Article-"...as her face appeared just as confused as in her booking
photo."The writer of the article noticed the same thing I did
from the photos that have been release. From the pictures alone, there is
clearly something going on here that is not normal and in control.
Yorkshire, I agree with your observation as well as the writers. I studied and
hold a degree in criminal justice, with a bunch of psychology courses in there
as well. Personally, I don't think this woman is operating on all 8
cylinders. If that is the case, and she is mentally unstable, they can confine
her, but the death penalty is taken off the table. Youth and those who are
mentally unstable can not be given the death penalty by order of the Supreme
Court. I'm surprised the smell alone wasn't detected sooner.
I'm not a psychologist, however from seeing her mug shot and this picture,
she doesn't look to be all there. Something is just not right.
Seriously was it 6 or 7? I keep seeing conflicting numbers.
The defense is fairly simple... just claim they were all self-administered,
completely legal partial birth abortions.
No charges have been filed.Is it possible that the 'mom'
is really just an accomplice to aborting babies of others and is protecting the
identities of the real moms?
Thank you, Meme1.I'm glad they're stopping to really make
sure they understand what they can about what's going on, rather than
jumping the gun based on what's immediately apparent.
@Mr. BeanI detect the sarcasm in your comment and I agree. We
should be just as outraged about abortion (in any stage or state of birth) as we
are about this case. I see it as exactly the same. Life was terminated either
way. Why, why is abortion OK and this is not?
@iron&clay: There's an easy answer to that - they still can
paternity/maternity-test the remains if the DNA is good enough to be tested -
and it might be.
@Mr Bean- except they aren't legal.And similar to Quaker's
comment, its a good case for upping the ante on Utah's Safe Harbour laws
and stopping the ridiculous fight against same sex parenting. BTW,
how could she not be mentally ill?
While we are examining families and trying to associate this behavior with any
trend... in light of common attacks on the family using cases like this to build
strawmen or disconnected claims...I would offer the following
observation:Let's say that the majority of Utah members of the
LDS Church started smoking. The truthfulness of the LDS Church doesn't
change of course. But the real interesting fact is that it also says nothing
about the integrity of the Word of Wisdom, only people's willingness to
adhere to it. If you want to know whether the "LDS life" is healthy,
looking at imperfect examples defeats the purpose.My point is
simple:If you want to challenge our claims in support of families... look
at families sealed in the temple and who keep the commandments. There is no such
thing as a serial killer who keeps the commandments. Why? Because the two are
exclusionary. That isn't evidence against, but in support of the family.With a loving father and mother, good things are possible. Without both
genders we wouldn't exist.Most of all- with loving parents,
these things don't happen. Duh?
Has this women stated yet why she did this or even if she did this alone? I
think that's what most people would like to know. What was her issues and
what was she thinking during this time in her life?
Of course we can talk about Abortions regarding this story. That is really what
it is about.When we kill little kids the abortionists are trying to
show how humane they are by crying foul and saying that this lady crossed the
line. That way they can feel better about themselves because they only killed
the little kid who wasn't born yet.The rationalization is
@ Red, the rationalization is yours. The comment trivializes this tragedy as
well as the issue of abortion.
Esquire,Imagine a man eating a growing Apple straight from a tree
branch.Now imagine him eating a picked apple.The result: A man ate 2
apples.A woman gets an abortion.Later on, she gives birth and
murders her child.The result: 2 babies lives are taken.The
'timing' doesn't change the "action", so it's
technically comparable. The morality of an act is a different question and for
God to decide. Forgive this analogy, but... Cake and pie are different, but
still food. Which tastes good or bad is up to you. That doesn't mean they
aren't food still./////A Quaker,I
don't base my will on theory, but faith. Faith is evidence of things
unseen. That's a debate for another day. But suffice it to say there is far
more and far stronger evidence supporting the Savior's life, love for us,
and the reality of the atonement and potential of the family than scientists
have to support the boson. Worshiping man is foolish.
@Red, @MrBean, @hockeymom: You may see infanticide as equivalent to abortion,
but I do not. By any measure, infanticide is homocide. Genesis tells us that
God gives us our souls with our first breath. Science tells us that 24 weeks of
gestation will get a fetus to the point where it has some chance to take that
first breath in the world, albeit with assistance. Before that, not so much.This woman apparently didn't want these children to live. For
whatever reason, finances, moral turmoil, secrecy, she couldn't or
wouldn't avail herself of early termination of her pregnancies. So, she
gave birth and, according to allegations, either snuffed them or just let them
die.You see absolutism in this discussion and no moral difference.
I see a huge difference between humane treatment of this woman, with its
availability of medical intervention to end unwanted pregnancy, or get her tubes
tied, and the horrors she allegedly committed in response to her unresolvable
conflict.PS: Don't you find it odd to see responses to
messages which have been deleted?