Wednesday, March 28, 2007

 

Women Behaving Badly

Black Widow arrested in North Carolina:
A 62-year-old woman known as the "Black Widow" is being held in a North Carolina jail on $1.5 million bond for relatively petty charges, while police race to unravel a web of mysteries — including the deaths of her two husbands and a female "best friend" — before time runs out and "she's outta here.
Nice lady!

Two women kill homeless men to cash in on life insurance:
Two women charged with murder for the hit-and-run deaths of two homeless men -- allegedly to cash in on life insurance policies they took out on them -- made their initial court appearance Thursday.

Helen Louise Golay, 75, of Santa Monica, and Olga Rutterschmidt, 73, agreed to waive their right to a speedy arraignment until Aug. 29, after Golay hires an attorney.
I just love the grandmotherly types.

Often, in the popular press, female serial killers are considered a rarity. I wonder if the women above are considered serial killers. According to this paper they would be.
Female serial killers have always been something of an anomaly in criminology and a puzzle for law enforcement. As Eric Hickey (1991) describes them, "These are the quiet killers, every bit as lethal as male serial murderers, but we are seldom aware of one in our midst because of the low visibility of their killing". One of the first writers on female criminality, Otto Pollak, also said that most female crime is hidden. Kelleher & Kelleher (1998) argue that female serial killers are more successful, careful, precise, methodical, and quiet in committing their crimes. They examined 100 cases since 1900 and found an average duration of 8 years before being caught -- double that of the male serial killer.
American females account for 76% of all female serial killers worldwide.
In 1992, Aileen Carol Wuornos was convicted in Florida for the murder of 7 men she killed while hitchhiking and was (incorrectly) called America's first female serial killer.

Emphasis added
According to the paper 80% of murders by female serial killers are by poisoning. Watch what you drink.

Here's another intriguing case where Three newborn babies have been dumped 11 months apart in California. This could be a man behaving very badly.
The first newborn was discovered swaddled in a blanket on a park bench, an umbilical cord still hanging from his tiny body. Then, at neat 11-month intervals, two more abandoned babies were found in parked pickup trucks in the same neighborhood.
Someone is very sick. When I read of cases like this, I can't help but wonder if the increased acceptance or even glorification of abortion has cheapened the value of the lives of newborns and people in general. This is a question that to which there will probably not be a widely accepted answer any time soon. But I know where I stand, I have four children and wouldn't trade the joy and richness they've brought into my life for anything.

Comments:
but by definition, these women had the children to be dumped.

if they had more access to abortion without all the handwringing religious pro life people around, then these children wouldnt have been dumped at all. they would never have to spend their lives unknowing who they are, or ending up in childrens homes.

in the past there was a lot of dumping of children, the down the river in a basket route, about 2000 years ago. so women abandoning children isnt new.

if there was more prevention, and stop pharcmacists from saying we will not fill birth control as its against our religion, then the need for abortions will descrease.

they cant have it both ways, they deny selling prevention, then when they need to abort, they complain about that too, self fulfilling prophecy.

you made a choice for having your children, what about those people who have made a choice in not having them. accidenes do happen, condoms fail 3% or less of the time. so abortion should be there as an option, as a last resort, but prevention is the key.
 
stop pharcmacists from saying we will not fill birth control as its against our religion,

I really don't think this is that much of a problem. I've never heard of this happening where I live or lived. And, I've lived in the "Bible Belt" my entire life.

Maysville, KY has a population of slightly less than 10,000 and has at least 6 pharmacies. Even if 5 of them refused you, you wouldn't have to drive more than 2-3 miles to go to the one that would serve you.

Additionally, I don't see why a woman's "right to an abortion, etc." should trump someone else's religious beliefs.

I don't have a problem with prevention but there's a point where the chld needs to live. Using examples of horrible parenting isn't a valid technique for justifying abortion.

And, as I said, the one big question I have is: With abortion being as acceptable and promoted in some cases, doesn't this cheapen the value of life in some eyes? How do children come to see life as valuable and precious when they know of so many other children being denied life before birth? Could this be one reason juvenile violence and murder are such a problem in America?

I don't know the answer to these questions but I don't see how abortion and the abortion industry, as it exists today at least, exerts a positive influence on society.
 
but having an unwanted child, and having the stresses of having it, is that better. does having an unwanted child who is just dumped into a adoption centre whoi may or may not be adopted, is that better. a lifetime of possible abuse, loneliness, not knowing who you are. isnt it better to stop it before it happens

i know several women who resented having the child, and some actually abused that child badly. but if they had their way, the child wouldnt have existed to be abused.

theres been about a dozen cases so far of pharmacists saying we wont fill your prescription and actuall keeping the prescription so it wont be filled.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040607-644153,00.html

**Neil Noesen, a relief pharmacist at the Kmart in Menomonie, Wis., was the only person on duty one day in 2002 when a woman came in to refill her prescription for the contraceptive Loestrin FE. According to a complaint filed by the Wisconsin department of regulation and licensing, Noesen refused because of his religious opposition to birth control. He also declined to transfer the prescription to a nearby pharmacy and refused once again when the woman returned to the store with police. The prescription was filled several days later by the managing pharmacist. But Noesen was accused of unprofessional conduct and will face an administrative law judge on June 22. Antiabortion groups are urging Wisconsin officials not to punish Noesen. He and his attorney did not comment.**


i say, if someone doesnt beleive in selling birth control, then they shouldnt own a shot that sells it, your wouldnt expect a vegetarian to work in the slaughterhouse. is it any different, if my religous beleif stops me from working in a leather shop, i shouldnt be there.
 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm

Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill.
 
Consider the following, which is a logical extension of the argument made by the Post-Dispatch's editorial:

* If pharmacists feel a moral objection to dispensing birth-control prescriptions, they also may object to filling a prescription for AIDS drugs because they assume the patient is a homosexual and they oppose what they call the "homosexual lifestyle."

* What about infertility drugs? Couldn't a pharmacist argue that it is God's plan that a couple remain barren like the biblical pair Sarah and Abraham?

* What about prescription pain relievers and narcotics? Is a pharmacist permitted to act on a conviction of conscience that people are supposed to suffer in this life to realize the glories of the next life in heaven?

* What about antibiotics to treat sexually transmitted diseases? A pharmacist could argue that the patient isn't entitled to them because he or she may have acted immorally by engaging in premarital sex or committing adultery.
 
druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill.

I agree with the policy but not with refusing to hand over the prescription. They are crossing the line from practicing their rights to infringing on yours.

You make good points in your last post. If such things become a real problem, I would likely change my stance because you do have a right to treatment. But I wonder how many pharmacists or other medical professionals would refuse treatment for a disease. I've never known a Christian Scientist in a medical profession.

As far as birth control protection goes, Planned Parenthood will give it to you free of charge for the asking. At least they did when I was younger.
 
yes, but just recently, someone who worked in a news agents who sells books, magazines cd's etc.. refused to sell some cigarettes, as it was against their religion.

http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003562.html

they were muslim, i have to question why do they work in that place if its against their religion, them working there is a personal choice.

so i say if you object to it, dont work there. unfortunatly this "morallity" is spreading and growing, and this is the really disturbing part.

there are groups who are against planned parenting http://www.ldi.org/

Hitler, Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, eugenics & abortion http://www.choicenazi.com/Pro-Choice_Nazi_Abortion_Facts/

http://www.all.org/stopp/planopen.htm

some scary people there. so its not as simple as some beleive it to be. yes i admit some of these are out there,but scary times.

these are the people who say a rape victim shouldnt have an abortion, dear god are any of those people parents, and have young daughters. you have to be careful, prevention is the key, but the option must be there for medical, psychological, reasons.

i am against the use of abortion as birth control after the fact, but the choice must be there. maybe a dr's referral would be the best solution.

very dangerous ground here.
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]