She Should Have Killed the Baby a Day Earlier

It is reported at KSTP.com that 17-year-old Nicole Beecroft is facing life in prison because she killed her baby a little bit too late. She gave birth to the child on the floor of your closet and panicked when she saw the baby move, so she stabbed it 135 times and threw it in the garbage. The story states that neither she nor her mother knew she was pregnant, as she was overweight. She clearly did not want the baby, and she aborted its life as soon as she discovered that it was there. However, since it was after the baby had passed through the birth canal instead of a few hours earlier while it remained in the uterus, the law declares it first degree murder instead of abortion.

This story and the outrage that has been caused by the fact that a mother would stab a baby 135 times clearly illustrates the inconsistency in the way that the legal system, medical system, and about half of public opinion views abortion. The only difference between the murdered baby when murdered was location and type of dependence on the mother. Hours earlier it resided in the uterus and based on that fact alone the act would not have been murder. The only other difference besides location that I can think of is type of dependence on the mother. The baby was previously dependent on the mother for sustainment of life by means of the umbilical cord, and at the point of murder the umbilical cord had been severed, and the baby was now dependent on the mother (or other) for nourishment orally. Neither of those differences justify the discrepency in legal handling of the case: In one scenario the mother would have been free to end the child's life and in the other she will be put away for life.

I am truly grieved by the child's death, but no more so than I am by the millions of abortions that occur in the United States and around the world every year. Rather than being angry at the mother, however, I am sad for her. She has no doubt been fed the inconsistent lies of "women's rights" (to abort) her whole life. What was the difference in her mind? She had been taught that if you are not ready to be a mother, if you don't want to be a mother, if you became pregnant when you did not want to be, or if you are pregnant by someone you do not want to be the dad or are raped that the woman is the victim. It is the woman's right to end that life. So what was the difference here? She killed the baby as soon as she found out about it, she just didn't have as good of health care as some girls do (and maybe she wasn't as smart as some). So instead of killing the baby in the womb, she had no other option to kill it as soon as it came out. But according to all that she had been taught there really wasn't any difference. It was still her right. She was the victim. But now in the eyes of our inconsistent legal system, the baby who hours earlier had no rights has become the victim and the girl a violent murderer.

Oh how I pray that something as horrible and sad as this event will open up people's eyes to the inconsistency and horror of abortion.

I still think she should be punished. But so should those abortionists and the women who go to them. Very good job point out there is no difference between abortion and murder. Great post

by: Robert - 14 April '07 - 12:34

How can you be so judgmental of a woman obviously in crisis, just because her values are not yours. She was only following the liberal creed, NEC; nihilism, expedience, and cowardice.

by: Russell Fish () (URL) - 14 April '07 - 12:55

Partial-birth abortion means an abortion procedure in which the person performing the abortion partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child before killing the unborn child and completing the delivery. For purposes of this subdivision, the term partially delivers vaginally a living unborn child before killing the unborn child means deliberately and intentionally delivering into the vagina a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a procedure that the person performing such procedure knows will kill the unborn child and does kill the unborn child.

by: Becky - 14 April '07 - 13:23

Sorry – I’m not very adept at posting comments! The reason I posted the previous comment regarding partial-birth abortion was in regards to a Gender and Society class I took last semester. One controversial topic discussed in class was partial-birth abortion. I did not know that it is considered lawful for an unborn child to be aborted (outside of the uterus) as long as it is brain dead – thus the necesity of delivering it feet first, then (for lack of better description) suck out the brains before it goes from inside the woman’s body to outside the body – thus part of the horror of a partial birth abortion. Apparently, this logic applies to this young woman, whose fetus/baby was not brain dead on her closet floor, thus stabbing it was considered murder. However, had she undergone a partial birth abortion and the brains had been removed in utero, then it would have been legal (in many states). I was stunned by the reasoning – where the head is in relation to the mother’s body, and if that brain is alive or dead, makes it legal or illegal. Curious as to any other medical input/correction on my input.

by: Becky - 14 April '07 - 13:35

That is so incredibly heart-breaking! I just came from the hospital seeing our friends’ new grandbaby. With that fresh in my mind, I can’t even fathom abortion. period!!! Thanks for the informative blog.

by: Kim - 14 April '07 - 14:25

you are mistaken about the poor girl she was ill not vicious or murderous, it is a condition that women suffer sometimes from terrible imbalances as a result of child bearing no one in their right mind stabs anything 135 times, not anything.

by: Litha Moon (URL) - 14 April '07 - 15:57

nicole went to my high school. she was a year younger than me. she didn’t tell anyone that she was pregnant and when police found the babies body she said that it was stillborn and that she layed with it for about 20 minutes and then threw it in the trash but then once the autopsy showed that the baby had been stabbed 135 times she changed her story and told police that she saw her daughters finger move and panicked. she wasn’t a vicious or murderous person something just snapped in her brain. i knew her a little bit and she didn’t have a very good home life but prior to this she had never been in trouble. sometimes when teens have a baby and dont tell anyone they have the baby but dont see it as a person because they are in a state of panic and that is exactly what happened with nicole.

by: Toni () - 14 April '07 - 16:46

How unfathomable to me! The heart of a man is desperatly wicked. I can only imagine the guilt and pain one goes through after killing a baby inside or outside the womb.

by: sara () - 14 April '07 - 21:05

This is a sad story so is the solution posed. Does the orginal writer have any clue what they’re talking about? IF the supsect had no clue she’s pregnant, how could she choose an abortion. I’m curious how far she was along and I highly doubt that she had no clue she was expecting. She claims that she froze and I strongly suspect she knew she was pregnant and it’s possible it was her intention to kill it. I’ve seen her MySpace page and I’ll speculate too that her apparent god child due in July was hers. Once a trial starts, we’ll learn more..

by: J.R. - 15 April '07 - 15:23

This is a sad story, but I think what she did was kind of dumb. I mean, she stabbed the baby 135 times because she didn’t know what to do? She should have called a friend or counciler or something to ask them what to do about it… or she could have jut taken it to the hospital and they might have done something about it. I would NEVER stab my child even if I was scared and didn’t know what to do. I just wouldn’t. I don’t think she should get life in prison though, because it sorta was an accident. She didn’t know what to do about the baby, and it did frighten her. I do think she should get time in jail though, I know some of you know her, i don’t, but this is just plain… horrible.

by: Jamie - 16 April '07 - 08:37

J.R.: Please read the entire story. I am not at all advocating that she actually should have killed her baby. What I’m attempting to do with an attention grabbing headline is to reveal the inconsistencies between those who are outraged at this story (whether or not she had a clue she was pregnant) but support a woman’s right to choose abortion.

by: Jacob Hantla - 18 April '07 - 17:44

If a woman should have the right to chose abortion, then she should also have the right to kill her baby when it is born. There cannot be double standards when it comes to murder: either it is wrong or it is not. So if it’s your belief that abortion is a right and is perfectly moral and fine, then I don’t understand how you can say it’s murder when the baby is outside of the womb? I suppose this would be a whole different story if the woman, while pregnant, was stabbed and lost her baby. I’m sure she’d be in court, testifying that the person who stabbed her was a murderer.

by: [Samantha] () - 24 April '07 - 10:23

Sorry, my comment was just intended for pro-abortionists in general :D

by: [Samantha] () - 24 April '07 - 10:28

I guess it’s horrific that things like that had happened to the child and mother and her parents. I mean it is horrific. and coroner who had to count 135 holes. I am guessing baby was moving for first 10 punctures and each puncture did move the baby because of thrust motion and learning that it went to 120 times more was quite awful. Side note, did your Roomba work after 2004 posting on Amazon.com? for Discovery model you got after fourth repair that got upgraded to new model that time? email me about Roomba. Just got here through amazon.com link from your comments there. hahaha.

by: Michael Oh () - 29 April '07 - 00:16

First of all, if there are any mothers out there that can say that they “didn’t know” they were pregnant until they gave birth then that is such a convenient lie that you tell people. There is NO WAY that you can go thru a pregnancy for 9 months and not know it. Babies move inside of you….and it does NOT feel like indigestion or gas. Your entire body changes and you even have a mucos’y’ discharge from you vagina for the last couple of months of pregnanacy. There is just no excuse for this to have happened. The post says that she must have been “fed the inconsistent lies of “women’s rights” (to abort) her whole life”. How the heck do you know what she has been told all her life?? In 2007, there are plenty of options to pursue if you become pregnant when you dont want to be pregnant. Even during the process of delivering…..which, by the way, I’m sure was no easy task for a 17 year old first time mother…..labor could have been going on for HOURS, why couldn’t she ask for help then?? Hey ladies…when you dont get your period for 9 months and you start to feel like there is a Buick coming thru your abdomen….you might want to go to the hospital or at least ask your mom what might be up…...who happens to be asleep in the next room!! And who is to say that she didn’t have a hand in the whole ugly oreal anyway?
She could have taken that baby to a “safe-place” and thousands of wonderful people would have lined up for the chance to love that child. This was nothing more than a selfish teen that had plenty of options…but because of her own agenda she eliminated a purely innocent life. Throw the book at her and dont look back. Also, I hope that they do to her what they did to Jeffery Dahmler when he got sent to prison. She doesn’t deserve to breathe. Speaking of breathing, the difference between the time that the baby was in the birth cannal and then out is called oxygen…..when that baby takes it’s first breath on it’s own, that is the sign that the baby is viable and may have a chance at life if given the proper care….just like any other mammal that is born on this planet. I can almost live with what happens in a partial-birth abortion…there are doctors, equipment and drugs present that are specifically geared toward the procedure. While I don’t advocate partial-birth abortions, it’s a heck of a lot more “humane” than poking 135 holes into beautiful innocence.

by: ngneer () - 30 April '07 - 13:40

ngneer, how do you arbitrarily justify that something that was previously “not a life” is “now a life” when air is first inspired and touches the alveoli. The baby has had oxygen it’s entire life up to that point provided already-dissolved in the blood. How does changing the mode of oxygen delivery constitute livelihood. If that was the case, when one goes on a bypass machine, when oxygen is provided again predissolved in the blood rather than through the alveoli of the lungs, one would cease to be living?

by: Jacob Hantla - 30 April '07 - 19:25

What happened with adoption? Why could she give it up for adoption?

by: Bree-Ann () - 02 October '09 - 16:57

0 trackbacksTrackback link:

Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url


Name:		Remember personal info? Yes No
Email:
URL:
Comment:	/ Textile

Sorry about this. I've been hit with a lot of spam lately, and I need to do something about it. What are the last 2 letters in the word 'spam'? ( Register your username / Log in )
Notify:	Yes, send me email when someone replies.
Hide email:	Yes, hide my email address.
Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.

Vital Statistics:

Title: She Should Have Killed the Baby a Day Earlier
Date posted: 14 April '07 - 11:49
Category: Miscellanies, Quick notes
Wordcount: 605 words
I Like It:: (vote) 24
I Hate it:: (vote) 26
Next entry: » Media Consumption
Previous entry: « On Global Warming

Take Me Back to the Frontpage

Links

Support Me

Stuff

She Should Have Killed the Baby a Day Earlier

Vital Statistics:

Archives

Categories