Infanticide isn’t a crime, ay, but littering is?

Not just any litter, mind you. Throwing that dead baby you strangled with your undies after delivering him over the fence into the neighbor’s yard. Surreal

The Wetaskiwin, Alta., woman convicted of infanticide for killing her newborn son, was given a three-year suspended sentence Friday by an Edmonton Court of Queen’s Bench judge.

Katrina Effert was 19 on April 13, 2005, when she secretly gave birth in her parents’ home, strangled the baby boy with her underwear and threw the body over a fence into a neighbour’s yard.

She silently wept as Justice Joanne Veit outlined the reasons for the suspended sentence. Effert will have to abide by conditions for the next three years but she won’t spend time behind bars for strangling her newborn son.

In her judgment, the judge rejected arguments from the Crown that the single father and the grandparent also face “the same stresses of the mind” as a mother who kills her own baby.

The fact that Canada has no abortion laws reflects 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,” she writes.

What a judge. Pregnancy stress justifies the killing of infants. It’s a miracle humans exist. More judicious wisdom:

“Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.”

They should grieve, but not for the mother. Only a truly sick relativist society could produce such a monster.

Next week, the court will hear arguments on a remaining issue from Effert’s long legal battle: the 16 days of jail time she still must serve for throwing her baby’s body over the fence.

Her lawyer, Peter Royal, asked the court to do away with the penalty or allow her to serve the time on weekends. It was “unjust” and “almost mean to incarcerate her” at this point, he argued.

I agree with the lawyer at this point. Why bother incarcerating the murderess? If infanticide is a lesser charge than murder–and it is in Canada–then it makes no sense for the meanies to jail her. Oh, save that littering charge. Right-o.

Mark Steyn:

So a superior court judge in a relatively civilized jurisdiction is happy to extend the principles underlying legalized abortion in order to mitigate the killing of a legal person — that’s to say, someone who has managed to make it to the post-fetus stage. How long do those mitigating factors apply? I mean, “onerous demands”-wise, the first month of a newborn’s life is no picnic for the mother. How about six months in? The terrible twos?

Speaking of “onerous demands,” suppose you’re a “mother without support” who’s also got an elderly relative around with an “onerous” chronic condition also making inroads into your time?

Exactly. You can kill granny with the “onerous” condition if you’re in Canada. Just make sure you don’t throw her over the fence, ay.

Linked by Pundette as a “Featured Blog” and a “Recommended Read.” Thanks!

3 Responses

  1. Sufficiently unpleasant consequences constrain behavior. It is revealing that we devalue human life to such an extent that the government gave its tacit approval to baby murdering. Protecting the weak from the strong used to be the rightful province of the state; unfortunately, that is no longer the case.

    This tragedy began when the public and media allowed the abortion industry, unchallenged, to neologize an unborn child into a fetus. This change alone put abortion on a par with an appendectomy. What this woman did is, in fact, on a par with partial birth abortion.

    In this so-called medical procedure, the child is delivered without cutting the umbilical cord, the brain is scrambled with a scalpel and suctioned out of the cranial cavity, the baby is put back into the mother, redelivered, and declared stillborn. It is mere contrivance to describe this as abortion; it is the murder of a viable human being.

  2. Oh I had the same blog on the Canadian woman. It’s outrageous. Here’s part of what I said:

    “I’m actually more shocked at the judge for her (it’s a she, if that means anything) twisted, sick logic. She is acting out of some calculated value system. The mother is sinful, gravely sinful, but the judge is evil. First of all, why is infanticide a “lesser charge” than murder? Shouldn’t it be murder?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: