Woman who killed daughter to be sterilized!

.
.
This is related:


Thousands Wrongly Convicted Each Year

Thousands of people are wrongly convicted each year because of a malfunctioning legal system, reports the American Bar Association. "All too often, defendants plead guilty, even if they are innocent, without really understanding their legal rights" states the study, scheduled for release Friday. Lawyers in the South often "negotiate a plea agreement the first day they meet their clients." Elsewhere, indigent clients are jailed for months without access to a lawyer or are improperly pressured by prosecutors "to accept plea deals without a lawyer present."



Majic - IMO - you're being too hard on Mayet, and a bit unreasonable.



.

Shaken Topic Syndrome

Originally posted by soficrow
In fact, it is the "shaken baby syndrome" diagnosis that is based on supposition, pet theories and dogma.

All fine and good, but where is “shaken baby syndrome” mentioned in this story or connected to this case?

I don't see it, only you seem to be alleging a connection and cover-up in this case.

Discussion Versus Copy-Pasting

Originally posted by soficrow
I posted about 2 linear feet of information about the topic, with references - and specified that the officials involved are likely ignorant rather than involved in a cover up. ...

The volume of what you post proves nothing, other than the enduring truth that brevity is the soul of wit.

There are crucial differences between “ignorance” and a “cover-up”. One is intentional, one is not. I see plenty of both this thread, but not in the story itself -- except perhaps ignorance of what happens when a child is severely beaten.

You have alleged that there is a cover-up. I asked for some evidence, and you are responding in this way – and attempting unsuccessfully to dodge the question.

Is there a cover-up here? “Yes” or “no” and some evidence backing it up is the correct way to answer the question, not 2 linear feet of information that has not been shown to even be relevant in this case.

My question, and several others, have not been answered.

While I'm not one myself to avoid going off on what I consider to be interesting tangents, I still prefer above all to discuss the topic at hand and its merits. I may do some research, including clicking on links you provide, but am not obligated to do so.

Posting links is not an answer to a reasonable question. A straightforward answer would be.

Rather than a bunch of links, I would prefer that you post responsively to the topic at hand, and either answer my questions honestly, admit you can't, or not answer them at all.

I'm really not asking for much.

Quantity Versus Quality

Originally posted by soficrow
You are choosing to focus on one comment, about 1/2 inch of text out out 24, that offends your ego.

I focus on whatever I want to focus on. That is my choice, whether you like it or not.

It's called “intellectual freedom.” Deal with it.

If you post something, I may decide to read it. Based on what I read, I may comment on the post overall or a single point raised. If I disagree or are skeptical of what I'm commenting on, I may point that out.

That's how that works.

As far as I know, my ego doesn't have anything more to do with that than any other cognitive process I indulge in, despite your unsubstantiated claim to know otherwise.

My ego is not at all offended by your allegations, but my sense of honesty is most certainly offended.

Prove yourself right, or prove yourself wrong.

Focusing On One Comment

As for your criticism of my “choosing to focus on one comment”, let's take a look at that claim.

Let's assume you're right, and that I really am focusing on only one comment. Questions arise nonetheless:

1. What's wrong with that?

2. Why don't you want to discuss the comment you made?

If you allege “cover-up” on a conspiracy forum, don't be surprised if someone takes an interest.

You made a statement alleging a cover-up by officials in this case, which you are expecting us to accept as a fact. You have posted a lot of information to support the idea, with one important exception: proof that any of it applies to this case.

I'm asking you to prove your claim is true, and so far, this is what I'm getting back from you.

Can you see why my skepticism is growing?

The way to resolve the matter is to discuss it honestly. If you have evidence of a cover-up, I want to see it.

I don't want any further comments about me or anything else off-topic, just some facts. Put up or shut up.

If you don't have evidence, and it's a supposition, then please at least have the honesty to say so and not argue about it with someone who is simply asking you for proof – and being derided for committing the crime of asking for it.

You Don't Know Me Very Well, Do You?

Originally posted by soficrow
This tells us all a lot more about you than it does anything about me and my motives.

The line you are using is a line I use quite a bit when pointing out the effect of posting personal attacks in a discussion. Ironically, you are illustrating the point I usually make.

Your posts, and statements like these, indicate gross ignorance about me as a person, a fact which is being showcased by comments like these.

I am not at all offended by your ignorance of me. I really don't want you to know more about me, just my opinions.

So please don't misunderstand my complaint: I'm not upset that you don't know me, but that you choose to erroneously inject your ignorance of me into the discussion.

I'm not the topic, despite apparent confusion on that point. Please stick to the facts and what you know.

Posting what you don't know doesn't make you look good, nor does it advance the discussion in any meaningful way.

The Topic At Hand

Originally posted by soficrow
Back to the topic:

There is a behind-the-scenes controversy about "shaken baby syndrome," asking whether or not it's a legitimate diagnosis. It's similar to the early debate about SIDS.

I just want to point out that the topic is “Woman who killed daughter to be sterilized!”.

I know you are claiming that “shaken baby syndrome” is topical, but I still haven't seen demonstrating that it is.

The phrase “shaken baby syndrome” doesn't appear in the source article or any post in this thread prior to yours, which is why I'm trying to understand if it is relevant or not.

If you have anything linking “shaken baby syndrome” to this case, please share it, and explain why you think it applies.

Until you do that, however, it doesn't seem to me like you're really going “Back to the topic”.

For what it's worth, by the way, I really am fascinated by your charges, and think they should be carefully investigated.

Please help my investigation by showing the connection.


Edit: Am I Being Unreasonable?

Originally posted by soficrow
Majic - IMO - you're being too hard on Mayet, and a bit unreasonable.

I'm always open to criticism. I know you're just expressing an opinion about this, but you have me curious.

What would you have me do differently that doesn't involve me accepting lies as facts?

I really do try to be reasonable, but the fact that doing so requires applying reason seems to be offensive to some members.

If you can demonstrate how I could be "less hard" and be “less unreasonable” while still addressing the serious problems I am seeing in the discussion, and without compromising my own integrity, I would love to see it.

Show me how.



[edit on 2/25/2005 by Majic]

Originally posted by Majic
Shaken Topic Syndrome

Originally posted by soficrow
In fact, it is the "shaken baby syndrome" diagnosis that is based on supposition, pet theories and dogma.

All fine and good, but where is “shaken baby syndrome” mentioned in this story or connected to this case?

I don't see it, only you seem to be alleging a connection and cover-up in this case.

"According to prosecutors, Destiny Ashe had been shaken and hit so badly her brain swelled and hemorrhaged. She died Dec. 16, 1998."
www.msnbc.msn.com...

This is a fairly standard and common description of 'shaken baby syndrome.'

...If the woman did abuse her baby, the legal question is, "Was there a pre-existing condition that made the vascular system extremely fragile, which 'collapsed' under what may not have been inordinate trauma?"

...A very likely scenario: The baby had a vascular disease like FMD, affecting the blood vessels in it's brain. Vascular diseases cause pain - ie., FMD was found in 100% of migraine cases studied in one 1980's report. (Have it on file, won't dig it up right now) ....So baby is in excruciating pain - is NOT getting help or relief - is screaming non-stop for weeks. Mother loses it, picks baby up and shakes it. Blood vessels are already weakened and compromised, they burst, baby dies.

...So given that, and also given that the mother was completely ignorant of the baby's underlying condition - Is this murder?

...Also, such diseases are often passed along congenitally so the mother is likely a carrier. ...Most doctors and lawyers are ignorant of such diseases existence, but higher authorities are not.

...Given that informed authorities are allowing such cases to be ruled in ignorance, and considering the current trend to sterilization - looks to me like a backdoor eugenics policy.




.

The Charge Of Hypocrisy

Originally posted by Eye Of Ra
Don't you think your being a little hypocritial now? I mean you accuse Mayet of the above yet you yourself do not have all the facts..

No, I am not being hypocritical. Please re-read my posts. I am not claiming and have not made any claim that I have all the facts.

I do have some, and I am posting accordingly. The analysis you partially quoted is an analysis of what Mayet posted in her own words, and my attempt to understand her self-contradictory position.

Ironically enough, what I am criticizing Mayet for doing is what you are accusing me of doing, and what I would criticize myself for doing if I were doing it.

The problem with your statement is that it seems to ignore that fact. Then you launched into a tirade that itself seems to ignore the facts of the case.

I am quite capable of hypocrisy, and like to see it pointed out, whether it is me or anyone else doing it. However, nothing you have posted shows that I am being a hypocrite here.

If you really do see me engage in hypocrisy, please point it out and I'll look into it.

Speaking Of False Accusations

Originally posted by Eye Of Ra
You also Accuse Mayet and others of being Bias yet you yourself are Clearly Bias! And im sorry to say but a little ignorant if you ask me.

Ignorance is a lack of information. Stupidity is a deliberate lack of information.

There are many things about this case of which I am ignorant. What makes me feel somewhat unique in this discussion is that I am willing to admit it.

Your suppositions about me are misguided. If you disagree with my opinions, I recommend posting about why they are wrong, and providing some evidence to back it up.

Now For Some Real Hypocrisy

Originally posted by Eye Of Ra
Its also a shame that you can't handle that maybe for once your wrong and have to make personal attacks for this.

A personal attack is an attack on a person.

The easiest way to identify one is that it refers to a fellow ATS member instead of the topic. Some members get confused on this point, so I posted some examples below.

In a single post, you claimed that I am “a little hypocritial “, “Clearly Bias”, “a little ignorant if you ask me”, “can't handle that maybe for once [I'm] wrong” and “have to make personal attacks for this”.

These statements are directed at me as a person, and are themselves personal attacks.

And you are accusing me of hypocrisy?

A definite contender for Ironic Quote Of The Day, but the day is young.

If you see me attacking anyone in such a way, please be sure to include a quote of the attack in your complaint. I take such complaints very seriously.

I used to hang out on alt.flame, and am trying my best to be reasonably nice in spite of the fact that I am a recovering flamelord. I really am trying to improve myself, and encourage all ATS members to do likewise.

Please help by not attacking me personally, and by pointing out my lapses where they actually do occur, instead of where they do not.

Maybe this will help:

For Those Wondering What A Personal Attack Really Is

A personal attack is an attack on a person. If you are posting something derogatory about another member of ATS, then it is probably a personal attack.

An exception is if the derogatory information is true and pertains to the topic being discussed.

I called a fellow member a “liar”, for example, for deliberately posting a lie to ATS. The lie was in the title of the thread and was accompanied by a post that showed the intent to lie. When I pointed it out, this person jumped all over me in very rude ways.

Thus, while not a particularly pleasant thing to say, my label of “liar” for this person was correct, the person was (and probably still is) a liar, and it was not a personal attack, but a statement of a disappointing fact. A rare but notable exception.

The vast majority of the time, the best way to avoid personal attacks is to avoid addressing a fellow poster directly.

Remember: If you are posting about a fellow member and not the topic, you are probably indulging in a personal attack. There are exceptions, but they are a tiny fraction of such posts.

Here are some examples:

Example 1: Personal Attack: “You are stupid.”

Example 2: Not A Personal Attack: “Your post is stupid.”

While Example 2 is not polite, it is also not a personal attack.

It is possible to mix them together:

Example 3: Indirect Personal Attack: “Only someone who is stupid would make such a post.”

The implication is that the poster is “someone who is stupid”.

There are endless variations on these themes, as evidenced all too often on ATS. I doubt any member (except perhaps a very new one) is innocent of making personal attacks – I know I'm not.

But the point remains: Personal attacks are wrong.

They are also contrary to the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use and ABOUT ATS: General ATS discussion etiquette, and members who routinely attack other members tend to leave by way of the ban hammer.

So let's do what we can to reduce the frequency of personal attacks in the forums, which is far too high, and far too rampant for the staff to reduce without our help.

My advice is to avoid speculating about fellow members, which requires making assumptions that are usually wrong, and concentrate instead on what they are posting, which is a known fact preserved and protected by the forum itself.


[edit on 2/25/2005 by Majic]

Shaken, Beaten, Or Not At All?

Originally posted by soficrow

"According to prosecutors, Destiny Ashe had been shaken and hit so badly her brain swelled and hemorrhaged. She died Dec. 16, 1998."
www.msnbc.msn.com...

This is a fairly standard and common description of 'shaken baby syndrome.'

I can see the inference, but I don't see a definite connection.

What I can't find is anything describing the injuries.

Would you agree that if Destiny Ashe was covered with bruises and other evidence of physical trauma, she most likely was beaten to death?

If there was no evidence of external injuries, then your theory moves up to “plausible” in my view.

But for it to be plausible in this case, it must be shown to apply and make sense.

That's what I'm looking for.

Originally posted by Majic
Shaken, Beaten, Or Not At All?

Originally posted by soficrow

"According to prosecutors, Destiny Ashe had been shaken and hit so badly her brain swelled and hemorrhaged. She died Dec. 16, 1998."
www.msnbc.msn.com...

This is a fairly standard and common description of 'shaken baby syndrome.'

I can see the inference, but I don't see a definite connection.

My focus here is on the fact that diagnoses of "shaken baby syndrome" have emerged to explain a new epidemic of babies dying from burst blood vessels in the brain.

I am saying the real explanation for the phenomenon is likely medical, not criminal.

I am also very concerned with the trend to sterilize women as a legal response to the epidemic.

...Whether or not this case fits actually or perfectly, IMO it is adequate as a bouncing off point to identify and assess the larger trends.



.

Wrongfully Accused?

Originally posted by soficrow
My focus here is on the fact that diagnoses of "shaken baby syndrome" have emerged to explain a new epidemic of babies dying from burst blood vessels in the brain.

I am saying the real explanation for the phenomenon is likely medical, not criminal.

The prion-related information paints a disturbing picture, no doubt about that.

I agree wholeheartedly that the idea of a woman being wrongfully accused, let alone convicted, for killing her child when she did not is a horrifying thought.

What I'm not seeing is any evidence that Carisa Ashe is being wrongfully accused, and that's too important a point to accept on hand-waving alone.

Forced Sterilization A Trend?

Originally posted by soficrow
I am also very concerned with the trend to sterilize women as a legal response to the epidemic.

A topic unto itself, and what makes this case more notable than it would otherwise be.

In fact, it is because forced sterilization it is so unusual in this country that this case is getting all the attention it is getting. Well that, and apparently Bill O'Reilly has taken it up as one of his personal crusades.

As for it being a trend, where is the trend? I'm not aware of enough other cases like this for it to reasonably be labeled as a “trend”.

How many forced sterilizations are performed in the U.S. each year? If it's a trend, I imagine you have some numbers showing it. Please share them if you'd like.

Children are beaten to death every day. However, women are not routinely sterilized for doing so.

Larger Trends

Originally posted by soficrow
...Whether or not this case fits actually or perfectly, IMO it is adequate as a bouncing off point to identify and assess the larger trends.

I can agree with that, just not the false accusations of a cover-up in this case. Am I right to believe those charges are false?

As for a more general cover-up, the idea does have some things going for it, but as with all things, I want to make sure I reasonably understand the issue before leveling charges against anyone.

Children are beaten to death every day. However, women are not routinely sterilized for doing so.

That is a tragedy in itself.

I don't know if sterilization is appropriate in all cases. However, what must be agreed upon is that not every person is fit to have children.

I'm sorry but if you (a full sized developed adult) beat a small child (i'm not talking about a slap on the ass, i'm talking beating to hurt) then you are not fit to have children. Period. Does it require a surgery? I don't think so. Just put the person in prison and be done with it.

Child abuse should be treated more seriously than it is today. The woman who this thread is about killed a defenseless child that had done nothing. If that's not capital, i don't know what is.

Ain't It The Truth?

Originally posted by Djarums
That is a tragedy in itself.

You cannot know what I was thinking when I wrote that, but yes, the feeling was one of profound irony.

Children are beaten to death every day. Around the world, I'm not sure I even want to know how many, every day.

But that's normal. Forced sterilization isn't, and well, here we are.

It should be apparent that I'm not a big fan of child abuse, and I seriously doubt anyone else here is, but what may not be apparent is that I do not support a cookie-cutter hammer-and-anvil approach to dealing with it.

People are human, and that includes parents. I have experience as both. I know good people do bad things, just as bad people do bad things.

In the case of child abuse, I favor educating and helping parents to avoid hurting their kids, and I support doing these things to the maximum extent that is reasonable and practical.

Prevention should be Job One for child abuse.

When it does happen, carting parents off to prison and shipping the kids off to foster care is usually a much worse solution than ignoring the problem would be. A lot of abuse takes place in foster care, to add insult to injury.

I don't have all the answers to the problem, but I do care.

As with all other problems, the first step toward solving it is to be honest about what the problem actually is.

Failure to do that ensures the problem cannot be solved.

Originally posted by jeeze louise
A Judge in Georgia orders women who killed her 5 week old baby to be sterilized!

ATLANTA - A Georgia judge ordered a mother of seven who pleaded guilty to killing her 5-week-old daughter to have a medical procedure to prevent her from having more children.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Thank God there is a Judge out there who has the guts to do what should be done. I hope this sets a precedence and that it is used more often in our courtrooms. There are some people who just should not have children and this woman is certainly one of them!

Comment: What a wonderful judge who ignores all the dead bodies from WW II, including our veterans who paid in blood for our freedom. He is obviously a product of the dumbed down and overspecialized so called educational system, that is openly to the left but has an easter egg in it turning people into mindless facists when they get older.

Originally posted by soficrow
I agree that the woman needs help.

I do not agree that the state has any right to sterilize her. This heralds our return to Eugenics legislation. FYI - the US had Eugenics legislation for a long time. Hitler used a 1926 Supreme Court ruling supporting Eugenics legislation almost verbatim to create the Nazi Eugenics programs (concentration camps, death camps etc).

We're on a slippery slope here....

Comment: Quite right you are.

Originally posted by Countermeasures
Yup, a birth license would just be the thing for the NWO, I think the chinese would start it first as they already have had some birth control programs and a policestate to enforce it. After that Monsanto pushes the american government (wich might have by that time also turned into a policestate working for the large corporations) to have their sterilised seed technology applied to human sperm, so that you have to buy your offspring from them. Blue eyes and immunity against HIV can be done, but it will cost you extra....

Comment: Now I am getting out my aluminium pyramid hat to test the air for invisible reptilians, but you know the truth is stranger than fiction if you get the drift.

Originally posted by duh squared
It makes a lot of sense. Just as castration is a fitting sentence to sex offenders.

Comment: All those pig lagoons out there in the boonies have made people stagger from toxic shock, also leading to another easter egg of uncaring facism.

Now one is seeing a woman who is accused of murdering her infant, and people do not understand that most legal proceedings are greatly inflated for profit. Yes the infant died, but what are the exact circumstances verses the dramatic adversarial court proceedings. Perhaps she is simply too illiterate to explain herself, but don't worry that can have a great deal less to do with money if you remember the illiteracy of Mike Tyson. The point is the courts set up straw men and straw women, defenseless people as case law, then begin their incremental march into total tyranny one case at a time. The big picture is everyone loses.

Glory Days

An impromptu trip down memory lane...

Majic the inadvertant quote-button-hitter.






(I was quoting from this thread for another post, and accidentally posted it to this thread. My, but I was in top self-righteous form back in those days.)


[edit on 3/27/2006 by Majic]

I can't see this case as anything but a precedent to herald in puplic acceptance for practicing Eugenics.

Doesn't it bother anyone that now, around the world, there are laws that decide for people, whether they can be conceived, born, allowed to live, who they'll live with and who's allowed to reproduce. We live in the age of "Worlds Best (for corporate growth) Practice". Which of these laws won't be 'inflicted' on the whole world, under the lie of W.B.P. ?

For a conspiracy site, ATS has an awfull lot of posters who don't see any problems, anywhere, unless and untill they are directly, negatively effected. Why do so many forget that the unjust laws that may benifit them today can 'evolve' to hurt them more than those folk they made a killing off due to, 'the setting of a new precedent'?

Eugenics promotion has been in full swing for a long time but most miss it because they are unaware of "whisper campaigns" that make people think they formed their own opinion from 'real life', instead of from the most effective, and least known, marketing system.

It's sad how often those who watch and warn, are fobbed off by the majority who then scream blue murder that no one gave them the chance to fight that latest injustice inflicted on them.

One of the problems is legalized abortion...it gives people this mindset that children are PROPERTY to do with what they see fit. Children are seen as burdens rather than blessings. That's why the abuse rate has gone up--and not down.

I'm not sure about sterilizing this woman though. Yeah, she killed her baby, she probably shouldn't have any more, but watch the government come up with more and more reasons why someone should be sterilized...little by little, we'll get to the point where you'll need permission to have children.

Personally I'm not worried about this because hubby got a vasectomy after our son was born...but I'm concerned for others.

Overpopulation isn't even an issue, because the worldwide average is well below replacement level.

I dont need to post my opinion on what she did to her 5 week old baby.

But, plain and simple my first thought is, it seems a bit extreme or nazist. hard to explain, just somthing about it.

and more to the point, she SHOULD be in jail for the rest of her life where in fact, it would be quite difficult to concieve.

The judge, I'd say, is just overly expressing his own personal feelings.
another thing whos going to pay for this procedure. just a waste of money.

Someone mentioned castration for sex offenders, they already do this with chemicals, ie, the sex organs can no longer function, but guess what, this does not stop repeat offenses, because for a sex offender the actions they take are not about the power of their penis, but the control they have over the victim.
Ten fingers can do ten times more damage then one dangling meat stick.

Cut off all the penises you want, it won't change anything.

Sterilizing this woman will also not prevent her from abusing her other children, if she is such a person.

Plain and simple when the law starts ordering medical procedures, then it has stepped over the line.
Eventualy it will be a return to lobotomies for anyone who has a dissenting opinion.
If we cut into human beings as a matter of law, then what makes us different than
the Muslim nations who cut people's limbs off for crimes? Nothing, thats what.
Score one for Terrorism!

...Are of course a boon to overzealous per.. err prosecutors, if a kid dies from unknown causes, without witnesses and the only victim available is a single mother of many (ie. weak), guess who will get the shaft?!

I'm not saying this is how it happened, but Western (yeah, still better than sharia, i presume, but why compare to the worst of the worst?) judicial systems and morality are geared towards convicting people, not shining a light on the circumstances. I don't normally endorse sci-fi soap operas, but to anyone who ever watched Star Trek -deep space nine: the Cardassian judicial system is an exaggerated version of ours...


---------

On the issue of Eugenics

There are two distinct origins of such activities: The first, simply targetting the weak for no other reason except that they 'suck' or whatever, this is of course Eugenics in Effect but not necessarily by Intention.. I believe this is the case here, although it's laughable to believe the judge tried to rid the world of her traits, seeing as she has 6 other kids.

The second, widely known but less common (imho of course) form is an extermination policy geard towards extinction of genetic traits, by any means usually. Let me state a disclaimer, though, namely that even though this more virulent motivation may not be prevalent in many individuals, it's usually what men in powe® love to do, but seldom admit.


Finally, Eugenics aren''t necessarily destructive in nature (ie. by killing or preventing births). Subsidies of any kind are of course putting the recipients at an advantage, and no matter how much gov'ts maintain that they give it out to anyone regardless of personal traits, statistics will quickly prove them wrong, since the money usually goes to a few select groups. This is something most people seem to overlook or are afraid to talk about.

Unfortunately, people around the world don't realise that gov't handouts for childrearing not only give them an undesireable power over personal affairs, but also cost other people's tax money who again may no longer be able or confident to raise their own kids, creating the very problem the policy is designed to cure

-The net effect: people who don't care about dependancy have kids and raise them to become serfs, while the rest is slowly dying out, effectively 'dumbing down' society. EUgenics alledgedly means the exact opposite of course...

Actually, I think the freedom to have an abortion has nothing to do with why people think of children as property. And yet, I do think that that mindset is pretty prevaliant.

Think of the nearly irrational outrage that occurs when anyone speaks of having any sort of control over a person's ability to procreate? Or of having any sort of influence over the children themselves that doesn't come through some sort of permission of the parents? Because at some intrinsic level, most people feel children are the property of their parents.

I've always found it ridiculous that , for example, you have to have a license to drive a car, but any old fool can produce any number of children on a whim. For any reason. And yet, isn't that a greater responsibility than learning to drive? A life?

For example, we know that the single most enpowering thing we could do for girls to ensure that they have a better future is to prevent them from having children until they're in their twenties. And yet even stating that aloud seems to offend people.

What is it that makes people feel this way? Some whisper from our DNA, urging us to fight anything that gets in the way of continuing its line? An ingrained cultural pressure perhaps stemming from religion and the whole "go forth and be fruitful?" sort of thing? Or is this a case of animal instinct, some tie to a primal urge that goes beyond social influence?



[edit on 4-4-2006 by Jadette]

Originally posted by Jadette
For example, we know that the single most enpowering thing we could do for girls to ensure that they have a better future is to prevent them from having children until they're in their twenties. And yet even stating that aloud seems to offend people.
[edit on 4-4-2006 by Jadette]

Really? I thought the single most empowering thing we can do for girls is be a parent for them, guding and supporting them and their interests so they don't live a hopeless life that leads to unemployment and single parenthood. You can give a girl all the birh control in the world but that won't improve her self esteem or feelings of personal worthiness.

Really? I thought the single most empowering thing we can do for girls is be a parent for them, guding and supporting them and their interests so they don't live a hopeless life that leads to unemployment and single parenthood. You can give a girl all the birh control in the world but that won't improve her self esteem or feelings of personal worthiness.

And yet many young women have had loving, caring and supportive families and still ended up as single mothers. I don't think that teenage pregnancy necessarily means bad parenting. I also don't think that girls who become pregnant teens can only mean low self esteem and self worth.

Consider this: One third of teenage girls who get pregnant don't finish high school. Less than 2 percent of those girls earn a degree in college. Poverty and teenage pregnancy go hand in hand.

That's sick. Very messed up. The mother is stupid for killing her daughter.