah sorry, that does happen when replying. Anyway, the rebuttal is that article I gave you! I highlighted (boldened) the key words! That's why I said, "in this case, it's abortion." And take note that I said militant secularists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 Betsy is back? Well this should be interesting .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted May 21, 2012 Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 Oh yeah sorry, that does happen when replying. Anyway, the rebuttal is that article I gave you! I highlighted (boldened) the key words! That's why I said, "in this case, it's abortion." And take note that I said militant secularists. Yes, I read the quotes you offered, and nowhere does it suggest that the reason for their critiques is because people are of the religiosu Right. It's that they disagree with the religious Right on its behaviour and opinions, in this case, about abortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 Betsy is back? Well this should be interesting .... Miss me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 In this case, baby-killing. Baby killing in this country is punishable by law, 1st degree, 25 yrs and no possibility of total freedom for life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 (edited) Baby killing in this country is punishable by law, 1st degree, 25 yrs and no possibility of total freedom for life. Infanticide conviction nets Alberta woman suspended sentence 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. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/09/09/edmonton-effert-infanticide-suspended-sentence.html Edited May 22, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 "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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 NO CROSS-POSTINGCross posting is defined as posting the same information in more then one forum on the Internet. It is also considered cross posting if you post the same information in different areas of these forums. If you want to propose a new topic, find the appropriate category and only post once. All cross-posts will be deleted without warning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/09/09/edmonton-effert-infanticide-suspended-sentence.html No doubt you have some sort of point or rebuttal? Do you know the difference between 2nd Degree murder, 1st degree murder and infanticide? Your reply suggests you do not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) This article was posted first on this thread. If the information such as the article provided here is crucial to the point that I am trying to make on the other topic, I would think that it is allowed, especially if the excerpt posted is short (only the pertinent details were given). It would be one thing if it was being posted again for frivolous reasons. Btw, I've been away for quite sometime so I'm not aware of any changes here. The last time I was here Michael Hardner is the moderator, and I think he still is. Are you now a moderator too? Edited May 23, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) No doubt you have some sort of point or rebuttal? Do you know the difference between 2nd Degree murder, 1st degree murder and infanticide? Your reply suggests you do not. Now that you ask, I'm not quite so sure I know the difference between 2nd degree murder, 1st degree murder and infanticide. Can you explain the difference(s) please. Edited May 23, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Now that you ask, I'm not quite so sure I know the difference between 2nd degree murder, 1st degree murder and infanticide. Didnt stop you from using the wrong terms though. Can you explain the difference(s) please. Yup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(Canadian_law) Now you can go back and edit the incorrect usage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) In Canada, criminally blameworthy homicide is either murder, manslaughter or infanticide. Homicide that does not fit into one of these categories is not a crime. Infanticide occurs when a female person causes the death of her newly born child when her mind is disturbed as a result of the effects of giving birth. The maximum sentence for infanticide is five years in jail. There is no minimum sentence. http://www.davidgbayliss.com/murder-manslaughter-infanticide.html Thank you guyser for that. I've always thought infanticide is killing/murder of a baby (infant). Murder occurs when The person who causes the death of a human being means to cause his death, or means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death and is reckless whether death ensues or not; A person meant to cause the death of a human being or cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that person (see transferred intent); or A person, for an unlawful objective, does anything he knows is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his objective without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.[5] Edited May 24, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Do you know the difference between 2nd Degree murder, 1st degree murder and infanticide? Your reply suggests you do not. The definition of infanticide is the killing of an infant; legal definitions vary. The U.S., for example, doesn't have "infanticide laws" that "often reduce the penalty for mothers who kill their children up to one year of age, based on the principle that a woman who commits infanticide does so because 'the balance of her mind is disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child.'" link The U.S. recognizes an insanity plea, of course, but the assumption that a mother who kills her baby does so because she is "disturbed in the mind due to giving birth" is not the legal outlook. I have to wonder why the law would assume that any mother who kills her baby is somehow not responsible while fathers who kill their babies are cold blooded murderers. The "disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from giving birth" sounds rather archaic to me and rather disturbing in that it basically gives mothers a 'get-out-of-jail free card' if they choose to kill their baby. The source I linked to speaks of studies that show income level and unemployment are factors in the statistics of mothers killing their babies, which would hardly affect their "recovery from the effect of giving birth." I disagree with a law that assumes every mother who kills her child did so due to being disturbed by the act of giving birth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.