Six first-degree murder charges for mother

Apr 29, 2014 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: WTLV

Prosecutors have filed six first-degree murder charges against a Utah woman accused of killing six babies after giving birth to them, and keeping their bodies in boxes in her garage.

Comments
61 - 79 of 79 Comments Last updated May 19, 2014
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“New & Improved..”

Level 8

Since: Oct 07

Formerly From Kenya

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
May 1, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Prosperity Fundieraiser wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, coming from a Birther like yourself that is a compliment.
Let's review. Here's the gibberish you posted:
"The only problem with this line of logic is she didn't decide what to do with her own body, she decided what to do with 6 baby bodies..( non consensually I can only assume )"
In that broken sentence you are equating born infants and first trimester fetuses. That's the only implication of your comparison of these two very different instances. And it's a really sick equating.
So if you think a first trimester fetus is tantamount to an infant human being, then in that (insane) case we should therefore accord all fetuses the same treatment we grant to infants: Counting in the census, Social Security numbers, deductions as dependents on tax forms.
Of course following through the right wing "logic" that a fetus is the same thing as a born human being reveals how very anti rational these so called "right to life" kooks are. But you couldn't follow the train of thought. And you certainly will never realize anything is wrong or inconsistent in your position...whose implications you can't follow or acknowledge.
Disgusting.
You babble like the poster child for the Chewbacca defense..

take another toy from the top shelf..
charlie

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
May 1, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I think abortion in the first trimester is mostly the norm in Europe. Wonder why the difference between Europe and the US? I think most of the controversy would go away here if abortion was legal only in the first three months of pregnancy. Or in most cases anyway.
Prosperity Fundieraiser

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
May 1, 2014
 
justaguess wrote:
<quoted text>
You babble like
How like anti rational tee baggrz and fundies to never address the content.

I only want moron right wingers who clearly equate fetuses and people to go the whole way of their "logic" and actually treat fetuses like we treat people - counted in the census, dependents on tax returns, Social Security numbers.

Even a Birther could follow this.(Not Purple Girl, though.)

“Support gay marriage or else”

Level 1

Since: May 13

Naperville, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
May 2, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Prosperity Fundieraiser wrote:
<quoted text>
How like anti rational tee baggrz and fundies to never address the content.
I only want moron right wingers who clearly equate fetuses and people to go the whole way of their "logic" and actually treat fetuses like we treat people - counted in the census, dependents on tax returns, Social Security numbers.
Even a Birther could follow this.(Not Purple Girl, though.)
You must really hate the gal you mentioned at the end. I read this entire thread and cannot find any posts from her. So it must take a lot of hate to mention someone out of the blue in such a fashion.

BTW, nobody is telling you what to do with your uterus...
Rick Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
May 2, 2014
 
JoyceP wrote:
<quoted text>
I read this entire thread and cannot find any posts from her....BTW, nobody is telling you what to do with your uterus...
Who knows what you meant by that first sentence. Obviously the person I responded to had posted something.

If you meant PG then you should have been coherent enough to say so. And she's around, don't worry about that.

Of course no one is telling me what to do with a body part I don't have, The fussbudget, sexually sick tee baggrz and fundies are most definitely restricting women's bodies in all sorts of ways.

Did jaysus say you could lie all the time about everything?

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
May 2, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

saint huh
Rick Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
May 2, 2014
 
tallyho wrote:
saint huh
Saint of what again?

Poor tally thinks he's reading misspellings all the time.

“Support gay marriage or else”

Level 1

Since: May 13

Naperville, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
May 2, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
Who knows what you meant by that first sentence. Obviously the person I responded to had posted something.
If you meant PG then you should have been coherent enough to say so. And she's around, don't worry about that.
Of course no one is telling me what to do with a body part I don't have, The fussbudget, sexually sick tee baggrz and fundies are most definitely restricting women's bodies in all sorts of ways.
Did jaysus say you could lie all the time about everything?
The first two sentences of what I said go together, even though you omitted the one necessary for understanding the one you quoted.

"You must really hate the gal you mentioned at the end. I read this entire thread and cannot find any posts from her."

Lets have an English refresher. When there are 2 sentences and a pronoun is used in the second one, the antecedent will be in the previous sentence. So all you have to do is figure out the person you mentioned at the end of the post of yours I was replying, and that would be the subject of my entire post. If you can't remember or look back and see to find that, then further discussion is pointless.

I haven't seen a single post from her in this thread, so I don't know why you mentioned her unless you have deep hatred for her.

Since you lack a uterus, you have no place in this debate and have no right attacking pro-life women. So why not grow a womb or shut up and leave this issue to only women to decide about, or does it give you extreme feelings of power to put your nose in women's-only concerns?

And it seems you're the first to bring up religion.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75
May 2, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
Saint of what again?
Poor tally thinks he's reading misspellings all the time.
Saint porn

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
May 2, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

interesting wrote:
<quoted text>he isnt hes a politician
interesting
Rick Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
May 2, 2014
 
JoyceP wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't seen a single post from her in this thread....Since you lack a uterus, you have no place in this debate and have no right attacking pro-life women.
You still didn't say which "her" you are raving about.

And of course I replied to people who posted. That's why you won't be specific - because I'll go back and get the quotes.

How sick your pro life nonsense is:

I'm not forcing any pro life woman to get an abortion. We _know_ who is restricting choice - the "pro life" zealots. Furthermore, those restrictions on choice are _overwhelmingly_ enacted by persons who do not have a uterus. Go apply your deranged standard of a uterus being a requirement to those male, right wing, freeek politicians equally.

The usual fundie / tee baggrz malady of continually reversing black for white, up for down, inside for outside. Really sick.

“Support gay marriage or else”

Level 1

Since: May 13

Naperville, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
May 2, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
You still didn't say which "her" you are raving about.
And of course I replied to people who posted. That's why you won't be specific - because I'll go back and get the quotes.
How sick your pro life nonsense is:
I'm not forcing any pro life woman to get an abortion. We _know_ who is restricting choice - the "pro life" zealots. Furthermore, those restrictions on choice are _overwhelmingly_ enacted by persons who do not have a uterus. Go apply your deranged standard of a uterus being a requirement to those male, right wing, freeek politicians equally.
The usual fundie / tee baggrz malady of continually reversing black for white, up for down, inside for outside. Really sick.
What I said was VERY clear. Who did you mention at the end of this post?

----------
****** "How like anti rational tee baggrz and fundies to never address the content.

I only want moron right wingers who clearly equate fetuses and people to go the whole way of their "logic" and actually treat fetuses like we treat people - counted in the census, dependents on tax returns, Social Security numbers.

Even a Birther could follow this.(Not Purple Girl, though.)" ******
----------

Then I said:

"You must really hate the gal you mentioned at the end. I read this entire thread and cannot find any posts from her."

So what is the NAME of the person I am referring to? Who is the gal you mentioned at the end of what I quoted? Again, there are no posts using that exact name in this thread. So you must still be so hate-filled to post about someone who has never posted in THIS EXACT THREAD. That is like the nuts on the right bringing up Obama out of thin air and will use any excuse to bash them. So what did the poster you mentioned at the very end of that post you left that is quoted above do to you?

Intellectual people nearly always speak indirectly and use hints. That is also a woman's style. Anyone with a brain knew who I was speaking about because they were smart enough to know who the last person you mentioned in that post was. "At the end" was a reference to the LAST THING YOU SAID in what I quoted from post 68.

Do you get off trying to control WOMEN (you are not) and telling US what we should believe about our own bodies and our choices of words and all? You are a man and have NO RIGHT to support nor bash abortion. It is not your concern at all. Go rally around circumcision or prostate cancer or something. I'd never stand outside a hospital and rally against male circumcision, as I don't have that part, but I'd gladly stand against clitoridectomy.

Again, what did the person you referred to at the very end of post 68 do to you? Did she stand you up for a wedding? Did she attack your family? You were the only one to mention that name in this thread and nobody posted by that name. If you are accusing people of being other people, then why not come out and say it?

And you don't know my beliefs on this. Defending others doesn't mean you have to believe what they do. And remember, when someone jumps on someone for jumping on someone who is not there to defend themselves, that is usually a left-wing gesture. So I'm no right-winger and I never once said I was pro-life.
Rick Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
May 2, 2014
 
JoyceP wrote:
<quoted text>
What I said was VERY clear.
Wrong._Now_ you have said it was PG you were referencing. Or that's what you claim.

I think, as I clearly said, that she was in this thread. I didn't say you could find her moniker on a post.

I know perfectly well what you have posted about choice:

1. That, supposedly, those who are pro choice are the ones actually restricting choice. Which is nutty.

2. That persons without a uterus of their own cannot, supposedly, be involved in the debate over choice. Which is nutty, of course, since all the anti choice laws came from men, overwhelmingly.

3. That you couldn't or wouldn't follow the simple argument that you must consider fetuses to be persons...based on your posts. I merely told you to then actually treat fetuses as persons if that's what you believe - give the fetuses Social Security numbers, count them in the census, allow them as tax deductible dependents. Since you obviously think they are persons base don what you have posted.

The only problem here is that you don't like the implications of ignorantly equating fetuses and infants. That's all you're making a stink about, being called out on that illogic.

“Support gay marriage or else”

Level 1

Since: May 13

Naperville, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
May 2, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong._Now_ you have said it was PG you were referencing. Or that's what you claim.
I think, as I clearly said, that she was in this thread. I didn't say you could find her moniker on a post.
I know perfectly well what you have posted about choice:
1. That, supposedly, those who are pro choice are the ones actually restricting choice. Which is nutty.
2. That persons without a uterus of their own cannot, supposedly, be involved in the debate over choice. Which is nutty, of course, since all the anti choice laws came from men, overwhelmingly.
3. That you couldn't or wouldn't follow the simple argument that you must consider fetuses to be persons...based on your posts. I merely told you to then actually treat fetuses as persons if that's what you believe - give the fetuses Social Security numbers, count them in the census, allow them as tax deductible dependents. Since you obviously think they are persons base don what you have posted.
The only problem here is that you don't like the implications of ignorantly equating fetuses and infants. That's all you're making a stink about, being called out on that illogic.
1. I never exactly said that nor did I mean such. I was referring to how you attack pro-choice WOMEN and try to silence their views.

2. Again, you as a MAN have no right to attack pro-life WOMEN. It is women's bodies. And you are right that men shouldn't have a right to legislate against women. But I never said that I personally was prolife nor anti, and that is not your business.

3. That stupid argument is irrelevant to me. What is YOUR vested interest as a MAN in fetuses not being considered on par with humans? Isn't that a bit bigoted of you? But I never said they were in my 3 (or whatever number) posts in this thread.

I never said fetuses were or weren't persons, and my beliefs on that are not your business. But I do have a right as a human being to take up for people for whose values I disagree with and act as an advocate of sort.

And if I am left-wing, and supportive of the LGBT, then what would my views on abortion likely be? But because I step in for others, that doesn't contradict that.
Rick Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
May 2, 2014
 
JoyceP wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I never exactly said that nor did I mean such. I was referring to how you attack pro-choice WOMEN and try to silence their views.
2. Again, you as a MAN have no right to attack pro-life WOMEN. It is women's bodies. And you are right that men shouldn't have a right to legislate against women. But I never said that I personally was prolife nor anti, and that is not your business.
3. What is YOUR vested interest as a MAN in fetuses not being considered on par with humans?...I never said fetuses were or weren't persons
All dissembling nonsense. By the way, your second point sounds like a classic PG one.

1. You did take issue with my argument that fetuses and infants are different. And that is a standard right wing trope - that fetuses and infants are the same. That theme runs through this thread.

2. You changed the subject from your saying that people who are pro choice are actually anti choice.

If you fault men for disagreeing with anti choice women then by any logic you would oppose all laws limiting choice, since those are all made, overwhelmingly, by men.

Of course it's nutty you have to be a woman to have an opinion about breast cancer among women, or human trafficking of women, or a woman's right to choose, or that, obviously, it's the anti choice people of whatever gender are the ones limiting choice. Not the pro choice persons...because obviously pro choice persons don't wish to _force_ anyone to get an abortion.

3. I have explained my "vested interest" in not considering fetuses to be the same as infants many times. Why are you obtuse. I said doing so is insane. It would necessarily, carried to it "logical" conclusions, mean fetuses being counted in the census, given Social Security numbers, counting as dependents for tax purposes.

It would also restrict a woman's right to choose. So I oppose this nutso idea that fetuses are the same as infants.

Meanwhile, you apparently find my position - that a fetus is not the same as a human being - objectionable...while at the same time stating you have not stated a position on choice. Well that's nutty. You have, in your trolling, PG way, stated a pro life position many times over here.

“New & Improved..”

Level 8

Since: Oct 07

Formerly From Kenya

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82
May 2, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Discussion with a grey box is pointless & futile..been there...done that...not again..

Either way...this thread is about a woman that has given birth to six....that would be 6 babies, full term...not some trimester issue...not some point of law or what is right...etc...6 babies born, breathing...she then murdered them and put them in boxes in the garage...

Anyone that doesn't understand these facts is a complete idiot...nuff said...

She should be tried as a murderer and face the penalties as such..

Now for ricky S greybox...
Chewbacca is from Endor...

your debates and life views are hilarious so please..do keep em up..It really does make my day to read your tripe ..!!

That back pedal you attempted about your purple girl remark was classic..!

“Support gay marriage or else”

Level 1

Since: May 13

Naperville, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83
May 3, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rick Saintpornum wrote:
<quoted text>
All dissembling nonsense. By the way, your second point sounds like a classic PG one.
1. You did take issue with my argument that fetuses and infants are different. And that is a standard right wing trope - that fetuses and infants are the same. That theme runs through this thread.
2. You changed the subject from your saying that people who are pro choice are actually anti choice.
If you fault men for disagreeing with anti choice women then by any logic you would oppose all laws limiting choice, since those are all made, overwhelmingly, by men.
Of course it's nutty you have to be a woman to have an opinion about breast cancer among women, or human trafficking of women, or a woman's right to choose, or that, obviously, it's the anti choice people of whatever gender are the ones limiting choice. Not the pro choice persons...because obviously pro choice persons don't wish to _force_ anyone to get an abortion.
3. I have explained my "vested interest" in not considering fetuses to be the same as infants many times. Why are you obtuse. I said doing so is insane. It would necessarily, carried to it "logical" conclusions, mean fetuses being counted in the census, given Social Security numbers, counting as dependents for tax purposes.
It would also restrict a woman's right to choose. So I oppose this nutso idea that fetuses are the same as infants.
Meanwhile, you apparently find my position - that a fetus is not the same as a human being - objectionable...while at the same time stating you have not stated a position on choice. Well that's nutty. You have, in your trolling, PG way, stated a pro life position many times over here.
1. I never said using exact words that I took any issue personally, myself. I apologize if I ever gave you that impression. I merely took up for OTHERS' right to do so, and deliberately speaking using their perspective, only for sake of argument.

2. I never once DIRECTLY said pro-choice people were anti-choice. That was YOUR interpretation. Again, I apologize for whatever I said that gave you this notion.

3. Again, you have no uterus. Every woman should have the right as a woman to be anti-choice without scrutiny if I so desire, and without men - the oversexed rapists that make abortions necessary attacking them. That was all I did, defended someone a woman for her right as a woman to oppose abortion. That is a right specific to women that no man has, just like the right to use slurs are specific to the targets of them.

You should have the right to discuss breast cancer, but because men get it too. It is not a female only disease. And if you are making products that cause breast cancer, then it's your responsibility to place warnings on them or to stop making them. Similar goes if you are using such products. Stop using them, not just for yourself, but to help bankrupt the carcinogen makers. So I appreciate your activism, but you should start with things that could happen to you. I just hope you are not still mad at your mother for her decision to have you.

4. Why do you think it is nutso to equate human life inside the womb with human life outside? I just want to hear it from you. Maybe you can enlighten us all.

Deep inside, I might share all of your beliefs, but you will never know.

Please, lets call a truce. I don't want to keep arguing with you when we might really be allies, but with different strategies, and you might take the act, the shell worn, as face value, when below the surface, we might be wanting the same things.

I hope I didn't ruin your day too much.
Out to Lunch

Titusville, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85
May 17, 2014
 
Crack babies? Was the mother a drug user and if she were, would she have gone to jail for delivering drug addicted babies? It seems that she would have adopted the babies out to loving homes that would have cared for the babies and possibly paid her rent during pregnancy.
Paris Hilton

Medford, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#86
May 19, 2014
 
OMG!!! They should kill her six times!!!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••