You got a tag for that, mister?
Alright.
Now, apparently, killing your newborn is acceptable behavior in Alberta.
Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Justice Veit last week gave a women a suspended sentence for strangling her newborn child, and then throwing it over a fence into her neighbor's yard.
But, God forbid, you spank your child. THEN you get to go to jail.
Seriously.
You would suffer a greater penalty if you threw a beer can in your neighbor's yard.
If I understand the Judge's reasoning, basically, if we allow women to abort their children, what's the difference if they strangle the child after it's born and just throw it away like the morning garbage.
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," she writes.
I should be outraged.
I should be shocked.
But I'm not.
And while I continue to be pro-choice on the abortion issue, clearly, it's time for government to pass laws creating some admittedly arbitrary distinction as to when you can abort a fetus and when you can't.
I'm good with drawing a line at the second trimester.
And pro-choice advocates will say "oh, it's the start of banning abortions", and hard line social conservatives will say, "it's condoning murder".
And in response, I say, obviously leaving to the discretion of the judiciary is a massive mistake, and NOT creating some line, clearly, at least in one Judge's mind, is itself condoning murder.
Take note Stephen Harper.
Use your majority for something worth while.
Stop worrying about mandatory minimum sentences for someone selling drugs - and have the cajones to take a difficult tack and do what all the gutless Prime Ministers in the last few decades have refused to do - draw the line to protect a child (not a fetus) from being murdered.
Or - at a minimum, create a mandatory minimum for women murdering their babies.
Having ovaries should not be a license to kill.
4 comments:
"And pro-choice advocates will say "oh, it's the start of banning abortions", and hard line social conservatives will say, "it's condoning murder"."
This judge as just condoned murder literally. Even pro-choicers admit the fetus becomes human after taking breath outside the body. But don't expect the Harper party to have the cajones to do anything about it.
Maybe the idiot judge should read this
Ga. high court upholds life sentence against vegan couple in death of their malnourished baby
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-court-upholds-conviction-sentence-against-vegan-couple-144819095.html
Here is what is written down in the Criminal Code of Canada concerning infanticide:
Infanticide
233. A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful 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. R.S., c. C-34, s. 216.
Punishment for infanticide
237. Every female person who commits infanticide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. R.S., c. C-34, s. 220.
From the reports I have read on this case it sounds like the judge accepted the defence that the accused was just a poor, weak woman, too feeble minded to understand what she did was criminal.
And this is what "social justice" is all about.
Special consideration for some, and blatant discrimination against others.
Just like the old days in the old south. They’ve become “that” what they once despised the most.
The Libtards have total control of our bureaucracies, the media, our universities and our legal system so just say goodbye to "equal justice" because such old fashioned ways do not advance their political interests.
Post a Comment