Killing a baby is not against the law in NY
You can kill a baby in New York and get away with it in New York - and we're not talking about abortion.
Or are we?
According to Monroe County Assistant District Attorney Perry Duckles, a woman who intentionally ran over a romantic rival who was seven months pregnant and killed the rival's baby can't be charged for a crime for the killing of that child.
Seven months. At that stage, an unborn baby has an excellent chance of living if born. Kill it at that point, you are in trouble.
But before it's born, no problem.
Duckles said that under New York law, the child has to take at least one breath outside the womb before charges can be considered. The rules vary from state to state about whether charges of murder and manslaughter can be filed in connection with an unborn child's death.
New York does not allow it.
In this case, the assailant will face charges of assault for running over her rival. But the dead child does not matter.
Ironically, the article continually refers to the baby as a "baby," an "unborn baby," a "child," and an "unborn child."
(I'll be the pro-abortion gang at NARAL and Planned Parenthood are not happy about the use of those terms.)
Everyone involved in the case knows that a child died. The mother. The killer. The police. The Assistant DA. Even the the pro-abortion cabal.
Except under New York law.
There's a reason for that.
If you admit that this child is a child, then what about a child of a similar age who is aborted? Couldn't it then be argued that that child is also a child, and the abortion killed a child? Wouldn't that raise doubts about legal abortion?
We can't risk people starting to think that, right?
So the law is used to try to hide the reality. To protect the guilty.
Let me be clear: A baby was killed.
And under New York law the killer will get away with it.
Tragically, it happens not only on the streets of Rochester between romantic rivals. It happens thousands of times each year in hospitals and doctor's offices and abortion clinics across this state.
Killing babies. Legally.
Or are we?
According to Monroe County Assistant District Attorney Perry Duckles, a woman who intentionally ran over a romantic rival who was seven months pregnant and killed the rival's baby can't be charged for a crime for the killing of that child.
Seven months. At that stage, an unborn baby has an excellent chance of living if born. Kill it at that point, you are in trouble.
But before it's born, no problem.
Duckles said that under New York law, the child has to take at least one breath outside the womb before charges can be considered. The rules vary from state to state about whether charges of murder and manslaughter can be filed in connection with an unborn child's death.
New York does not allow it.
In this case, the assailant will face charges of assault for running over her rival. But the dead child does not matter.
Ironically, the article continually refers to the baby as a "baby," an "unborn baby," a "child," and an "unborn child."
(I'll be the pro-abortion gang at NARAL and Planned Parenthood are not happy about the use of those terms.)
Everyone involved in the case knows that a child died. The mother. The killer. The police. The Assistant DA. Even the the pro-abortion cabal.
Except under New York law.
There's a reason for that.
If you admit that this child is a child, then what about a child of a similar age who is aborted? Couldn't it then be argued that that child is also a child, and the abortion killed a child? Wouldn't that raise doubts about legal abortion?
We can't risk people starting to think that, right?
So the law is used to try to hide the reality. To protect the guilty.
Let me be clear: A baby was killed.
And under New York law the killer will get away with it.
Tragically, it happens not only on the streets of Rochester between romantic rivals. It happens thousands of times each year in hospitals and doctor's offices and abortion clinics across this state.
Killing babies. Legally.
posted by A Secular Franciscan | 5:58 AM
2 Comments:
The newspaper apparently chickened out.
The print edition referred to an "unborn baby" in the hedline. The online edition changed it to "unborn fetus."
What a crock.
The most egregiously ridiculous use of "fetus" for political correctness reasons was in a fairly recent edition of Wilson's Obstetrics. In describing the delivery of a baby in a certain type of position, it referred to the parts of the baby which were outside the mother at that point as " the baby's X" while the parts inside where "the fetus' X" For instance, say it was a breech delivery, it said something like, "Grasp the baby's feet and lift them straight up, then allow the head of the fetus to deliver. If it does not do so, pressure may be applied on the head of the fetus from just above the pubic symphysis." (this is not obstetrical advice, it is my vague recollection of a passage, don't sue me!)
Susan Peterson
Post a Comment
<< Home