From CNN.com

(CNN) -- A Pennsylvania woman beat her eight-month pregnant neighbor with a baseball bat before taking her to a remote area and trying to cut out her unborn baby, a district attorney said Thursday.

Peggy Jo Conner, 38, attacked Valerie Oskin, 30, at her Ford City, Pennsylvania, home late Tuesday or early Wednesday, said Armstrong County District Attorney Scott Andreassi.

Oskin, whose injuries were described as "severe," underwent an emergency caesarian section at Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh and her baby -- a boy -- "appears healthy at this time," Andreassi said.

Ford City is in western Pennsylvania, about 45 miles northeast of Pittsburgh.

Conner was arraigned Thursday on charges of attempted homicide, aggravated assault and aggravated assault of an unborn child. She was being held without bail in Armstrong County Jail.

Andreassi said Conner hit Oskin with a baseball bat, then took the pregnant woman to a rural area where she attempted to get the baby by cutting Oskin's abdomen.

"It would appear from the defendant's statement that her goal was to get the victim's unborn child and take it as her own," Andreassi said.

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Andreassi said Conner appeared to have waited hours, thinking Oskin would die before she cut out the baby.

A 17-year-old boy on an all-terrain vehicle discovered the two women and sought help despite Conner's insistence that Oskin, who was bleeding from the head and abdomen, was fine, the district attorney said.

Andreassi said Conner, who has three children, had lied to her family and boyfriend about being pregnant.

Thomas Wilks told The Associated Press he is Conner's estranged husband and said the allegations were "impossible." He had seen evidence that Conner was pregnant, he told the AP.

Wilks also said Conner and Oskin were close friends, the AP reported.

CNN's Rob Frehse contributed to this report.
----------------------------------------


What the hell is wrong with people nowadays? Is it something in the water?

Ouch, talk about cutting to the point...

oh

its a mad world...

Sick, sick, sick. I saw this on the news last night and just about lost my dinner. This woman deserves the most horrible punishment possible. I can't believe there are people in the world with this mindset.

What in the world possess someone to do something as sick as that?

It reminded me of the Sharon Tate murder by the Manson Family. Sick! Sick! Sick!


Don Cardi

The weirdness in this world just keeps spreading and mutating. I think this thread could merge with the "torture" thread because there might be a good case here for it.

I don't know why you are all freaking out about this. After all, the fetus wasn't alive anyways, it wasn't a human being, it didn't matter. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Disgusting. Absolutley disgusting.

OMFG! NO WAY! It is being acknowledged that the unborn "womb booger" is a child! OMG! Women's rights are being violated!

This woman's husband swears he felt the baby kick and has seen a sonogram picture. I don't know how she could fake all of that. Perhaps she miscarried, but didn't want to accept it? I don't know. But she was all ready to take this child and treat it as her own. She had a crib and other baby things at her apartment. Thank God for the kid on the ATV.

So in this case, the unborn fetus is a "child," but in others, it isn't alive? I'm confused.

Agreed.

Hey DJ, abort your attempt at being a satirist for this thread, will ya?

I can't, because I am seriously trying to understand how people on this board, and across America, who on one hand support abortion by rationalizing that a fetus isn't a child and isn't alive, yet in this thread apparently it is a child and, as if by magic, was alive when she tried to rip it from the womb.

Didn't mean to take it so offtopic, but I simply found this too glaring to ignore. Continue on with your daily lives.

How can someone find the truth by repeatedly :rolleyes: during a discussion that doesn't involve the question of it, but instead a hideous crime? Sounds like someone that wants a fight to me.

I agree.

Irrespective of whether one thinks that an unborn child is 'just a foetus' or 'a living being', ripping open another woman's womb forcefully is a disgustful enough crime. Moreover, the foetus belongs to that woman. Even if she thinks that it is a worthless thing, other people do not have right to harm it. For example, you may not care about your car and destroy it, but if I do the same to your car, I will be arrested.

Abortion is a choice made by a woman. When there's an abortion, then maybe the baby was an accident (rape, ...), or the woman just didn't wanted it, or couldn't raise it, ... So a personal choice.

In this case, the woman didn't had a choice. She clearly wanted to keep the baby, cause you can't abort after 8 months. So this is a crime.

Abortion is a choice made by a woman. When there's an abortion, then maybe the baby was an accident (rape, ...), or the woman just didn't wanted it, or couldn't raise it, ... So a personal choice.

In this case, the woman didn't had a choice. She clearly wanted to keep the baby, cause you can't abort after 8 months. So this is a crime. [/b][/quote]Choice is NOT what this is about. JJ simply stated that why in cases of abortion, these fetuses are considered "non-living", yet when these things happen, these VERY SAME fetuses are considered magically alive and well.

Thank you for basically proving the pro-life argument. Even if she thinks it is worthless, nobody has the right to harm it.

Enzo - I don't know what you're talking about. I echo Don Andrew...the argument I'm making in this thread has nothing to do with choice, and I defer to his statement.

Well said.

Fair point - the answer is that unborn babies do indeed have human rights (a right infringed by the babysnatcher or anyone else who harms her in vitro). However, the mother also has human rights, including the right to her own body, and since the baby is growing inside her body, she has the right to terminate it - to put it crudely, she was there first, and her right to her body "trumps" the right to life of the baby.

I should stress that this answer comes from a book of moral philosophy that was required reading at college - sorry I can't recall the author - and while some might not find it to be a pleasing explanation, it does at least enable someone to argue both that the in vitro child has rights and that the mother has the right to abort without being inconsistent.

Not that this will help you understand...

But we were talking about a woman's choice, not a neighbor of a woman's choice and not YOUR choice. And certainly ripping another woman's body, let alone an expecting one is a disgusting crime.

The mother is the one who is supposed to love her child. If she chooses not to, there is not much that anyone can do.

I'm trying really hard to understand why someone like you who cares this much about innocent life is pro bombing the hell out of people in other countries including many innocent lives...

Didn't mean to take it so off-topic, but I simply found this too glaring to ignore. Continue on with your daily lives. :p

Thank you for basically proving the pro-life argument. Even if she thinks it is worthless, nobody has the right to harm it.[/b][/quote]I fail to see how this proves the "pro-life" argument.

The crime here, I think, has been committed against the mother, not the fetus.

I just gave my opinion and my thoughts about the news. I never meant to debate, or to react on your statements.
The only thing I wanted to say, is that unlike an abortion, this is a crime.

Fair point - the answer is that unborn babies do indeed have human rights (a right infringed by the babysnatcher or anyone else who harms her in vitro). However, the mother also has human rights, including the right to her own body, and since the baby is growing inside her body, she has the right to terminate it - to put it crudely, she was there first, and her right to her body "trumps" the right to life of the baby.

I should stress that this answer comes from a book of moral philosophy that was required reading at college - sorry I can't recall the author - and while some might not find it to be a pleasing explanation, it does at least enable someone to argue both that the in vitro child has rights and that the mother has the right to abort without being inconsistent. [/b][/quote]Ok, so you're saying that in this case an unborn child has it's rights, but in abortion is doesn't?

I think he's just saying that the mother's rights override those of the unborn child. Nothing more (correct me if I'm wrong Doc). And it's true. As wrong as it sounds, that's just the way it is.

Then explain to me mothers who regret years later aborting their children?

Also, they can determine the sex of your child within 5 weeks of conception. 5 WEEKS. Not months. Weeks. Which is why the random arbitrary standards invented for when a child is "living," or not just a "meatball" or some other rationalization is totally farcical.

How can you say that anyone else who harms the baby in vitro violates rights but abortion doesn't?

Last time I checked, it was a crime to infringe upon ANYONES rights through murder. Again, none of the pro-choicers have provided a reasonable explanation how a fetus killed by a drunk driver is homocide but abortion it is choice. :rolleyes:

As long as your at it, and bringing personal issues in, don't forget I supported the Shah being implanted by the CIA into your country.

Because he himself said that even if she thinks it is harmless, other people don't have the right to harm it. I would include abortion "doctors" in that group of "other people."

Hopefully changed soon.

Thank you Don Andrew for that absolutely spot on question.

Regards,
Double-J

Because he himself said that even if she thinks it is harmless, other people don't have the right to harm it. I would include abortion "doctors" in that group of "other people."
[/quote]DJ, I did not intend to make an argument for "pro-life". I haven't thought deep about this issue, but I think I would exclude the mother from "others" list.

DJ, thank you for making yet another fight out of a topic that isn't part of the original point of it, which was this hideous crime. Really, I figured the thread would have been locked out by now because of that...

Thing is, I don't claim to wave a flag of morality over human life like some folks do. With that line of logic to preserve human life, why not absolve the death penalty as well? Quit the casual acceptance of civilian "collateral" deaths in war? Quit allowing handguns for legal purchase?

See where the whole idea of the "Culture of Life" becomes complicated and then compromised?

Then again, such people don't think that views in different topics are "compromised", but whatever.

rrA -

Many, if not most, of our threads go "off topic" at one point. There's not anything wrong with that. You always have the option of replying to the original topic and ignoring those comments which digress.