Tuesday, September 25, 2007

No Charge for Dead Babies

I don't usually reprint a whole article, but this one deserves it... sick, just sick. Our country really needs to get back on track.

Joseph Farah
Between the Lines

Posted: September 25, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern

I told you so.
I hate to say it, but I told you so.
Back on Aug. 9, I told you about the case of Christy Freeman, an Ocean City, Md., mother suspected of killing her newborn, or possibly unborn, baby in 2004 along with three others.
The remains of the children were all found at her home last month.
At first, investigators didn't know what to charge her with. Finally, they decided murder was the appropriate crime.
But, though the bodies of these victims were found in her possession, how could it be proved she killed them after birth? That was the question. If she killed them one minute before they were born, she was home free because Maryland, like many other states, expressly protects women who murder their own unborn children for any reason or no reason at all.
(Column continues below)
Also, it was unclear to prosecutors whether there was any crime in keeping the remains of dead babies.
Welcome to the world after Roe v. Wade.
Do you really want to make the argument this activist judicial ruling didn't cheapen life in America?
The case began when Freeman, a taxi driver and mother of four offspring who survived her household, went to the hospital after giving birth. Police searched her home for the baby and found a recently deceased infant under the bathroom sink. They also found three more sets of older baby remains, two in a trunk in the living room and one in a recreational vehicle parked outside the house of horrors.
When an examination found the fresh remains were from a stillborn, prosecutors dismissed murder charges. But they also charged her with killing one of the other children found in the trunk. Investigators believe she gave birth to twins on a toilet in 2004 and allowed one of them to die.
But now that charge, too, has been thrown out.
No crime, no punishment. Presumably, Freeman will be permitted to play devoted mother to the four surviving children.
The case hasn't received much publicity outside the area. No wonder. I don't think most journalists know what to make of such a case. After all, there weren't supposed to be people like Freeman anymore – not after abortion was made "safe and legal." Contraception was supposed to free women of unwanted pregnancies, and taxpayer-subsidized abortions were supposed to ensure that messiness like this would never be necessary.
Yet, here it is – staring us in the face.
There's a slight chance you might see Freeman's face flashed on the news. But there's no chance you will ever see the gruesome images of those four little ones whose lives were snuffed out.
And that's why it remains so easy for America to tolerate this national crime, this national shame, this national sin known as abortion on demand.
As I wrote last month about this case: "God knows what possessed Freeman to do what she did. Men and women have always done evil things and always will. It's their nature. And that is why government has a responsibility to rein in the worst of man's excesses – to keep us, at a minimum, from killing one another, to protect the innocent."
I also wrote: "It will be interesting if it turns out that no crime was committed. It's quite possible that four dead babies in your house is nothing more than, say, a health code violation, thanks to Roe v. Wade."
About this, I was wrong. It's not even a health-code violation. It's not even a reason to remove children from your care.
It's simply a non-event.
I really hate to say it, but I told you so.


pela68 said...

Discusting and horryfieying! I'm living in (a socialist state- yes we are pretty free- but no thanks to the socialists and the greens! Same, same!

But as I´m for pro choise. I on the other hand is discusted by the laws in some of the states in the USA. You really have more liberal abortion laws over there than we do in Europe!

When does a child get´IT´s rights for rights?

Well it still comes down to the old "Chicken or the egg" question. Does it not?

Maybe I´m not making any sense here? But I hope you get my drift!

I mean, like if my parents would have descided to abort me- I would really have had some issues with them. Like I´m 186 cm tall and wheighs in about 95 kg... That tackle would hurt! I promise you!

But they did not. And may my mother R.I.P; and my father live a couple of years more. And may my unexpected son live for as long as he likes...

Be good now!

WomanHonorThyself said...

aw how tragic my friend..sigh

falcon_01 said...

Pela (and anyone else pro-choice), please check out www.abort73.com
and read some of the interesting scientific facts that the leftists don't want you to see... might just open your eyes and change some minds. :-)

pela68 said...

Morally it's a very hard question to answer. Idelogically; I want people to choose for themselves what they do! I mean like, who is going to tell people what's right or wrong? The state? The church? Osama?

And while I intellectually still must be pro choise- I do not like it the way it is being done! (And we'we got a lot harder laws regarding to abortion here, than you have in the States...

falcon_01 said...

I get what you are saying, but what is right or wrong needs to be established by someone- if it is all subjective, and people have a choice to commit murder without consequence, then there is no real basis for the entire legal system, because unless "right and wrong" are clearly established, anything one does is "right" by their own decision.

I don't think it is that hard to answer... but the left wants you to think that it is, because the longer they stall us from making a firm stand on issues (this or others), the more they can control and manipulate the world around us.

Moral relativism only works in college where the terrorists become "freedom fighters" and anti-semitism becomes "an acceptable healthy cultural expression we must respect" or "free expression of faith." We need a right and wrong. To set it aside on one issue, especially as we have in America, for fear of stepping on toes, costs thousands of lives a year.

I have the free choice to go out and murder someone, but there are consequences for that action because religion AND the state legislate that it is morally wrong to kill someone in cold blood. Why?

If the muslims can have that sort of "freedom," shouldn't we? Why are defensless babies given no protection, when science has proven that an unborn baby responds to stimuli and exhibits symptoms of pain?

Again, abort73.com lays out a list of facts that set aside ideology, and deals with the rights at stake to make convincing arguments. They do a far better job than I ever could on this issue...

Sorry to ramble on so long- got me spun up on something :-P