The baby was found after a neighbour had heard what he thought was a meowing cat trapped in the drains and decided to alert firefighters....That's in Spain. You remember a recent story of a baby rescued from a drain in China.
There must be many babies in drains that are not discovered.
पोस्ट्स
७० टिप्पण्या:
Hey, the mom didn't want to be a mom. She just couldnt afford an abortion.
It's not like the right to have an abortion can be saved and exercised as infanticide.
Babies are periodically found in trash bins in Chicago. I bet we do not find them all.
Depressing thought, Althouse, but probably true.
Most big cities have been hearing this story for 40 years.
Well, good for the neighbor.
Ann Althouse said...
It's not like the right to have an abortion can be saved and exercised as infanticide.
Tiller and Gosnell disagree.
There must be many babies in drains that are not discovered.
Horrors all too imaginable are happening all the time. Part of maintaining sanity is growing a hide. Or you could go the route of Simone Weil who starved herself in sympathy with the malnourished Free French soldiers and died. Your call.
If the umbilical cord was found on the baby, it's still the mothers property, because the umbliical cord is part of her. As such she should still get to decide on infanticide.
Lets not judge her too harshly. Besides, if its in a drain it can't feed itself. Therefore it can't live on its own. Therefore, kill it.
Free Birth control would have solved this problem. If only she had access to planned parenthood.
I don't understand the phenomenon at all. I'm certain there was a place where she could have given up the baby without any consequences and he/she would have been cared for by a grateful loving family. There are certainly venues like that here in the US. Why have a partial-birth abortion? Go the extra two minutes, give the baby up, and live as you would if you terminated the pregnancy? What would Planned Parenthood think about raising that possibility with women on the verge of late term abortions? The answer should tell you something about the moral bankruptcy of that organization.
There must be many babies in drains that are not discovered.
Sigh
The Drop Box - Movie Trailer
In December 2009, a Korean pastor named Lee Jong-rak built a wooden "drop box" on the outer wall of his home. But the box wasn't intended for clothing, food, or school supplies, it was meant to collect unwanted babies.
This is a reprehensible action. I am sure making abortion illegal and calling women murderers will make it happen less often. It will also make a good campaign commercial.
Depressing thought, Althouse...
Cat Saves Baby would have been a little brighter I think.
From FAQ: Yes, you can keep your secret and keep your baby safe. The Illinois law says that as long as you don't harm your baby, you can hand your newborn (30 days old or younger) to personnel at any hospital, police station or staffed fire station in Illinois for adoption with no questions asked.
http://www.saveabandonedbabies.org/resources/illinois-safe-haven-law/
This is a reprehensible action. I am sure making abortion illegal and calling women murderers will make it happen less often.
This is a reprehensible action. I am sure making rape illegal and calling men rapists will make it happen less often.
It's not like the right to have an abortion can be saved and exercised as infanticide.
Maybe, if the authorities took a harsh stance against infanticide, and did their utmost to distinguish abortion from infanticide.
Can we say that, though?
I often wondered why Justice Kennedy failed to argue in Carhart that once a baby crosses the cervix, she's a citizen, and a person, and it's murder to kill her.
Clearly he's upset by the infanticide he's describing. He's struggling to explain why this abortion is not protected by Casey.
Why not simply enforce the born/unborn distinction of Roe? That's a case about killing an unborn baby, a "fetus." This is a case about killing a newborn outside the birth canal.
Isn't that a rather obvious distinction between the two cases? And doesn't the births described in the Carhart opinions upset Americans like no other? We can't even rely upon our "fetus" bigotry anymore.
So draw a bright-line test! Define it as murder to kill a baby outside the birth canal.
Yet none of them do that. Not even Mr. Bright Line Test himself, Justice Scalia. It's almost like they are unfamiliar with this concept we call infanticide.
Plus to do so would apparently require the outlawing of the D&E as well as the D&X. (Since the D&E also pulls out part of the baby outside the cervix).
One might reply, good! After all, the D&E is quite dangerous to women. Why not rely upon the born/unborn distinction, strike down these (self-described!) "appalling" procedures, and explain why they're appalling--you're murdering a baby outside the birth canal.
And yet they don't do that. The baby's outside the birth canal, and still her humanity is denied.
The clear implications is that perhaps born infants may be killed. (See the work of Dr. Gosnell, who obviously wasn't worried about what he was doing--and was quite shocked when he was arrested for it).
Or, to frame this question a slightly different way...
Why did abortion doctors feel that it was okay to induce labor, deliver the baby, and kill her outside the birth canal?
Did the practice of abortion so desensitize them to the possibility of infanticide, that they saw nothing wrong with the procedure at all?
To most of us, it's obvious that you don't kill a baby outside the birth canal. Yet these doctors assumed they could. Didn't abortion lead to that assumption?
And no abortion tag?!! Do you think this discussion is off-point?
Why can't you reserve your right to abortion? Why does a baby at 28 weeks inside the womb have less moral standing than the 28 week baby in the incubator?
There's really no logical reason why it's OK to kill one and not the other.
Yet a man who dismembers in utero babies is a hero of the left, and one who chopped up the baby in the incubator is an inhuman monster.
How does this even make sense?
Also-- if women have a right to control their bodies, why can't I sell my extra kidney to the highest bidder? It's mine!
It shouldn't bother any of you pro abortion types.
Worse things happen in abortion clinics everyday.
Gosnell is just the tip of the ice berg.
Don't be a hypocrite. Reap what you have sown.
Gahrie said...
This is a reprehensible action. I am sure making abortion illegal and calling women murderers will make it happen less often.
This is a reprehensible action. I am sure making rape illegal and calling men rapists will make it happen less often.
6/23/13, 4:31 PM
Your equivalence between abortion and rape is sure to win voters to your cause and reduce the number of abortions.
There is surely a little corner of Hell for people who are capable of putting a living infant in a sewer drain or a garbage can.
Does that sound judgemental? If there isn't agreement about that being an evil thing then we are over as a decent society.
Baron Zemo said...
It shouldn't bother any of you pro abortion types.
Worse things happen in abortion clinics everyday.
Gosnell is just the tip of the ice berg.
Don't be a hypocrite. Reap what you have sown.
6/23/13, 4:56 PM
Exactly. The state will make all decisions for you and if you disagree with Baron you are an evil person. Please vote for us.
There is no agreement over what is evil in our society. We are too fractured for that to happen. What once held sway as traditional values is under attack and no longer important to more than 50% of the public. At best they offer lip service to these values.
The center did not hold.
Your equivalence between abortion and rape is sure to win voters to your cause and reduce the number of abortions.
If it saves one life, it must be done.
Exactly. Vote for partial birth abortions and you are an evil person.
Paging Barack Obama.
Wyo sis--- except, the culture of contraception and abortion has so malformed these women that they think that people are only human if they're WANTED.
Which is why contraception ->abortion ->euthanasia. Why should anyone be forced to be responsible for someone they don't WANT?
I wonder if this will backfire on liberals at some point. The answer to "It's for the children" may well be "I didn't choose to let those children enter the world, so why should they impinge upon my right to create my own meaning for my existence?"
wyo sis said...
There is surely a little corner of Hell for people who are capable of putting a living infant in a sewer drain or a garbage can.
Does that sound judgemental? If there isn't agreement about that being an evil thing then we are over as a decent society.
6/23/13, 5:02 PM
You are right. There is no redeeming value having a person like this continue to be in society.
Problem with you people is you to straight from something like this to calling all women who have even early term abortions murderers. You have retards among you who blame this type of activity on abortion being legal and equivocating all abortions to rape.
Consider again the Carhart opinions.
Justice Breyer describes the pro-life position like this:
Millions of Americans believe that life begins at conception and consequently that an abortion is akin to causing the death of an innocent child
Do you see the problem? He's saying, it's like infanticide but it's not infanticide. That's what he's saying the pro-life position is.
He's mischaracterizing what his opponents are saying. He can't even acknowledge that he is being accused of infanticide.
It's like saying your opponents are upset about a Hollywood movie that is akin to infanticide. Oh, it's so graphic and upsetting! Thank goodness it's not really infanticide and we don't have to worry about what people are saying about us.
I believe that is why nobody on the Supreme Court argued in Carhart that a born infant is a person entitled to the equal protection of the laws. To make that argument--which would have finished this "slippery slope" argument once and for all--would implicate all those abortions that had already happened. Those maybe-homicides are now homicides and it's one big "oops."
Gahrie said...
Your equivalence between abortion and rape is sure to win voters to your cause and reduce the number of abortions.
If it saves one life, it must be done.
6/23/13, 5:04 PM
Crayons for the retard:
You are a minority.
When you say things like this you drive away people who might agree with you on other issues.
This leads to more democrats being elected.
Democrats now not only make it legal but force us to pay for abortions.
Most people don't want the government involved in early pregnancy decisions.
Calling people, who are more numerous than you, evil moral degenerates does not win elections.
Calling people, who are more numerous than you, evil moral degenerates does not win elections.
Even if they are "evil moral degenerates"?
What is the point of winning an election if you don't stand for anything?
Republicans will never win by being Democrat-lite, because the Democrats will always out Democrat them.
You have retards among you who blame this type of activity on abortion being legal and equivocating all abortions to rape.
If you are talking about me, I consider abortion to be homocide. The "rape" thing was a rhetorical device.
There must be many babies in drains that are not discovered.
We must have Drain Free Zones.
Drain Safety Lock.
Drain Waiting Periods.
Take the Drains off the Streets.
You are either in the solution or you are part of the problem.
Lem-- Hey, if it saves one baby, it's worth it! Unless the baby has not yet completely exited the birth canal, in which case she's just S.O.L.
Babies are a hassle, but sex is amazing.
What is a human supposed to do with that dichotomy?
Chelsea Clinton laments they didn't have drains when her great-grandmother got pregnant.
Perhaps we should mandate bigger drains, so that when your teenager throws a kegger while you're out of town you can exercise your parental rights.
Some things are more important than winning elections.
Some things are right or wrong.
You can make all the excuses you want. You can tell all the lies you want. You can hide what you believe to try to get elected.
And you don't get elected anyway because our society has changed for the worse. And it is not getting any better.
Paging Mitt Romney.
The day will come where the government will require abortions if you have more than the mandated number of children. Just like China.
We have already slid down the slippery slope when the President of the United States had voted to allow a baby to die after it was born in a botched abortion and most of the country thinks it is no big deal.
It is only going to get worse.
Achilles said:
"You have retards among you who blame this type of activity on abortion being legal and equivocating all abortions to rape."
Equivocate does not mean what you think it means.
Calling right to lifers retards is not persuasive but does indicate that you probably are not capable of persuading via rational and informed argumentation.
Is a baby that different one minute before birth compared to one minute after birth? We know that babies are human one second after birth. Maybe you could run the timeline backwards and explain when and why babies not yet born become not human?
You object to the term "baby killing" but never have explained why. Abortion is the killing of a baby not yet born so why shouldn't it be called baby killing? No pregnant mom calls her baby a fetus and nobody talks to a pregnant mom about her fetus, that baby is called a baby until somebody wants to kill it, then it is called a fetus.
You keep talking about how objecting to baby killing is not good for winning elections but right to lifers are not going to trade getting extra votes for the lives of babies, they are doing the right thing even though it costs them elections.
Why is the convenience of the "mom" more important than the life of the baby?
Oh and the first people that Achilles would abort would be the retards. Then the handicapped. The sick. The halt. The lame. Then it will be by sex. Maybe even by sexual orientation. Just to have the proper degree of "diversity" that would be mandated by government bureaucrats and academics from Ivy League universities who know what is best.
Soylent Green is people.
"It's not like the right to have an abortion can be saved and exercised as infanticide.
Tiller and Gosnell disagree."
Chelsea Clinton probably disagrees too.
"n December 2009, a Korean pastor named Lee Jong-rak built a wooden "drop box" on the outer wall of his home. But the box wasn't intended for clothing, food, or school supplies, it was meant to collect unwanted babies."
In Dubrovnic, there is a monastery with a rotating window box arrangement so mothers could leave babies for the monks and they could not see her. It's in an alley about halfway to the cathedral.
Calling people, who are more numerous than you, evil moral degenerates does not win elections.
That does seem to be the playbook for the dems and it works pretty well for them. I'd only replace the word "moral degenerates degenerate" with "racist fascists".
Steve Koch wrote:
Why is the convenience of the "mom" more important than the life of the baby?
Probalby because women can vote, and fetuses can't (YET). Same way when it was slaveowners and slaves, the convenience of the slavowner was more important than the life of the slave, beause the slave was only 3/5ths human.
Isn't infanticide legal in Holland?
What if this baby were found in a pipe in Holland?
I wonder what noted biothecist Peter Singer would say about this case:
[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life.[25]
Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which compares the preferences of a woman against the preferences of the fetus. In his view a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a woman's preferences to have an abortion; therefore, abortion is morally permissible.
Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[26]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."
Set that woman free! Even if she did kill her baby, its never equivalent to killing a person, that is a person who wants to go on living. Why is she being arrested? If the baby didn't want to stay on the pipe, he would have gotten up.
Europe does have stricter abortion laws than we do. In America, this baby would never have survived to be rescued... clearly the more enlightened outcome, since an early death spares pain and suffering, as the NYT tells us.
Since life is full of suffering, the only humane course is to abort ALL the babies.
Now let's be careful, gents. Do not draw too many conclusions. Sure, whatever mother did this is a terribly sad case, tragic, and we need to understand what drove her to it and how, as a society, we have horribly failed her, driven her to this extreme call for help.
But that doesn't apply to you. If any of you fathers wrap a two-day old baby in plastic and stuff it into a drain, the jury is going to send you to the lethal-injection gurney after about 90 seconds deliberation, and nobody is going to spend two seconds trying to understand you -- you're obviously an inhuman monster who needs to be purged from the species as fast as possible.
Carl wrote:
"But that doesn't apply to you. If any of you fathers wrap a two-day old baby in plastic and stuff it into a drain, the jury is going to send you to the lethal-injection gurney after about 90 seconds deliberation, and nobody is going to spend two seconds trying to understand you -- you're obviously an inhuman monster who needs to be purged from the species as fast as possible."
Not so fast. And here me out. Supposing the mother wants to get rid of the baby, but is too tired after the pregnancy so tells the father to do it. Since, according to Althouse's reading of the Supreme Court, or perhaps her own impresion, the woman's view on life determines whether we should view it as alive or not alive, then the husband should get a get out of jail free card. So long as the mother says she didn't want the baby.
But if the mother did want the baby, that means it was alive, and thereore the guy should fry.
Us guys have to remember that life is a subjective decision based solely on the fact that a woman has a uterus. And lets not forget it.
"But that doesn't apply to you. If any of you fathers wrap a two-day old baby in plastic and stuff it into a drain, the jury is going to send you to the lethal-injection gurney after about 90 seconds deliberation, and nobody is going to spend two seconds trying to understand you"
The baby doesn't even have to have been born. If you murder the mother while she is pregnant and the baby dies, you will be charged with murder of both the mother and the child.
Just ask Scott Petersen.
Suppose instead of murdering the mother you just kicked her until she miscarried, or hit her with a bat in her stomach. You'd be charged with assault and .... murder?
Well, that would depend on whether she wanted the kid I suppose. Suppose for example, she wanted an abortion, and you told her you would pay for it, but instead decided (because, say you spent all your money on chrystal meth and were tapped out) to give her an impromptu abortion on the car ride over to the clinic with a few well placed punches ot the stomach.
Under the law, you shouldn't look at a murder charge, I suppose, since the mother said she wanted an abortion anyway. Right?
I don't know why pediatricians bother giving mothers advice on what to do or not do for the baby growing inside them, since we can't really establish that it's not healthy to smoke with a kid inside you until the woman decides to keep the kid. Because if she doesn't then what is growing inside of her, a living thing? Hardly. So she can smoke away, take some crack, shoot heroin. It's all good.
Same way when it was slaveowners and slaves, the convenience of the slavowner was more important than the life of the slave, beause the slave was only 3/5ths human.
The sole purpose of the 3/5 clause was to weaken the power of pro-slavery politicians. It had absolutely nothing to do with the value of the slave's life.
Chelsea Clinton laments they didn't have drains when her great-grandmother got pregnant.
oh shit!
"How does this even make sense?"
It doesn't make sense, of course. It's irrational. People who are heavily invested in irrational beliefs didn't get there by thinking. They're running on faith alone, and are as blind to logic and hostile toward heresy as any other religious zealot. Worse than many, since they're never encouraged by our society to really question and reflect on their beliefs.
"Also-- if women have a right to control their bodies, why can't I sell my extra kidney to the highest bidder? It's mine!"
Stop making sense.
"How does this even make sense?"
It doesn't make sense, of course. It's irrational. People who are heavily invested in irrational beliefs didn't get there by thinking. They're running on faith alone, and are as blind to logic and hostile toward heresy as any other religious zealot. Worse than many, since they're never encouraged by our society to really question and reflect on their beliefs.
"Also-- if women have a right to control their bodies, why can't I sell my extra kidney to the highest bidder? It's mine!"
Stop making sense.
Lem,
Our drain-baby system is broken and must be fixed immediately
Drains in other countries are better than ours.
We're just looking for sensible drain-baby solutions.
Not doing anything is not an option.
America has 20% of the drainage-baby potential but 80% of the world's drains, this imbalance in untenable.
Alternative drains are energy efficient and Earth-friendly and economic in the long run, considering the social advantages, a very good return on investment
You will be able to keep your original drains and your current drain-baby drop offs. 12 million people currently without drains will now have proper drains.
We have to find a proper balance between drainage efficiency and drain-baby drop offs. So far there is nothing but resistance from Republicans.
I think the real problem is to let a baby clog the drains.
In the United States, the unfortunate surviving thing of a botched mommy's choice will expire slowly in the trash can. As long as the drains are not clogged...
The way out of the theoretical fly bottle is the same.
The baby is no different when it comes out than before.
Society's attitude is different. Society treats the baby as a person. It takes a protective interest owing to cuteness and wiring.
The baby then grows into what he's treated as.
That's the change in the baby. It's social and slow.
That's the change in society's attitude. It's bright-line and quick.
You can make a law around that line and it's understood.
Just don't make up fictions about personhood's nonsocial reality.
These women, and men, should be treated as equals to other criminals of this class. They are committing a crime against the individual, society, and humanity. They are committing a human rights violation when they choose abortion or abandonment of a human life they conceived.
These women, and men, should be offered two choices. One, accept responsibility for your actions, and care for the human life you conceived. Two, delegate your responsibilities (i.e. adoption), but accept that the woman will be spayed, and the man neutered.
They have each demonstrated an incapacity for self-moderating, responsible behavior. They should be treated as criminals in their class, as any other criminals. They should undergo reform suitable to their transgression.
Baa, baa, black sheep,
Have you any wool?
Yes, sir, yes, sir,
Three bags full;
One for the master,
And one for the dame,
And one for the little boy
Who lives down the drain.
Drains are an improvement over outhouses.
I think.......
Why did she abandon her baby?
She did not want to be a mother. She did not want the hassle, the aggravation, the responsibility. She did not want to give up her dream to be an actress, or an astronaut, or whatever.
The baby got in her way. And so the baby had to disappear.
So even though she did this in Spain, which does not implicate the Supreme Court or Roe v. Wade at all, we can still see similarities.
Note the mindset. The mindset is the same, the ideology is the same. "I do not want to be a mother. I reject motherhood. And I reject adoption. Adoption is not the answer. I have no feeling for the baby. And I don't want to be blamed, or get any shit any about it. And I want to do this in private. It's my choice."
"And I'm leaving the baby in a sewer because the baby is waste, medical waste, that came out of my body."
Body disposal is always a problem. That's one of the things they talk about in Rear Window. How do you get rid of a body?
Here is Justice Rehnquist, who is up to his ass in aborted babies. He's got 16,000 aborted babies, and he doesn't know what to do. He doesn't mention Roe v. Wade. Of course not! What does Roe v. Wade have to do with dead bodies?
It's not like the right to have an abortion can be saved and exercised as infanticide.
But isn't that what liberals say about Griswold? Don't they say that we did birth control, and now we must do abortion? Don't they lump the two together under "family planning"?
We have a right to birth control. Some people can't work the birth control. So now we have a right to abortion.
Now we have a right to abortion. Some people can't work the abortion. Don't we need a right to abandon a baby to die?
Are you really going to force this woman to take care of this baby she created?
And what about the father? Apparently he's walked away. Why can't she walk away? It's her body. It's her choice.
Spains fairly communist, so this is totally okay.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा