July 30, 2010

"She doesn't have to carry this on her conscience any more, and that's a kind of relief."

It wears on you over the years, this use of infanticide as your method of contraception.

45 comments:

Chase said...

So . . . really, what's the difference between the killing of a newborn child and the killing of a viable child still in the womb?


Let's start there.

prairie wind said...

Some people are just evil. It's too easy to say she was sick. I'd like to know more about why charges against the husband were dropped.

I wonder how many woman have had as many abortions...

c3 said...

I feel her pain

c3 said...

Since the issue has been raised here's a nice chart of abortion law throughout the world

Scott M said...

Her husband, Pierre-Marie Cottrez, had initially faced investigation for allegedly concealing the bodies and not reporting crimes, but he has been freed without charge.

I'm quite positive I don't understand the Byzantine differences between French and US law, but how the hell does the husband go free on this? Sure, she might be nutso, but what are the odds that both of them are?

edutcher said...

Post-partial-birth abortion.

I'll bet John Kerry and all the National Socialists are for it before they heard about it.

PS Interesting no one has ever done studies on the psychological effects of multiple abortions on women. Could it be they're detrimental to one's well-being? Then again, what about long-term physical effects?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

So . . . really, what's the difference between the killing of a newborn child and the killing of a viable child still in the womb?


It's like real estate. Location, Location, Location.

traditionalguy said...

Let's not be cruel commenters here. The lady did carry to term and deliver her babies. So she was a better mother than the usual abortion procuring Mommies. She let her children see light and breath air for a short time before the Death Panel of one ruled against their lives as an inconvenience.

Marshal said...

Doesn't her action show that she's fully socialized into the far left's abortion position?

When defending defending abortion a fetus is "just a clump of cells". But we also have laws which make it a crime and call for greater penalties for physical harm resulting in a miscarriage even during the period when the mother can still elect an abortion. The reconciliation between these positions is that a fetus becomes a baby whenever the mother wants it to.

This woman believes just that.

Skyler said...

Oh, the poor woman, I'm so glad she no longer carries such a burden.

Who comes up with that type of sentiment?

Birth control, especially in France, is cheap and readily available. There is no excuse for what she did.

In fact, even in our country, with birth control so readily available, the Supreme Court's refusal to weigh the rights of the child against the rights of the mother is no longer appropriate.

Between the right of "privacy" of the mother and the right of the child to live, who should give way? The innocent child or the mother who was too stupid to use birth control?

There is no excuse for what this woman did. They should pull the guillotine out and put it back into service for her.

lemondog said...

....he believed that prosecutors may have been "a bit quick" to say she was fully aware of what she had done.

If she was not aware, or "fully aware" then why the bothered conscience?

... she was fully aware of her pregnancies, but that she had not wanted any more children and did not want to see a doctor for contraception.

By not taking positive action to prevent unwanted pregnancies, what did she think the final outcome would be?

Was adoption ever considered?

Statute of limitations on murder... oops, I'm sorry....on voluntary whatever?

garage mahal said...


I'll bet John Kerry and all the National Socialists are for it before they heard about it.


It's just impulse isn't it? You just can't help yourself.

Scott M said...

I'll bet John Kerry and all the National Socialists are for it before they heard about it.

garage said: It's just impulse isn't it? You just can't help yourself.

GM, That's like the pot calling the kettle racist, lol

bagoh20 said...

Thanks C3. great link

jeff said...

"He said that Mrs Cottrez might not face charges over five or six of the deaths because of the statute of limitations."

huh. what is the statute of limitations for killing 5 or 6 babies?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Always pregnant

Never a mother

bagoh20 said...

"So . . . really, what's the difference between the killing of a newborn child and the killing of a viable child still in the womb?"

The unfairness is in the pro-life position at the beginning of the pregnancy, and in the pro-choice at the end. This why I'm pro-choice in the first trimester and pro-life in the third.

Scott M said...

The unfairness is in the pro-life position at the beginning of the pregnancy, and in the pro-choice at the end. This why I'm pro-choice in the first trimester and pro-life in the third.

In a free society, with this djinni already out of the bottle, I'm convinced that this is best we will ever hope to achieve. I don't like the prospects of a complete ban because of the realities of what it would take to get there (this one issue doesn't exist in a vacuum, you know). That's doubly true for the reverse,though.

The sci-fi geek in me says this whole argument will go the way of the dodo anyway, as viability reaches day 1.

Will said...

"Contraception?" The condom and the pill are contraceptives, in that they're used to prevent conception. Abortion and infanticide both take place long after conception, and are therefore not contraception.

This is a horrible, evil story. I hope she stays in prison until the end of her natural life.

sydney said...

She has to be mentally unstable. Who on earth would go through the agony of childbirth for a child unwanted so many times in a country with legal abortion on demand? Unless she denied each pregnancy to herself until the living proof was before her. Mentally unstable.

rocketeer67 said...

Maybe she could get hired at Wikileaks. Seems like she has a kind of self-centeredness and cool detachment from moral considerations that would be a good cultural fit in that organization.

The Crack Emcee said...

Scott M,

"I'm quite positive I don't understand the Byzantine differences between French and US law, but how the hell does the husband go free on this? Sure, she might be nutso, but what are the odds that both of them are?"

Dude, you don't know the half: I was reading this whopper and thinking of the parallels to my own story - prepare yourselves for a mind warp if you read it: like the one sane guy in the whole thing, I was almost driven crazy, too (I've already written to this anti-cult lawyer, this morning, hoping he'll take my case.).

Being the historical home of the Left, the French will find almost any excuse to let someone go - even in a triple murder. The mind (mine anyway) reels.

blake said...

KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY!

Or something.

DADvocate said...

No real difference between what she did and partial birth abortion.

Does this make her a serial killer or mass murderer? Seems it would.

The article said she may not be charged in all deaths because of the statute of limitations. A statute of limitations on murder? I guess sneaky, evil people can get away with murder. In France.

jr565 said...

blake wrote:
KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY!

Or something.

Who is saying this the mother or the baby?

(Well babies cant talk yet, but if they could...)

blake said...

jr5--

I'm pretty sure the baby would be pro-laws.

traditionalguy said...

As her lawyer I would say that she tries using a "self defense" justification. How big were these brutes anyway? If this poor woman was faced with 8 to 10 pound males abusively shouting at her to feed them, that trauma could have forced a weak female into self defense moves like legal choke holds. She was the victim here.

Saint Croix said...

The Prom Mom got three years. She was younger and cuter, though.

Methadras said...

Isn't it nice that such a heavy burden of guilt can be removed from ones shoulders after murdering 8 of your newborn children for no other reason than you didn't want them? I didn't realize that in France, sociopathy was a road to absolution.

The Crack Emcee said...

Tg,

"As her lawyer I would say that she tries using a 'self defense' justification. How big were these brutes anyway? If this poor woman was faced with 8 to 10 pound males abusively shouting at her to feed them, that trauma could have forced a weak female into self defense moves like legal choke holds. She was the victim here."

[Head slap] It's so obvious:

They came out, started crying - verbal abuse.

Let her go.

Methadras said...

Oh by the way, is Peter Singer going to be donating to her defense fund?

Scott M said...

Oh by the way, is Peter Singer going to be donating to her defense fund?

That's unclear. However, PETA can be counted on not to take an official stance on it as this woman has not official stance on PETA.

The Crack Emcee said...

Methadras,

"I didn't realize that in France, sociopathy was a road to absolution."

Man, it's already been proven that my ex and her homeopath killed three people (he's lost his medical practice) and not only are they still free, but I still get emails from people defending them, saying he was great because he was such a good listener.

I've been all over the world - including Third World countries - and I've never seen anyplace as screwy as France.

knox said...

Her first delivery had been "difficult because of her large body weight and for that reason she did not want to see a doctor".

So, she didn't want to have her annual exams in order to get simple birth control pills because... she was embarrassed about her weight? Is that what we're given to understand?

Kurt said...

This reminds me of some tribe (though I don't remember which one) I learned about in a college anthropology class where infants weren't thought to be people until they had been named. Mothers in that tribe routinely practiced infanticide with newborns whom they didn't feel able or prepared to care for. The professor offered the relativist defense of the practice on the grounds that while our culture couldn't decide whether or not a fetus in the womb was a person or not, this tribe had decided that a baby wasn't a human until its naming ceremony.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

How is this (murdering her babies) no longer on her conscience?

Confession of a crime doesn't make it go away.

In addition, how in the world can they not hold her husband accountable as well? Does he have the IQ of a turnip or something?

Gabriel Hanna said...

Infanticide was once very common and still is in places where there aren't better methods of birth control--women in hunter-gatherer societies can carry one baby and still forage, but the other child needs to be able to keep up, and if two babies come too close together that's just too bad.

That's how it was, everywhere, for tens of thousands of years.

Isolated islands in the Pacific can only support so many people; infanticide was their solution.

In ancient Rome a baby wasn't part of the family until his father picked him up. If the father rejected him, the baby was left in the street, to die or be enslaved. In China they had the baby bucket, for drowning unwanted girls...

That's how it was, everywhere, for tens of thousands of years.

In modern France, it is absolutely inexcusable. There's contraception; failing that there is adoption; failing that there are places where you can abandon a child with no consequences to you and the child will be taken care of.

This woman is a serial murderer and should be treated as such.

c3 said...

Mr. Hanna;
nfanticide was once very common and still is in places where there aren't better methods of birth control--women in hunter-gatherer societies can carry one baby and still forage, but the other child needs to be able to keep up, and if two babies come too close together that's just too bad.

That's how it was, everywhere, for tens of thousands of years....
In modern France, it is absolutely inexcusable.


Are moral standards relative? Are things that were wrong 500 years ago now ok?

The Crack Emcee said...

Knox,

"She was embarrassed about her weight? Is that what we're given to understand?"

No, you're reading it wrong. As we Americans are told, constantly, French women have neither weight problems or body issues.

DBQ,

"How in the world can they not hold her husband accountable as well? Does he have the IQ of a turnip or something?"

How dare you? All French people have the IQ of turnips.

Gabriel Hanna,

In modern France, it is absolutely inexcusable."

Dude, there is no such thing as modern France.

Fen said...

The unfairness is in the pro-life position at the beginning of the pregnancy, and in the pro-choice at the end. This why I'm pro-choice in the first trimester and pro-life in the third.

Me too. But what about the middle trimester? Should we err on the side of caution if were are not sure?

ken in sc said...

Only fathers should have post-partum abortion rights. When the clump of tissue shows that it is defective, by for example not doing its homework or refusing to take out the trash, the father can take it to a Planned Parenthood clinic and have it aborted. It's only fair.

PatCA said...

I feel as sorry for her as I do for Major Hasan, who can't get a bank to (sniff, sniff) give him an account for his continuing paycheck.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@c3:

Are moral standards relative? Are things that were wrong 500 years ago now ok?

It's wrong to eat people, correct? And if morality isn't realtive, then it's wrong to eat people even if they are dead and you are starving. It's wrong to steal, and morality is not relative, but you would steal to feed your children if there were no other way.

Infanticide in ancient times was like that. It was still wrong, if you think morality never changes, but people were still going to do it because they had few other choices if they wanted to survive.

What I said was "inexcusable" in modern France; by contrast in ancient times it was excusable, like cannibalism in extremis. Never said morality was relative and I really don't think it is.

@Crack Emcee:

Homeopathy and other such pseudoscience makes my blood boil, especially when practiced at taxpayer expanse, as in France and (since Obamacare) in the US as well, thank you very much Barack Obama and Orrin Hatch.

My wife is Chinese and we sometimes quarrel about traditional Chinese medicine--she accuses me of humiliating her culture when I say it's nonsense.

Methadras said...

Gabriel Hanna said...

My wife is Chinese and we sometimes quarrel about traditional Chinese medicine--she accuses me of humiliating her culture when I say it's nonsense.


I'm sure your wife is a lovely woman, but her culture is mostly bullshit. Whoever in ancient Chinese culture conceptualized the concept of Chi should have been beated to a bloody pulp and told never to bring up such foolishness again. Chinese culture and society has never been the same since then.

The Crack Emcee said...

It used to be forbidden in Chinese culture to desecrate the body, so a lot of what they knew was merely from observation after an earthquake or other catastrophe destroyed someone. Guesswork, basically.

That's how they got chi, and meridians, etc. from.

BTW, Gabriel, you can tell your wife traditional chinese medicine is even on the wane in China, now that they know better.