“…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…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.”
—- Canadian Judge Joanne Viet, announcing that Katrina Effert, who strangled her newborn child and threw the body over a fence into the neighbor’s yard when she was 19, will serve a three-year suspended sentence with no jail time for the murder, reflecting a “fair compromise of all the interests involved.”
This is a cautionary ethics tale indeed for those who deny that a callous attitude toward human lives in the womb, giving them no standing against a mother’s desires and convenience, will gradually, inevitably, coarsen and warp a culture’s respect for life and its comprehension of wrong. [Addition: Many commenters have pointed out that Canada had designated infanticide as a relatively minor crime before fully legalizing abortion. That is a strange progression, though once infanticide had been declared “understandable,” abortions days were numbered. In the US, the gradual de-valuing of young life is moving in the more obvious way, from younger to older. The process, however, is the same.]
So some Canadians still view abortion as a “less than ideal” solution to unwanted pregnancies from unprotected sex! That’s encouraging; I wonder how long that delightfully quaint attitude will survive in a culture so accommodating to baby-killers. Other questions that come to mind:
- In the U.S., it is considered inflammatory and fanatical to refer to abortionists as baby-killers. Is it considered inflammatory and fanatical in Canada to refer to baby-killers as baby-killers?
- How long will it be before American courts are sending mothers home for murdering their newborns, because, after all, they’ve been through a lot?*
- How long before Canadian judges are issuing fines to mothers who kill one month old babies after they discover that taking care of them is “onerous”?
- How long before this country engages in an honest dialogue about the ethical and cultural implications of permissive abortion laws, rather than treating it as an ideological issue?
And will that dialogue happen soon enough to avoid the ascension of American-grown versions of Judge Veit?
______________________________
* Perhaps not as long as you think. In attempting to show that Barack Obama was not supporting infanticide when he opposed a bill in the Illinois legislature that would have required doctors to try to save aborted babies that still showed signs of life, Factcheck.org reached no clear conclusion after a whopping 2,233 words, but managed to compose this chilling passage:
“Whether opposing “born alive” legislation is the same as supporting “infanticide,” however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama’s 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believes a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an ‘infant.'”
What? Whether a living fetus delivered from the womb is an “infant” depends on what doctors think is his or her survival chances? What sense does that make? If there are two doctors, one who thinks the fetus is viable and while other does not, is the fetus an infant when one doctor looks at him and magically not an infant when the other doctor is in charge? If a doctor changes his mind, does an born-alive fetus suddenly become a non-infant, and then become an infant again if his prospects improve? Since when is someone’s humanity and rights determined by his health?
Ethics Alarms 
You speak about this case as if it is some new low in Canadian society, brought about by a permissive culture that accepts abortion. Actually, infanticide has been an offence separate from that of murder and manslaughter since 1948, 21 years before abortion was decriminalized in Canada and 40 years before Canada’s abortion law was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. This change based on English Infanticide Acts that date back to 1922 to 1938. The rationale was that childbirth (and lactation) can cause severe psychological stress and that mothers who kill their babies “before they have fully recovered from the effects of giving birth” should receive leniency for this reason.
Hmmm…It looks like someone created a narrative before they had the facts. Clearly not ideological at all.
I have the facts, had them, and her words are res ipsa loquitur anyway…t words of a judge who regards a newborn as a lower form of disposable life, if the mother’s stress can be relieved by killing her. I don’t call that ideological, though it springs from societally enforced ideological tunnel vision. I call that lack of compassion and common sense bordering on pathology.
I believe you created improper cause and effect here. Canada has a culture around the difficulties of pregnancy which leads to the opinion of abortion and infanticide. You made it seem as if the opinion of abortion led to the opinion of infanticide.
I should have read Eric’s reply before posting. My complaint is essentially a subset of his.
On an unrelated topic, I have difficulty subscribing to comments properly. Even checking both boxes, I often don’t see comments that are not in my direct reply taxonomy. Is this a known issue?
The judge made the connection first. That would seem to indicate a connection. I also think that the lack of any moral, ethical or legal tradition of disapproving abortion is directly responsible for the bizarre sympathy for infanticide. If you want to call it a chicken and egg question, I’m fine with that.
The judge said “While many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy….” This was a “notwithstanding” statement. She wasn’t saying “Because Canadians are okay with abortion, they are okay with infanticide.” She said, to paraphrase, despite the fact that many Canadians are uncomfortable with the use of abortion as a method of birth control, they still understand that the stress of pregnancy and childbirth can cause mothers to do horrific things.
She said “less than ideal,” which is some distance from “uncomfortable”. It means less than perfect. It is irrational to be uncomfortable with “less than perfect.” You are rephrasing to eliminate the obvious problem with her statement.
It is less than ideal that I live with two axe murderers. English is a fun language, Why is our interpretation wrong? Because then the Judge isn’t evil and has a reasoned opinion that doesn’t fit your baby-killer boogieman?
“Baby-killer boogieman?” The women killed a baby. I, and anyone remotely sane, believe, correctly, that society must condemn it in unmistakable terms. Horrors. I believe that is criminal, unethical, and wrong, period. Any law or judge or culture that treats it as anything but—three months of probation is what you get for shoplifting a 20 buck bracelet, —is abandoning respect for life. You and Eric want to play games, at the cost of clarity in a very clear issue.
“The Baby-killer boogieman” was applied to the judge who was not unequivocally condemning abortion. We haven’t discussed the criminal particularly, so I’m not sure how that wasn’t clear.
Ugh. We have the known order of events.
* Murder illegal and abortion Illegal
* Infanticide law created with less punishment
* Abortion legalized
The evidence suggests shows the sympathy for infanticide predates the legalization of abortion. Your beliefs are completely contrary to the facts here. This isn’t a he-said/she-said or a chicken-egg issue. Please set aside your distaste for the behaviors and look at what is presented. It does not match the narrative in your head.
No, I speak as if the words of the judge are callous and outrageous,and show complete disregard for human life, created in a society that has lost its comprehension of right and wrong in a context of rationalizing killing. [Note that this was an Unethical Quote”]
Leniency is one thing—complete lack of punishment for killing a helpless infant is quite another. Nor did I use the term “permissive culture”—please don’t put words, especially loaded words, in my mouth. I said its a warped culture, and I didn’t suggest that the culture was warped over-night..
I apologize for using the term “permissive culture”.
I am confused. In your reply, you point out that you were taking issue with the judge’s quote but then immediately take issue with her sentencing. I don’t think your disapproval of the judge’s sentencing can be divorced from your disapproval of her quote.
As to the quote, the judge was just stating Canadian law. Canadian law has an offence of infanticide separate from that of murder and manslaughter. The separate offence of infanticide exists because Canadians “generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support” and because “Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.” Is it unethical for a judge to state the law of her jurisdiction?
In your post, you make the statement “This is a cautionary ethics tale indeed for those who deny that a callous attitude toward human lives in the womb, giving them no standing against a mother’s desires and convenience, will gradually, inevitably, coarsen and warp a culture’s respect for life and its comprehension of wrong.” This statement cannot be construed in its context except as a statement that a culture that accepts abortion is on a slippery slope towards accepting “baby-killing”. In my reply, I noted that the charge of infanticide has existed in Canada long before abortion was legalized, so the argument you are trying to make is not a good one.
As to your point about sentencing, a recognition that infanticide can be a response to the stress of childbearing, that it is often already a tragedy for the mother and that she needs help, not punishment may be “warped”, but if that is so, many societies do not wish to be “straight”. For example, in England, of the 49 women convicted of infanticide between 1989 and 2000, only two were jailed (source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/scrap-outdated-infanticide-law-say-judges-495016.html). Note that England has more restrictive abortion laws than either the United States or Canada.
Overall, I think you are trying to find a link between the legalization of abortion and Canada’s response to infanticide that just isn’t there.
Eric, the judge’s words suggest that the majority position in Canada is that abortion IS an ideal solution to unwanted pregnancy. If abortion is ideal, post-birth “abortion” must be only slightly less ideal. The two callous attitudes are related, and the exact timing of legislation has nothing, or very little, to do with the formation of cultural norms. Legislation reflects cultural norms. Are you arguing that sympathy for baby-killing helped lead to legalization of abortion? OK. Same point. They will naturally be related and eventually consistent.
I have little interest in the legislative history here,only in the cultural approval of murder as expressed by the sentence and the judge’s words. I do doubt that “grieving” is in the law, and her comment is fatuous on that point, reminiscent of the parent-killer wanting sympathy from the judge because he is an orphan. The statement expresses equivalency between the status of the mother, who is alive, and the child, who is dead, and dead at the hands of the mother. Whether it states the law or not, the judge’s statement also describes a moral and ethical collapse.
Eric, the judge’s words suggest that the majority position in Canada is that abortion IS an ideal solution to unwanted pregnancy
Absolutely false. The judge’s words suggest that it is not ideal, but is understandable.
I have little interest in the legislative history here,only in the cultural approval of murder as expressed by the sentence and the judge’s words.
Translation: I don’t care about facts and the reality of the situation, I just care about pulling things out of context to fit my narrative.
This is not ethical behavior Jack.
Whether it states the law or not, the judge’s statement also describes a moral and ethical collapse.
So the judge is supposed to go against the law? Previously you’ve made your support of law and order over outside morality clear, so this looks like nothing more than a rationalization.
For clarity, my first use of “ideal” should be “desired” or “good”.
“Eric, the judge’s words suggest that the majority position in Canada is that abortion IS an ideal solution to unwanted pregnancy”
Absolutely false. The judge’s words suggest that it is not ideal, but is understandable.
That is not what her words say, and you know it. They say “many,” not even most, feel that it is not “ideal,” suggesting 1) that the judge is with those who think it IS ideal, and but that she can understand why these unevolved sentimentalists don’t get that and that 2) understanding that mothers have lot stress should create a sympathy for baby-killing.
“I have little interest in the legislative history here,only in the cultural approval of murder as expressed by the sentence and the judge’s words.”
Translation: I don’t care about facts and the reality of the situation, I just care about pulling things out of context to fit my narrative.
This is not ethical behavior Jack.
Foul. That is not true, nor is it fair. The two attitudes are symbiotic, and you cannot deny that in good faith. The judge is the one who made the abortion connection not me. The case did not involve abortion.
“Whether it states the law or not, the judge’s statement also describes a moral and ethical collapse.”
So the judge is supposed to go against the law? Previously you’ve made your support of law and order over outside morality clear, so this looks like nothing more than a rationalization.
You’re kidding, right? When Nazi judges followed the laws sentencing innocents to death and forceably sterilizing men and women, would that be your defense? They were sentenced at Nuremberg for such fealty to the law. 1) She did not have to suspend the sentence, under the law. That was her choice. 2) If I was unclear, my characterization was of the society that could produce such a judge, not merely the judge.
Explain why this sentence doesn’t give a judicial green light to anyone seeking to get rid of an unwanted baby.
1) ” less than ideal” meaning:
I am 100% in disagreement with you as I noted in a separate comment above. “less than ideal” is a phrase commonly used to mean “not good” or “bad.” The second part, that mothers with stress create sympathy is part of Canadian tradition, not her beliefs. At least, that’s the way the statement is formulated. You can’t attack someone for espousing an opinion that is not professed as their opinion.
2) don’t care about history:
As has now been noted by multiple people, the judge was explaining the history of the law. You say you don’t care about that legal history, you just care about that cultural history. You apparently care about it by making up causes and effects that are contrary to history and by attacking the judge for mentioning it. I stand by my comment.
3) Law and morality:
My position has always been that law and morality are not the same thing. Your position recently has been that following the law is required by morality (see the discussion of traffic laws). There’s no issue for me, but there is an inconsistency for you.
As for your comment that the judge did not have to suspend the sentence, that is true, but also often customary. Unless we dig into the details of this case heard at trial, we can’t know whether the judge’s decision fit the standard or was out of line.
Nazi judges? You are kidding right? Did she order that all babies be killed in her jurisdiction? Did she order that all mothers be killed? Did she let OJ Simpson go free?? Good grief. I think the comparison with the death penalty is a little closer to the mark. You are sounding surprisingly worked up and it is leading you down the wrong garden path verbally. Deep breaths needed, I think.
You have to learn the point of an analogy, Danielle. My point is that a judge following an immoral law is still responsible for his or her actions; you can’t just say “I was following the law.” I presume that a judge who believes that a law is unconscionable has a duty to do what he or she can to minimize its impact, or leave the bench. I’m not sure this rises to that extreme, and didn’t say that it did. I was objecting to was the suggestion that if the judge were following the law, then there could be nothing wrong with doing so.
Canada is not Nazi Germany. Canada is a democracy governed by the rule of law. The Canadian Parliament could eliminate infanticide as a separate offence tomorrow. Likewise, Parliament could criminalize abortion if it wished to do so. In a common law democracy, judges have the duty to follow both statutes and precedent. By ruling as she did, Madam Justice Veit was following Canadian law and precedent. All infanticide cases in Canada, except for one, resulted in non-custodial sentences for the mother. If a judge like Veit wished to change the law or ignore precedent, they should only do so if they have a good reason to do so, beyond “I don’t like this law”. If they do not, then Canada will no longer have the rule of law.
I understood the point of the analogy, Jack, I was pointing out that I thought it was a bad one. Still do.
1. You said that the judge’s words were unethical. The judge was applying Canadian law. Is it unethical for a judge to follow Canadian law, state that they are following Canadian law and state the reasons for that law? The answer can only be no or else our judicial system would break down. The premise of your post is incorrect. Say that Canadian society is unethical if you like, but why criticize Madam Justice Veit?
2. “If abortion is ideal, post-birth “abortion” must be only slightly less ideal” This does not remotely follow. Abortion is usually supported on the basis that a foetus is not a person and that the person carrying it has a right to terminate her pregnancy is very different from acknowledging that a born-alive child is a human being and that it should not be killed but that sometimes, due to the stress of pregnancy, childbirth and new motherhood, mothers that do so deserve more sympathy and help than punishment.
I’m not trying to get in the middle here, just seeking your opinion Eric. Why do you think Madam Justice Veit included the line about abortion in her statement? What value does it have regarding a case of Infanticide? It just seems like it doesn’t belong.
I can make up reasons for this, but they are all dependent on information we do not know and are pure suppositions. If the woman had been talking about or trying to get an abortion and had killed her newborn quickly, relating it to abortion could make sense. I have noted that I believe intent to abort and actions to abort should be the standard for a legal abortion, even if the foetus is delivered as part of the process.
It is a bit of an odd statement. I think she was trying to distinguish this case from one of abortion. She was trying to say that, while abortion for therapeutic reasons is controversial in Canada*, Canadians understand why leniency and compassion should be granted to a woman who kills her child due to the extreme stress of pregnancy or childbearing.
Abortion is controversial in Canada because the abortion law was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada because its exceptions for when the health of the mother is in danger were not fair (they protected mothers with access to a hospital with an abortion committee but not mothers in more remote communities). The Supreme Court expected that Parliament would enact a new abortion law, but Parliament has not done so, mostly because abortion is so controversial. As a consequence, there has never been a statement as to whether abortion is a right or not.
I should add that I have no better knowledge than you or anyone else as to why Madam Justice Veit said what she said.
For the second issue, history shows that Canada thought infanticide was a relatively low crime. By extension, abortion had to be at least as low. The cause and effect is mixed up.
Ah, I think I see what you are saying. Basically, at some point in the trial, someone said that there were harsher penalties / restrictions opinion against abortion, so the judge had to essentially say “Despite that…this is different…”
Yeah?
I wasn’t speaking to the question of mentioning abortion with this comment, just to Jack’s characterization of things. I do respond above with possible reasoning supporting the mention.
It’s not cause and effect. Both positions are caused by a cultural norm that infants/fetuses are disposable in the interest of adult convenience. One law came first, obviously once you’ve allowed mothers to kill troublesome babies, allowing them to direct the elimination of a troublesome fetus as an “ideal’ solution to unprotected sex follows as the night the day.
I disagree with some of your quality assessments and unnecessary adjectives, but I am with you until you again state that abortion is “ideal” (in the eyes of the culture/judge).
What directly follows is that abortion has to be no worse than infanticide. With other factors, I believe abortion is often not a problem.
Your colorful language is not helping your position. It’s painting you as an ideologue.
1. You said that the judge’s words were unethical.
They are unethical.
The judge was applying Canadian law. Is it unethical for a judge to follow Canadian law, state that they are following Canadian law and state the reasons for that law?
Those are her reasons for that law, and she did not “state the law”—she characterized it.
The answer can only be no or else our judicial system would break down.
She did not have to suspend sentence, Eric. Judges suspend sentences when the crime is minimal. This was murder. It was the judge’s choice.
The premise of your post is incorrect. Say that Canadian society is unethical if you like, but why criticize Madam Justice Veit?
Please. She states that many Canadians, not her, think abortion is a less than ideal solution to …unprotected sex??? That sympathy for a living, murderous mother trumps sympathy for a murdered, helpless infant? The law doesn’t say any of that…she did. That’s what the law has done to Canadian justice and culture, at least as it has influenced this judge.
2. “If abortion is ideal, post-birth “abortion” must be only slightly less ideal” This does not remotely follow. Abortion is usually supported on the basis that a foetus is not a person and that the person carrying it has a right to terminate her pregnancy is very different from acknowledging that a born-alive child is a human being and that it should not be killed but that sometimes, due to the stress of pregnancy, childbirth and new motherhood, mothers that do so deserve more sympathy and help than punishment.
That’s spin. That’s all it is. If the child was fully valued as a human life, your interpretation would be impossible.
Judge’s reasons for the law?:
The judge was giving her understanding of the history of the Canadian law. If there was something inaccurate, please correct it.
Suspended sentence:
First, the charge is infanticide, not murder. You’re mischaracterizing the charged offense or equivocating. Second, it depends on what is appropriate and usual for this case. Do you have any evidence that this is outside the approved guidelines.
Canadian issue vs. Judge:
Same as before. You are not reading her statement properly. You are reading it with motive.
child as life:
Circular reasoning and counterfactual. You’re arguing that if something (that’s not true) was true, then it would be true.
Why would there be a law punishing infanticide more leniently except because it is a recognition of the frailty of the mother after the stress of giving birth? This is how appellate courts have interpreted the law when deciding whether a charge of infanticide is appropriate. Madam Justice Veit was stating the law as it is and characterizing it in a manner consistent with the reasons for which it was enacted and with how it has been interpreted. How is it unethical for a judge to do this?
I didn’t feel like adding a side debate to this post (I went for a walk for a couple hours and I’m already having difficulty following all of the different lines of argument in this post), but let me ask you a question. I am against capital punishment. If a judge in a jurisdiction that retains capital punishment says to a guilty murderer “Our society has decided that there are some people who commit crimes so heinous that they are no longer fit to live amongst civilized people. You are one such person. Therefore, the least sentence I can give to you is to hang from the neck until dead. Take the prisoner down.”, is that judge unethical for following the law of his or her jurisdiction? He or she is characterizing the laws of capital punishment by saying that they are meant to punish those who commit heinous crimes. In most jurisdictions, capital punishment is not mandatory, so the judge could have imposed a lesser sentence. As far as I’m concerned, the judge is just following the law of his or her jurisdiction, created by the democratically elected legislators of his or her jurisdiction (note that the Canadian Parliament could criminalize abortion or remove the provisions for infanticide if it wanted to). We can argue whether those laws are ethical or unethical, but I don’t think the judge and his or her statement are unethical. Do you?
I believe that all human life is valuable, yet I acknowledge that punishments for those who take a human life can differ. Those who do so accidentally through no fault of their own should not be punished. Those who do so accidentally and are at fault should be punished, but not to the highest level of severity. Those who do so due to mental problems should generally need help, not punishment. Those who do it intentionally deserve some of the highest penalties that a just society can impose (which is, in my opinion, capital punishment). Most jurisdictions agree with my interpretation by recognizing culpable and non-culpable homicide, lesser sentences for manslaughter, higher sentences for murder (and even higher sentences for premeditated murder) and rehabilitation for those with mental disorders. Do these jurisdictions not value human lives equally?
Whoops, I meant to say “which is, in my opinion, life in prison”, not “which is, in my opinion, capital punishment”. Either I had capital punishment on the mind or my id temporarily took over.
Jack, with all due respect, your commitment to your original narrative appears to have taken on an irrational dimension. You are now saying that the judge’s quote suggests “that the majority position in Canada is that abortion IS an ideal solution to unwanted pregnancy,” despite the fact that the quote directly states the opposite perspective. Above, you chastised another commenter for putting words in your mouth, but with this you proceed to not only put words in the mouth of your original target, but to twist her words to mean something quite contrary to what they plainly state. You even use the phrase “post-birth abortion” as if this was a term formerly introduced by the judge or by Canadian society, and not an instance of rhetoric that you’ve introduced in the interest of attributing a view to your opponents that they presumably do not actually hold.
Speaking more broadly, I would say that what I find to be missing in much of the abortion debate is a sense of balance between care for unborn children and care for mothers who lack crucial support. The impression that I get from the quotation is that Canadian law is at least approaching this perspective. They may have gone too far in one direction, but your attacks ascribe an ideological basis for that situation that simply doesn’t seem accurate. Furthermore, your perspective appears to push towards the opposite extreme – an exclusive emphasis on punishment and on defense of the unborn, at the expense of recognition of severe psychological strain as a cause of such killing, and a mitigating factor in legal sentencing.
Despite the status of the debate in American society, the two positions don’t need to be mutually exclusive, and indeed they both have ethical supports. As Eric stated, it is not unethical of Judge Veit to explain her country’s legal position. I dare say that your ascription to that explanation of a disregard for infant life is unfair and off balance.
Jack, with all due respect, your commitment to your original narrative appears to have taken on an irrational dimension. You are now saying that the judge’s quote suggests “that the majority position in Canada is that abortion IS an ideal solution to unwanted pregnancy,” despite the fact that the quote directly states the opposite perspective.
How do you read her comments that way? If I say, “many people in America don’t believe in evolution,’ and don’t include myself, the reasonable presumption is that I am not among them. Lawyer speak with precision. Many is not most. If she meant most, she would have said it.
Above, you chastised another commenter for putting words in your mouth, but with this you proceed to not only put words in the mouth of your original target, but to twist her words to mean something quite contrary to what they plainly state.
They DO plainly state, because no sane person would phrase it like that meaning anything else, since it is an outrageous statement on its face.
You even use the phrase “post-birth abortion” as if this was a term formerly introduced by the judge or by Canadian society, and not an instance of rhetoric that you’ve introduced in the interest of attributing a view to your opponents that they presumably do not actually hold.
What would you call it? The judge analogized the incident to abortion. It occurred after birth, whereas abortions occur before birth. She applied the reasoning of one to the other.
Speaking more broadly, I would say that what I find to be missing in much of the abortion debate is a sense of balance between care for unborn children and care for mothers who lack crucial support. The impression that I get from the quotation is that Canadian law is at least approaching this perspective. They may have gone too far in one direction, but your attacks ascribe an ideological basis for that situation that simply doesn’t seem accurate. Furthermore, your perspective appears to push towards the opposite extreme – an exclusive emphasis on punishment and on defense of the unborn, at the expense of recognition of severe psychological strain as a cause of such killing, and a mitigating factor in legal sentencing.
No. I am suggesting that a rap on the wrist for child-killing encourages more of it by declaring it “understandable,’ and that such a position is the natural result of a culture that progressively devalues the unborn from human beings to “inconveniences.”
Gee, Ed—allowing mothers to kill their kids without sanctions “may be going too far.”
Ya think??
Reading of the judge’s comments:
I read them the way Edward does. I also read the Evolution quote as being neutral on your position. That the “many people X Y” is a common structure that is often followed with “, but X Y is bad” does not mean that statements that don’t follow with that second phrase imply that second phrase.
If this doesn’t work, how would one state the neutral position?
Mischaracterization and plain stating:
I do say “X is not ideal” when it is a horrible situation. Apparently I’m not sane. I can’t recall it ever being misunderstood before.
post-birth abortion:
I’m actually okay with this phrase.
Murder understandable -> more occur:
The alterate position is to deny reality and say things that are false. You’re making a slippery slope argument off a straw man. The judge noted that people “understand … the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers”. I don’t see any mention of murder being understandable, or even infanticide or abortion. The implication is that because we understand the harshness of X, we give some leeway to people under X.
If I say, “many people in America don’t believe in evolution,’ and don’t include myself, the reasonable presumption is that I am not among them. Lawyer speak with precision. Many is not most. If she meant most, she would have said it.
No, Jack, in your analogy there is no reasonable presumption. If you say that many people do not believe in evolution, you are neither including yourself in nor excluding yourself from that observation. Whether I conclude from your statement that you believe in evolution or that you don’t, I am making a baseless and irrational assumption. The statement is general, collective, and non-specific; it makes no reference to your personal views.
Similarly, “many” is a non-specific term. In my dictionary, it is defined as “a large number of.” A large number many be 35%; it may be 51%; it may be 98%. “Many” does not explicitly mean “most,” but it isn’t contrary to “most,” either. Lawyers speak with precision, but presumably only when they have precise data. Speaking vaguely is appropriate when you are taking care to not make claims that you can’t competently support. I assume that in making her statement, Judge Veit did not have all available polling data on Canadian beliefs about abortion handy. I take her statement to mean that in her observation, a lot of Canadians view abortion with discomfort. I assume that she has an opinion about whether it’s most of them, but she can’t back it up. So she chose the word “many.” Many is not always most, but it absolutely can be.
They DO plainly state, because no sane person would phrase it like that meaning anything else, since it is an outrageous statement on its face.
It seems to me that in one breath you are saying that the cited quotation plainly states something and that the language is unclear and obscured.
What would you call it? …She applied the reasoning of one to the other.
Infanticide. Which, as has been established, is a separate category in Canadian law. It would be dishonest and evasive to not acknowledge that the topics are related, at least with respect to the motivations of the mother or would be mother. That does not mean, however, that legal or moral attitudes toward them must be identical, equivalent or even mutually supportive. Related crimes are treated differently, often inconsistently, and lawmakers don’t always refer to prior, related laws when establishing new ones. The same can be said of attitudes towards public policy, etc.
I am suggesting that a rap on the wrist for child-killing encourages more of it by declaring it “understandable,’…
Yes, letting someone who commits infanticide go completely unpunished is heinous and unacceptable. However, there are some perhaps arcane questions to be asked here about the purpose of the criminal justice system. If you think it’s to dispense punishment with no consideration of context, I understand your perspective, but I frankly question its ethical value. If it’s to rehabilitate, then depending on the facts of this case (which are quite sparse in the story to which you linked), there may be no role to be played here. Having killed her child in desperation doesn’t make her likely to kill again, or prone to any other criminal acts. If the role of the criminal justice system is deterrence, I simply question its efficacy in cases like this. Do you really believe that women who otherwise would not have killed their children will be encouraged to do so because of a case like this? I allow that perhaps Veit and others are counting on awareness of the perpetrator’s mental anguish to be a better deterrent for other teenage mothers. I don’t know what the mother’s mental state was when she committed her crime. It does say that psychiatric evidence was the reason behind the suspended sentence, so perhaps her own response to the crime was considered sufficient punishment to make jail time seem extraneous. If so, publicizing those details could do more to encourage other women to seek alternative solutions than publicizing her sentencing. I expect that the rationale here was that they thought putting the young woman in jail wouldn’t do any social good, and not that they think reducing rates of abortion and infanticide isn’t a social good.
…and that such a position is the natural result of a culture that progressively devalues the unborn from human beings to “inconveniences.”
Here you are begging the question. Everything you’ve said so far gives me the impression that you began this discourse with the belief that Canadian society “progressively devalues the unborn,” and that you interpret the judge’s words in terms of that belief. The actions in this case must be motivated by an belief that infants are sub-human, because Canadian society thinks that infants are sub-human. Right?
What I find interesting is the positions here. You’re attacking the judge for supporting baby killing/abortion/murder because those things are wrong. I’m saying the judge’s words do not support your contention that the judge is supporting baby killing/abortion/murder. While I could argue that Canadian’s position is the sane one, that’s unnecessary…unless you try to move the goalposts.
Pingback: Canada Father murders baby, gets off free
As a woman who desperately wants to be a mother.. but can’t get into the coveted Mommy Club without another woman’s help, I really struggle with the idea that someone would rather kill their child than give the child a chance with another family.
The US has what are called Safe Haven Laws- Essentially, a parent can surrender their infant at designated places (usually hospitals, women’s/children’s shelters, police stations, etc), declare that they no longer wishes to parent the child, and no questions are asked. The parent leaves without the “onerous” burden of an unwanted baby, and the baby is placed in foster care eventually to be adopted. It’s a monumentally better option than.. well, than anything I can think of. Better than abortion- extinguishing an unknown potential. Better than infanticide- cutting off the in-progress potential barely begun.