They want abortions not kids they are young an are not ready for a baby.Instead of the days of roe vs. with coat hangers an themselves dying they just pop em out first; an kill them themselves after they are for all intensive purposes little people.They do not have 380 bucks for a abortion and or do not know where to go without possible death from protesters that are killers irony.

Well, what's the difference between an abortion and killing a baby hours if not minutes right after birth? One's illegal I guess.

It's a simple case of insufficient availability of quick, easy, and free abortions and long-term birth control.

How could this happen in such a conservative Red State? Didn't this woman secrete some hormone that prevents her from killing her newborn? Why didn't the Magic Sky Spook protect this infant?

AB - what this woman did is the same as if she would have had an abortion. Killing them prior to being born is just as bad as killing them afterwards. Free abortions? Please! You really think that abortions should be free to anyone that has irresponsible sex? And I suppose tax payers should fund this?

Another example of how the younger generation is losing its soul. As for those against abortion, one word: Adopt. Put your money, time and effort where your mouth is and Adopt.

They have safe haven drop locations for a reason. She could have taken him to any firestation and left him there, free of charge and completely legal. SMH.

Shannon, I know you meant to say "intents and purposes".

@marinmom....

Because the liberals ran him out of town years ago.

Abortions are legal now. Saying what would happen later on is ridiculous. She could have gone to planned parenthood and had an abortion if she wanted.

Common Sense - why should I have to adopt? I already raised my children (instead of killing them). How about if women stop having unprotected, irresponsible sex with men they are not in love with? And spare me the excuses about rape and incest - those only account for a very small fraction of the abortions that are performed.

Very sad and disgusting. Can only imagine what the reasoning will be from this low life. I'm sure it will be some type of mental state or post pardum. Whatever the case I'm willing to bet this women isn't much of a benefit to society and removing her from it wouldn't be a big deal or concern many.

In response to the free abortion remark, no, free birth control yes. Good chance it would help avoid something like this. Much cheaper to pay for that then someone on the system, in many cases rest of their lives, or worse case a nut job like this kills the baby. Never really gone into it or stated a full stance but I do support a women's choice and I'm not against abortion per se but I'm not for it when its used as a route for two people under normal circumstances who couldn't be responsible and use birth control or not have sex, that I do have some issues with. It dodges personal responsibility and at the very least need to put the baby up for adoption. But anything else such as rape, incest, threat to mother or other fetus if multiple pregnancy, and even if conditions are such like two junkies having a kid (that starts to go into more grey areas), yes and morning after pills yes. I really think there needs to be a little more of a reason or determination made but again I see to how that can possible create many other problems. But all that and proper sex and health education for high school students.

So sorry for the little one. Again hope they throw the book at this scum.

It is time

common sense, my wife and I did adopt. He is a beautiful, fun, healthy, and smart 2 y.o. now. If his birth mom could have spared $100, he would have been murdered just like this poor baby.

Why don't you put your time, effort and money where your mouth is and help educate these young people to have better morals, and help stop this kind of thing.

Romney\Ryan 2012

It would seem that the answer to unwanted pregnancies is to not have sex to begin with!! At the very least, use good birth control. People want to "play" grown-up, but they don't want the consequences. As for those who promote abortion as a quick fix, ask all the women who suffer a lifetime of guilt and remorse whether it was really a quick fix after all.

CoRavensFan, use your head. Free abortions are going to save the state from having to pay for a whole lot of free benefits and undesirables. It can also come with the very voluntary offer of a free and reversible IUD implant to prevent future pregnancies.

It is time, and how do adoptions not dodge personal responsibility?

According to Cha-Cha (I don't know how accurate they are), in 2006 there were 129,000 children in the U.S.A. waiting to be adopted. I made several other searches, and the average cost to adopt a child domestically is between $10,000 and $15,000. Russian children are $30,000 to $40,000 and Asian children are $20,000 to $30,000.

Instead of blaming politicians, lack of free birth control, abortion centers or adoption agencies; what we need is personal accountability. Over the past 20 or so years, the value of a human life has lessened in our society. What happened ? Parents killing children, children killing parents and gangmembers killing everyone. Is life not sacred ?

Murder is murder whether it is at 2 months gestation, an hour after birth or any age. Should we, the tax payer have to pay for birth control devices for these women's debauchery ? Birth control is not fool proof and it will not change anything if she gets pregnant while on the pill. This woman and others like her need a mandatory hysterectomy. When you kill your own child, you give up your rights as a parent now and in the future. JMHO

Where is the pro-abortion folk defending this woman's right to choose? She was only a few months late but did nothing different. This 'fetus' was capable of breathing our air but incapable of supporting itself without human care. If she did the same thing a few months earlier, she'd be fine.

I mean this in satire...abortion is murder and is NO DIFFERENT than what this woman did. Just because you murder them a few months earlier versus now doesn't change what it is.

Aborting a three month old fetus is totally different no matter how you feel about abortion. Come on!

If you get married three minutes before your divorce is final, you have committed bigamy. If you get married three minutes later, it is perfectly legal. Everything has a time limit...and an embryo or fetus is still not a baby.

Some folks are just plain VIOLENT:

• Husband of mom accused in child stabbings speaks out
• Cops: Pastor admits to killing Mich. mom
• DA: Ill. woman stabbed boy 100 times, girl 50 times
• Cops: Texas teen killed by mom's ex-boyfriend
• Police: Ex-Yankee Pascual Perez killed in home
• Ga. mom accused of stabbing newborn to death
• Police spoke with woman night before kids found
• Man waives hearing in shooting of costumed girl
• NY man arrested after pulling gun in gas line
• Nanny accused in kids slaying awakens in hospital
• Dad of slain NYC children says he is "heartbroken"
• Calif. mom pleads guilty to smothering daughter
• Father of slain Pa. baby urges faith in humanity

Why is killing a 3 month in the womb baby any different? It is still a human baby. Is it different because it doesn't look like you? It is still a human life.

I'm genuinely sick of the pro-lifers. They're the same folks chanting for us to fly over to whatever continent, bomb the hell out of them, put our soldiers in harms way to shoot them, the list goes on. Apparently to them, there's an appropriate time to kill them, either through shooting them to death, or by letting them starve to death out on the street.

I'm pro-choice. I'll be frank though, I'm a guy, the choice shouldn't be up to me. However, we've always seen a flux of people doing terrible things to little kids, especially ones they aren't ready for. People get desperate when their life may have too much of a change. I hold a personal belief a baby isn't a "little person" until it has a fully developed brain and awareness. Otherwise we'd be dragging people out of their homes for masturbating, afterall, if you want to get technical, sperm are little people too, yet spilling them is killing them.

The fact of the matter is, we have overpopulation problems, and for whatever reason people just keep breeding like crazy, even when they aren't ready for a kid. They wreck their entire lives just to have a night of passion. Is it right? No! They have a choice, they have help to stop it, AND they have the tools not to make a little life suffer with contraceptives and condoms. OH WAIT, the religious wrong wants those not taught, or available to these teens. They want sex to be sacred and about a connection to their invisible bestest best friend and whatever other sort of stupid they can chant *coughCULTcough*

Try to remember folks, not every kid put up for adoption gets picked up, especially if they get "too old". I suppose though, they don't care, IT'S ABOUT LIFE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE, even if they don't have to live through it/witness it.

and yet, people don't think there is anything wrong with an abortion. Stabbing a baby after birth is the same thing as stabbing it in the womb. It's KILLING THE FREAKING BABY.

Cassandra-854239

Right cause life can be equated to your marriage example. There's your so called human definition of life and there's the real natural laws that governs life. Don't be a dolt.

ThaMonkeh

So you support this chick's decision then? So what's the difference between bombing a country and killing a baby? One just takes out multiple lives. As for your belief in when a few cells become a baby see comment above. Your argument is week. Just so you don't confuse me with pro-lifers. I'm actually pro-situation.

COMMON SENSE - As an adoptive parent, I take offense to your "...why should I have to adopt?" comment. No adoptive parent HAS to adopt - we do so willingly because we want to make a difference in the life of a child by giving that child love, a home and nurturing. Never once did I look at my decision as an "alternative" option to becoming a parent, as your comment suggests.

Interesting screen name, considering the fact that you don't seem to have much of it.

AB- your right they do, but at least doesn't absolve one of not having to face a "mistake" that they made in some way. Carrying the baby and paying for those costs in some cases is a good way to help someone realize just what it is they did and hopefully be more responsible in the future and echo it to others. Don't tell me you are trying to say adoptions are a bad thing?

Much like the issues I listed that I fully support an abortion and access to birth control that can avoid an unwanted pregnancy the adoption can at least put the child in a home that wants/can support him/her. Not saying adoption is perfect, its not, and there are grey areas in the abortion that would be case by case but again at least maybe we can get a more defined line to start going by and getting some form of personal responsibility. And I posted an example of two average people, teens/adults whatever, that wouldn't really have any restrictions when it came to having a baby getting the abortion for nothing more than not wanting the baby b/c one of them couldn't use BC. That is something that bugs me, especially if they could afford the BC but even more so if there was free access and proper education and they still didn't take advantage.

But again I'm not totally against abortion in instances like that but fully supportive either, I just think you need to have a little more valid reason. But I also fully agree we need more input from women when making these policies. A bunch of upper class men leaning on fringe beliefs in some cases, who have little connection or insight on the outside world or what women go thru are not the ones we need solely making these decisions. Funny how they can divert to the private sector and the experts there, but seemingly already know whats best without talking to the "experts" when it comes to an issue like this.

Where is the pro-abortion folk defending this woman's right to choose?

Pro choice please. I am in no way pro abortion. Our family would never have one, but I am not going to tell another woman what she can or can not do with her own body.

Also, this isn't in the realm of right to choose. This is, as defined by law, a murder.

But if it helps you to twist and contort this situation to suit your agenda, by all means, carry on.

Being anti-abortion is not about telling a woman what she can do with her body. I hate when people say that. It's about telling her she can't legally kill her unborn children.

Not always. Its actually both and not a clear cut issue. That's why is why it is such a minefield and can polarize people. Its a touchy subject and very much needs a moderate down the middle as much as possible common sense approach. Something that is very rare as well as very precious, especially in DC, but is more or less treated as nonsense garbage, in DC and more and more elsewhere, unfortunately.

If the whole arguement is about what people can do with their bodies there should be no laws against drugs, limits on a drinking age, or age restrictions for dangerous work. Why bother if people can do as they please?

I have only one question for all those who believe an early term abortion is murder ...

What specifically makes this growing mass of cells a person?

1.32 insert a "not" before fully supportive part in last paragraph, opps. Sorry about that. Also same paragraph after "there" insert "in other cases".

Common Sense Ed

Well, murder is a definition made by humans. Is all killing murder? or is only some killing murder? As for the growing mass of cells, well life doesn't begin at 5 or 6 months after it starts growing. But some people put a definition around 3-6 months as to when it becomes a person. Frankly, I think it's just to clear their conscious of doing anything wrong in trying to wipe their mistakes clean of chit. I don't condone abortion, but then again its also not realistic to save every life. As I've said it depends ont he situation. Death is not the worst that can happen, a child can be born into a life of hardship and abuse, which would be worst than death.

Nightwalker2890

I'm with you. If peeps are so adamant about arguing from that stand point, we should just abolish all these laws that tells people what they can't do to their own bodies, including laws against suicides.

@ Common Sense Ed ..it appears your name doesn't quite fit. Human life begins at conception. It doesn't matter if it's still in a phase where it only appears to be a small mass of cells, it is still a human being.

Also, women (outside of those who were raped) already made a choice what to do with their bodies when they were having sex. There are NO birth control options that are 100% effective. When a human life is conceived, it is no longer just their body; They are sharing it with a new human. I understand that human has no rights as it is not yet an individual, but still a human being. Yes, abortion is murder, period.

Back East

Re:
As the libbies say.. it's all in the timing... see what a difference 6 months make? (and for all you dolts, I'm referring to the gestation). So it's ok only this took place earlier... it's less messy.

You're so right about it being all in the timing. Right-to-Lifers care only until the baby leaves the womb; after that, it's not their issue, not their problem, and they couldn't care less.

How about she is just a bad person who killed her child, and its no one else's fault besides this heartless "person." Abortions are available and there is plenty of birth control. Not to mention safe havens. No, this women is simply scum.

I only asked a question ... which no one answered. Care to actually respond bezsenny52 and thepunisher? You say human life ... why is it a human life? I want to see the reasoning behind the assertions.

At the vary second that an egg is fertilized and divides just 1 time, it carries the DNA of a distinct SEPARATE person. It is HUMAN DNA. This creation must be alive to actually GROW, and grow they do.

The DNA in your body right now is the same as it was when the first cell division took place and because it takes a living organism to grow into a full term baby, IT IS INDEED ALIVE.

You may not like this definition. You may call it crap or what ever you like, the fact is that the DNA at conception is that of a person who is UNIQUE and separate from both it's mother and father in terms of its DNA. Im not for telling people what to do with their bodies, but lets call it what it is when you get an abortion. It is the termination of a human individual. The fact that the mother is a moving incubator dose not change that the life created at conception is a new life.

You know why it is easy to refute this? Because it is easy to justify killing something that has never been seen before. It would be imposable for anyone to abort if they saw the child's face, if they could see what it would become.. Being human is more then looking the part, it is also being the part and a ball of human cells with it's own DNA is being the part of a human and it deserves to at least be seen as human.

Barbara Postid - ridiculous statement. Those that pro-abortion are the same ones that are holding candlelight vigils outside of jails to keep murderers from being executed.

^ If that newly fertilized egg is still attached to the parent, it is not a distinct nor separate person. Especially, if it has no sense of self-awareness. It's more of a parasite feeding off of the parent until birth. I'm pro choice, but abortion is not a necessity. Abortion is a luxury. It's perfectly free to give a baby up for adoption.

@wolfpack-bravo

By what you are saying, you are telling women that they shouldn't use abortion and instead carry it out for 9 month, then risk of killing themselves during the child birth and then give kid to adoption.

WoW, nice logic there, not only you want to put more burden to the society, you also want the women to risk theirs life for something they don't want. They made the mistake, but to tell them to suck it up and have a chance to die in the process all for "feeling good yourself".

What a logic. Pro-life? I don't think so, it's more pro-control.

Barbara... I wouldn't doubt, for a moment, that some of these folks have no problem with the death penalty or, for that matter, war. They should call themselves "Right to Birthers." As my son, the drummer, says: "T-t-t-timing is everything."

bezsenny52... "Human life begins at conception." You sound quite sure of yourself. Has it occured to you that maybe life doesn't begin or end, but just goes on? Maybe we should start arresting women during their menstrual cycle for killing live eggs. Of course, then we'd have to punish every teenage boy for doing the "knuckle shuffle" and spilling his seeds which, by the way, are alive as well. Our planet (in case you haven't noticed) is a living, breathing organism. And it doesn't belong to US. WE belong to IT. Anyway... welcome to Earth. "It's not a place you're in, it's a state you're in."

Yes, this is just soooo much better than abortion, isn't it? For all of you who wonder why she didn't just get an abortion, since it's legal: Republicans have managed to close down most abortion clinics. One must be able to come up with a significant amount of money and usually travel a large distance. This is the price you pay. Many young girls don't read the news and have never heard of safe haven laws.

Why didn't the Magic Sky Spook protect this infant?

Ha ha! I love it! Gotta remember to use that one myself...

Eric Staples

^ If that newly fertilized egg is still attached to the parent, it is not a distinct nor separate person. Especially, if it has no sense of self-awareness. It's more of a parasite feeding off of the parent until birth. I'm pro choice, but abortion is not a necessity. Abortion is a luxury. It's perfectly free to give a baby up for adoption.

No, thats not the way nature works. For the reason of DNA it is in fact separate from it's mother. It dose not share her exact DNA and if it comes to term, it will not be a clone or extension of it's mother. Just because something needs something else to live dose not mean it is the same organism.

A parasite is indeed it's own organism, even if it needs another organism to live. This is science. It is not up for debate. It is a fact. The mother simply applies the functions that the new life can not sustain on it's own, but it is still GENETICALLY DIFFERENT and as such it is a new living thing.

We do not say that human's living inside the space station are apart of the station, but it is undeniable that the station provides life support until those human's that reside within come back to earth.

Same with a new life. Mom is functioning as a life sustaining element, but the new life is it's own by virtue of its separate DNA. You can not define away what has been known for decades about reproduction.

By the time a pregnancy is noticed, it is one that is carrying a new life. It deserves the distinction of being human and it should be seen as being alive. If a woman can or wants to abort, then she should have that option, AFTER it is made clear that it deserves to be called a human life.

I had an abortion in college. I was only 10 weeks preggo and had found out a couple of weeks prior. I really did weigh my options. But then I began praying daily to miscarry so I wouldn't have to have an abortion. Well, that fetus wasn't going anywhere so I did what was best for me and the boy at the time.

And by the way, yes I was stupid THAT ONE TIME. I had never before that night had unprotected sex AND believe you me, I haven't since. I use the Paragard IUD and I LOVE IT. If my husband and I decide to NOT to have kids, I am getting my tubes tied.

What this person did to her newborn baby is unconscionable. She COULD HAVE dropped it off at a church or fire station or even a hospital. There is a difference between a first trimester abortion and the murder of a newborn baby. But the anti-choicers love these stories so they can bash abortion rights. Asshats. By the way, absolutely no guilt about the choice I made over a decade ago. I will never regret my legal choice.

I used to be a Republican up until one group started pushing their religious ideologies into politics trying to make them law - now I'm an Independent and I voted against Obama last election, but I have no plans to vote for Robyomoney. I used to get upset when they'd bring their demands for prayer in school agenda - I mean, whose god are they planning to make all the children pray to? Although Christianity all claim to worship the same god, there is a big difference between Baptists and Lutherans and a even larger Grand Canyon sized gap between these two and Catholics. That is why it strikes me as funny when all these Christian Republicans are ready to follow a guy whose religion began with its founder finding a bunch of golden tablets in New York written in a language unknown anywhere else by histories which he described as reformed Egyptian in the early 1800's, of course in this new religion a man could have a bunch of wives so I can see how it caught on as it did. But then I guess that's no stranger that the newest Hollywood religion created by a science fiction author - but then again, that's Hollywood for you.

Listen to all these whackos excusing the killing by saying its because she couldn't get a free abortion. THey and she reflect the sick disregard the young in this country have for the life of little ones. Its all about me and what I want do and not have any consequences from. Who raised you people and why didn't they just have an abortion instead of you??

This is all part of the gimmie society that is destroying our country. If she were my daughter I'd personally take her butt to the jail or psych hospital. She definitely belongs in one of the two not pitied because she couldn't get a free abortion. She could have kept her pants on .

Why does it bother you people so much that a girl you do or don't know has an abortion?!! The guy walks away after "THE ENJOYMENT" but the girl is suppose to be uncomfortable for 9 months and maby have a problem giving birth! And then she will have the burden of trying to care for the child and trying to hold a job!You people should just get on with your lives and stop listening to the catholic church! The church should concentrate on getting rid of all the "FAGGOT PRIESTS" who use alterboys as "LOLLYPOPS"!!Mind your own business people! Your not "SAINTS"!!

Olivia DUnham

At least you learned self responsibility but if you decide to have kids and find you can't have any more, you may re-think that non-reqret.

TheKhanKubla

I used to be a Republican up until one group started pushing their religious ideologies into politics trying to make them law. I used to get upset when they'd bring their demands for prayer in school agenda - I mean, who's god are you planning to make all the children pray to? Although Christianity all claim to worship the same god, there is a big difference between Baptists and Lutherans and a even larger Grand Canyon sized gap between these two and Catholics. That is why it strikes me as funny when all these Christian Republicans are ready to follow a guy whos religion began with its founder finding a bunch of golden tablets in New York written in a language unknown anywhere else by histories which he described as reformed Egyptian in the early 1800's, of course in this new religion a man could have a bunch of wives so I can see how it caught on as it did. But then I guess that's no stranger that the newest Hollywood religion created by a science fiction author - but then again, that's Hollywood for you.

It dose not matter how a religion starts, the only thing that matters is the action of those that follow their chosen faith. By enlarge, Mormons are thoughtful, respectful, kind, and attempt to keep themselves and their communities prepared for disaster. Many have the greatest empathy for their fellow man..

I dont care if a religion starts out worshiping Satan himself, or that the whole thing was started on the greatest lie in the Universe. If the religion results in truly kind compassionate and empathetic people, its beginning is no where near as important as its effect on mankind. By enlarge, Mormons and people like them make the world a better place.

Maybe she was afraid of having to breastfeed the baby. After all, by breastfeeding, a baby fetus outside the womb acts as a parasite and uses the mother's body. The fetus outside the womb is not viable unless it breastfeeds. Therefore it must not be a human being. Furthermore, infants fetuses outside the womb don't develope memories until around age three. Why don't we make that the new standard for who is human, as long as we are using intelligence as the basis?

And it's a good thing, because now this unwanted child fetus outside the womb will not have to grow up unwanted.

By the way, theres a story going on right now about how they are attempting to force an abortion by court order in Nevada. For some reason MSN doesn't feature it. But I'm sure that has nothing to do with any sort of bias on their part. I can't give you a link because I'm still a new user, but look up Elisa Bauer.

How about if women stop having unprotected, irresponsible sex with men they are not in love with?

CoRavensFan - better if it is phrased: How about if women stop having unprotected, irresponsible sex with unprotected, irresponsible men, neither of whom is in love with the other? Put the blame squarely where it belongs, on both of the so-called parents.

Oh yes, killing a child, whether in the womb or newly born is totally the answer to the problem! [eye roll].

Don't want the kid? Drop the baby off at a hospital, fire department, police department, SOMEWHERE, or put the child up for adoption. Some people, you know, can't have kids. So someone could obviously provide a better life for the child.

Oh, and yes, yes. I know there are bad people out there who adopt. Well obviously there are monsters giving birth to children and murdering them.

Of course people turned this story into an abortion debate. Why am I not surprised? ... All I got from all of these posts is that people are awfully self-righteous and judgmental. How about each individual worry about him- or herself?

If a woman chooses to have an abortion, why don't you let her deal with it? Maybe she'll live with a lifetime of remorse. Or guess what? Maybe she won't regret it at all. Maybe like Olivia posted above it was a once-in-a-lifetime mistake and she learned from it (I appreciate your honesty, Oliva). Why does it matter to anyone else? And it just kills me that everyone makes pregnancies and abortions a woman's problem. Last time I checked, penises are very much involved in creating a pregnancy, so for all of those people on here saying how these girls need to practice safe sex and be held accountable for their actions and so on and so forth, be sure to include some of your pearls of wisdom for the guy that knocked her up as well.

And to all of those people who say this case of this woman killing her newborn is the same as having an abortion: are you seriously that small-minded? Stop being so dramatic and driven by your emotions and try to use some intelligent, rational thinking.

police are looking for the baby's father

Why don't the police do this more often??

Common Sense: Put your money, time and effort where your mouth is and Adopt

Yeah. What a good idea! Why didn't I think of that? BTW, how many undesirable babies have YOU adopted? The crack addicted babies; the ones afflicted with AIDS or cerebral palsy; the wrong race, etc. Hmm? Right. None! Then shut up.

Did any of you think that maybe "time" was a factor? How many states allow abortions past the 1st trimester? Maybe the guy was in the picture for the first couple months until the hormones kicked in and then it was to late to get an abortion. 2nd trimester abortions are MUCH more expensive then 1st trimester abortions since many times it is an overnight or 2 day procedure. They normally require someone else to drive you there, be there, drive them home, etc. Once the deadline has passed it is much harder to get an abortion.

I speak from experience, while having an abortion is still murder. It was better to induce false labor, have the birth stopped just as my son's head started to pass the cervix, crack open his skull and have his brains sucked out killing him as quickly and painlessly as possible versus waiting to stab over and over again until he dies. Just saying. My ex wanted to keep him and I wanted to abort him from the beginning since I did not want to stay with her. She tried to get me to come back, and waited and waited before she finally decided to have an abortion, by then it was late. I was young and made a mistake, I got away with legal murder.

Either let people have birth control and abortions or be willing to pay for the social services. What happened to freedom and making choices? Why not work on education instead? Why do you insist that both parents need to work just to make ends meet? I wonder what has happened to the American family? Greed, greed, and more greed. We demand 50/50 relationships at home or else, and then INSIST on going to work for someone that only pays you 1/100 to 1/1000 of what they make...WTF kind of logic is that? There was a time when one only parent had to work, children and families did better with that kind of system. Do you have any idea how much money a properly raised child saves society versus one that raised themselves? The reduction in crime, reduction in bad habits, reduction in drop outs, reduction in unwanted pregnancies, etc.

Horrific, too bad USA does not have a real system for poor people--so they will not have to be third class citizens and be helped to have a real life, and not end up in hopeless situations, and this has little to do with abortion and control pills ( those are just politics)---

On the other hand George Bush shot, bombed and burned about 13,600 children just in Iraq and killed parents for thousands of others, so I am not sure here what is going on in this self acclaimed "Western Country"(compared to real ones)---And I have never seen a combined story about those Iraqi child killings, but I can see simple people here just love to dish/trample on others--and those dishers are usually mostly close to the same situation as described in this story, if for them the slightest thing goes wrong, like when some companies send all the labor/factory jobs out of the country!!

So much sanctimony! I don't see what the big fuss is all about. For whatever reason, she didnt want the baby. So it's a fourth trimester abortion. Fact is, over the millions of years since our split with other primates, human gestation has been extended outside the womb until age two (and who knows how many years after that before a child can survive on their own). Until then, your "right to life" isn't worth a hill of beans...even if you're not killed , you won't make it on your own. And why should anyone else be accounted responsible? What future does a baby who isn't wanted have anyway? We already have too many children born to those least capable of supporting, nurturing and educating them. Those who could do so are too busy and preoccupied with themselves to have many (or even any) children.

If choice means anything, it should be OK for parents to throw in the towel at any point...their choice. Unless and until other committed parties are going to pick up the slack, killing the child should be the parents' prerogative. All these people whining about abortion...you don't see them picking up the slack and offering to adopt and raise the babies. At best, they think the government ought to do it...socking the cost of their brand of morality to the rest of us and still not giving the children a home and family!

The ancient Greeks were in many ways more civilized and rational than we today. If a child was deformed (or in any way deemed less than perfect or wanted), it was EXPECTED that it would be left alone on a hillside to die a natural death.

Cincinnati Rick

Kinda scary that you think that young children don't deserve to have their right to life protected simply because they can't take care of themselves. That's how many mammals procreate. They have young and at least 1 parent is there to see it through to taking care of it's self. Those species that evolved through some sort of parental protection evolved that way for survival. You know what happens to parental care giving animals that have the same attitude that you do? Their young die and their gens are not passed on. In essence, they are genetically defective in their own right for refusing to care for and protect their young.

You know why this should not apply to humans? Because we are supposed to have EMPATHY. We are supposed to be EVOLVED. We ARE SOCIAL, that means that when we see the young on another of our society we are supposed to care enough to help it survive.

You asked what kind of life can a child have that is unwanted? Any kind of life that that child can make for its self with society's help. You can never know what a child will be if you just let it die. Your attitude towards young is sadly not unique and I can say that the child you let die today could cost humanity in general it's future tomorrow. These children could grow up to cure ailments and even unknown sickness that will one day threaten to kill our entire race.

I tend to side step the issue of people getting abortions. If people want that procedure, then fine, but I see nothing wrong with a doctor being REQUIRED to refer to the child being aborted as a person, as a human. I am also all for doctors being required to tell the mother ( after the procedure ) that he just killed her child.

Why? Because if that human life is going to be sacrificed for any reason at all, it at least deserves the dignity to be recognized as human...

Oh my gawd, QE137, get over your self-righteous self already and stop with the bleeding heart nonsense. That's great that humans are, you know, evolved and have empathy and all that great stuff, but that doesn't mean that there aren't some cold, hard truths to deal with in this world. A child that's unwanted is almost certain to have a grim life. You honestly think with society's help these unwanted children stand a chance? Why don't you go look at adoption statistics. Look at whose babies are wanted by society for adoption, for example (clue: not babies born to crackhead mothers). Next, look at statistics on the number of children in foster care, then come back and please report how well they do in life. Next, look at how many children in this country go without food on a daily basis. Then come back to me and tell me how society has done such a stand-up job of taking care of the nations unwanted children.

Your heart is in the right place, and I don't think you should ever stop trying for what you believe in, but c'mon, please join the real world already.

QE137

Oh, no problem whatsoever with calling a spade a spade. The fetus is human, a baby if you wish...and it was even, if you like, "murdered" if that legally nonsensical expletive does something for you. Call it "infanticide" is that works for you. It's all semantics. The point is that, for whatever reason, the child wasn't wanted. Don't we have enough unwanted children already?

And it is that "wanted" element that is the key. The prognosis (and survival rate) for those who are wanted is many orders of magnitude greater than those who are not. And the future of the human race rests with the general phenomenon of nurturing the next generation rather than any specific instance. Are you (or others so horrified by this woman's choice) going to adopt and raise this woman's child as your own? Yes, that one's dead but there are countless others.

So step up and put your money (and your PERSONAL involvement) where your mouth is. Otherwise, mind your own business and take care of your own. And hope that others do not sit in judgment on you because you will make (or have already made) plenty of mistakes and maybe some day down the road, in a low spot, even wonder if you made the right decision to be a parent.

Oh, Im sorry, did I sounds self righteous or like I was judging others? If so, you missed something about what I am trying to say. First, let me get through this. If a child is truly not wanted, then people should never have sex. The woman could be on birth control and I could have protection, and sure enough,every time sex comes my way, I ALWAYS know that the act COULD produce a child. This is not a mindset that is learned in school or in society in general. We would all benefit from people who did not think of sex as pure recreation.

I seek not to judge, but I am highly empathetic to human life. I will never condemn a child's future based on if it was wanted by it's parents or society at large. I am the kind of person you want to have around when a storm like Sandy comes a knocking and your house is flooded and your children or in danger of drowning. You know why? Because Im not going to take 1 look at your child and make excuses as to why that child dose not deserve to live. I am going to be right there to help you and the people around you save lives, including your children.

It dose not come down to my estimation of a person's worth to society, it dose not come down to how much I think a child was wanted by it's parents. It comes down to knowing that I want every human who is given a chance at life to be able to live that life, just like I have been able to live life.

Personal involvement? Really? You will never know the level of personal involvement I have had with the innocent unwanted of this society, so that is mute for you to say. People sitting in judgment over my parenting? Yeah, have been there and done that, still, I have never questioned my own choice to be a parent and I never will.

Day in and day out on these and other boards I hear people talking about what is wrong with this country. Everything from illegal immigrants to lazy poor people. You know what I think people should really be looking at? How the society as a whole treats the less fortunate, the weak, the downright poor and last but not least, I think we should be rethinking the worth of a human life.

I should get over myself because I think people should step up and preserve the life of an innocent? That I don't make excuses as to why it is, for economic reasons perfectly exceptable to end a life?

You do understand that the Dollar is literally not worth anything,right? You do understand that you and your children could become 3erd world status overnight, don't you? To give a life away for worthless dollar bills and someones personal estimation of a child's possible future seems vary much twilit zone material to me.

I judged no one and I was not for taking the right of mothers to have an abortion. I am for making sure that the human face that will never be seen is at least seen as human. What is wrong with the doctor telling you he just killed your child? Nothing, because that is what he did.

My apologies QE137...not intended to be personal to you. But no doubt there's no essential difference between abortion and infanticide and both are responses to unwanted children. And we already have too many unwanted children. The essential problem is that those who are capable of nurturing, supporting and educating the next generation are not doing so...and those least capable of doing so are producing a disproportionate share of the children...many unwanted.

QE137 - the child you let die today could cost humanity in general it's future tomorrow. These children could grow up to cure ailments and even unknown sickness that will one day threaten to kill our entire race.

I disagree that the fetus (not "child") that is terminated could cost humanity a future "breakthrough in a medical cure" or some such. The soul of the fetus never dies, and will just be reborn in another body that made it through the birth canal. No problem there.

I see nothing wrong with a doctor being REQUIRED to refer to the child being aborted as a person. What is wrong with the doctor telling you he just killed your child? Nothing, because that is what he did.

If a doctor made such an irresponsible statement, he should lose his license. That would be a moral judgement on his part. An embryo or fetus is NOT a child (check any medical source). It has or had the POTENTIAL to become a child. That's all. Would you call a fertilized egg a chicken? Of course not. Same scenario here; no different. It is NOT a chicken. It is an EGG. That's all it is, until it matures into a chicken. It would make as much sense as calling a fertilized egg a child or an octogenarian. It is neither. It is a FETUS.

If a child is truly not wanted, then people should never have sex.

A ridiculous comment. Good luck getting that rule passed by your local City Council. You'll look like a fool.

It comes down to knowing that I want every human who is given a chance at life to be able to live that life, just like I have been able to live life.

It doesn't matter what you want, in the general scheme of things, but good for you. Keep it up. Maybe someone will listen.

Mozzie: I disagree that the fetus that is terminated could cost humanity a future "breakthrough in a medical cure" or some such. The soul of the fetus never dies, and will just be reborn in another body that made it through the birth canal. No problem there.

Let me guess...you're trying to outdo QE in ridiculousity?

Mozzie: An embryo or fetus is NOT a child. It has or had the POTENTIAL to become a child. That's all. Would you call a fertilized egg a chicken? Of course not. Same scenario here; no different. It is NOT a chicken. It is an EGG. That's all it is, until it matures into a chicken.

Barring the unexpected (or human intervention), the fertilized egg will become first a baby, then a juvenile and then an adult. The fertilized chicken egg is a chicken and the fertilized human egg is a human. To say otherwise is playing semantics with the words "chicken" and "human." That's on a par with arguing over whether the noun "man" includes both males and females or not. Look in any dictionary...many common words have more than one meaning.

mozzie- By your definition, neither miscarried nor stillborn babies are children, even though both are seen as such by both doctors and the parents.

Also, while an embryo may resemble nothing more than a mass of cells, a fetus looks very similar in many ways to a baby, right down to having a face, and, if you are far enough along, fingernails and hair.

Tiredofthebull- By your definition, neither miscarried nor stillborn babies are children, even though both are seen as such by both doctors and the parents.

Not. Sorry, buster, you are mistaken. Doctors do not identify a miscarriage as a "child". They may say that (unlikely) to soothe the anxiety of their patient; but if they have a legitimate M.D. license, that means they got their degree by studying very hard, and they learned the sequence of the progression of the human species, that is, namely: zygote, embryo, fetus, baby. Zygote, embryo, fetus, and ONLY "baby" after it passes through the birth canal after nine months of gestation. I didn't say anything about stillborn births. Once this type of fetus passes through the birth canal naturally (or by induced labor), it is, indeed, a baby, albeit a dead one. All the hysteria from the extreme right to change this definition is just that: to influence ignorant people to their way of thinking.

*********************************

Cincinnati Rick: There is no need for sarcasm in your comments, when with a little practice, you might be able to express yourself intelligently. And, if you pay attention, you might just learn something. There always has been high praise for something called "civil discourse", of which I am in favor.

Apparently you disagree with me that the soul never dies. On what do you base your theorem? What could possibly kill a soul? Nothing. A soul is just energy, manifesting itself from time to time in a human body; and nothing can kill energy. When the body dies, the soul goes on. That's universal law.

You say: Barring the unexpected (or human intervention), the fertilized egg will become first a baby, then a juvenile and then an adult. The fertilized chicken egg is a chicken and the fertilized human egg is a human.

So, you are saying that the scrambled eggs you had for breakfast is really scrambled chicken?? Wow. Interesting. That will be news to all the vegetarians, and to McDonalds who will have to start a new campaign that they are really serving chicken instead of scrambled eggs.

Amp, your question suggests the most likely answer. It looks like she had the kid at home, as they didn't know the time of birth (which is recorded in hospitals). So right off the bat, you're probably dealing w/ someone indigent, too poor to give birth in a hospital, and therefore likely too poor to have received any medical care. She's also clearly not in the right state of mind. She was probably poor and mentally unstable going into the pregnancy, and she didn't have adequate care and medications. The post partum depression pushed her over the edge chemically and she did something beyond horrifying.

Actually, I read a blog the other day about how emotionally damaging for the birth mother giving a child up for adoption can actually be. There's very little support available, and feelings of guilt, wondering if the child is ok, etc can last for decades (especially since some find themselves coerced by family members or others into an adoption). I had never thought about it from that point of view before, so it was kind of eye-opening to read that. Not to mention that a lot (certainly not all, mind you) adopted children develop issues of their own, and some get shuffled around for years from home to home. Many people say things like "just give the baby up for adoption" as though giving a baby is the same as giving someone a jacket. Or "don't worry, you can just have another one when you are ready" as though children are replaceable.

That being said, adoption can be a good option for some, and there are certainly many wonderful people who perhaps can't biologically have children, but who would gladly take in a child who needs a home. At any rate, this is a tragedy, and I hope justice will be served.

I'm sorry but I think stabbing a newborn to death is more emotionally damaging than giving it up for adoption would have been. Or perhaps she was allready too emotionally damaged, and thats what led to this.

Not to mention that avoidance of something "emotionally damaging" to one human being doesn't justify the murder of another, equal human being.

"I think stabbing a newborn to death is more emotionally damaging than giving it up for adoption would have been."

Um... yeah. Great observation.

I wasn't trying to justify it. I'm guess from the fact that she killed the baby that she didn't care about it, and probably isn't all that emotionally damaged from it. Or that she really cares about any other living being other than herself.

And murdering their newborn is less emotionally damaging?

This just shows the state of our health system. She obviously needed help mentally and if she had access to free birth control this would never have happened. I am deeply saddened by this and do not know what the "epidemic" of killing kids is lately. Doctors need to start recognizing symptoms in mothers. Sometimes it is not all of their fault. Post postpartum is a real issue that needs to be addressed. I am also horrified that someone would post that abortion is the same as stabbing a newborn to death. I think you are being a slight bit over dramatic with your political agenda. Pro-lifers make me sick. Most of you have never been in a pregnancy situation you could not handle. Each person has a story and a reason for doing what they do and you should respect that. Stop standing on your pedestal with your nose in the air thinking you are better than them.

Open adoption can be a wonderful thing! My daughter selected the couple who would raise her son, and we are now part of their extended family. Support is still scarce, because few are so courageous and selfless.

meggie--I partly agree and partly disagree. It seems that everyone insists or assumes birth control would have prevented this. The mother may have very badly wanted a child. She may have gotten pregnant knowingly and willingly and happily. Then at some point she went psychotic, and we know the tragic outcome. I agree that this looks like the product of an unstable mind, pregnancy hormones, and the inability to afford medical and psychological treatment and medication, but we can't assume every mother who suffers a psychotic breakdown never wanted the child in the first place. There was 9 months between the mother getting pregnant and the baby being born, that's a long time for a mentally unstable expectant mother who has no access to health care to deteriorate mentally.

@Alright! Adoption more emotionally damaging than killing your child? This lady had options, she chose not to take them. And maybe adopted children have struggles, but can you show me any children who don't have some identity problems at some point in their lives. I am personally a fan of adoption, there are a lot of good parents out there who cannot get pregnant who are able to adopt. It's certainly a better option than stabbing your newborn child.

I am always reading those ads from woud-be adopters: "We want your healthy white infant." I am never moved to tears. But if you really want to encourage adoption, then use the one technique that works like a charm...the profit motive. That's right, let the mother get paid for her efforts, just like the lawyers and doctors and social workers and everyone else involved.

meggie is the exact reason things like this continue to happen. I cannot stress just how sick she seems.

Let me get this (madness) straight.

We should provide free birth control to women so they dont kill their children? Following your "logic" we should also give sex offenders free porn so they dont feel like carrying out their desires on others. Afterall, peodophilia is just as real a mental disorder as post partum depression, something you feel makes it not their fault, so child molesters shouldnt be punished either since they cant help themselves.

And somehow people who want unborn babies not to be killed makes her sick, because they are being judgemental. I guess she doesnt want anyone to think any type of killing is wrong.

So to maggie, its not this womans fault, must be the evil pro-lifers, hormones, and the woman's socioeconomic status. You'd make a great defense attorney for child murderers since its not their fault.

You're absolutly sick.

I just love how people keep saying that if she had access to free birth control this never would have happened. Bull crap. If she'd kept her legs closed this never would have happened. And how do we know she didn't have access to birth control? Just because she got pregnant doesn't mean she didn't have access, it means that she was irresponsible. Do not put the responsibility for this on anyone else but the person who murdered her baby.

For people who said abortion = murder. Well, I guess you rather like to kill woman since giving birth also have a chance of dying as well.

Instead of killing the "fetus", you rather have the woman risks herself to give birth of something she doesn't intend to have it. It was a mistake on her part, but to tell her to suck it up and risk her life for your "feel good attitude". That's worse than murder.

@Cuong

1. Why are you putting fetus in quotes? Have we reached the point where it is now politically incorrect to even call it a fetus because that has a human connotation (even though that is the scientific term for it)?

2. If you were shopping with your child, and a gunman came in and started spraying the place, would you not be willing to fall on your child and absorb the bullets? Or is sacrificing your own life for the child in that situation just having a "feel good attitude"?

3. Often times, in those cases, C-section is actually medically safer.

@ argumentativebutfair

1. I put "fetus" like this because people consider fetus = child, but that is not the case. Do you consider sperm or oval eggs the same as child as well?

2. How is that even in anyway relate to abortion? If that is my child, then yes I would shield them. However, you are forcing thousands of women to carry a "fetus" to term and then risk dying to give birth to a child and then ask them to put that child on adoption or raise that child for 18 years when those women don't want the child in the first place. You are basically risking the life of those women and make them suffer because you think your "moral" is higher than their lives or their suffering.

3. I don't care, those women don't care. You are basically forcing them to do what they don't want to do and recommend them a medical procedure that is less dangerous, but still have a chance of killing them.

You and others are not pro-choice, you are pro-control and willing to let others die so you can have "feel good attitude".

We have a society that values human life less and less each day.

We equate a "wanted" pregnancy with a "wanted" child, and that is not always the case. Many "unwanted" pregnancies end with a child who is cherished and loved and wanted. And many "wanted" pregnancies end with a neglected or abused child.

Society tells us we have the "right" to make decisions on the "value" of children based on superficial characteristics: an extra chromosone, "our convenience", gender, "cost", health, a missing limb, etc. or even who their parents are.

We give mixed signals to children: it is not right to bully a "handicapped" or "different" or "ill" child but it is our right to kill them for those same reasons before they take their first breath.

Well, I guess the woman above was a few hours too late to "rightfully" kill her child with the approval of society. But who knows, soon we may be "enlightened" enough to legally kill "ill" newborns up to 24 weeks like the Netherlands and stories like this will never even make the news.

Yes, myopinion1, but take your logic all the way through to its conclusion. For whatever reason, she didnt want the baby. So it's a fourth trimester abortion. Fact is, over the millions of years since our split with other primates, human gestation has been extended outside the womb until age two (and who knows how many years after that before a child can survive on their own). Until then, your "right to life" isn't worth a hill of beans...even if you're not killed , you won't make it on your own. And why should anyone else be accounted responsible? What future does a baby who isn't wanted have anyway? We already have too many children born to those least capable of supporting, nurturing and educating them. Those who could do so are too busy and preoccupied with themselves to have many (or even any) children.

If choice means anything, it should be OK for parents to throw in the towel at any point...their choice. Unless and until other committed parties are going to pick up the slack, killing the child should be the parents' prerogative. All these people whining about abortion...you don't see them picking up the slack and offering to adopt and raise the babies. At best, they think the government ought to do it...socking the cost of their brand of morality to the rest of us and still not giving the children a home and family!

The ancient Greeks were in many ways more civilized and rational than we today. If a child was deformed (or in any way deemed less than perfect or wanted), it was EXPECTED that it would be left alone on a hillside to die a natural death. Overtly killing another human up close and personal by your own hand (let alone a helpless baby) is a grisly proposition and something this woman will never forget (ask any combat veteran). Perhaps the Netherlands is on to something by institutionalizing the process.

For the woman who's account I read, she was so traumatized that the next time she became pregnant, she had an abortion (as did several other women who commented on her story). I would argue for increased (i.e. existing) counseling pre-and post-adoption so that adoption is a more attractive option. And to increase the number of open adoptions. Many adoptive parents want to pretend like they themselves gave birth to the child and shut out the birth mother-or reduce the number of times an adoption agency just takes the baby and then never contacts the mother to tell if the baby has been adopted or not, and that it's ok/not being abused.

The woman in this story killed her newborn because she had severe issues/is a bad person. She wasn't a well-adjusted, caring wonderful woman who killed her child and then developed problems from it-no mentally healthy person kills a newborn. It's a little backwards to say she developed problems from the murder-she murdered because she had problems.

yeah me too but the most important question would be...lethal injection right arm or left?

Yes!

becky and IN83... Exactly! Take another life! Jeezus, what a bunch we've got on here today.

meggie and C-1059824... I guess one would have to walk a mile in those moccasins.

MrBurns... Ummm, I think your scrambled eggs are done. One more time: "Don't overestimate the decency of the human race." H.L. Menken

You have to be a republican with a nasty hateful remark like that. I bet I am right.

AzDrummer89

So you are against abortion then?

AzDrummer89

So "Pro-Life"

Updated photos of the dead baby?

Is that what you're saying?

Keep a corpse around so they can snap decomposing photos so you get your sense of justice?

I can't read into your comment any other way. You want the state to keep a dead baby around to take photos of it. Please clarify your "updated photos" comment if I am wrong.

He might be neither pro-life or pro-abortion. Just someone against killing babies. Something that I thought America was pretty united on.

MrBurns... " America was pretty united on." United on? Watch the "news" much? This country can't agree on anything these days. It looks, to me, like that "E Pluribus Unum" thing isn't working out too well for some folks here.

That is the sane way of thinking. I'm not sure this 21 year old (brain still not developed) was thinking rationally.

Lisa," That is the sane way of thinking. I'm not sure this 21 year old (brain still not developed) was thinking rationally"

OF COURSE she wasnt thinking rationally, but to say her brain is not developed is in no way an excuse for the evil in this monster! A 12 year old sane person would know better than to do something so horrific. She not only deserves life in prison, she should be in a 8x8 cell with nothing but a picture of her child.

So...........you're against abortion then?

Seeing the hatred showered on our dear president from the Christian conservatives, I can only imagine what this poor single mother felt. I was a white single mother and I felt hated.

tinlou45, you shouldn't hate this lady. Hate the thing she did, but I have a feeling this lady psychologically snapped due to lack of medication, pregnancy hormones, and a whole host of other things that made her "not herself" and totally psychotic. I imagine that once medicated, she's going to wake up from the fog she's in, realize what she's done, and feel grief so profound that hopefully none of us will ever even come close to experiencing. She was, in short, totally insane when she did this.

Of course, I could be wrong. But that's the impression I get, anyway.

I can't hate her, but I hate what she did. She was clearly not in her right mind (understatement) or possessed by some demon. I admit I'm curious to why a HUMAN mother would kill a newborn. Maybe she's feral? Perhaps she thought the baby was defective?

marinmom,

My step mother was a single black female, and doesnt feel victimized like you try to portray yourself. And there is a reason so many people hate your dear leader. Probably with how destructive he is with the economy and our rights.

MrBurns... "how destructive he is with the economy and our rights." On which planet do you reside, sir?

How anyone...ANYONE could kill-let alone chop to bits with a razor or burn alive with a chemical agent or drown in a dish an unborn baby is beyond anything I am capable of making any sense of.

Shame plays a big role in most cases of infanticide.

Shame??? There is none -- just look at the number of teenage girls getting pregnant intentionally, then parading their babies around like they were the latest accessory? And who set the example? Hollywood. Women are getting knocked up intentionally because they want to fulfill their "maternal destiny" or simply because it's the latest cool thing to do. Halle Barry, Drew Barrymore, Angelina Jolie, Jessica Simpson . . . Sorry, I doubt there's any shame involved here. For the most part, these kids will never know a stable environment with a mom AND a dad (lots of these women don't even have a relationship with the dad) and will be raised by nannies. I know that two-parent families aren't always possible, but don't have kids if you're not married -- and if you do, be responsible for them. This is why the world is so screwed up -- no family structure.

The devil's advocate would say she did the infant a favor as well as society a favor. She didn't want the baby to sufer life and saved the tax payers tons of money. Would you still call that mentally ill? Devil's advocate would call it foresight.

I am a single Mom and I had to perform both roles as a parent, the loving maternal mom and the disciplinarian. I was called to school every year at the beginning of school for a conference to tell me that my son was the most delightful, well raised, respectable little gentleman and he was an example for all the other children in class. These posters claiming that being a single parent only results in out of control children don't realize that you are talking about the minority of the single parents out there. I choose the stay single because my number one priority in life was raising that child.

I'm with you RIposter. Sometimes I think that the PROBLEMS we have as a society have more to do with how some people feel and act superior to others, as if their sh!t doesn't stink.

Not just the girls. You are saying that the girls are the ones not responsible, when it is also the boys who leave that are just as irresponsible. Women are left with the burden and the shame, and boys get away scott-free? I don't think so. Boys are just as pressured in society to be promiscuous and sluts and sleep with anything, with little to no consequences of their actions(I'm sorry, I'm calling it as it is.) This is why abstinence-only education does not work. It does not teach the students the "what if" scenarios and it puts little to no emphasis on the natural consequences or responsibility needed.

Peas-on-Earth3,

Oh? I'm sorry, I always thought that a MAN got a female pregnant...I did not realize a magical sperm cell floated into a woman's uterus and implanted itself. I also didn't realize it was only the female's responsibilty...I thought the baby's DNA was made of the mother's AND the fathers?

How about we start this new plan: Educate females AND males on the responsibilty of sex, not just females.

Heres another thought: Teach the men to be MEN and actually take responsibility for his actions as well.

That'll never happen. Men are too selfish.

Peas-on-Earth3,

You just managed to piss off both men and women in the same post. Congradulations.

"Females think that they need a so-called "man" in their lives and too many think that having that "man's" baby will keep them together."

Some women believe this, some dont. I dont know why man is in quotes. Do you mean not all males are men?

"Then, when the man leaves, the woman realizes that 75% of men, don't want a woman that already has a baby by another man, and so she not only has a baby and no one to help her raise it, she is unlikely to find someone to be with her and be a father to her child."

I guess you have never heard of step-parents. They are quite common, and prove your 75% is drastically high. Also, there is such thing as child support. And women tend to get be heavily favored when it comes to child support and divorces in general.

"We really need programs, starting in junior high, to educate these girls on how things are likely to go, by getting pregnant at an early age."

I agree, but you forgot the other half. Teaching boys that if they knock a girl up, they are just as responsible. A huge problem in the African American poor population is many of the men leave the moms to be single parents. Without both parents, it leads to a way larger rate of crime in young men. The group of people most likely to become criminals are boys raised by single mothers. Not all obviously, and not most even. But it will simply perpetuate the sad state of affairs where men think its ok to just abandon their babies.

This woman was a POS for what she did. But men who abandon their children are almost as evil IMO.

Mr. Burns....you have a blind spot there. If "choice" is a sacred (even Constitutional) right, where is the right of a man to decide whether or not he is prepared and wishes to be a father and undertake the concomitant responsibility to support and nurture the child? Don't tell me that he surrendered that right when he ejaculated in the wrong place unless you are going to tell us that the female in question surrendered that right when she spread her legs. What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose or, as the lawyers would put it, you cannot deny equal protection of the law. Why should a man be required to support a child that a woman decided to have either without consulting him or possibly even against his wishes. Choice cuts both ways. Perhaps it is children who should be "licensed" instead of marriages?.

Im pro-life Rick.

I want the death penalty for losers like you that want the death penalty. Doesn't seem like to much to ask for.

@Alex: Why?

Why should she even be that responsible? She lives in a society that will condone her actions, speak out against anyone who thinks she should be punished, and make excuses so that she is in turn the victim. Read several of the post on here. Poor poor girl she had no choice but to murder a helpless baby don't think bad about her and if you think she should be punished your either a religious zealot, or a heartless piece of crap. wtf? I would be afraid to allow my child to walk past the houses of some of the posters on here.

Sound like a candidate for mom of the year

Alan,

Why would you post a comment like that for all the world to see? Apparently, you're not a parent. You're discussing!

Unfortunately we both did.............

Hopefully these are comments and not just limited to politically correct statements. I believe in calling a spade a spade.

Yep, and whites are pure as the driven snow... except when there's little boys involved, then they can't help themselves

Wow, I sure wish my crap smelled like carnations like white people like Tony's does. Do you just spray Cultural Revisionist Fabreeze all over it, or do you just blame the stink on the nearest convienent minority group? Or do you pull a Romney and claim to have never crapped before in your life despite having a video of you on YouTube in mid-squat?

Well, define killing......................O_o

So you can kill weeds in your yard but not a human in the early stages of growth and development? All you have to do is google 'define killing'. Plus it has a brain and heart that actually works way before 4 to 6 months.

It's very simple to define murder. first, we use the legal definition of killing a person. Next, we use an interpretation by a bunch of brainwashed people of lesser intelligence of the greatest book of fairy tales ever published. If a fertilized egg is a human life, let it live outside the womb like the one celled thing it is, sort of like an amoeba.

Larry: are you suggesting that the age at which the baby COULD live outside the womb should be the dividing line?

As it is right now (at least where I live), the line is completion of birth. So if she'd killed her baby seconds before it finished birth, it wouldn't be murder, but a "late term abortion".

Oh: and thanks for your bigoted ahole description of the vast majority of people worldwide that believe in some kind of higher power. THEN suggesting that only those people care about abortion.

a newborn infant is incapable of surviving without someone to feed and attend to its every need. To say it cannot live on its own is a ridiculous argument. Should life only be valued when it reaches an age of complete self relience if so Sadly I know some 30 year olds we can abort right now. Regardless if one agrees or disagrees with abortion that is not what this is. I swear I would be too afraid to let my children walk past the houses of some people on here.

And I bet everyone who responed to me are Republician.

The baby is in heaven.

@Larry You mean like how babies are able to survive and be self sufficient without any breastfeeding or attention from the mother, like how sea turtles are as soon as they hatch?

Why is adoption not an option? Oh, and why is every post against liberals on here "collapsed"? I guess that supports liberals ideas that we don't have free speech. Government control baby.

Nope.

You couldn't be more wrong. This is what happens when right-wing "christian" pols in red states make birth control and abortion more difficult to obtain. Interesting that the most vehement commenters are men (as are the most vehement anti-choice protesters). It's really easy to take a hard-line stand against something that will never happen to you.

What state do you live in where it is hard to get birth control? Especially in this womans case she was in her 20's. Sorry this is not the early 60s we didn't just get the right to the pill. Birth control is there for those responsible enough to ask for it.

PMUZ - this is not what happens when abortion is legal. This is what happens when dangerous and despicable people have children. Another story on NBCNews today was about a woman killing her 7 year old son - is that also the fault of abortions? No. Stop using tragic stories to spew your ridiculous views.

@Oona: So what are we missing as males that would enlighten us? Just what is this secret enlightenment that allows only women to have valid opinions on abortion? Just tell us what it is, and maybe we can have more informed opinions. What do you know about life and babies that you are keeping from us?

Oh, and by the way, they tried giving out free birth control in South Africa. It didn't work.

It's a moral issue either way. Unless a person believes in God, the moral context of life is a call of the wild. It is a case for God in the womb and a case for the courts outside. Pretty simple, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. The medical industry is not a religious moral institution. Individual doctors should choose what kind of service they want to give or not. How does anyone say they support the right to life and with the same stroke of the pen takes away GOD GIVEN freedom? This is a non issue that tears people apart who want to impose their choice on someone else. God hasn't given that authority to anyone and humans should stop trying to play 'god' over others. If you think abortion is wrong then don't have one. Let God do God's job and make things right in his own time, his way.

That's a song lyric by Neil Young. It's nice to credit your sources.

I really don't think this is a pro-life, pro-choice issue here...this "crazy" woman who STABBED her newborn probably would have done something else crazy even if she never had this baby. What's the issue here...abortion IS legal, she could have had an abortion - none of you know why she didn't. If she's low-income, contraception IS available free of charge to her. She could have had this baby in a hospital and given it up for adoption (or at home and dropped it off at a hospital or fire dept) BUT she DIDN'T...she killed it, brutally. I don't get the pro-life attacks going on in relation to this incident. The fact of the matter is, that people need to be responsible for their actions, whether it's preventing an unwanted birth, giving birth and giving a child up or giving birth and raising a child. Killing a child is NOT an option and I'm sick of hearing all these pro-life attacks in instances like this.

How is murdering someone more cruel than torturing and then murdering them?

This is how you tried to make a logical argument. You asserted that their are people who believe that abortion is more cruel than murdering a new born. Some people view it as the same. I view this murder as slightly more cruel. How about we think both are cruel, and the fact that she could have used any of the numerous safe havens possible shows that she chose to kill her child.

Better question: how would killing the baby fetus outside the womb be more cruel than having an abortion?

Abortion is murder so is just as cruel.

Concerning the mother if she did kill her child she should be killed in the same way as she killed her child immediately after she is found guilty.

Given she is a woman she will more than likely get a light sentence.

1. The constitution is mute on abortion.

2. The Supreme Court also once upheld slavery.

3. Have you checked gallup lately?

There is something very wrong with this world. I have read numerous hideous stories (that were advertised on NBC News) in the last 10 minutes, and I think this is the worst one. Why would anyone want to do this to a wonderful and innocent newborn baby?