Another pregnant woman dies at the hands of (ex)boyfriend
This Associated Press article even said that police "arrested the father of her unborn child." [emphasis mine] Right in the first sentence, no less. Good for them. The "unborn baby" was later called a "fetus" in the article, elsewhere described as a "five month old fetus." So I suppose this means that AP is now willing to admit that, at least at 5 months of gestation, it's an "unborn baby." Maybe they do have some folks in their ranks interested in fair(er) and (somewhat more) accurate reporting.
And waaaay back on July 21, 2005, Black America Web asked an excellent question about this woman: "Pregnant Black Woman Missing; Where’s the Laci Peterson-Like Coverage?"
Where, indeed. I never saw a peep about her going missing, which was even two weeks before that July 21 article. I know: I would have written about it then.
I do have to wonder: was this woman, already the loving mom of a 7-year-old girl, unwilling to abort this second child, and is this why she was killed?
I recall this story, "Man Charged After Causing Girlfriend's House to Explode." That guy actually left a note that he "was angry because [the girlfriend] refused to have an abortion."
Another abortion-refusal story: the brother-in-law killed the woman "so she wouldn't reveal she was four months pregnant with his baby." The woman's brother was quoted as saying,
"No matter what the circumstances of her pregnancy, she would never have an abortion. That's the way she felt."This site lists an extensive literature review list on this "abuse during pregnancy" phenomenon.
Even N.O.W. admitted in 2003 that "Murder [is t]he Leading Cause of Death for Pregnant Women." Based on three studies in Maryland, New York and Illinois, even N.O.W. finds this trend an alarming reality.
The Washington Post also highlighted this in the first of three 2004 articles, "Many New or Expectant Mothers Die Violent Deaths". That first article cited 14 pregnant women who were killed, on the first page alone of a 5-page article. And that did not include Laci Peterson.
What made my jaw drop even more was the public health expert at Boston University, Elaine Alpert, who was quoted as saying,
"It's very hard to connect the dots when you don't even see the dots."It isn't so hard for me to see the dots.
If we have laws that it's ok to kill a baby in the womb, it isn't too far a leap to some men thinking that because a woman has a legal right to kill that baby in utero, they ought to, and therefore must take full advantage of that right. When women don't, it upsets the men's apple carts. It takes away their supposed birthright to free, unfettered sex and fun living and how dare she decide to take that away from him? She doesn't have that right!
We've taught men that it's ok to kill the baby in the womb: a helpless, defenseless, insignificant, disposable obstacle to fun-fun-fun, and something that can be easily replaced with another at a later time if so desired. When they view their women as this very same kind of "entity," is it any wonder they feel it's ok to kill the baby and the woman, in one fell swoop?
It isn't any wonder to me. After all, we're already (myself included, once, 26 years ago) disposing of perhaps between 600,000 and 700,000 unborn baby girls each year in this country. And at least three "distinguished bioethicists," including one Princeton University professor think it is also ok to destroy born babies and even those older than infants, such as "cognitively impaired" or "disabled human adults," since they are "not persons."
Here are the connected dots: when life stops being valued at any stage from conception to natural death, all the other stages become "up for discussion" and dissent too.
We have become a nation of disposables. And we asked for it, ourselves.