Mother kills full term baby and won't be charged.

[judyd]

Maple, I'll make you a bet. I bet that if one searches the boards, there have been threads abut abortion and how people justify or fail o justify it at different points of development.

Loser has to pleasure me with both hands

Abortion kills life, no matter how anyone wants to paint it, justify it, deny it, in reality it kills the life of an unborn human baby. That's a fact and a human undeniable truth. So the outrage by the left on this thread surprises me and I find it hypocritical with the knowledge of their total support of abortion issues and pro-choice stance.

Some of us on the left do NOT support abortion, wnich you might get if you weren't so busy PRONOUNCING your absolutes. So your "TOTAL SUPPORT" statement is a big fat fucking LIE and you are the liar.

I also think there is a whole lot more to this story than what is in the tiny little news blurb.

What I find much more telling is how many there are that are up in arms over a baby's death, but would volunteer to kill the baby's mother, given a chance. A little bi-polar to say the least!

That is so true. As it is also true that there are quite a few who are otherwise conservative who DO support abortion because they feel the government has no right to interfere with an individual's rights.

 

[jillian]

I'm not sure what this thread has to do with supporting abortion rights.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that someone should be allowed to suffocate a new born.

but don't let that stop y'all.

 

[chanel]

The VA authorities think it's an abortion issue. From the original article:

The Campbell County Sheriff’s Office and Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office worked unsuccessfully to get the law changed after another baby died in the county in a similar case. Emerson says they asked two delegates and one state senator to take the issue up in the General Assembly. He says the three lawmakers refused because they felt the issue was too close to the abortion issue.

Emerson tells us there’s a double standard with the law. If someone other than the mother harms a baby still attached to the mother, that person can be charged.

Update:

State Senator Steve Newman announced today that the Division of Legislative Services has begun drafting legislation to ensure that a life cannot be legally taken after a child is born not withstanding its connection to the umbilical cord.

The bill will amend Section 18.2 of the Code of Virginia which is the criminal code. Newman stated, “It is difficult to believe that the current Code could have such a flaw that would allow anyone to take the life of a born child. While I will not comment at this time on the case in Campbell County, it is abundantly clear that Virginians will demand a legislative cure to this loophole. I have consulted with the Attorney General Elect, Ken Cuccinelli; Campbell County Commonwealth Attorney, Neil Vener; Campbell County Sheriff Terry Gaddy and the investigator in the case, Tracy Emerson. All have indicated their full support for this legislation.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Mother kills newborn, can’t be charged with crime

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Maybe I'm missing something here but this doesn't say the mother deliberately killed the baby. The facts presented above suggest she did nothing after the baby was born. Normal procedure is to clear the baby's airway and wait for the placenta to be expelled. Apparently she didn't have help and may not have known what to do. That may be some kind of manslaughter but it doesn't look like murder to me. Let's not condemn her until we're sure.

You miss the "was under bedding and had been suffocated by her mother" part? Who shoots a baby out of her body and then immediately sticks the kid under a pile of blankets while the umbilical cord is still sticking out of her vagina? That doesn't happen by accident.

It could happen to a confused, frightened or inexperienced woman. You don't know her circumstances so you can't judge here state of mind.

Are you familiar with the concepts of involuntary manslaughter and depraved indifference.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You miss the "was under bedding and had been suffocated by her mother" part? Who shoots a baby out of her body and then immediately sticks the kid under a pile of blankets while the umbilical cord is still sticking out of her vagina? That doesn't happen by accident.

It could happen to a confused, frightened or inexperienced woman. You don't know her circumstances so you can't judge here state of mind.

Are you familiar with the concepts of involuntary manslaughter and depraved indifference.

And negligent homicide.

And having had three children, I can tell you that no one is "confused and frightened" enough to think that putting a pile of blankets on top of a new baby is a good idea instead of, say, calling 911 for help. Hell, my kids could dial 911 before they were even in elementary school, for Christ's sake.

 

[Joe Steel]

You miss the "was under bedding and had been suffocated by her mother" part? Who shoots a baby out of her body and then immediately sticks the kid under a pile of blankets while the umbilical cord is still sticking out of her vagina? That doesn't happen by accident.

It could happen to a confused, frightened or inexperienced woman. You don't know her circumstances so you can't judge here state of mind.

Are you familiar with the concepts of involuntary manslaughter and depraved indifference.

Enough to know neither of them are murder.

 

[Joe Steel]

It could happen to a confused, frightened or inexperienced woman. You don't know her circumstances so you can't judge here state of mind.

Are you familiar with the concepts of involuntary manslaughter and depraved indifference.

And negligent homicide.

And having had three children, I can tell you that no one is "confused and frightened" enough to think that putting a pile of blankets on top of a new baby is a good idea instead of, say, calling 911 for help. Hell, my kids could dial 911 before they were even in elementary school, for Christ's sake.

Nowhere did I read anything about "a pile of blankets." Where did you get that?

 

[Emma]

It didn't say the child's airway was blocked and the child suffocated. It clearly says it was suffocated by the mother,

Now I'm sure you don't read well.

From the article:

Investigators tell WSLS the baby’s airway was still blocked. They say the baby was under bedding and had been suffocated by her mother.

There's nothing about the cause of the suffocation. They don't say how the mother could have suffocated a baby whose airways already were blocked and the don't say the suffocation was deliberate or if they even had any evidence to indicate it was deliberate. A baby under the bed linen could have been suffocated accidentally by an inexperienced, confused or frightened woman who didn't know how to care for a newborn.

The cause of the suffocation would be the lack of clearing of the airway, coupled with the bed linens the baby was under. And again I say, who shoots a baby out and immediately throws a pile of blankets on him with the umbilical cord still sticking out of her vagina?

An autopsy was performed on the baby on Saturday, but the sheriff's office is waiting for a full report from the medical examiner's office.

This law and the findings of the medical examiner will determine whether or not charges will be brought in the case, he said.

It's possible the death was caused by the airway being blocked before the baby was covered. What's strange is that (allegedly) 10 hours after the birth, the placenta had not yet been delivered.

I think Emerson should have kept his damned mouth shut until after the autopsy and investigation determined what really happened.

 

[Joe Steel]

I think Emerson should have kept his damned mouth shut until after the autopsy and investigation determined what really happened.

You are absolutely correct. That poor woman is being accused of the most vile act imaginable without the evidence we'd demand for a traffic violation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It could happen to a confused, frightened or inexperienced woman. You don't know her circumstances so you can't judge here state of mind.

Are you familiar with the concepts of involuntary manslaughter and depraved indifference.

Enough to know neither of them are murder.

Actually, depraved indifference IS murder.

DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER IN THE CONTEXT OF DWI HOMICIDES IN NEW YORK. -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Just as an example.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you familiar with the concepts of involuntary manslaughter and depraved indifference.

And negligent homicide.

And having had three children, I can tell you that no one is "confused and frightened" enough to think that putting a pile of blankets on top of a new baby is a good idea instead of, say, calling 911 for help. Hell, my kids could dial 911 before they were even in elementary school, for Christ's sake.

Nowhere did I read anything about "a pile of blankets." Where did you get that?

"They say the baby was under bedding and had been suffocated by her mother."

You don't write "under bedding" if she just threw a sheet over the body. You would write "under a sheet" in that case. "Under bedding" implies more than one item of bedclothes, such as the sheets and blankets normally found on a made bed.

And by the way, how about the phrase "had been suffocated by her mother"? That sounds like they're seeing something more deliberate than just "Ohmigod, I had a baby and she's dead. Let's throw a sheet over the body." And let's not forget that after putting bedding on the baby while she suffocated from her blocked airway and the fabric on her, the "mother" then wandered off somewhere for . . . what was it? 11 hours? . . . without bothering to tell anyone about the dead baby.

 

[Joe Steel]

Are you familiar with the concepts of involuntary manslaughter and depraved indifference.

Enough to know neither of them are murder.

Actually, depraved indifference IS murder.

DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER IN THE CONTEXT OF DWI HOMICIDES IN NEW YORK. -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Just as an example.

Here's another:

The crime differs from intentional murder in that it results not from a specific, conscious intent to cause death, but from an indifference to or disregard of the risks attending defendant’s conduct." 60 NY2d at 274

My point was the woman's intent. We've been presented no evidence of her intent to cause the baby's death. Nor have we been presented any evidence of any willful act which would indicate a wanton disregard for the baby's welfare. So far, all we've seen is a young, inexperienced woman facing one of the most momentous occasions of her life alone in the middle of the night.

 

[Joe Steel]

Nowhere did I read anything about "a pile of blankets." Where did you get that?

"They say the baby was under bedding and had been suffocated by her mother."

You don't write "under bedding" if she just threw a sheet over the body. You would write "under a sheet" in that case. "Under bedding" implies more than one item of bedclothes, such as the sheets and blankets normally found on a made bed.

And by the way, how about the phrase "had been suffocated by her mother"? That sounds like they're seeing something more deliberate than just "Ohmigod, I had a baby and she's dead. Let's throw a sheet over the body." And let's not forget that after putting bedding on the baby while she suffocated from her blocked airway and the fabric on her, the "mother" then wandered off somewhere for . . . what was it? 11 hours? . . . without bothering to tell anyone about the dead baby.

That all sounds like cop talk; enough to satisfy the press but not enough to reveal any important details. Both a single sheet and a pile of blankets are bedding. "Suffocated by (the) mother" could mean either accidentally or intentionally. Without a comprehensive description of the evidence, you're speculating.