The Shotgun Blog
« Does the elephant in the room have to step on them to get noticed? | Main | Vindication! »
Friday, October 27, 2006
About that unborn child
The Vancouver Sun's page-one story today, on the shocking murder of a pregnant school teacher, is headlined with the following question, "Who murdered Manjit and her unborn child?"
An interesting choice of words, because the Sun has long contended on its editorial pages that an "unborn child" is not a person and, therefore, cannot be murdered.
Perhaps the editors can ask staff philosopher Peter McKnight to explain their thinking on this one.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on October 27, 2006 in Media | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834f575be69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference About that unborn child:
Comments
It's hypocrisy pure and simple. However I've noticed that when a story spins towards the feminist anti child agenda it scoffs at babies and calls them fetuses or embryos, not babies.
But when it's a family values story, it's a baby. And this murder is of course a murder, of both mother and child. Everyone can see it, because this was a so called "wanted" baby, a child that was eagerly awaited by it's family.
Just wish that they'd see that it's still a child, a human being, an unborn PERSON when it's an unplanned pregnancy. Not even an unwanted baby because even if it's unwanted by the birth mother, and inconveniant, it's still wanted by many infertile couples desperate to adopt.
Murder is murder.
Posted by: Canadian freedoms fan | 2006-10-27 11:35:07 AM
I agree that the hypocisy in this case is so blatant. One question keeps coming into my mind. When will our laws in Canada begin to reflect the reality of the humanity of unborn children?
This case is also one more murder case to add to the growing list of women and their children being killed with only one charge being laid. The attempt last year in Parliament allow murderers to be charged with two crimes in situations like this was deemed to be too hot of a political hot potatoe.
Refusal to draft and pass some protection for pregnant women and their children gives murderers a free ride. I am certain we only hear a small portion of the crimes committed against women because they are "with child". The ones we hear about are evidence enough of the need for a law.
As our law stands today, unborn Canadian children's only protection is their degree of wantedness by their mother. These murder cases show that even that protection is illusory.
Posted by: John | 2006-10-27 12:07:34 PM
and as for who did it, her husbands brother was convicted of stalking a former gf a few months back and had just moved out of his brother's home.
I'm sure his alibi is being checked into in the strongest possible way.
Too bad that when whoever did it comes before a judge that he can't be charged with both murders.
John A is right, we need better laws to protect people's rights to life and better ways to deal with those who show a repeated tendency towards violence.
It is no compassion for criminals when we treat them lightly and allow them out to do it again.
If this stalker brother in law turns out to be the killer, we might want to ask why stalking is treated so lightly?
People who treat human life lightly, need to be dealt with in such a way that they are unable to commit further crimes.
Posted by: Canadian freedoms fan | 2006-10-27 12:18:38 PM
It appears the term ‘unaborn child' was used by a female police spokesman and repeated in the headline.
This is a sanctity of human life issue, of course.
It's only ‘wrong' because it has not been proven a woman is the murderer ... which would be OK, since women are in control of their own bodies, according to our feminist friends.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-27 12:36:04 PM
I wrote a column about this topic in August in 24 Hours when it became clear that we weren't going to see legislation dealing with the murder of unborn children, despite a private members bill and pressure from grandmothers whose grandchildren had died.
Here is a link if you are interested: www.erinairton.com - August 10th, it is no longer on the 24 Hours site.
You will not be surprised to know the feedback I recieved alluded to my archaeic and evil anti-choice chance.
Yep, it's true - and I'm proud of it!
Posted by: ErinAirton | 2006-10-27 3:25:03 PM
On a note related to this whole interesting story about media hypocrisy.....I'd be interested to know how many millions of children in our society have been killed by their so-called mothers? Does anyone know? More than that, I'd be interested to know how many boys have been killed by their feminist mothers simply because they were male? I guess you could call that "affirmative action" in the abortion sense.
Does anyone have an idea or an idea of where I could look?
Posted by: bk | 2006-10-27 4:14:05 PM
Most babies who are aborted for gender reasons are girls, not boys. Hence the skewed birth stats in India, China and some communities in North America.
Posted by: ErinAirton | 2006-10-27 4:45:22 PM
Yes, Erin is correct about the skewed birth stats. My former colleague, Andrea Mrozek, wrote about the phenomenon in this magazine. Here's a link to her groundbreaking story: http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?page=article&article_id=1727
Posted by: Terry O'Neill | 2006-10-27 5:04:21 PM
I have always found the debate on abortion to be particularly insincere....yes,even moreso than health care!
Personally,I believe woman are killing thousands of human lives every year in this country alone.However,the only alternative to this is to force women to complete their pregnancies.I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to live in THAT country.
The rabid anti-abortionists never seem to clearly make this point.Do we confine and even physically restrain these women for 9 months?...NO?...Then,if eliminating abortion on demand is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve in a free society,why do we even attempt to debate it.
As for the press,I think we all see that spin and political correctness trump accuracy and honesty daily.Marketshare is king...if a little sensationalism or heartstring pulling helps to that end....all's fair..
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2006-10-28 9:46:14 AM
Observer:
So, it's fine to kill a human being as long as you're a woman?
That's pretty sexist. As a man, I would like to be on equal footing, being allowed to kill those who I find inconvenient.
Hang on. I can already do that as a jihadist.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-28 10:12:59 AM
So CO if I understand you correctly you prefer to live in a country which favours the taking of life rather then curb society's self indulgence.
Posted by: Frico | 2006-10-28 10:16:27 AM
Observer:
What part of ‘if you have unprotected sex, there's a chance you could get pregnant' do certain females not understand?
Act, consequences. Act, consequences.
It's the natural way. All a person has to do is look around themselves. Even happens in the animal kingdom. Yet there's no Yankin' Hank Morentaler among butterflies.
What do you mean by the word rabid and why not frame it in a more positive way ... like pro-life?
It is about the sanctity of human life, after all. Nobody could be against the sanctity of human life, can they?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-28 10:19:20 AM
Syf
You remind me of the scene in'Life of Brian'where Idle's character,as a man,wanted to be pregnant.His political peers pointed out that he was physically unable to bear chidren.Cleese's character sks"Where is the fetus going to gestate?You going to keep it in a box?...Anyways,the group declares that,even as a man unable to be pregnant,he still has the right to have the right to have babies.
The point being,only a woman can get pregnant.When a woman is determined to have an abortion,what measures are you prepared to take to prevent her?....That is where the collision of differing morals occurs.
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2006-10-28 10:41:31 AM
Observer:
Even though I enjoy Monty Python, I understand the difference between parody and would not take those skits as morality plays.
I would take no measures to prevent her, since people have to make all manner of decisions daily.
I think Ralph Klein had it bang-on when he said the decision is between a woman, her doctor and God.
It's not the business of the state, for sure.
And, many women who have aborted have stated they have been haunted by that decision for the rest of their lives.
Of course, those would be the women who have a sense of morality (an ability to distinguish the difference between right and wrong) and understand human potential.
The conscience kicks in when a woman later gives birth and understands the aborted child was also a gift.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-28 10:52:40 AM
Syf
If you would take the time to read my posts again you would see we are actually on the same page.
I have stated clearly I think abortion is a form of murder...I just cannot fathom what can be done to stop it in our current society.Sure,we could do a lot more to reduce it,but how do you eliminate it? You cannot!
That is the dishonesty I hear from most anti-abortion groups.They want to make abortion illegal.They don't explain what happens right after that...
BTW,I consider the term'pro-life'to be drenched in political correctness and to be intellectually dishonest,inferring others to be'anti-life'.
Anti-abortion may not sound pretty,however it is accurate to their goals.
I don't know how to tell you this,but by your own words you are technically pro-abortion.I understand though that,like most of us,you don't have to like it one damn bit.
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2006-10-28 11:31:32 AM
To see what abortion does to the unborn child in today's society go to: http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/
http://www.AbortionNo.org
Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2006-10-28 12:52:39 PM
Observer:
I would define myself as pro-choice.
And, I choose the sanctity of life.
It's really unnecessary to get hung up on semantics.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-28 1:30:06 PM
karol:
That's the issue women have to wrestle with.
And, since feminists say women are smarter than men, I'll let them deal with the moral issues.
Since women have a tendency to communicate more than men, I'm sure there are some around who could relay their experiences if it is sought out by a younger female.
When my wife was younger, she gave up a child for adoption rather than aborting it.
She wonders how the boy is doing and commemerates his birthday every year.
As I have written before, it's a decision that the woman must carries forever, so it's important she chooses, since the memory of the event is much harder to dispose of than the child living within her.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-10-28 2:34:46 PM
bk- check out the lifesite website.
CO and SYF-
The truth about abortion, is that the decision to abort is not uninfluenced by society's willigness to support it. Why do we? My secret conviction is that its because it serves men.
A woman faced with an unwanted/unanticipated pregnancy, is immediately beset upon by her 'loved ones' who hoping to spare her, and themselves, feel free to support the most devastating decision of her life. They are not without ulterior motives themselves, and they are supported by BIG PR. She bears the ultimate responsibility , as it is 'her choice'. I have great sympathy for the women who have made this 'choice'.
Pro-life as a term is much less hypocritical than pro-choice. Pro-life speaks to the 'culture of life' that believes in the actual SANCTITY of life at all stages. Pro- choice is definitely a 'politically correct' term used to sucker support for the murdering of babies. There is no moral justification for accepting these murders. One would have to be of the 'do what you want so long as it doesn't involve me' genre , in order to be able to sit on the fence on this issue.
Ask yourself who benefits from the abortion. Is it really mostly the woman?
Who is hurt by the abortion? Is it really only the woman ? (her body- her choice claim)
Posted by: lwestin | 2006-10-28 8:02:32 PM
I agree with all above who state it is murder. But how to turn things back?
In the US, we have had a certain number since Roe v. Wade. I could post the actual number. I could also state that it is more than the number killed in the Nazi death camps - currently by a factor of 7.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-10-28 9:34:14 PM
Read the article below from World Net Daily. SG.
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52635
Sunday, October 29, 2006
MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
Charges expected in baby's death at abortion business
Deputy police chief confirms decision should be announced in weeks
Posted: October 29, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
A lead investigator into reports that a baby was born alive at a Hialeah, Fla., abortion business, then killed, has told WND he believes charges will be filed in the case, and that announcement could come as early as a mid-November.
"My goal is to see that charges are filed," said Hialeah Deputy Chief Mark Overton yesterday. "The evidence reflects that this was a homicide. We're moving forward with that mindset. I believe our evidence has indicated (and) I think we have probable cause to bring charges."
The investigation was launched in July after investigators, on a tip, went to the "A Gynecologists Diagnostic Center" abortion business and discovered the remains of a baby in a red biohazard bag.
(Story continues below)
A search warrant issued in support of that case noted that the tipster provided the name of the little girl's mother, who had intended to have an abortion, and police officers met with her.
"The complainant advised on Thursday, 20 July 2006, at approximately 9:30 a.m. she arrived at the clinic for a pre-scheduled abortion. At approximately 2:30 p.m. the Complainant gave birth in the recovery room of the clinic. The complainant observed the baby moving and gasping for air for approximately five (5) minutes.
"The staff began screaming that the baby was alive; at which time. Ms. Belkis Gonzales cut the umbilical cord, threw it into a red bag with black printing. Ms. Gonzales then swept the baby, with her hands, into the same red bag along with the gauze used during the procedure," the search warrant said.
Overton told WND that the police department is awaiting confirmation of its plans from the local state's attorney's office.
"They're waiting for all the medical examiner's reports officially to be typed, and also an opinion from a neonatal specialist," he said. "We'll be getting together and meeting. I hope that we'll be filing some type of charges, unlawful killing charges."
He said the state of Florida has a law defining a live birth, and he's already contacted the local federal prosecutor about potential federal charges under the Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000 should the state not follow through.
"We've already put things in motion," he told WND. He said he expects the next step to be taken by authorities by mid-November.
Authorities earlier had confirmed to WND that the baby was born alive, but part of the investigation focused on whether the infant was at 22, 23 or 24 weeks, which involves the girl's viability, or ability to live outside the womb.
At the time the body was found, a lawyer for the owner of the abortion business partly owned by Gonzalez issued a statement that no crime was committed, and an 18-year-old had had an abortion without complications.
"My clients run an abortion clinic. It's a legal business," Regina DeMoraes-Millan told television station WFOR-TV in Miami-Fort Lauderdale at the time. "Right now police are just investigating a 9-1-1 call."
A spokeswoman for Operation Rescue, a pro-life activist organization, said the charges apparently could be second-degree murder. Abortion business co-owners Gonzalez and Siomara Senises both were working in the clinic when the 18-year-old arrived for the abortion, according to spokeswoman Cheryl Sullenger.
Affidavits used to obtain the search warrant reported that an anonymous caller on July 22 reported the baby's live birth, and death. However, a search of the clinic that day revealed nothing.
The documents indicate another witness told police that a "doctor" had drowned the baby before disposing of the body.
Then on July 28, another anonymous call came in, with the informant telling police the baby's body had been in the red plastic biohazard bag – along with the caustic chemical chloride – on the roof of the clinic "for the expressed purpose of causing the accelerated decomposition of the body in an apparent attempt to destroy evidence."
That anonymous call also told police the body had been retrieved and was then inside the clinic. Officers who arrived with a search warrant found the remains.
Sullenger said the medical reports in the case will be key, since in Florida it is illegal to do abortions in clinics after 24 weeks.
Assistant State Attorney Kathleen Hoague has told reporters that she also is focusing on medical reports, because at 22 weeks, "you're talking about a fetus that could be aborted legally."
But Operation Rescue chief Troy Newman noted that in the end, the baby's age doesn't matter.
"If she was born alive, as the mother and the police informant say she was, then that baby deserved every protection under the law that any other person has, regardless of her age," he said.
Newman was getting impatient. "I don't understand why there would be any equivocation in this case. If a litter of puppies had been tossed in a bag and thrown up on a roof to die, no one would rest until the perpetrators were brought to justice," he said.
The clinic is question remains closed, however many of the same principals are operating another abortion business several miles away, officials said.
At the time the body was found, a spokeswoman for Florida Right to Life told WND that babies' bodies in an abortion clinic are just "business as usual" for the industry.
Spokeswoman Linda Bell said there are very few protections for the mother, and essentially none for the unborn children, as a "result of legalized abortion in our nation."
Hialeah investigator Det. Tony Rodriquez expressed immediate concern about the situation, too.
"In 24 years in law enforcement, I have never seen a case like this," he had told reporters.
Related offers:
SUPREME FRAUD: Unmasking Roe v. Wade, America's most outrageous judicial decision
How your tax dollars target unborn: Kelly Hollowell uncovers twisted science in 'Struggling for Life'
NOTE: When shopping in WND's online store you have the option of paying with either a credit card or a check.
If you wish to order by phone, call our toll-free order line at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous stories:
'Aborted' baby born alive, authorities say
Abortionists investigated for possible baby murder
10 million females illegally aborted in India
Operation Rescue buys abortion clinic
Indian tribe challenges abortion law with clinic
Bob Unruh is a news editor for WorldNetDaily.com.
Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2006-10-29 10:38:56 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.