From the Daily News:Queens prosecutors say boyfriend Derrick Redd, angry with Delain for refusing to have an abortion, stabbed her six times in the stomach, killing her and the unborn boy she planned to name Aidan.
"I either avoid the problem or I eliminate it," Redd said, according to investigators who interviewed him after Delain's body was found.
Redd, 36, faces a murder charge for the Oct. 25, 2008, slaying of Delain, 25, but nothing for the death of the unborn fetus.
To Delain's mother, Towanda Wimms, that's an injustice state lawmakers need to correct.
"It's like this baby is not being looked at as a victim and that's ridiculous," said Wimms, 43. "There were two victims here. This baby was intentionally stabbed."
Redd is to appear in Queens Supreme Court on Monday, with a trial slated for early next year.
Meanwhile, Wimms has thrust herself into the middle of a battle in Albany that pits longtime rivals in the abortion debate against one another over a bill that would make it a crime to take the life of an unborn child during the commission of a homicide.
30 comments:
An interesting can of worms. Can a woman write off a gestating fetus as a dependent on her 1040 income tax return? Or does a life begin at birth?
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Absolutely this is a multiple homicide, especially since it was created to kill the fetus more than the woman.
Suppose someone came in and murdered a woman on the delivery table in a hospital during childbirth, but before the child was fully out. Is that one death or two?
Murder of pregnant women is quite common as a crude form of infanticide. Might I suggest that the "problem" he tried to end could have been more easily solved with a vasectomy?
It's absolutely 2 murders. Whether you believe the unborn child was a life or not, the killer's intent was to kill the baby, so that alone makes it a separate murder.
I LOVE the first post. Killing a women and her unborn baby should be considered a double murder or at least a murder for the mother and manslaugther for the child?
So far, none of you have answered my tax question. If you can't write the gestating fetus off on your 1040 as a dependent, then official US policy maintains it is not a human being. If terminating the development of the fetus is considered "murder", then pregnant women can declare the fetus a dependent. No?
When the tree falls in the forest it produces sound waves. Hearing the noise is dependent on the presence of an auditory receptor, an eardrum or a tape recorder. If none such exists, there is no "sound".
The tax authorities aren't the correct arbiter of who is a person, they are the correct arbiter of who pays taxes.
Hitler declared Jews to be non-human, at one time an African Slave was considered to a be fractional person.
Tax laws are written and re-written every year by accountants, not philosophers.
All this "doubt" is premised on an admitted fraud.
"Roe" of Roe v Wade later admitted that she was bumrushed by the death advocates who used her as a case to get abortion legal.
Once her case started through the courts, the death advocates took her on a death march whose outcome was foreordained to produce more than 60 million infant deaths in this country alone. And counting.
To maintain the fiction, the death advocates have, for years, used every form of twisted logic to maintain that original horrible decision.
This case is not the first to hit the wall of savage determination that no event will EVER be used to reverse the original decision.
See: http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm for some insight into the barbarity of the death advocates.
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race
(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
Also see: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57526
Conclusion: This case is the exact reason Sanger founded Planned Parenthood. She never cared much about that agency was used to exterminate blacks, as longs as blacks were exterminated.
The death advocates have succeeded beyond any dream; blacks themselves are doing the exterminating.
Sanger was then. This is now.
Marx and Engels advocated in the Communist Manifesto of 1848 a centralized national bank (Federal Reserve?), abolition of property (eminent domain?), free education in public schools (PS 5 around the corner?), and a heavy and progressive income tax (April 15).
So today we're all Communists?
Georgetheathiest said:
"Sanger was then. This is now.
Marx and Engels advocated in the Communist Manifesto of 1848 a centralized national bank (Federal Reserve?), abolition of property (eminent domain?), free education in public schools (PS 5 around the corner?), and a heavy and progressive income tax (April 15).
So today we're all Communists?"
- - -
Well, nearly, but, that's not the discussion; it's a diversion.
Sanger was then, her successors are now.
Explain 60+ million infanticides. How can they be justified?
Explain how this black fellow knew he was justified in killing this black baby of this black woman.
Margaret Sanger's death advocates.
Consider the countless women prior to Roe v. Wade who bled to death in back-alley abortions.
"Infanticide" occurs when you kill a born infant. Prior to that, it's an "abortion".
I go back to the IRS regulation. A woman who gives birth this year on Dec. 31 at 11:55PM, gets a tax write-off for 2009 and onwards. The lady in the same hospital room who gives birth 10 minutes later on Jan. 1 at 12:05AM does not get the 2009 write-off. Life legally begins at birth.
The reasoning behind Roe v. Wade seems pretty good: the first trimester, no questions asked; the second trimester, in consultation with a doctor; the last trimester, to save the life of the woman.
Even the Church at one time in it's history believed in the concept of "ensoulment" (which I won't get into now) when there was the quickening of the fetus, not at conception.
georgetheatheist said...
An interesting can of worms. Can a woman write off a gestating fetus as a dependent on her 1040 income tax return? Or does a life begin at birth?
George, I believe the first part falls under .."render unto ceasar.." The second part comes under ..."render unto God."
I think that a point is being missed here. A terrible crime was committed here. Regardless of the number of victims, a terrible crime was committed. The person who is convicted of this this crime should be punished to the furthest extent of the law possible.
Everyone should be expressing their sympathy to the family of the victim of this crime.
Any other discussion of this matter is irrelevant, and anyone who raises an irrelevant point here is a complete asshole devoid of any human emotion.
Gary the Agnostic said:
"...Any other discussion of this matter is irrelevant, and anyone who raises an irrelevant point here is a complete asshole devoid of any human emotion."
- - -
I never avoided being called a name.
Twisted death advocates brought us to this point.
The IRS is not the arbiter of who is or is not a human. The IRS IS the arbiter of who might or might not owe taxes. It's authority to perform that simple function originates with congress, whose authority originates explicitly in the US Constitution.
No penumbras, emanations, shadows or logic justify anyone killing any child of any age - in or out of the womb.
The only reason this black man felt free to kill his black wife by killing her and his child is that he has been hearing for all his life, the sadistic, murderous followers of M. Sanger justifying any sick logic that perpetuates the killing of children.
Most of all - as in Sanger's own words and those of Planned Parenthood and the many demented believers in the extermination of the world's "undesirables", this black man has carried out the extermination of his own race, prodded on by others of his race who likely believe that, after feeding all the blacks to the crocodiles, the crocodiles will no longer be hungry.
And old demented dream of slaves to please their masters to escape slavery.
Never works.
There are prominent exceptions. Clarence Thomas.
But the death advocates do everything to block Thomas' view from prevailing.
When will it change? After 100 million? 200 million, a billion infants are murdered without a jury or appeal.
But we are supposed to give rights, a jury and a trial to declared killers called terrorists?
Not to the innocent, whose only problem is that their existence is an inconvenience. An insult that requires death.
Yammer on about back-alley child killings. If we win, and abortions are treated for what they are, murder, back alley abortions will continue. But, their existence will be illegal, and the parties to the abortion will have to hide their faces.
No more proud politicians boasting of killing children by the millions.
Here's the challenge. Any woman who has suffered an abortion at any age, write in and comment about how proud you are to have killed a child. Tell how you have never looked back at the event. Tell how you can look at children who are likely to be your dead child's age, and have no remorse.
Describe how important the abortion was and how you would do it again and again and believe that all woman should kill their children.
Tell us how supportive the child's father was and how remorseful he has been in the killing of a child.
Tell us how long the father has since stayed with you, now that he knows you can kill without regret.
Tell us how killing a child has made you a better mother.
And, then, guys, you write about how proud it made you to force or participate in the killing of a child who couldn't possibly have harmed you.
Tell us how the killing of a child has made you a better man - a better father. Someone who can be trusted near children.
Perhaps the IRS doesn't consider the unborn child, but when I had an in-utero procedure done on my unborn child, the doctor, hospital, anesthesiologist, and anyone else that could sure as shit charged "Unborn Baby Jones" for it all.
A woman raped wants to carry the child of the rapist?
A woman whose life is threatened by the pregnancy should sacrifice her health or life in continuing the pregnancy?
Sanger's mother had 18 pregnancies. She was the 6th child of 11 live births.
georgetheatheist said...
"A woman raped wants to carry the child of the rapist?
- - -
She should, unless the child is a turtle, or a goat, or some non-human.
- - -
A woman whose life is threatened by the pregnancy should sacrifice her health or life in continuing the pregnancy?
- - -
Yep!
- - -
Sanger's mother had 18 pregnancies. She was the 6th child of 11 live births."
- - -
And your point is ...?
- - -
Ten or more years ago, a man walked a beach somewhere on the East Coast and took off with a bag of turtle eggs.
Apparently they are worth money or taste good.
He was caught, tried and convicted of furthering the endangerment of some species of turtle who came ashore to lay eggs.
I saw this as a form of abortion. The federal officials, the leftists and the environmentalists saw it as killing of the turtles for profit. How repulsive.
Now, naturally, the same type of killing - for money - occurs daily here and nobody ever is jailed.
Turtles, humans. Infants, eggs.
It's bad to kill one species, great to kill another.
By the way, concerning rape: if we took it far more seriously and discarded the instinct to blame the victim, and to adopt the position that rape is a capital crime, we would have some reduction.
But, note that it's mostly man who use the rape argument to promote abortion.
If the victim aborts, what was the harm? A little rugged sex?
Anyway, where are the man and women who participated in an abortion (we will NEVER hear from the children). Your thoughts would help all of us. And, I know you're there. Speak up.
And, never forget those whose abortion was at birth. Called a "Late Term" abortion (only for the sake of the health of the mother - explain that one).
Late Term is vigorously promoted and defended by the twisted Death Advocates.
Also, Sanger was a hero and role model for Hitler. And, the Commie Chinese have forcefully implemented her killer thoughts as official population control in China.
See the story of the parents who ran a needle through the head of their daughter to qualify for another shot at a baby - this time, hopefully a boy.
The opening scene of Volker Schlondorff's adaptation of the Gunther Grass novel, The Tin Drum (which won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film in 1980), has the protagonist and prodigy, Oskar Matzerath, viewing the world from inside his mother's womb. His consciousness was fully developed in utero. The scene continues with his emanation during birth into the hospital room. He was completely aware of his entry into the world. An interesting work of fiction.
Taxpayer, please describe for the readers the circumstances of your birth perceived through you fully-developed senses at your moment of birth. What did you see at that moment? At what decibel level was your first gasp of air? What temperature was the after-birth? Did it smell good or rancid? Was your mother's teat salty or sweet? I think we'd all like to know.
One could even argue the case for infanticide, which I do not do, since fully developed consciousness begins a long time after birth. The logic of Roe v. Wade and the IRS trumps.
Hey Ladies, get your bathing suits ready. Cotton Mather, aka Taxpayer, with his ducking stool is on the prowl.
Save the turtles!
georgetheathiest said:
"Taxpayer, please describe for the readers the circumstances of your birth perceived through you fully-developed senses at your moment of birth. What did you see at that moment? At what decibel level was your first gasp of air? What temperature was the after-birth? Did it smell good or rancid? Was your mother's teat salty or sweet? I think we'd all like to know."
- - -
And your point is ...? You just described such a possibility as fiction.
You promote all this. Don't you know of any child killer participants (in or out of bathing suits) who want to describe their happy experience?
The silence is very noticeable. All the rest is just distracting noise.
Taxpayer, Saver of Souls.
Human life beginning at conception also a fiction?
The deafening silence is due to the medical procedure being personal.
Tell us about your colonoscopy.
georgetheatheist said:
"The deafening silence is due to the medical procedure being personal.
Tell us about your colonoscopy."
- - -
Your point being ...?
The medical procedure is personal to whom? The infant? The infant never had a say!
A colonoscopy is designed to save a life. Every step of the abortion is designed to exterminate a life. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, said so.
And, it's all premeditated. All women look up the name and location of an abortionist, ask friends, learn the price, and then, go to get an abortion. With malice aforethought.
Right?
Ladies, where am I wrong?
Is George the Atheist your spokesman? Or, is he more like that lover, boyfriend, husband who demanded that you "Kill it"?
So he could have the money for that car, or that trip with his other girlfriend (you know, the one who never worries about getting pregnant)?
Did he love you more once you killed the child?
Or, did he abandon you (as you really knew he would), once he found out that your would kill your own child without resisting? Certainly, the infant never resisted. Never even cried.
C'mon, speak for yourself. GTA is all tripe talk.
"You're point being...?
The medical procedure is personal to whom? The infant? The infant never has a say!"
As harsh as it reads, there is no infant; there's a fetus. The IRS says so.
The point is on top of your head.
Why would anyone equate a tax-deduction with a life? In my lifetime, we had tax deductions for a certain amount of bank account interest, now we don't. We had income averaging, now we don't.
If tommorrow morning the IRS eliminates some of the deductions that the handicapped get, can we gas them?
This is clearly a bad argument. Hitler received major intellectual support from the American Eugenics movement.
In China, infants are killed outright if they are girls, and the same is done for infants in general in harsh arctic climates.
Since I think a woman's life is as important as her infants, I would not force a life-threatening pregnancy, especially since both could wind up dead.
So far as the rape argument goes, the morning after pill exists and is far preferable to abortion. Adoption is an option too.
"Why would anyone equate a tax deduction with a life?"
Because it is a concretization of the fact of existence. It is a legal recognition of life.
Anonymous said:
"...Since I think a woman's life is as important as her infants, I would not force a life-threatening pregnancy, especially since both could wind up dead."
- - -
Only a rapist can force a pregnancy.
All other pregnancies are entirely voluntary. It takes two, you know.
Don't want to be pregnant? Lock those knees.
This black couple was married. The husband wanted sex without consequences. Impossible.
So, he demanded that his wife kill the child. She correctly refused.
He was outraged and killed the child himself, along with his wife.
He was obeying the commands of the death advocates. What's worse, he helped the death advocates with their mission: to exterminate the black population.
His action raises the question: should he be charged with premeditated murder of the child as well as the wife.
The obvious answer is "yes".
But, that would require that the DA, judge and jury all oppose the position of the death advocates: to pretend that the child he killed is not a child (then, what? A bird? A goat? A turtle?).
These people fail to have the spine to name the crime. No more cocktail parties, no more puff pieces in the news. Some political opposition.
And, to the death advocates, the power to crush all opposition is what they live for.
60+ million child killings just here in the US since the mid-1970s.
And the child killing is big business. It probably now rates as "too big to fail", so the killing will continue.
On the anniversary of the child killing, does the loving mother celebrate by having a cakes whose insides have been sucked dry?
And, what does the father do on the anniversary?
George and Taxpayer--
You guys are justifying what I said here.
Neither of you have a drop of human emotion inside of you.
Taxpayer said...
Anonymous said:
"...Since I think a woman's life is as important as her infants, I would not force a life-threatening pregnancy, especially since both could wind up dead."
- - -
Only a rapist can force a pregnancy.
All other pregnancies are entirely voluntary. It takes two, you know.
Don't want to be pregnant? Lock those knees.
This black couple was married. The husband wanted sex without consequences. Impossible.
So, he demanded that his wife kill the child. She correctly refused.
He was outraged and killed the child himself, along with his wife.
He was obeying the commands of the death advocates. What's worse, he helped the death advocates with their mission: to exterminate the black population.
His action raises the question: should he be charged with premeditated murder of the child as well as the wife.
The obvious answer is "yes".
But, that would require that the DA, judge and jury all oppose the position of the death advocates: to pretend that the child he killed is not a child (then, what? A bird? A goat? A turtle?).
These people fail to have the spine to name the crime. No more cocktail parties, no more puff pieces in the news. Some political opposition.
And, to the death advocates, the power to crush all opposition is what they live for.
60+ million child killings just here in the US since the mid-1970s.
And the child killing is big business. It probably now rates as "too big to fail", so the killing will continue.
On the anniversary of the child killing, does the loving mother celebrate by having a cakes whose insides have been sucked dry?
And, what does the father do on the anniversary?
Sunday, December 13, 2009
_______________________________
and "Taxpayer":
Why do you feel the need to endlessly repeat the race of the people involved with this crime?
Would it make a difference to you if they were from a different ethnic group?
And what does Taxpayer do for vertigo? Spinning round and round in circles.
Taxpayer, when I saw "force a life-threatening pregnancy" I don't mean "life-threatening" because some monster makes it so.
I mean a non-viable pregnancy such as some tubal pregnancies. These can occur even when the baby is deeply wanted. If a woman has the courage to risk her life on such a pregnacy, then she has my respect, but a man who can never become pregnant can't make that decision for her.
Also George, if I am pregnant and some idiot kicks me in the stomach and aborts my child, the law won't charge him with murder, but they may charge me.
Post a Comment