Where's the Stanford-type outrage? University student has baby, drowns it, goes to exam and gets zero jail time

I think the lack of outrage is because it happened in Canada. We're Americans, man. Other countries have their own rules.

The rage in the Stanford case came from the feminists. You won't see them rage about a case like this where, in their own accents, "a woman took control of her life and made the best decision for herself."

rojo wrote:

Will there be even more outrage after a judge in Canada gave a woman who murdered her newborn before going to an exam just two years of probation?

I assume your question was a rhetorical one.

Of course, it won't get the same type of attention. The public and media like to pile on a) white men and b) people of privilege. This involves neither as the defendant is a woman at a college no one has ever heard of. So while the crime is way worse and sentence by the judge way more lenient, there will be no outrage.

Women's rights activists certainly won't touch this one as the judge apparently was swayed by her story that the baby was the result of a sexual assault (although I see no mention that evidence was provided on that front). So in their mind, that's the right mindset to have.

SInce he cared about an alleged sexual assault, they'll ignore the fact that he didn't care about a murder. Also women's rights people don't want to go near infanticide as the logical next step is to ask at what point do we say it's illegal to kill a baby? The day it's born is clearly illegal. But what about the day before, etc?

Why can't this story be outrageous on its own?

Why are you comparing this to the Stanford sexual assult case? I really am curious!

Part of the outrage over the Stanford case was tied to sexual assults being under reported and under prosecuted. And the public was worried the guy was getting the benifit of the doubt for the sentence because he's a white guy, on the swim team at Stanford so he doesn't look like society's sterotype of a criminal.

Infanticide is a lesser crime than homicide in Canada.

Also, the circumstances of pregnancy (rape) was a mitigating factor.

FYI: That was just an explanation, not anything related to my own opinions on the case.

This exact thing happened in my dorm when I was in college, a few decades back. Baby drowning, that is. It didn't even make local news in the town we were in.

The student just wasn't there after that, nobody really knew anything.

Problem is, everybody has forgotten how the world actually is, and everything is incorrectly PC, and everyone is a pussie. Hell, Clay Mathews gets knocked off his feet during a legal hit in an NFL game, and you'd think the guy who hit him had, I don't know, drowned a baby!

Just a very late term abortion

norphxc wrote:

Why are you comparing this to the Stanford sexual assult case? I really am curious!

.

Because he wanted to point out that the outrage over the Stanford case (which was directed at privileged white men) happens to women as well. Judges make mistakes. Why does everything have to be about race and sex?

Does anyone know what race this woman is? I can't find info.

nice find wrote:

So while the crime is way worse...

If I had to chose between getting raped or murdered by that guy from Stanford, I'd rather die.

nice find wrote:

Also women's rights people don't want to go near infanticide as the logical next step is to ask at what point do we say it's illegal to kill a baby? The day it's born is clearly illegal. But what about the day before, etc?

In the US it used to be illegal after the baby broke the plane. Since the 2003 partial birth abortion ban, it is illegal after the mother dilates. Some states its illegal earlier though, like in the third trimester. The law is clear. I do get what you are saying; placement of the law is the contentious part.

off base wrote:

Infanticide is a lesser crime than homicide in Canada.

Also, the circumstances of pregnancy (rape) was a mitigating factor.

FYI: That was just an explanation, not anything related to my own opinions on the case.

Can someone explain how a drunk driver can be charged with TWO deaths when a mother and unborn fetus are killed, yet an abortion is not considered murder? Flagpole?

Will the US media cover a Canadian event as hotly an event that happened in Silicon Valley.NO

rojo wrote:

Most everyone is familiar with the outrage that erupted after a judge in California only sentenced Stanford student Brock Turner to six-months in jail for sexual assault.

Will there be even more outrage after a judge in Canada gave a woman who murdered her newborn before going to an exam just two years of probation?

In case you are wondering, this isn't a case about a late-term abortion. The baby was born healthy and drowned as detailed below.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/b-c-mother-who-drowned-newborn-son-at-home-before-taking-university-exam-gets-two-years-probation

Liberals will always sympathize with the woman/mother. No matter what. No matter how reprehensible the crime, they will always go with the woman. Beyond despicable. Liberals have no morals. No ethics. Whatever is best for the Democrat party or the woman. That is all they care about.

gahuga wrote:

The rage in the Stanford case came from the feminists. You won't see them rage about a case like this where, in their own accents, "a woman took control of her life and made the best decision for herself."

Real feminism is simply the idea that men and women should be treated equal. You did not provide an example of feminism but rather some alternative version that is viewed as feminism but really is an extremist view.

messi wrote:

Can someone explain how a drunk driver can be charged with TWO deaths when a mother and unborn fetus are killed, yet an abortion is not considered murder? Flagpole?

Abortion is a legal method to kill a fetus.

Driving a car into someone is not a legal method to kill a fetus.

Ms. Saul is probably a member of the protected class that doesn't go to prison.

off base wrote:

messi wrote:

Can someone explain how a drunk driver can be charged with TWO deaths when a mother and unborn fetus are killed, yet an abortion is not considered murder? Flagpole?

Abortion is a legal method to kill a fetus.

Driving a car into someone is not a legal method to kill a fetus.

When baby is formed and healthy, it is no longer a fetus. You are committing infanticide and you should be ashamed of yourself!

messi wrote:

off base wrote:

Infanticide is a lesser crime than homicide in Canada.

Also, the circumstances of pregnancy (rape) was a mitigating factor.

FYI: That was just an explanation, not anything related to my own opinions on the case.

Can someone explain how a drunk driver can be charged with TWO deaths when a mother and unborn fetus are killed, yet an abortion is not considered murder? Flagpole?

Woman's choice.

That is all the matters.

on base wrote:

messi wrote:

Can someone explain how a drunk driver can be charged with TWO deaths when a mother and unborn fetus are killed, yet an abortion is not considered murder? Flagpole?

Woman's choice.

That is all the matters.

And that will changed, you descipable baby killers. The Trump-led Supreme Court will stop the baby killing. You ladies should be ashamed of yourselves.

This hurts so bad. I pray for this poor baby and the soul of the woman. I also pray for all mankind that we have reached such an intense level of barbarism.