A judge has ruled that since we can kill the unborn no matter how far into the pregnancy, we can also kill new-born babies because of “the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers”.
I have to admit, it’s logical: logical devilry.
From here:
An Alberta judge has let a woman who strangled her newborn son walk free by arguing that Canada’s absence of a law on abortion signals that Canadians “sympathize” with the mother.
“We live in a country where there is no protection for children in the womb right up until birth and now this judge has extended the protection for the perpetrator rather than the victim, even though the child is born and as such should be protected by the court,” said Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition.
Katrina Effert of Wetaskiwin, Alberta gave birth secretly in her parents’ downstairs bathroom on April 13, 2005, and then later strangled the newborn and threw his body over a fence. She was 19 at the time.
She has been found guilty of second-degree murder by two juries, but both times the judgment was thrown out by the appeals court. In May, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned her 2009 murder conviction and replaced it with the lesser charge of infanticide.
On Friday, Effert got a three-year suspended sentence from Justice Joanne Veit of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. As a result, she was able to walk out of court, though she will have to abide by certain conditions.
According to Justice Veit, Canada’s lack of an abortion law indicates that “while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.”
In the linked article there is this paragraph:
“Under Canada’s Criminal Code, a woman who has not “fully recovered” from the effects of birth can be found guilty of the lesser charge of infanticide. To bring forward the infanticide defense, which carries a maximum sentence of five years, there must be evidence that the woman’s mind was disturbed.”
I have no idea what it is like in the England of 2011, but 40 years ago a woman who killed her baby within a year and a day of giving birth was not accused of murder but infanticide. And as far as I remember there was not a ‘rider’ about having to prove mental instability. There was (and still is or should be) an assumption that this is a real and present ‘threat’ in the postpartum recovery stage. Thanks to medications and quality counseling/therapy, the psychiatric wards and hospitals are no longer filled with women who went into a postpartum psychosis, never to leave it.
Careful! You don’t know the entire story, you’re forgetting that what you’re reading about Ms Effert is being filtered through some very vindictive journalists. Read the court transcripts and you’ll get the true picture of Ms Effert’s situation.
And how do I know? I’m Ms Effert’s pastor. And shall I also mention that she’s a wonderfully faithful (and immensely repentant) member of our quite conservative Lutheran parish?
I’ve been a faithful reader of your blog. Please give me reason not to stop reading it because you’ve chosen to be duped by the media.
Without revealing anything that Miss Effert may have told you in confidence, could you fill us in. What is not mentioned in the article that would change the fact that the baby was murdered at the hands of its own mother?
Also, as this ruling may have consequences for other babies, what facts are there (also not mentioned in the article) that would prevent lawyers from using this ruling as a precident to aquit other mothers who murder their babies?
Are the court transcripts online somewhere?
The wedge continues to be pounded in.
Kate [#2.2]
I don’t think the court transcript is online, but the ruling can be found here.
Lorne [#2],
What is at issue is not so much Ms Effert, her faithfulness or repentance, but the judge’s implication that, since we in Canada permit abortion, we should also permit infanticide. As I pointed out in the post, this has a devilish logic, one that more than anything else, highlights the inherent evil of abortion.
And pressure is on for euthanasia and assisted suicide. For those in the middle it feels like the walls are closing in. Life is no longer sacred, and our courts will be to blame.
David:
Thank you for the clarification. I care deeply for the people our Lord has entrusted to me, and sometimes I can be a very protective pastor!
I certainly agree that our society is sliding down a terrifyingly perilous moral and ethical slope. I wonder though, whether the root of the problem is the courts or in those whom we choose to elect to draft legislation. From the standpoint of a Confessional Christian, the Canadian electoral landscape is rather bleak at times.
The judge in this trial consistently referred to statute and the rulings of parliament. I really do think that the problem at heart lies there, which ultimately is an issue that must be addressed at the hands of the electorate. Perhaps the Canadian people of God need to offer and stronger and clearer witness with respect to sanctity of life issues.
I appreciate your blog, and I’ll keep reading. Blessings to you!
I don’t think the solution is in the House of Commons. There isn’t a single party that favours restricting access to abortion (although the Conservatives pretend to, when it suits them), and the likelyhood of a free vote being allowed on the issue is small. I think, if a person feels called to act on right to life issues, the most effective thing to do would be to support a crisis pregnancy centre with the donation of his or her time.