Valerie Oskin, is the pregnant woman whose belly allegedly
was sliced by her neighbor Peggy Jo Conner, in an
attempt to steal Oskin's baby
Posted on 10/26/2005 2:47:22 PM PDT by linkinpunk
Woman Cut Open For Fetus Giving Baby Up For Adoption
POSTED: 2:01 pm EDT October 26, 2005 UPDATED: 2:19 pm EDT October 26, 2005
PITTSBURGH -- It turns out that a Pennsylvania woman who was attacked in an alleged attempt to steal her fetus had already planned to give the baby up for adoption.
The newborn is now with his adoptive parents.
Valerie Oskin, 30, was attacked -- allegedly by her neighbor, Peggy Jo Conner, 38 -- on Oct. 12. The boy was delivered by emergency Caesarean section following the attack.
An attorney for the adopting couple said they filed their notice of adoption in court Tuesday, and the baby will live with the prospective new parents during the legal process that's expected to take months.
Valerie Oskin, is the pregnant woman whose belly allegedly
was sliced by her neighbor Peggy Jo Conner, in an
attempt to steal Oskin's baby
Uh... so was it a fetus or a baby?
|
It's a 'Burgh
|
 |
|
| Send FReepmail if yunz want on/off BPT list, 'n'at | |
| Learn Pittsburghese! Free Streaming 'Burgh Radio |
|
| The List of Ping Lists | |
I can see posting the picture of the attacker, but this innocent woman?
Glad birth mother and child are okay. Sick world, and yes it's a baby.
The poor woman, experienced about 1/10th of the pain as the baby she was going to have killed.
Why are you attacking her instead of the slasher?
Thank God mother and child survived.
Is that the woman who was allegedly attacked for her fetus?
Hi OldFriend. :-)
That was my first thought, too, but maybe that photo is a photo of the attacker. The description underneath it may be misleading.
The article says she adopted the baby to other parents. It says nothing about an abortion. Is there more info we don't know about? If so, obviously she didn't go through with it...
No way ... this mother was not sliced open to steal a 'fetus' she was sliced open for a baby.
No, that's a photo of the victim....
Woops. My bad. I retract my statement.
Huh?
I retract my "Huh?" then.
I only posted the picture that was with the story.
I don't think that posting the picture on a nationwide conservative website is going to cause her to lose any less privacy that having the local NBC TV station post the picture.
Well, they both start with "A".
If it's still in utero and the mother wants to keep it, it's a baby.
If it's still in utero and the mother later decides she doesn't want to keep it, it reverts to a fetus.
If it's still in utero and the mother AND father want to keep it, it's a baby.
If it's still in utero and the mother DOESN'T want it but the father DOES, it goes back to being a fetus.
If it's still in utero and the mother doesn't want it and then changes her mind, it reverts back to babyhood.
See, its protection under the law depends on its 'wantedness' by the mother carrying it. Keep in mind this applies to A PERSON with a beating heart. You'll notice that this doesn't apply to inanimate material things like clothes, cars, and homes - only human babies.
Sickening, isn't it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
