Murder or not? Apparently several home-made abortions

[sampsonblk]

"OCEAN CITY (AP/WBOC) - Ocean City police say they have found the infant remains at the home of a mother who was charged last week with the murder of a small baby.

Police say they found a garbage bag hidden within a trunk in Christy Freeman's bedroom. According to police, inside the garbage bag were three smaller plastic bags; two contained infant human remains, and the other contained what investigators believe to be a placenta."

"...the investigation began Thursday when social workers called police from the local hospital to report that Christy Freeman, 37, had been pregnant but couldn't account for the whereabouts of her child."

"Police say they're not sure if any of the newly discovered babies were full-term or carried by Freeman. They have used the state's "viable fetus" law to charge Freeman with murder in the death of the infant who was found inside the blanket."


From AP: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/07/police-find-bod.html
Local: http://www.wmdt.com/wires/displaystory.asp?id=64190736
Local: http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=6858002&nav=MXEFM7m7

[Donnachaidh]

1. Dunno -- but I'll bet mental illness played a part n/t

[azurnoir]

2. There is one importanat piece of information missing

how pregnant was she? The standard for most states is 24 weeks, before that it is an abortion whether spontaneous or not after, a miscarriage or possible murder or manslaughter. Why is this missing? Do the "authorities" not know or is it to stir up the probirthers to the max before saying oops and how to "prove" it was intentional, could be she has no insurance.

[Az]

6. I can't help but think its deliberate

I mean they want the story to catch fire. And lack of information like that is sure to spark interest and interest is exactly what they are in the business of peddling.

[azurnoir]

10. There was a similar case a few years back

in Minnesota or Wisconsin where a number of fetuses were found in a home, when all was said and done it turned out that the man was a fundie nutcase and the woman had miscarried all of them (they had other children) the man made the women keep the fetuses as "punishment" for being a "bad" mother, after all a "good" mother would not miscarry.

[DemBones DemBones]

16. She delivered the placenta at the hospital

so they've got that as well as the newly dead baby found in her bathroom, IIRC, to determine the age of the baby and the cause of death.

[iverglas]

20. actually, that's not the piece of information missing

how pregnant was she?

Nope. It's: was the fetus delivered alive?

if it wasn't, it was a human fetus, not a human being. And homicide is the act of killing a human being and nothing else.

The standard for most states is 24 weeks, before that it is an abortion whether spontaneous or not after, a miscarriage or possible murder or manslaughter.

Some states in the U.S. -- I actually don't think it's most -- have varying types of "fetal homicide" laws.

The laws either provide for punishment as if the destruction of a fetus were homicide or define fetal destruction as homicide for the purposes of the particular law.

Both approaches are clearly unconstitutional, under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Bill of Rights.

- a doctor who performs an abortion that is legal under state laws is exempt from the provisions;
- a woman who causes the destruction of her own fetus is exempt from the provisions;
- an individual convicted under those laws is being punished for doing something s/he did not do: commit homicide.

The fact that such laws have been approved by courts in the U.S. really says nothing about their constitutionality, let alone their complete incoherency.

[Tulum_Moon]

24. Yes, it was all done for probirthers.

:sarcasm: It hasn't even been 24 hours. There are four dead babies, I'm sure that is the last thing on anyones mind. It come into play during her trial if she has one.

[murbley40]

45. The local paper said.....

26weeks

[azurnoir]

49. And stillborn

but have they released this women, not as of last night could not find article linked from AP's site not there today. But it said they were looking to prove she caused the stillbirth and that the other remains were less than 20 weeks, but they are still looking to charge her with something, anything.

[PinkTiger]

3. How do they know

This woman didn't just spontaneously miscarry these fetuses?
Why do they just assume she aborted the pregnancies?
And maybe she doesn't trust doctors, or maybe she has no health insurance and can't afford to go to the doctor everytime she miscarries. HUH? What about that?

Anyone think of that?

Why do they always assume you did something to make it happen?

[Warpy]

4. Because she's female, of course

and you know we women can't possibly be trusted for anything.

The most recent one can be autopsied to find out if it ever took a breath.

Otherwise, I'd err on the side of stillbirths or spontaneous abortion.

In any case, this woman needs help she's not going to get in prison.

[PinkTiger]

5. Don't be so sure.

A few years ago a 16-year-old girl was tried and found guilty for murder of her baby. This is what happened:

The girl and her brother, both mentally deficient with low IQs (not sure of the politically suave way to put this, but they were mildly retarded with 60-70 IQ) disposed of the baby after it was born in the back seat of the car while coming back from town with their parents. Apparently the girl, who was pregnant and didn't know it, was rather large. She gave birth in her pants and when she got inthe house, she went to the bathroom and saw the baby, who wasn't breathing. She told the brother, who said he would get rid of it.
A few days later, the family found the baby in the yard; apparently one of the dogs had dug the baby up from a shallow grave and was eating on it. I'm not sure how the police got involved, but someone called them.

The prosecutor brought everyone into custody, questioned them, and got a confession. The brother was given immunity to testify against the sister, who pleaded not guilty but was convicted of manslaughter.

She was retarded. How did she get pregnant? The prosecution said either the brother or the father was responsible. This crime, however, was never prosecuted.

What a travesty. She did 2 years in an Arkansas prison.

[SoCalDem]

15. I'd wonder who the "fathers" were.

and why this woman did not use birth control..

that said, she probably does have some mental health issues going on..

and didn't anyone in her family notice her belly expanding..and then no baby?

[sampsonblk]

13. Easy.

If someone shows up at your house and discovers a missing person's body in a bag, then they are going to suspect foul play.

[Ilsa]

37. Yeah, I bet she went horseback riding and drank herbal tea! (snark) nt

[gollygee]

7. How can they prove the babies weren't stillborn?

Four times? I am curious about what's happening at home as well.

[Midlodemocrat]

9. Or miscarriages to a women without health insurance.

If the babies weren't full term, I don't see how they can charge her with murder. :shrug:

[LostinVA]

12. Yeah, that's what I was thinking

Saying "infant remains" means, to me, that they found remains that were from a human being noticeably past newborn. But, I'm betting that isn't actually the case.

[Prophet 451]

17. There are ways

This would require autopsies but there are ways of determining whether they were stillborn or not. For example, if they had taken a breath, the lungs would show that.

[gollygee]

26. Lots of newborns, particularly preemies, die naturally after taking a breath too

still wouldn't prove murder.

[Blue Diadem]

18. There's a way they can check the lungs to see if the babies have

taken a breath. A stillborn apparently wouldn't have the same lung expansion as a live birth.

[gollygee]

27. See #26. thanks. (nt)

[stirlingsliver]

8. Not Murder. Only Human Beings Can Be Murdered.

It is definitely NOT murder.

Only human beings can be murdered.

Human beings come into existence when they are born.

If the remains are fetal remains, then there was NO murder.

Period.

[sampsonblk]

14. Wow...

[sandnsea]

22. Depends on the state

Some states have laws against murdering fetuses. I don't know all the particulars of every law. I tend to agree with you, up to the point of real viability, 8 months or so. But I know a lot of laws have been changed and I wouldn't be surprised if one of them were used to prosecute. This will be a very interesting case to watch.

[cynatnite]

11. If they were living at time of birth this mother will be prosecuted...

only autopsies can determine that.

[sandnsea]

21. so

If they outlaw abortions, but a woman gets one from an illegal source, you support prosecuting the woman??

[cynatnite]

23. I don't believe any woman should be prosecuted for a self-induced abortion...

the way the law works is that if an autopsy determines an infant is alive at the time of birth and dies afterwards, they will prosecute. The key word is alive. Someone posted on another thread in regards to this that an infant is determined to be alive at birth when the lungs inflate. That is the law's criteria.

Either way, I find this whole story disturbing.

[sandnsea]

25. I see your point

You're saying older infants, correct? I actually don't know enough yet to decide whether it's sad or disturbing. If they're early stage miscarriages and she just buried the remains, then it's sad she didn't get medical care. If it's self-induced or late term and this is what she did, then it's disturbing. I'm waiting for more info at this point.

[cynatnite]

28. My understanding is that if at birth the lungs inflate...

that it is considered alive.

It's both sad and disturbing no matter which, IMO. And yeah, more info is needed. It sure would help to clarify what happened and what exactly was going on in that house.

[iverglas]

29. just for information

I've never run across a similar provision in a U.S. state's legislation, but this is what the Criminal Code of Canada says ... in its own archaic language (not one of your often used laws):

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec223.html
(my emphasis)

Criminal Code
PART VIII: OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION
Homicide

When child becomes human being

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;
(b) it has an independent circulation; or
(c) the navel string is severed.

Killing child

(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.

Subsection (1) is a "deeming provision" -- it seems something to be a human being, for the purposes of the particular law, that in fact is not a human being: a delivered fetus that has not drawn breath, does not have independent circulation, has not had the navel string severed.

That's a tiny but perhaps significant step to one side of the grey area that is "birth", i.e. the process by which a fetus becomes a human being. As is obvious from the things listed in the provision, there really is no instant at which a fetus becomes a human being.

In fact, no one could ever know whether the delivered fetus would have breathed etc. at all if the intervening act had not been committed; some fetuses simply fail to breathe, for instance, and thus are stillborn rather than successfully born. So a prosecution could well involve punishing someone for doing something that did not in fact "kill" the delivered fetus. It's problematic for that reason.

But not nearly as problematic as defining the destruction of an undelivered fetus as homicide.

[sampsonblk]

74. Same here - waiting for more information-nt

[sampsonblk]

30. The Supreme Court may have to hear this one

This is the perfect "what if" case, in terms of abortion. I am living in the area where this happened and everyone agrees that she should fry if she did what it appears she did. Even the liberals in this area are shocked, outrage and disgusted.

But it appears she gave herself several abortions. And that brings into play a whole different set of laws. It might be that the USSC will have to see this one someday.

[sandnsea]

19. Legal abortions require a medical professional

I don't know what the law is for abortions that don't take place in a legal facility. This is a very difficult situation, especially trying to discern whether these were miscarriages or self-induced. I think most people don't favor prosecuting women for getting abortions illegally, so I don't know what will be said about this situation if its found she's done this repeatedly.

[iverglas]

33. just fyi

To my knowledge, there is no statute in any US state that either prohibits/punishes self-induced abortion or includes a woman who does something to terminate her own pregnancy as a person who may be charged under any version of "fetal homicide" law.

That's just not something that the right-wing assholes have been quite ready to come out and do, since it would kind of conflict with the fake woman-friendly image they've been cultivating for the last decade.

If these fetuses were not delivered alive, I have no idea what this woman could be charged with.


http://www.wbaltv.com/news/13784461/detail.html

Maryland's fetal homicide law, like those in at least 35 other states, includes a provision protecting a pregnant woman from prosecution for actions such as self-induced abortion that result in the fetus's death.

By charging Christy Freeman with murder in the death of her child, Worcester County State's Attorney Joel J. Todd plans to test the limits of the law.

... Accordingly, the law contains a paragraph exempting "an act or failure to act of a pregnant woman with regard to her own fetus."

The exemption appears to trump another provision authorizing prosecution of those who have "wantonly or recklessly disregarded" the likelihood that their actions would cause death or serious injury of a viable fetus.

But Delegate Richard B. Weldon Jr., R-Frederick, another bill sponsor, contended Monday that the exemption doesn't apply to wanton or reckless behavior, which he said describes as including a self-induced abortion.

Well, I guess I should revise that statement. I have no idea what statute she could be convicted under.

[sandnsea]

38. I was thinking back-alley

traditionally illegal abortions - combined with the fetal homicide laws. Could a prosecutor concoct a charge out of that, if she did repeatedly self-induce late term abortions.

:shrug:

[sampsonblk]

31. Update

She asked for bail today (denied).

"I want to clear my name in this case," Freeman, 37, told a judge at a bond hearing Monday when she was ordered held without bail on first-degree murder and other charges in the most recent death. "If you offer me a bond, I'm not going to leave. ... I'm going to be here. I'm going to help clear this situation up." -- http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070731/ap_on_re_us/mother_charged

Heard on the local news this evening that she referred to the remains as "glippery glop" or something to that effect, seeming to suggest she (like many here) did not consider them to have ever been human beings.

[iverglas]

32. aren't you cute?

Heard on the local news this evening that she referred to the remains as "glippery glop" or something to that effect, seeming to suggest she (like many here) did not consider them to have ever been human beings.

Too bad you choose not to name names, and to merely whisper nasty insinuations instead.

Would my name be one on your mind?

Just in case it is, let me set you straight, shall I?

I stated that a fetus is not a human being.

I made no statement whatsoever about the fetuses and/or infants that are the subject of these reports -- because I DON'T KNOW whether they were fetuses or infants.

Whether anyone considers anyone or anything else to be a human being is really of the most supreme irrelevance to anything. The subject either is or is not a human being. Fetuses are not human beings.

What this woman allegedly said could suggest quite a number of things. It suggests nothing whatsoever about anyone here.

Unlike your own words, which do suggest something about people here. Wouldn't you like to speak a little more plainly for the assembled masses, and state rather than suggesting, and name names rather than cowering?


Here's what your update actually says:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070731/ap_on_re_us/mother_charged

... None of the remains appeared to be those of full-term babies, police said, ... .

... The boy she was charged with killing was stillborn, and looked to be in the 26th week of pregnancy, police said, citing the medical examiner's preliminary report.

"We will have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did something to cause that baby to be stillborn," he said.

Police Chief Bernadette DiPino declined to discuss any evidence about how the baby could have been born dead, such as whether Freeman induced an abortion.

They obviously also declined to discuss the whole question of how anyone could kill a baby that was stillborn.

[ismnotwasm]

34. Word

Not human beings. Fetuses. In spite of all emotionalist reaction to the contrary, they remain, fetuses.

[sampsonblk]

35. Unfortunately, no

Your name was not on my mind. Sorry to disappoint.

As for my other points, I happened to watch the local news and also happened to discuss it (in person) with quite few people. I was paraphrasing what I had heard. That's all. There doesn't appear to be any reference to that WBOC report online.

I mentioned the pharse she used because it relates to her point of view at the time. She didn't feel she was committing murder. That was my point. And yes, that DOES matter.

[sampsonblk]

36. Wait. Did you just say fetuses are not human beings?????

Well, what beings are they then?

[iverglas]

41. a little slow on the uptake, are we?

In your previous post, to which I responded, you said:

she (like many here) did not consider them to have ever been human beings

And now it takes you five question marks to ask whether I just said that fetuses are not human beings?

Try my post 20. I'll wager you've read it:

if (the fetus) wasn't (delivered alive), it was a human fetus, not a human being.

It's pretty simple.

Just a caveat for you here. If you continue down this line, and actually make a statement of your own -- like, "fetuses are human beings" -- rather than throwing question marks at things other people say, I'm going to be having some questions for you. And if you're willing and/or able to answer them, you'll be the first in history. So you might want to tread a little cautiously.

Of course, you could always just take the anti-choice noise somewhere where it would fit in a little better than it does at a discussion forum for liberals / progressives / d/Democrats.

[sampsonblk]

43. I acccept your challenge. Gladly

At the moment of conception, a living human being has begun. There, I said it.

Give me your best shot. I trust you will live up to all your hype.

[iverglas]

46. fine

Now, how are you going to guarantee the exercise of all the rights that attach to the status of human being, before the "human being" in question ceases to be part of "another" human being's body?

Here's one small example for you.

Human beings, by common consensus, have a right to life. As a result, for instance, a child may not be denied life-saving medical treatment by its parents. (Let's leave aside any silliness about religious scruples that may be permitted to interfere in a child's exercise of the right to life in less civilized societies; yer average person, in yer average United States or Canada or Europe, may not deny his/her child life-saving medical treatment.)

So how 'bout those fetuses? There are many conditions in fetuses that will result in the fetus not surviving to birth or long after birth; consider severe neural tube defects. These can now be corrected by surgery in utero.

A woman could not deny her two-year-old life-saving surgery. Obviously, a fetus being a human being and all, a woman could not deny her fetus life-saving surgery.

Am I right? If so, any idea what my next question will be?


just a footnote on edit:

I asked whether you were going to make the statement "fetuses are human beings".

What you then chose to say, while at the same time stating that you accepted my challenge, was actually "a living human being has begun".

If you want to say "fetuses are human beings", could you not come out and say it? And if you don't want to say that, can you explain what you are doing?

[sampsonblk]

50. No problem

The ability or inability to guarantee legal rights does not bear on whether or not a fetus is a human being. Where in the world did you get that idea from? Human beings predate US law, and will probably survive it also.

Also: As we both know, there are several stages of human life. Regardless of the stage, only a few would argue that the life is not human. It has to be something. Its certainly alive. So it has to be some type of life. And every life has value. So one only needs to determine what type of life it is. Any ideas?

[iverglas]

56. okay, you lose

As we both know, there are several stages of human life.

And your point is?

You asserted (it appears, although you weaseled on the words) that a fetus is a human being. "Human being" is a particular stage of human life. Who cares how many others there are, or what they are? (How could there be any others, if "human being" is the only stage, as you appeared to be saying it is?)

The ability or inability to guarantee legal rights does not bear on whether or not a fetus is a human being.

That makes no sense, but let me help you. I said "exercise" human rights; perhaps that's what you meant.

Holding human rights is the single and only thing that does bear on whether or not a fetus is a human being.

If something is a human being, it is human rights. If something has human rights, it is a human being. Identical sets. No non-overlapping members. If it doesn't have human rights, it isn't a human being; if it isn't a human being, it doesn't have human rights.

Regardless of the stage, only a few would argue that the life is not human.

Nobody with half a brain would argue that the life is not human. What's your point?

Do you imagine that I would argue that the life in my big toe is not human? Would you?

Its certainly alive. So it has to be some type of life.

No, it doesn't have to be, and isn't, any type of life at all. It is alive: it HAS life. Just like you do and I do and my big toe does. Neither I nor my big toe IS life. Nor am I A life. A life is what I have. Not what I am.

And every life has value.

Actually, everything that has a life has value, at least by some standards. The life -- the "a life" -- that a thing has is of value only to itself.

Don't you wish it were easier to fool everybody all of the time with your silly word games?

So one only needs to determine what type of life it is. Any ideas?

Sure. Mu. That's the correct response to a loaded question. I can't determine what type of life something is when it is no type of life at all. Like I said: the life that my big toe HAS is human. My big toe is not A human life. Nor am I, although I, unlike my big toe, have A life.

It has to be something.

Duh. Does this really need to be repeated?

It's a fetus. A human fetus, as it happens. A fetus that is human. Are we there yet?

That's not like a human being, by the way, in that "human being" is a noun phrase and not an adjective-noun construction. A human being is not just a being that is human; it is a very particular thing, a social and philosophical construct. Kinda like a cherry tree, which is not a tree that is cherry.

You need to take Horton's advice, which I always offer to people as, er, confused as you.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. If you mean to say that a fetus is a human being, say it, and be prepared to substantiate your claim. Leave off all the burble about life and lives and all the other evidence that you are either so confused you don't have any business discussing this until you get the concepts straight, or so bent on deception that you'll attempt any trick to draw a line from A to B when there is nothing between them but semantic nonsense.

[sampsonblk]

57. Put more effort into your arguments and less into insults

Just a suggestion.

I have no interest in playing word games with you either. But I am going to try to clear up your questions once more.

Fetus is a stage in the development of a human being. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus , http://www.virtualchildshealth.com/glossary.asp?centre=&termid=410) Whether it is able to exercise its rights or not is insignificant. I can tell that you really feel you're onto something. But you're not.

'Holding human rights is the single and only thing that does bear on whether or not a fetus is a human being.' -- Please reconsider this. You have it exactly backwards. Being a human does not descend from having or exercising human rights.

I can see that you are adamant about this, for a reason we haven't mentioned. I have never come across anyone who was so insistent that a fetus isn't human. Just on its face, that's a very tall hill to climb, in my opinion. Very tall. Despite your insults, I did try to see your point of view. I did. But I keep getting the feeling that you are hanging your hat on this for an unstated reason. And if your argument on this fails, which it has, then your argument on the unmentioned subject must also fail.

I didn't start this thread to convince anyone of anything. I started this thread because I believe that this mess in Ocean City is going to be huge. And I believe that a lot of politicians are going to have to declare where they stand on this issue. With Scott Peterson, it was a little different. There was a heinous crime committed by a bad husband. In this case, the quuestion is (apparently) going to be whether or not this woman has the right - right up until birth - to end her pregnancy and dispose of the fetus.

[iverglas]

58. you still lose

Engaging in great big fat misrepresentations of what your interlocutor said tends to have that effect.

I have never come across anyone who was so insistent that a fetus isn't human.

If you've run into someone who is insistent that a fetus isn't human, why the fuck don't you go and natter at him/her? What are you telling me for?

'Holding human rights is the single and only thing that does bear on whether or not a fetus is a human being.' -- Please reconsider this. You have it exactly backwards. Being a human does not descend from having or exercising human rights.

Once again -- what are you bleating this at me for? Did I say that "being a human" was anything? Since I have never used and never will use the expression "a human", I just don't think so. And since I said that HAVING HUMAN RIGHTS and BEING A HUMAN BEING were IDENTICAL, and not that only one "descended from" the other, all you've done is make another great big fat misrepresentation of what I said.

You may think you win arguments by pretending your interlocutor said something s/he didn't say. You'd be the only one here who does. Ask good old wiki about the "strawman".

Of course, if you're looking for a definition of a term like "fetus", you might try asking something or someone a little more qualified that wikipedia.

Nonetheless ... "Fetus is a stage in the development of a human being." Indeed. Just as acorn is a stage in the development of an oak tree. I haven't yet seen you say acorn = oak tree. Are you ready yet?

I started this thread because I believe that this mess in Ocean City is going to be huge.

Really? And people like you just have so much nothing to do with the fact that this woman is now being subjected to the kind of treatment you reported here yesterday, right? People who inflame public opinion bear no responsibility when vigilantes act on their words, right? People like you who are trying to vilify someone about whom you know nothing, and use her to advance your vicious agenda and to make yourselves feel all warm and fuzzy about what righteous folk you are, you just don't bear any responsibility at all for this, right? Wrong. Just like the entire anti-choice brigade in all its fetus-hugging glory bears responsibility for all the clinic bombings and doctor shootings and women who have had their lives ruined, or lost their lives (and remember, we aren't just talking about USAmerican women in the world today), because of unwanted pregnancy or unsafe abortion.

You want "insults"? Read your words, and look in a mirror. Anyone who thinks that s/he is entitled to decide what another person does with her own body and life -- who seeks to set him/herself up as master of another person's fate -- who seeks to treat another human being as if she were his/her property -- is the only insulter I'm seeing.


With Scott Peterson, it was a little different. There was a heinous crime committed by a bad husband.

Yeah. HE MURDERED HIS WIFE. Pretty fucking heinous. No question about that.

In this case, the quuestion is (apparently) going to be whether or not this woman has the right - right up until birth - to end her pregnancy and dispose of the fetus.

And if it turns out that she miscarried, spontaneously or as a result of abuse SHE experienced, well what the fuck, eh? Who cares, if her home and business have been burned down by the angry villagers in the meantime?


I can see that you are adamant about this, for a reason we haven't mentioned.

"We"? Who might "we" be? There's no "we" here, chum. You and I belong to non-overlapping sets.

But if you'd care to mention the reason why I am adamant that not you and not anyone else will control what any woman does in respect of her own pregnancy, you go ahead and do it.

[sampsonblk]

73. OK enough of this

You are just trying to antagonize me.

[iverglas]

75. close, but no cigar

Now, if you'd guessed that I was mocking you ...

[NaturalHigh]

61. I'll say it.

Fetuses are human beings. It's inconvenient for some to admit that. No, they might not be able to live independently of the mother for a period of time, but that doesn't mean that they're not human.

[iverglas]

64. er, say what?

Fetuses are human beings.

And acorns are oak trees. Right?


that doesn't mean that they're not human

Okay. Where is this invisible person who seems to keep saying that fetuses are not human?

If someone will give me a link to his/her posts, I'll set him/her straight.

[NaturalHigh]

68. The acorns and oak trees thing doesn't work.

At the very least, when a fetus has a heartbeat, it is a human being. You can be disingenuous and try to split hairs between human/human being all you want, but that doesn't change anything.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NaturalHigh]

70. Actually, I'm 36 with a bachelor's degree...

and I did well enough in my science classes to know the difference between an acorn and a human being.

[iverglas]

71. hey, I'm impressed

Now how are you doing on telling the difference between an acorn and an oak tree?

I guess reading comprehension and civil discourse weren't big subjects in the science faculty.

If I wanted to know that you knew the difference between an acorn and a human being, you'd think I might have given some indication of this desire ...

[NaturalHigh]

72. Actually, I do know the difference between an acorn and an oak tree.

If a woman wants to hide little acorns around the house like souvenirs, I don't have a problem with it. When she hides dead babies around the house, however, I find it a little macabre.

[Always AskWhy]

42. Yeah, what are they,

disposable matter?

[iverglas]

47. somebody else slow today?

They're fetuses. Would you like me to repeat this? Or I could say, as has also been said, "an acorn is not an oak tree".

If I say "a cat is not a dog", what are you going to say? Yeah, what are they, fire hydrants??

[Richard Steele]

44. Acorns are not oak trees. nm

[sampsonblk]

51. OK so infants are not men. Ahhhh but they will be-nt

[Richard Steele]

54. That's not what I said. Clearly. nm

[cgrindley]

59. Like many here? Not me

a fetus is a human being.

[iverglas]

60. yeah, kinda like women

No, sorry, I'm wrong there. Women are objects.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1485087#1485313

Valued only if they are attractive objects.

[wicket]

63. Let me just say that....

:yourock:

:D

[cgrindley]

65. I have philosophical problems with that concept

so are you suggesting that of all the ways to 'evaluate' the suitability of a person for dating, only 'appearance' objectifies them? or would you agree with me in the idea that all evaluative criteria out of necessity objectify an individual and as such is utterly unavoidable. EG valuing someone for their IQ or their politics or their religion or their education is the equivalent of valuing someone for their appearance... I would actually go much further and suggest that combinations of different evaluative criteria themselves when taken collectively also comprise objectification. I consider it to be an inescapable part of the human essence.

I also must add that I think men and women are equally worthless when it comes to their 'real' reasons for forging interpersonal relationships.

Finally, you did my post a disservice by picking out one word "valued" and giving it a global meaning that it did not have in the other post. That's not cricket.

[uppityperson]

66. thank you iverglas for that link and your other posts

I've been on vacation, and don't feel like arguing with them now. Thanks for doing it.

[wicket]

76. You've been missed

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

39. Supposedly, America is finally going to get to some postpartum illness legislation --

We are far, far behind in any enlightenment on this issue --

[sampsonblk]

40. We surely need it

Unfortunately, not enough Americans take the problem seriously.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. In other news, heroic pharmacists continue to dispense lectures about Jesus to "loose women",

instead of filling their birth control prescriptions.


Now, back to our story.

[sampsonblk]

52. Huh?

[Warren DeMontague]

67. I guess you haven't been paying attention.

http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/121704pharmacist.html

http://www.prevention.com/article/0,5778,s1-1-93-35-4130-1,00.html

http://slate.com/id/2116688/

http://www.self.com/magazine/articles/2006/05/15/0805birthcontrol_1_of_8

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. Absolutely Murder. How's That Even Up For Discussion? n/t

[sampsonblk]

55. Update - Her property was vandalized; She has bruises

O.C. Death Investigation Turns to Mother's Bruises

OCEAN CITY (WBOC/AP)- Investigators trying to sort out a case of four dead pre-term infants found at a home turned their attention Tuesday to bruises found on the woman accused of stowing the dead babies, as a day of excavating her yard turned up no more human remains.

Police say Christy L. Freeman, 37, was bruised on her legs, stomach and forearm when she was found bleeding Thursday...

News of the grisly infant discoveries may have sparked an overnight vandalism at a taxi company owned by Freeman and her longtime boyfriend, Raymond W. Godman Jr.

At the Classic Taxi offices in west Ocean City, four classic cars, including a 1963 Ford Fairlane, had busted windshields or windows. A detective with the Maryland State Police barracks in
Worcester County said backlash against Freeman is the suspected motive.

"It's probably ... the result of somebody, you know, taking offense to the action she's accused of," Detective Sgt. Mitch Frey said. Police had no suspects in the vandalism, he said. The office
was shuttered Tuesday.

DiPino urged calm in this resort town of 7,000 that has not seen a murder since 2002.

"We don't want people jumping to any conclusions," she said. "We just need people to let the justice system take its course and not take matters into their own hands."...

http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=6858002

[NaturalHigh]

62. I'll save my sympathy for the babies.

I don't agree with the vandalism or any sort of assault on this woman, but I can't work up any tears for her, either.