–Ed and Uncle, so why not use the partial birth infanticide provision?? You’re not limited to just this one provision.

Jimbo3 on December 19, 2009 at 12:38 AM

Because the partial birth infanticide provision only coners incomplete births. If the baby was completely expelled, it’s covered by the provision Ed posted in his last update.

sadly, he’s openly complaining that ed didn’t give him a link.

Remember, only women have the right to kill

Bevan on December 20, 2009 at 11:57 AM

A proper bumper sticker for liberals…

Back on the crackpipe, I see. Jeesh! It has nothing to do with women being unfairly prosecuted.

Blake on December 19, 2009 at 1:29 AM

I understand you have a difficult time understanding simple posts.
I will dumb it down for you….
Some posters were wondering why the law existed to allow something as heinous as this…it was a “loophole” from many decades ago where women were unfairly prosecuted when the baby was still born, which was much more common in home births…as you should know, hospital births of baby in a clinical care environment is a fairly recent occurrence in society.
Read through my posts and you will learn something…or just continue to whine and make stupid insults that add nothing.

Based on nothing but the wording he chose, they are convinced this woman actively smothered her infant, and they imagine she covered the baby’s face or put a pillow over it’s face or something worse.

An interview with responding EMT’S puts a slightly different spin on the Campbell Co. case. The EMT”s wanted the case treated as a crime; but one reading between the lines it appears they got authorities involved because she gave birth under the covers and did not summon help; not because the woman actively smothered her infant. Rather the case was an accidental smothering because no one was present to realize the baby was delivered, get it out of the bed and clear its airways. But they think it was “accidentally on purpose” because the mother waited till morning to get any attention for herself or her baby.

In a nutshell, Baby deaths have happened before when women don’t call them -and they think its on purpose and ought to be some kind of crime to deliver alone. They arrived when it was too late to do anything for the baby; they don’t want women let “off the hook” for laboring and delivering under the covers in the middle of the night while the rest of the household sleeps.

A key point is there is the implication by the EMT, a tacit admission, that the suffocation was accidental or at least claimed to be, an therefore there is notrhing to support the idea that the mother cofessed to anything more serious than delivering alone in the middle of the night, perhaps not even sure of what was actually happening to her or knowlegable or capable enought to know what to do.

Ed, you’re going the extra mile to be the better man.

Just saw this http://tiny.cc/yCxAa. I think it suggests there was no a confession of an active attempt to harm the baby. Rather, the EMT’s quoted want her to be charged because of the time elapsed before calling for help.

Still, there he was raving like a loon. He’s literally a frothing spitting ball of hate who thinks nothing of dishonestly smearing people he views as the political enemy. It’s downright depressing how deranged he’s become.

kit9 on December 19, 2009 at 3:20 AM

Haha, he sure does seem to have a little blog envy going on. He opens the registration door quite frequently anymore and he sure doesn’t get many takers. And you can’t go ANYWHERE on his site where it doesn’t ask for a donation or he’s peddling something on Cafepress or asking you to hit the donate button. Now he’s got a hit piece on this post. I didn’t go there that often for a while because it seemed like his posts were all about his web design skills. Then I checked it out one day and he had posted all kinds of images of tea partiers with stupid signs and I got thrown out for commenting that it was stupid to post pics of a few idiots and label them as representatives of everyone on the right. Now, I go there to see who he’s blasting on Hotair because he sure has a bee in his bonnet about this site. Wow. Deranged is right. Sad that a man his age is relying on Amazon sales and a donate button for his living. He really needs to share the commissions with the people who post on linkviewer, though, since they do the majority of the work…he just rants about the right.

I gave ONE example of a psychological defense, and stated I was discussing psychological defenses in general. Psychological defenses are used frequently today with much success. If you don’t know this, then you are clueless on the issue.

You and your partner in idiocy, crr6, have chosen to focus solely on the “insanity” pleas. Strawman.

nottakingsides on December 19, 2009 at 11:45 AM

You gave an example of the insanity defense. Hayes pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. The reason we’re focusing on “insanity pleas” is because the defendant in the example you used plead insanity.
As far as I know, pleading insanity is the only “psychological” complete defense in criminal law. Soooo I have no idea what you’re talking about, and I don’t think you know what you’re talking about either. What do you mean “psychological defenses in general” are used frequently? What are they, other than insanity? How frequently are they used?

Aren’t you demanding to have your cake and eat it, too? You are arguing that it can’t be fetal murder in these situations unless abortion is also considered murder.

Blake on December 19, 2009 at 1:32 AM

Applying a single standard to fetal murder is having my cake and eating it too? Either it’s murder or it’s not.

I gave ONE example of a psychological defense, and stated I was discussing psychological defenses in general. Psychological defenses are used frequently today with much success. If you don’t know this, then you are clueless on the issue.

You and your partner in idiocy, crr6, have chosen to focus solely on the “insanity” pleas. Strawman.

It’s not a loophole. Again, many states have identical or similar laws.

Blake on December 19, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Sure, why not. Makes as much sense as anything else about this story.