Posted on 08/13/2007 4:35:05 AM PDT by shrinkermd
...Few crimes generate greater public reaction than neonaticide: when a mother kills her baby, or leaves it to die, on the day she gives birth. We are repelled, yet mesmerized, as details emerge. How could a woman deny being pregnant for so many months? How could no one notice? How could a mother murder her newborn?
As a forensic psychologist, I have evaluated 32 mothers who were charged with killing one or more of their children. Fourteen-year-old "Cathy" was one. She had been repeatedly molested by her stepfather, gave birth alone in her bedroom, and then threw her newborn against the wall. "Edna," a college freshman, was so indecisive about ending her pregnancy that she suffocated her minutes-old baby in an act of delayed abortion.
Cathy and Edna denied and hid their pregnancies, common in neonaticide cases, particularly among teens pregnant for the first time. That was also true in the recent Anaheim case in which a 17-year-old visiting from Indiana allegedly gave birth in a Denny's restroom; police said that neither her parents nor her boyfriend knew she was pregnant. (That baby was found alive in a trash can and hospitalized; the mother has been charged with felony child abuse and neglect.)
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
so many parts of our society, are with the mindset of having a baby is a really bad thing, I am not surprised that these women are behaving in this manner.
Don't know why that popped into my head...
True, most of which consists of blaming and trash talking the father.
Absolutely. Repolarization is essential - but a generation of feminist-trained educators and politicians may have to die off first.
It may be a new term, but infanticide is an old practice.
When a rabbit or rat kills newborns, it means something is bad wrong; this is always indicative of either a sick animal or a gravely defective environment.
A great deal of our human environment is cultural. Related to my point: we have a gravely defective culture.
“This is where abortion has taken us.”
Infanticide has been around for a long time.
However, if a physician (I use the term loosely) had of plunged scissors into the top of the babies head and sucked its brains out before it cleared the birth canal, it would have been perfectly legal. The first act is murder but the second act is legally sanctioned. Something is not right!
“Trust me with a choice” is specious because nobody -— not the Church, not the State, not the male, and not the female -— nobody can choose the deliberate killing of the young of our species as a legitimate “choice.”
If a woman has a baby she cannot bond to, will not raise and does not want, that’s what adoption is for.
I refer to it as, "Singer-cide"
Quite true. So has abortion. Not to mention rape, vengeance-slaying, the abandonment of elderly and disabled, and the deification of tyrant kings. It's part of what the Decalogue was written to prevent.
” I think the normal, healthy animal instincts in the human species are surprisingly weak.”
Gotta disagree there. The instinct to care for offspring is very strong in man compared to other species. Humans generally provide extraordinary care to their young. It is comprehensive and of long duration. It is necessary, of course, to support the rather long maturation of an animal whose brain takes up so much volume and energy.
Some of the same people who are so incensed at this would think nothing of the baby being killed in the womb the day before birth.
Well, I wouldn't say any. Some of us are quite clear-minded when it comes to knowing that abortion is murder no matter what stage of development the unborn child is.
Perhaps because, under the influence of the relentless propaganda machine, you've forgotten that "choose" is a transitive verb. The act of "choosing" cannot, cannot, be separated from the object that is chosen.
Excepting the extremely rare preteen-victim-of-incestuous-rape situations, a woman who is pregnant with a child she doesn't want has already chosen to have sex under circumstances in which she could conceive a child she's not willing or competent to rear. That is, she has demonstrated that she does not have the discernment to make wise decisions regarding the life of another person.
As you mention, gogeo, she probably shouldn't be in the position of rearing a child, without a considerable development of maturity and judgment. Adoption would be a much better solution for many children born under these circumstances.
Very interesting thoughts.
I agree that cultural support for our best instincts - to care for those in need, whether that’s infants, the elderly, or the sick - is sadly lacking.
I suppose that to some extent, these instincts are correlated with traditional sex roles, but I don’t think so strongly that I’d make that a focus. I find in my family that everyone - boys and girls - wants to cuddle the babies and visit the elderly. (Cleaning up after the sick is not as popular.)
Right you are on every point except, I think, in calling that "instinct" tout court.
More accurate to call that instinct as vastly strengthened and elaborated by culture.
Our brains, which take up so much volume and energy, also enable us to develop morals and manners, customs and cultures, which support and refine the good healthy mammal instincts. And occasionally even empower us, when appropriate, to override instinct for an intellectually-grasped greater good.
For intance, the phenomenon of a society organized to support individuals born with missing or shortened limbs or diabetes or facial deformities (like my adopted son who was born with a cleft lip and palate) is unknown in any other species. Very often, per instinct, they kill their defectives.
So we have cultures. We cultivate, channel, strengthen, and refine our appetites tendencies, and drives. And sometimes redirect them, for good or ill.
Depends on what your traditional sex roles are!
Some societies' highest male exemplar is the samurai, others the pimp, others the Talmud scholar. I would love for my boys' highest exemplar to be their excellent father. (In fact, in discouraging moments ---sigh--- my main hope lies in that.) And above all, Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Got me thinking now. Variety within sex roles. The Community of Saints.
True. Your post #8 emphasized female nurturing, and unspecified features of "masculinity." I'm certainly not denying inborn differences between boys and girls - with three little boys in the house, I'm literally bombarded with inborn differences. (Also blocks, cars, Lego, shoes, and the occasional airborne brother.)
However, I think the qualities we're discussing come from a level of humanity more fundamental than sex differences. God created us male and female, but more basically, He created us in His image of life-giving love. Men and women (to generalize) manifest love in some distinctive ways, but the fountain of love, so to speak, is the same for both.
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.