Man Accused Of Pummeling Pregnant Wife Until Baby Died Won't Face Homicide Charges
America 2007:
ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- A Central Florida man who doctors believe beat his pregnant wife so severely that it killed their unborn baby will not be charged with homicide, according to authorities.My Comments:
Investigators said Mohammad Khan was taken into custody this week after the alleged attack on his pregnant wife at a home in Windermere, Fla.
"It started as a verbal argument and through that argument became physical," Orange County sheriff's Sgt. Spike Hopkins said. "When I saw him, he didn't seem remorseful about the occurrence at all."
***
In a statement, Khan's wife said she does not want police to prosecute her husband, the report said.
"She told police (that) her father told her it was her fault she lost the baby," Diaz said.
She must have gone out in public without her veil or something. If so, she was clearly asking for it. /sarcasm
In other semi-related death of Western Civilization news, Muhammad is No. 2 in boy's names in Britain.
Labels: Culture of Death, Religion of Peace
posted by Pro Ecclesia 11:05 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Well, duh, of course he won't be charged with homocide!
The burning question is, will he be charged with practicing medicine without a license?
Forgive me, but I was under the impression that this sort of DIY abortion was the absolute worst possible thing in the world, the justification for abortion in the first place.
BRAVO!
They tell us to legalize it to DIY abortions won't happen...
What is amazing is that the Libs will be more outraged at the beating of the woman, than the killing of a baby.
i guess the Father was using his rights to "Choice" right?
There was a simular case in VA where a lady SHOT her belly in order to kill her unborn child. She was charged, but it was later dropped.
had this child been outside of the womb and this man beat the baby to death, there would be outrage and anti-man hate speech from Feminist lefties... but since the baby was in the womb, it's cool. Have to love the 'caring, compassionate, enlightened" left.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that the wife-beating issue is incredibly serious. Otherwise we'll be under attack for disregarding the woman, perhaps rightfully so. But there are 2 crimes here that need to be acknowledged. Is there a reason to believe that the man wanted the baby dead more than he wanted the wife hurt? Likely he gave more thought to the wife on whom he wished to inflict pain & punishment--perhaps the death of the baby as a for of emotional abuse directed towards the wife. On the other hand, he could have been mad because the ultrasound revealed that the baby was female.
I'm sorry, but I'm really struck by the lack of compassion here. It strikes me that this would be good evidence to support leftist claims that pro-lifers care MORE--not equally--about the unborn child than the woman, not something I believe personally, but the tone here is a bit distressing.
Also--FYI--the male DOESN'T have a "right to choice" in the feminist construct, the argument being that it's not HIS body. He actually SHOULD have been condemned by feminists for infringing upon her rights to her own reproductive functions, but since the right in question is the incubation rather than termination of the child, the point is moot.
Literacy Chic,
Who's lack of compassion are you talking about? I focused almost exclusively on the wife-beating aspect of this and the cultural implications of being a woman inside of Islam.
Mainly those of the other 2 commenters. As is your usual practice, you let the news source speak for itself with only a brief comment at the end, in this case, the sarcastic veil remark which, while culturally appropriate, does not directly indicate sympathy for her situation. Paul suggests that this is a DIY abortion in a clever way, but the emphasis is clearly (as in the title of the post/article) on the implications for the death of the baby. The squeaky wheel takes it to the next level, noting that "the Libs will be more outraged at the beating of the woman, than the killing of a baby" rather than acknowledging that two crimes have occurred. I guess the question becomes, had the baby died, would the tone of the comments be a bit different? I hope that even when her baby does not die as a result, the beating of a woman would invoke outrage. Granted, it is such a common occurrence, sadly, that it would not likely warrant a news story.
I still wonder whether there is any indication that the husband was trying to kill the baby, or if the object of his violence truly was the wife, and the child was incidental. The story does not suggest to me that his intention was to kill the child, though clearly the child was incidental to him. But then, women aren't whole people in Islam. How could an unborn child be one?
Typo, above: "I guess the question becomes, had the baby NOT died, would the tone of the comments be a bit different?"
I assumed he didn't know the wife was pregnant, but was merely exercising his "right" as a Muslim husband to "keep his wife in line".
The title of the post is verbatim the title of the article. Again, while I certainly sympathize with the loss of the child's life, the emphasis of my post was to take issue with the implication from the woman's husband and her father that she somehow "deserved" it.
Given that, I'm not sure how my remark can be viewed as unsympathetic to her plight. I focused exclusively on her beating and didn't even mention the child's loss of life. Perhaps my writing style is too dry, but it is what it is. Anyone reading my post should be able to tell that I'm "on her side".
I was really responding to the tone of comments, and I didn't think that would be unclear, or I would have explained it better. I am used to your dryness and wouldn't have thought anything of it had I not taken a second look and thought some more about it. Your point was clear, but the (article) title did direct the implications a bit. Others picked up on that and did not mention the husband-wife situation at all, though you did include a reference to it. Anyway, it was not my intent in the first place to offend you (or anyone), but I couldn't help remarking on the seeming lack of sympathy for the woman among readers. Your comment was more neutral, and came across as a critique of the Muslim man's regard for his wife (or lack thereof). But that wasn't the emphasis of the story or the comments. I hope this clarifies.
No offense taken. I just wanted to clarify. Thanks for your comments on this.
Post a Comment
<< Home