The great Mark Steyn calls it a “fourth trimester abortion,” and I can’t top that, so I won’t even try. But here are the awful facts: A woman gave birth, strangled her unwanted baby to death, threw it in a neighbor’s yard–and the judge likened the murder to abortion which is apparently legal in Canada through the 9th month. From the CBC News story:
The fact that Canada has no abortion laws reflects that “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 childrbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support,” she writes.
The judge noted that infanticide laws and sentencing guidelines were not altered when the government made many changes to the Criminal Code in 2005, which she says shows that Canadians view the law as a “fair compromise of all the interests involved.”
“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.”
But fear not, she might do 16 days for littering throwing the body over the fence.
So abortion begets sympathy for infanticide in Canada. Yet if she’d strangled a puppy, you know she wouldn’t have received any sympathy at all. In fact, they’d want to reinstate the death penalty. Culture of death, Wesley? What culture of death?
September 13th, 2011 | 10:57 pm
This makes me so sad. Sad that this woman somehow thought her actions were okay and sad that there was nobody in her life to show her the right thing to do. And very sad for the sweet life that didn’t get to be for very long. There was a lot of failure (on her part and on the part of those in her life) to get her to this point.
At the same time, I don’t really see anything inconsistent with what the judge said. If abortion is legal through the ninth month, why is it a problem to kill if the baby is an inconvenience after birth? The only difference is the baby’s location. If abortion is justifiable based on the mother’s personal circumstances, then why not kill anyone else who gets in your way? Hopefully others in Canada will see this and will be spurred to change abortion laws.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 13th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Lauren: Abortion is supposed to be about not forcing a woman to do anything with her body. Once the baby is born, the woman isn’t being forced to do anything with her body. But I take your point.
Harryhammer Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 9:53 am
@Wesley J. Smith,
Mr. Smith,
What does the Bible say about a abortion?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 10:32 am
I have no idea.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 10:36 am
What does the Hippocratic Oath say about it, Harry?
September 13th, 2011 | 11:18 pm
I don’t understand. It sounds like Canada has separate offenses for “murder” and “infanticide,” at least in some circumstances. I figure the infanticide penalties are lighter, with there being some basis in law for taking into account the mental and physical stress of pregnancy and childbirth when deciding which to prosecute and/or how to punish.
I find the idea that pre- and post-natal women are necessarily less mentally competent or blameworthy for evil acts than other citizens demeaning to women – just a different iteration of the old stereotypes about women being just “a bundle or nerves.”
I am thankful for our Born Alive Infants Protection Act and for our various Safe Surrender laws here in the US. Los Angeles County has an excellent web site about California’s Safe Surrender law:
http://www.babysafela.org/data.htm
Raven Chukwu Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
@RS,
It sounds like Canada has separate offenses for “murder” and “infanticide”
Exactly right. According to the Criminal Code of Canada a woman is guilty of infanticide (rather than murder) if it is found that, at the time of the act or omission resulting in her newborn child’s death, she was in a “disturbed” state of mind (“having not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child”).
The woman in the news story was initially convicted of murder (a few years ago) and given a life sentence. The appeals court held that she should have “been given the benefit of the doubt, based on the psychiatric evidence”. (Two psychiatrists at the initial trial testified that she was not of sound mind at the time of the killing).
Many countries list infanticide as a separate offence from murder – and most of the relevant laws are not of recent vintage. Canada’s infanticide law was passed in the 1940s and the UK’s Infanticide Act was passed in 1938. Women convicted of the crime (in both countries) are frequently given non-custodial sentences.
Effert’s case has made such a splash not because the Canadian public is becoming more tolerant of baby-killing, but because they are becoming less so. Single motherhood and out of wedlock pregnancies are not quite as stigmatising as they once were. There is much more support for unwed mothers – and many arms outstretched to receive unwanted babies. Also the idea that women are frail creatures who usually have difficulty withstanding the emotional stresses of pregnancy and childbirth is not quite as acceptable as it once was. All these factors have caused attitudes about infanticide laws to shift just enough for a case like this (which would probably gone unnoticed twenty-five years ago) to hit the headlines.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
That distinctio between murder and infanticide in the law proves my point. As does her prospective jailinmg for tossing the body over a fence
Raven Chukwu Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
“That distinctio between murder and infanticide in the law proves my point.”
I don’t see how it does. Canada’s infanticide law has been on the books since the 1940s – and in all that time no woman convicted of the offence has been sentenced to more than a year in prison. If this is evidence of a “culture of death” then we have been firmly in its grip for longer than you, Wesley, have been alive.
Similar laws exist in many other countries whose legal systems are derived from the British – for example, New Zealand, Australia, and Nigeria (a country in which public support for abortion is virtually non-existent). Furthermore, these laws are generally meant to apply only to those cases in which the mother is “mentally disturbed” due to pregnancy or childbirth. They were written not because neonates were considered of little value but because pregnancy and childbirth were deemed great emotional stressors. The best way to view the Canadian infanticide law is as an anachronistic “diminished capacity” defence to the charge of murder (albeit one that permits extremely lenient sentencing).
Note also that not all killings of newborn infants would be legally considered infanticide. The sort of utilitarian baby-killing discussed by Peter Singer would unequivocally count as murder under Canadian law (as it would necessarily involve planning and rational deliberation on the part of the child’s parents).
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
But you are assuming that the culture of death is recent. I trace it back more than 100 years, to eugenics. Any time human exceptionalism is rejected, some of us get it in the neck. Rejection of HE is nothing new, of course, but the modern iteration that led to these kind of issues I think has its genesis with Galton, Davenport, Sanger, etc. Canada imbibed deeply of eugenics generally, and Alberta specifically. In fact, I don’t believe A revoked its sterilization laws until (top of my head) the early 70s. Moreover, the fact that this law was up for revision in 2005 and left alone, I think demonstrates my premise–as well as the judge bringing up abortion and stating, in effect, yes it is too bad a baby died, but we must have sympathy for the mother. Add in, Raven, the widespread public sympathy and support for the murderer Robert Latimer and his killing of Tracy because of her CP, well, I am afraid Canada–a country I really like–is hip deep in the culture of death. But so are we all.
Now, if you are correct that this story received notoriety because people were upset–then the infanticide exception will be revoked. If that happens, I will cheer and say, “Raven called it!” If it remains, I will be sadly unsurprised.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, Slavery was abolished in the United States in 1865, the same year in which Francis Galton published “Hereditary Talent and Character” (the article in which he first outlined his ideas about eugenics). You have previously stated that neither America’s Founding Fathers nor the biblical authors “truly believed in human exceptionalism”. One wonders if there ever was a historical era in which “human exceptionalism” (in the “Wesleyan” sense) was widely accepted? Has the “culture of death”, like the Christian devil, been with us from the beginning?
Say what you will about the attitude of Canadians to death in general or abortion in particular, my point was that this whole situation, the lenient sentence accorded, the media’s response to the case, even the text of the judge’s ruling – none of this proves that “abortion begets sympathy for infanticide in Canada”.
Remember, two separate juries, made up of ordinary Canadians, found the woman guilty of murder. Most of the Canadian newspapers describe her as a “baby-killer” and seem rather less than sympathetic. The appeal court judge was following the law, as judges are meant to. In Canada, women who kill their newborn infants while suffering from post-partum depression or psychosis are not usually sent to prison. You may think this represents a perversion of justice. I, personally, do not.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 9:00 pm
How can you even ask? Of course it hasn’t. But Western Civilization actually has pursued itseriously–even if our reach has exceeded our grasp. I know I was materially impacted by ML King’s call to judge each other by the contents of our character, not the color of o ur skin. That idea is essential to a true universal human rights. And we should keep pursuing it, which must included the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Who knows, maybe someday we will actually get there.
Lydia Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
@Raven Chukwu, A couple of relevant points: First, the “experts” did not actually testify anything as strong as what would be conveyed by the English sentence “not of sound mind.” They testified things like that she was “suffering from a stress disorder” and “in effective denial.” Rinky-dink psychobabble, in other words. The Crown also pointed out that these “experts” did not have extensive experience with people in her situation.
Second, the appeals court in effect ruled that any expert testimony to this effect was sufficient to support the claim that the person was “mentally disturbed” to the point that the woman couldn’t be convicted of anything stronger than infanticide. (This is my interpretation of the appeals decision, which I have read.) The appeals court has interpreted the law as meaning that the burden of proof is on the Crown to show beyond reasonable doubt that the person was _not_ mentally disturbed, which is fairly ridiculous.
In essence, the legal situation is that the appeals court has interpreted the law to turn this “mentally disturbed” thing into an affirmative defense which the defendant need only state (perhaps with a spinning “expert” or so to back it up, even with poor arguments), and at that point the infanticide verdict is the most you can get.
Oh, another thing: One of the “experts” used as evidence in her favor, in favor of the “mentally disturbed” conclusion, the very fact that she hid the pregnancy from her parents. Now, this is evidentially highly problematic. One could just as easily use it as evidence of premeditation of the crime.
It’s a really bad law, but its application here is even worse. Two juries did not believe the “experts,” and the justices have simply overruled those juries and retried the case, concluding that the jurors came to an “unreasonable verdict.”
Raven Chukwu Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
@Lydia, I’m more concerned with the general legal and moral principle than with defending the judge’s ruling in this specific case. She felt that the defendant ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. Two experts testified in the mother’s favour and the manner in which she disposed of the body does not really suggest that she was compos mentis at the time. On the face of it, the judge seemed to be merely ensuring that the law, as written, was properly applied. But, then again, I do not know enough about the details to pass judgement.
I would like to stress, however, that as the appeals court handed down this ruling in defiance of two juries and public opinion it clearly can not be taken as an indication of a wider societal tolerance of baby-killing.
Lydia Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 8:38 am
@Raven Chukwu, I hold no brief for the law. I think it a very bad law. A couple more points, however: First, the justice expressly pointed to the fact that when the criminal code was overhauled in 2005 this law was left in place. Second, a similar law was proposed (but fortunately didn’t get out of committee) in the U.S. (in Texas) just in 2009, and one “ethicist” called it “courageous” of the lawmaker to propose it. Third, there have been relatively recent articles (e.g., by Steven Pinker) defending exactly the sort of thing that the mother did, so at least among intellectuals, this kind of thing is chic now, not just long ago. Fourth, the judge _specifically_ defended her decision for no-jail sentencing (which could have been longer even under the infanticide law) by way of Canada’s much recent abortion law, which is a chilling thought. And fifth, I agree with Wesley that if there is really outrage in Canada over this decision, perhaps because of a growing opposition to infanticide, it presumably lies within the power of Canadian democracy to remove that law. Like Wesley, I predict that this will not happen, so whatever trend you are sensing, it will not reach far enough actually to protect newborns by repealing an “invitation to kill” law that would not be tolerated were the disfavored class a different, favored, social group.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
@Lydia,
“First, the justice expressly pointed to the fact that when the criminal code was overhauled in 2005 this law was left in place.”
This tells us nothing about trends in public opinion. Assisted suicide bills in many developed countries are constantly shot down even when they are supported by popular majorities.
Second, a similar law was proposed (but fortunately didn’t get out of committee) in the U.S. (in Texas) just in 2009, and one “ethicist” called it “courageous” of the lawmaker to propose it.
Many laws are proposed in state legislatures. This one died an early death – a fact which should tell you something. Besides, when a lawmaker is called “courageous” it generally means that the measure he proposes lacks public support. “One ethicist” may have applauded him – but that is hardly significant.
Third, there have been relatively recent articles (e.g., by Steven Pinker) defending exactly the sort of thing that the mother did
I assume you’re referring to Pinker’s 1997 article “Why the kill their newborns”. Pinker does not “defend” infanticide. He seeks to provide an evolutionary explanation for it and for our sympathy towards the transgressing women.
Fourth, the judge _specifically_ defended her decision for no-jail sentencing (which could have been longer even under the infanticide law) by way of Canada’s much recent abortion law
As I have pointed out several times, non-custodial sentences for women convicted of infanticide (in both the UK and Canada) are common. It is not a recent occurrence. The judge was trying to demonstrate that the Canadian public still feel that such women ought to be treated with leniency. Two juries disagreed but she insisted: “The law wasn’t changed in 2005. Canadians understand that pregnancy and childbirth place great emotional burdens on women. We will carry on being as lenient as we always have.”
Wesley’s initial point was that Effert was treated with lenience because the judge and presumably the wider Canadian public were, in a sense, willing to see this as a “fourth trimester abortion” (as merely a slight variation on a procedure already deemed acceptable). This view, however, ignores the historical fact that such women have been treated “leniently” for decades. In England, in the years prior to the enactment of the first Infanticide Act, juries would often, out of sympathy, refuse to convict women who had killed their newborn children. This trend has continued to modern times. From Pinker’s 1997 article:
Sympathetic treatment of baby-killing mothers historically precedes acceptance of abortion. Those are the facts.
September 14th, 2011 | 12:39 am
Good thing she didn’t strangle her cat or another animal. I wonder if in that case she probably goes to jail or pays a big fine. It’s very sad that some people do more time/pay a bigger penalty for killing animals than new born. As I’ve noted before, I noticed this lack of concern for new borns first at a hearing in Carson City on a bill to allow women to drop off their new borns at emergency and other facilities without penalty. There was so much sympathy for the women killing their new borns, but almost none for the new born child. It was surreal to see them sympathizing with women for the loss of their children they had killed!
September 14th, 2011 | 10:38 am
Harryhammer: “What does the Bible say about a abortion?”
What does it matter? I thought your side wanted to stick to science. And, scientifically, abortion ends a human being’s life. So does infanticide, which (you may remember) this post is about.
September 14th, 2011 | 11:42 am
Can’t speak for the Canadians; here in the USA what she did was criminal. Does anybody know all the circumstances? What I find puzzling is why she tossed the body over a fence afterward, when it would have made more sense to dispose of it in a less obvious way? It would indicate that she probably wasn’t playing with a full deck at the time.
HW
holyterror Reply:
September 14th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
@HistoryWriter, …or else: that she literally thought of it as trash.
I do not think that you have to be crazy to think of another person as garbage. Look at most any internet comboxes for numerous examples of such thinking and behavior.
September 15th, 2011 | 1:31 am
The logic is clear: if the fetus is no different from the newborn, with the exception of its, well, address, then it’s only natural that those who support abortion, will have no logical basis for arguing that infants have more rights than fetuses.
The conservative coulnmist, George will once stated that, Peter Singer is the prochoice side’s worst nightmare. He’s right.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 9:23 am
Bret: Except policy in many areas seems to be moving in his direction.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
September 15th, 2011 at 10:33 am
@Wesley J. Smith, That is troubling. Hopefully people can be convinced of the humanity of the unborn, that it’s no less human than a newborn, and thereby stop abortions, rather than go the other way and accept infanticide. But Singer is influential.
September 15th, 2011 | 9:57 am
Good thing she didn’t strangle her cat or another animal. I wonder if in that case she probably goes to jail or pays a big fine. It’s very sad that some people do more time/pay a bigger penalty for killing animals than new born.
That is because there are a lot of irrational people who love animals and hate humans.
It is not clear whether they have problems with self-loathing, projected onto the entire race, or they are just so immature that they respond to what is “cute” (and the baby “codes” as rivalry, not pet), or something else altogether. But it’s pretty clear that the root problem is too many morally stunted people.
September 16th, 2011 | 1:29 pm
[...] Wesley Smith pointed out the irony that had Effert strangled a dog, she would have received no sympathy whatsoever. He’s [...]
September 22nd, 2011 | 8:30 pm
The Canadian judge is not crazy, once we reject the social kingship of Christ any degeneration is possible:
César Vidal Manzanares:
Infanticide was common not only in the classical world, but also fully
tolerated and legitimized. Seneca contemplated the fact drown the children in the
at birth as being provided with reason, and, of course, the idea of
that should remain the life of an unwanted child caused a revulsion
directly. In this regard, it should be noted that Tacitus criticized as a practice
“Sinister and disturbing” that the Jews condemned as “a sin to kill
to an unwanted child “(Stories, 5, 5). It was not, of course,
exceptions. Plato (Republic, 5) and Aristotle (Politics 2, 7) had
infanticide as a recommended policy measures to be followed
the state.
Of course, children are abandoned or killed after birth belonged to both
sexes, but so ostentatiously preferred, this sad fate rested
females or the sick. [...] Recent excavations have failed to
shows that the dozens of children thrown to their deaths in a city
Mediterranean at the time the vast majority were females. That men
demographically outnumbered females by a ratio of 131 to 100 in the
Rome and from 140 to 100 in Italy, Asia Minor and Africa was only
null result of the consideration that was socially toward sex
female. Could he be any different when I was a rare family that
within it accepted more than one child? According to an archaeological survey
by Lindsay, six hundred families studied in one of the cities
the rule only six, that is, 1 per 100 – had more than a daughter.
[...]
The position of early Christianity to abortion and infanticide
soon became an open complaint addressed to the highest levels
the empire.
(César Vidal, The legacy of Christianity in Western culture, col.
“Espasa-today”, ed. Espasa-Calpe, Madrid 2000)
September 22nd, 2011 | 8:34 pm
In fact the justification of infanticide but Singer is his mentor and teacher, the Episcopal priest Joseph Fletcher. This little guy, the father of situational ethics, said that Christian morality was to abolish the “law” by “love” curiously at the end of his life was admitted atheist. Themselves supporters of euthanasia argue that if we can kill unborn children, we kill other human beings. In an article published in 1973 in the American Journal of Nursing, Joseph Fletcher considers “ridiculous” granted ethical approval to end a life “subhuman” by abortion while not pass the living end “subhuman” by the positive euthanasia. “If we have a moral obligation to end a pregnancy when amniocentesis reveals a terrible fetal abnormality also have an obligation to put an end to poverty without hope of a patient suffering from cancer, when a scan shows a situation of metastasis advanced in the brain. ” (Quoted by http://www.vidahumana.org/vidafam/eutanasia/opinion_eutanasia.html).
It was through the Catholic Church imposed their beliefs the world became more civilized so by Christian influence in the 365 is banned inmates condemned to be devoured by animals in the circus, Pope Damasus condemned the torture and cruelpenaltys, in the 382, Pope Nicolas abolished torture in Bulgaria in 866, Gregory VII banned the burning of witches in Dinamarca.El Pope Urban VIII in a letter to his nuncio in Portugal from 1639 absolutely condemns slavery and threatened with excommunication, but referring to the Indians and the Jesuits were driven per Reductions to the incursions of Brazilian Bandeirantes raids made on them for slaves.
Clement XI in the early eighteenth century gives orders to the heralds of Madrid and Lisbon to act for an end to slavery. No answer. And people like Voltaire unscrupulous, yet highly respected in progressive circles, is lined with the slave.
Hugh Thomas concludes: “These isolated reports allow the Catholic Church present as a foreshadowing of the abolitionist movement with more plausibility than is generally granted. Throughout the seventeenth century letters of protest about him the slave trade business continued reach the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome from cappuccinos, Jesuits and bishops. “
September 24th, 2011 | 1:23 am
I send an email about Infanticde Act which resulted in probation as a standard sentence for mothers who murder their babies under the age of one to Prof. Tamler Sommers who is against concept of moral responsibility and recieved following response :
Of course I’m against the law, it sounds insane. Why would a law
allow people to kill their infant children? Whatever your views are
about responsibility, it seems there should at least be a sufficient
deterrent for this crime. And probation is not much of a deterrent.
I also think society needs to send a message that says: this kind of
act is morally unacceptable, and the best way to do that is by
punishing people who do it. Now look: if the person is truly insane,
then you might put them in an institution. But I wouldn’t endorse
letting them free with probation after committing a crime of that
nature.
[Editor's note: There is no way to verify that the professor in question wrote this. I considered deleting the name and decided to permit it. I am not disputing it, either. But just to make the point, we must remember that this is the Interent.]
October 1st, 2011 | 5:51 pm
I did send the email, though I never gave permission for it to be reproduced in a public forum. (Nor was it indicated to me that it would be) I would hope, in the future, that you wouldn’t publish emails without this confirmation. (You could easily have emailed me to ask.) I’m fine with it being here though, with the caveat that I know nothing about the actual law in question and was only responding to this person with a hypothetical, assuming that the law really did function in this manner. The emailer gave no details, not even about the country…
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact