Pro-abortion activists like to opine that if abortion is "safe, legal, and rare," then mothers who don’t want their children won’t turn to vacuum cleaners and clothes hangers when they decide to abort their children. But the self-abortionists are still out there. Apparently on the very day that her baby was due, one such self-abortionist decided to use a gun.
"The defense attorney for a woman accused of shooting herself in the stomach and killing her unborn child says an abortion charge won’t hold up in court.
"Suffolk’s lead prosecutor says his office is still investigating the crime.
"Tammy Skinner, 22, is charged with inducing an abortion and filing a false police report. Prosecutors have already said they plan to drop a firearms charge because it doesn’t apply."
Prosecutors are still trying to figure out exactly what crime the woman committed. They may not get a self-induced abortion charge to stick, they’ve dropped a firearms charge, and Virginia’s fetal homicide law only provides justice to pre-born children whose mothers wanted them. That’s because the law is aimed at prosecuting those who kill the "fetus of another."
Before legalized abortion, the charge would have been simple: Murder. There also would not have been this kind of sympathetic clucking for the murderer:
"’I understand that people feel moral outrage over this,’ Martingayle said. ‘And there is likely to be some criminal punishment. But perhaps [Ms. Skinner] been punished enough.’"
Tell that to the baby girl who was shot by her own mother.
What a terrible story. A sad end for that poor baby, but I feel very sorry for this mom too. How incredibly mentally ill do you have to be to resort to this? I wonder if she thought that this would kill herself as well (I’m surprised it didn’t).
I too feel sorry for both of them, but more so for the victim.
obviously the baby is the clear victim here. but let’s have some perspective on this act. this was not the act of a rational but callous/evil soul. a rational/callous/evil soul would have pursued an ordinary abortion earlier or at least done something with the baby after it was born. (abandon it/kill it & dispose of the body)
i’m not saying to excuse the mother’s act. but honestly look at what this woman did. any woman who carries a baby to term and then shoots herself in the belly seems pathologically unable to deal with her situation and make choices that make ANY kind of sense, selfish or otherwise. for whatever reasons she must have been desperate/terrified/self-destructive. perhaps suicidal. who could not pity her?
perhaps even more than the child. the child was only killed. what abuse and suffering made possible a soul capable of doing something so insane? my feeling is that this woman deserves pity and compassion more than outraged condemnation.
But perhaps [Ms. Skinner] been punished enough.
This reminds me of the member of the Menendez brothers jury who said that she couldn’t find them guilty, because she felt bad for them, since they no longer had their parents.
Of course they don’t have their parents anymore – they killed them!
Amazing how twisted rationalizations can get, especially when we’re trying to deceive ourselves. “Oh what a tangled web we weave…”
Just because our society sometimes goes overboard in rationalizing evil does not mean we need to go overboard in lack of compassion to try to compensate.
Oh well just call me a “sympathetic clucker” then.
And I suppose that’s why we have a God. I certainly can’t read the soul of this woman. I don’t know to what extent she should be judged in the eternal court. But I guess the temporal courts will figure out, in their limited capacity, how mentally disabled she was.
Just as I’m not inclined to accuse, I’m equally not inclined to excuse. From my experience, taking ownership for sin isn’t exactly the mantra of the day. My archbishop confirms this each lent when he writes to the diocese, ‘didn’t know there were so many saints in my charge–no one is coming to confession.’
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a genuine pathology associated with women who self abort, both before and after Roe v. Wade.
I also wouldn’t be surprised if the APA has assiduously avoided studying such a question for the past 30 years.
I can just see pro-lifers being blamed for this. After all, if this woman only had access to a convenient neighborhood abortuary… if only WE hadn’t stigmatized abortion… if only the government would provide free abortions, etc…
Someone who is “pro-choice” can only argue that this woman is guilty of practicing medicine without a license.
Can you imgine if someone actually advanced this argument in a court?
From my experience, taking ownership for sin isn’t exactly the mantra of the day.
but doesn’t it seem more than obvious that there is more going on here than just “sin”?
we aren’t talking about a woman who had a pba because having a baby would be inconvenient to her busy schedule. we aren’t even talking about a pair of teenagers who murdered their parents.
we’re talking about a woman who pointed a gun at her own body and pulled the trigger. not at her head, to end her suffering, but at her belly—to kill her baby, yes, but also very likely to result in killing her own self, not quickly but slowly, and sure to result in huge suffering no matter what.
i would hesitate before suggesting that the baby—who again is the clear victim here—deserves more pity than the mother. not because of her self-inflicted wounds, but because of what could have driven her, not to DO that (i’m not letting her off the hook by suggesting that she had no free will), but to be CAPABLE of doing that.
i suspect she may be more a victim than her baby, who after all was only murdered. there are worse things.
“Oh well just call me a ‘sympathetic clucker’ then.”
Suzanne: Ordinarily, I have a great deal of sympathy for women who seek abortions, especially for those in dire situations who think they have no other choice. My tone in commenting on this article is caustic this time because the article itself made me angry. The comment by the attorney chastising those who feel “moral outrage” that a baby girl was shot by her own mother set me off, I suppose. The “sympathetic clucking” crack was aimed more at him, not at all those who feel pity for the woman who did this.
I can understand being annoyed at the attny who, for the sake of his client’s defense, seems to discount any problem with a baby being killed. But look at it from his legal perspective – there isn’t really a legal problem here since that baby could have been just as brutally killed in the womb with no law being broken. There is an argument to be made here that says “why should a woman be punished for doing herself what she could have gotten a doctor to do anyway?” One can hardly blame him for just voicing our culture’s view that that life is disposable anyway.
The snarkiness ought to be properly directed at our insane laws/culture rather than women who actually go through with abortions. I was put off by your tone towards the woman because I just don’t think that more pro-lifers need to be encouraged to nurse the “hang the mother” attitude. It leads credence to those on the other side who accuse us of only caring for the baby and not the mother.
“The snarkiness ought to be properly directed at our insane laws/culture rather than women who actually go through with abortions. I was put of by your tone towards the woman because I just don’t think that more pro-lifers need to be encouraged to nurse the ‘hang the mother’ attitude. It leads credence to those on the other side who accuse us of only caring for the baby and not the mother.”
Understood, and point taken. But please remember that at one time, back before our culture went into its death spiral, righteous anger would have been directed at the mother as well. Unless she was certifiably insane and thus not responsible for her action — and there was no suggestion that there might be an insanity defense — it would have been considered a reprehensible act for a mother to willfully shoot a defenseless child (and even more so a preborn child who could not even defend itself with a scream, the only way babies can defend themselves).
I do feel pity for this woman but I don’t think that taking a censorious tone over the actions she chose to commit is entirely wrong either. Let’s also remember that had she delivered the child and then shot the baby, a great deal of our sympathy for the mother would probably have dried up because it would have been a more visible case of murder rather than “self-abortion.”
Letterman: good discussion. Respectfully, A few points in response to your comments:
“Isn’t it obvious that there is more going on here than just “sin”? ”
1. Maybe. It’s quite possible that there were a host of mitigating circumstances. Perhaps, she was sincerely suffereing from some neurosis. In that case, she clearly would deserve pity. However, she very well could have chosen to commit this evil with an understanding that it was gravely wrong. In that case, in my understanding, it would be a mortal sin–and I believe, people do still commit mortal sins.
“i suspect she may be more a victim than her baby, who after all was only murdered. there are worse things.”
2. Following this reasoning, am I, therefore, to feel more sympathy for the Roman executioners than for Christ Himself.
….Wow, the devil can really turn things on their heads….
I’m with you, Joe; I’ll wait to see the evidence before concluding the woman must be some kind of psycho.
However, she very well could have chosen to commit this evil with an understanding that it was gravely wrong. In that case, in my understanding, it would be a mortal sin–and I believe, people do still commit mortal sins.
thanks, Joe. as i understand it the 3 requirements of mortal sin are grave matter, sufficient reflection & full consent. we have grave matter so if we assume sufficient reflection (“with an understanding that it was gravely wrong”) & full consent of the will, (if this is what is meant by “chosen”) then yes that would be a mortal sin.
i’m no expert, but i think legally the insanity defense is basically about sufficient reflection (were you too crazy to know it was wrong). however morally not legally there is also the question of full consent of the will.
to have full consent you need a moral use of reason that deeply troubled people may not fully have. i think lots of times troubled people have sufficient reflection, they know it’s gravely wrong, but they lack full consent of the will. the will weakened by concupiscence is too easily overwhelmed by uncontrollable psychological/emotional/biochemical pressures.
take a junkie who knows getting high is wrong and struggles against it but sometimes gives in—tortured, conflicted, hating himself for giving in even as he does it. sufficient reflection? let’s say yes. full consent of the will? maybe not. God is the judge.
that’s not a legal defense & i’m not saying there shouldn’t be consequences. i’m just making a plea to recognize that whatever she may have done this woman probably needs/deserves compassion & understanding not just judgement for her sins/crimes.
Following this reasoning, am I, therefore, to feel more sympathy for the Roman executioners than for Christ Himself.
err…. well, that’s not following my reasoning. 🙂
i said “i suspect she may be more a victim than her baby, who after all was only murdered. there are worse things.” you seem to think this means either that every murderer is more a victim than every victim, or at least that there is as much reason to think that Roman soldiers putting a prisoner to death have been victimized as to think that a woman who shot herself in the belly has been victimized.
oh and btw Jesus deserves more sorrow and pity than anyone because like i said there are worse things than just being murdered—and He suffered them.
…Wow, the devil can really turn things on their heads….
no offense intended i’m sure. 🙂
I’m with you, Joe; I’ll wait to see the evidence before concluding the woman must be some kind of psycho.
but until then, what? you’ll just assume that she’s probably just a cold-blooded killer, end of story?
cold-blooded killer or some kind of psycho. what a dilemma.
He said he wouldn’t write her off as “some kind of psycho.” This is not an assertion of her guilt.
…still thinking about your reply post letterman (also, trying to do some homework..)
No, letterman: I await evidence on that, too. I try not to make judgments without evidence. Judgments made without evidence are worthless, as they are based on nothing.
I await evidence on that, too. I try not to make judgments without evidence. Judgments made without evidence are worthless, as they are based on nothing.
depends what counts as evidence and judgments. everyone makes judgments (assumptions) everyday based on the evidence they have. we have to. you can’t live without making working guesses and going with them. yes you try to find out more and make a more informed judgement if you can. but we don’t go through life suspending all judgements until all the evidence is in.
we already have some evidence about this woman–she pointed a gun at her own belly and pulled the trigger. to me that’s enough evidence to go for now with the assumption that she probably wasn’t just a bad person but a deeply troubled one and that our first response to her should be compassion not judgement of her sins.
If she was accused of filing a false police report, she probably called the cops and claimed she was shot. (By someone else.)
It is reasonable to consider that she may have been trying to frame the father for killing the kid.
Or, she may have been trying to avoid letting everyone know she’d killed her child, or she could have been going for sympathy. I know folks who would do serious harm to others to get attention.
When someone shoots themselves in their pregnant belly, it doesn’t really lend itself to innocent responses….
Letterman, you have to read more carefully. I did not say that I make no judgments until ALL evidence is in; that would mean that I make no judgments.
We know this woman pointed a gun at her belly and pulled the trigger. We don’t know why. That’s for the police to investigate. I’ll suspend judgement of her motives until I find out what they were. You can assume if you want to, but, as I learned the hard way a long time ago, when you assume you make an…well, you probably know the rest.
I wouldn’t be too quick to assume that this mother was insane when she took her child’s life.
It is possible.
I can’t imagine murdering someone unless I was insane. For me, it would be proof that I had, in fact, gone mad.
But I know enough about evil to know that people can perform heinous acts for selfish and petty reasons. It does happen. We can’t take the fact that this woman killed her child as prima facie evidence that she was insane when she did it.
I certainly hope she was. You hate to think that there are people out walking the streets who care so little for human life.
But there are.
“We can’t take the fact that this woman killed her child as prima facie evidence that she was insane when she did it.” Absolutely right, Tim. In my state, insanity is an Affirmative Defense, meaning that it is up to the defense to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was insane.
Letterman, you have to read more carefully. I did not say that I make no judgments until ALL evidence is in
read my post carefully and you’ll notice that i didn’t say you did. 🙂 that’s why i said “depends what you mean” and not “no, sir.” just because i point something out doesn’t mean i’m saying you said the opposite.
of course it’s still true that i need to read more carefully.
I’ll suspend judgement of her motives until I find out what they were.
me too. i haven’t said one word about her motives that i know of.
as I learned the hard way a long time ago, when you assume you make an…well, you probably know the rest.
i learned it the hard way a long time ago too….lots of times. if i ever learn it for good i’ll let you know.
I wouldn’t be too quick to assume that this mother was insane when she took her child’s life.
i don’t think anyone has said she was insane.
But I know enough about evil to know that people can perform heinous acts for selfish and petty reasons. It does happen. We can’t take the fact that this woman killed her child as prima facie evidence that she was insane when she did it.
I certainly hope she was. You hate to think that there are people out walking the streets who care so little for human life.
killing her child isn’t the prima facie evidence. shooting herself in the belly is the prima facie evidence. (but i am not suggesting she was insane)
don’t you think that the vast majority of all selfish petty people who care so little for human life that they could kill their own children would still be highly motivated not to shoot themselves in the belly?
“read my post carefully and you’ll notice that i didn’t say that you did.” Right after you quoted me, you wrote a short response to my comment that included:”…but we don’t go through life suspending all judgments until all the evidence is in.”
Invoking Rule #2 on myself.
“read my post carefully and you’ll notice that i didn’t say that you did.” Right after you quoted me, you wrote a short response to my comment that included:”…but we don’t go through life suspending all judgments until all the evidence is in.”
yes. all of that is true.
“killing her child isn’t the prima facie evidence. shooting herself in the belly is the prima facie evidence. (but i am not suggesting she was insane)”
Okay, I should have been more specific. Killing her child – even in the manner that she did – can not be taken as prima facie evidence that she was temporarily insane. Other factors must be weighed.
Go to http://www.priestforlife.org
To be pro-life is to be pro-women. We do care for the mothers who abort their own children. This case is so sad, I challenge us to pray and fast with fervor that the mercy of God help us during these evil times.
You do not report why she just didn’t go get a regular abortion. The devil is in the details and you do not see the whole story so all this moralizing is quite useless.
I suspect we will see more tragedies like this in South Dakato now that women by law must carry to term the child of their rapists.
I do not see any offers from all you good Christians to adopt the babies of rapists or children who are born with aids, drug addictions, etc.
I would think that with all that huge Christian love and compassion out there the orphanages would be empty of unwanted children. It doesn’t seem to be the case.
Can anyone tell me why it is mercy and compassion to allow even more unwanted children onto this planet?
Why am I forced to publish do it yourself abortion instructions?
**[LINK REMOVED BY EDITOR]**
Abortion either is or is not the taking of innocent human life.Therefore, the only 2 logical positions on abortion are: 1)Abortion on demand, and 2) A total ban on abortion(except in cases where the mother WILL die without one; i.e., ectopic pregnancy). The “moderate” position isn’t logical, because, if abortion is the taking of innocent human life, it can’t be justified, and, if it is not the taking of innocent human life, there is no moral reason to ban it. We must look to the science of biology to tell us when life begins. The science of biology tells us that life begins at conception.
“I do not see offers from all you good Christians to adopt the babies of rapists or children who are born with AIDS, drug addictions, etc.” Actually, many Christians do. Mother Theresa said to send any “unwanted” children to her Missionaries of Charity and they would either find loving homes for the children or raise the children themselves. So there are no “unwanted children”.
Sorry to be so rude as to point out facts which are inconvienient to your prejudices.
Hey, Bernie… If you know anyone about to abort their baby, you tell them my wife and I will be happy to take it.
Will you do the same?
Unwanted babies? The answer isn’t to KILL them, the answer is to GROW UP, and learn to want babies.
Of course, I understand it’s easier to publish your damnable “instructions”. You don’t have to live with the consequences.
Research in New Zealand shows that there are long-lasting negative psychological effects resulting from abortion.
But, hey, that’s not your problem, is it?
Michelle et alia,
An ASTOUNDING article, given the periodical:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1725350,00.html
It’s worth a blog entry here all its own.
Bernie:
“I do not see any offers from all you good Christians to adopt the babies of rapists or children who are born with aids, drug addictions, etc. ”
You must not be looking very hard because I see Christians do this quite often. I know of several. I see other Christians (I am the Catholic flavor) who support mothers after they have chosen to keep their babies (see Catherine Foundation or Gabriel Project).
Now, Bernie, show me the great atheist efforts to take care of children, or mothers.
Now, Bernie, show me the great atheist efforts to take care of children, or mothers.
We’re not forcing others to bring unwanted children into the world, so your question is aimed at the wrong person.
As for Mother Theresa, there was no bigger fraud that ever lived. She had neither the resources or skill to take care of those that were unfortunate enough to come under her “care”. There’s not enough space to dump on her here. Sorry to inconvenience you with those facts – I don’t say it with malice – it’s just the way things are.
As for when life begins, conception is no more life than an egg and a sperm both of which have the potential of life. If God thought life was so precious he would not make it necessary for a man to discard trillions of sperm during his lifetime and a woman hundreds of eggs.
But the important issue is not life itself but the quality of life. One can argue that rapists only fulfill the ultimate goal of God’s true love: the bringing of life unto this Earth. Of course, no compassionate person would agree with this twisted logic that all potential life MUST come to fruition.
Modern medicine today can bring to term nature’s most grotesque creations, beings that in the past were mercifully destroyed by common biological processes. They are allowed to be born because of some false notion that ALL life is precious. That they live to be disgusting, despised creatures who curse their parents for bringing them into this world. I’m sure most of you have no clue, insulating yourselves as you’ve done to the horrors of unwanted children in the tens of millions on this Earth.
Those who think ALL life is precious make no life precious. Life is only precious if we value some life. If all of us were happy all the time, none of us would be truly happy.