Mother killed child

Updated 2019 04 30, to add links to related articles.

Mother killed child

On 27/11/2010 5:06 PM, stephen wrote:

Hello Walter:
Under Google Reader they have listings of 100’s of pages of Church abuses and adult abuses in just the past two weeks.
I know you celebrate Thanksgiving on a different day, as I celebrated with a couple from Calgary Salvation Army once.

My response:


I know that Dads & Things is not entirely unbiased in its reporting of child abuse cases, but that is mainly because I focus on reporting things not covered in the main-stream media and look at things a bit beyond the scope of the Google Reader feed you pointed me to.


Subscribers: 54

Posts per week: 77.2

Going by those numbers, I figure that we look at a total of 3,754 reports annually of child abuse by Christians in the world.  That number would be only a small fraction of the annual number of child abuse cases in the world.  I never have seen exact numbers of such cases, but let’s do a few back-of-the-envelope calculations.

First of all, let’s assume the worst, that all of the cases reported at the recommended Google Reader feed are cases of fatal child abuse.

The total number of child murders (not including abortions, of whom there are about 1.1. million a year) in the U.S. in 2009 was 923 (based on the FBI Uniform Crime Report).  That number is probably too low, as women routinely get off with murder and many cases of child murder are being diagnosed as being due to accidental or natural causes, but I’ll let that go for now.

From that, and given that the U.S. population is about 5 percent of the world population, the total number of child murders every year must then be in the order of 18,460 in the world.

Going by that, Christians would perpetrate about 20 percent of all child murders each year, while the remaining population sector (all non-Christians) would perpetrate the remaining 80 percent of child murders.

You may wonder why I discuss fatal child abuse by Christians, when the Google Reader feed you pointed out identifies in its title “RELIGIOUS FANATICS”.  Well, I looked through the first 20 or so headings of the postings the feed identifies and assume that the pattern shown there holds true for the rest.  All of the RELIGIOUS FANATICS” identified in those first few postings are Christians.

Now, there are about 2.1 billion Christians in the world, out of a total of 6.8 billion people.  That would be about 31 percent of the world population (which means that the Google Reader feed you recommend is enormously biased).  That Christian portion of the world population fatally abuses at most 20 percent of all children who are being fatally abused each year.  Going by that, I fail to see the truth in the premise of the Google Reader feed you recommended, namely that Christians are the most vicious child abusers in the world.  It seems to me that there is only a very small chance of that being true, while, collectively, all other religious denominations are — going by those numbers — substantially more vicious.

The truth is quite possibly that some non-Christian denominations are a lot more vicious than Christian religious fanatics are alleged to be.

I think that I better stick to debunking the wrongfully alleged peacefulness of women rather than to deviate into largely uncharted territory about which there is very little reliable information.  I would no sooner want to go there than I am willing to promote returning to the allegations that Jews habitually engage in the ritual slayings of babies on Easter.  We have had enough pogroms against the Jews and don’t need any against the Christians, there having been more than enough of those sort of persecutions.

Our Thanksgiving Day was on the 11th of October, but we celebrate Veterans Day (our Remembrance Day), Christmas and Easter, of course, on identical days of the calendar.


Sent to you by stephen via Google Reader:

Mother killed child

via Christian Child Abuse by MagdaGraham on 11/8/10

Mum killed toddler to ‘expel evil spirits’

Posted November 5, 2010 14:57:00

Rachel Cherie Hadley stood on her son’s chest and mouth to expel evil spirits, court heard (ABC News: Gary Rivett)

A court has found a mother was psychotic when she killed her two-year-old son by standing on him….(Full Story)


F4L:  Let’s not blame religious fanaticism for it, but, yes, there always is an excuse when a woman kills a child.  If it was not her husband or any other man who made her do it, then the next in line are the devil or her inner demons.  If everything else fails, the poor murdering mama can always claim nothing more than that she just could not help herself and just had to do it.

For that reason a special crime category, Infanticide, was created that is accessible only for women who kill children.

For men there is never an excuse.  Men are always considered as being fully responsible for their actions, while women are thought to be so fragile that they must always be treated by the courts as being at least somewhat infantile.

#ChildAbuse #ChildMurder #MediaBias #PropagandaExposed #Religion #WomensViolence

See also:

(Visited 17 times, 1 visit(s) today)
This entry was posted in Child Abuse, Child Murder, Media Bias, Propaganda Exposed, Religion, Women's Violence. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Mother killed child

  1. stephen w. hicks says:
    November 28, 2010 at 9:24 pm

    Stephen, there are very good articles relating to violence and veterans in the courts at the website of the Equal Justice Foundation.

    You should check some of them out. You will find that much of what you wrote in your comment is being addressed in those articles.

  2. The status of incarceration in a mental facility or “conditioinal release” rather than regular probation in society are well established in diminished capacity cases. If in fact two doctors (two of three in the US) decide the lady was psychotic she will not be held criminally liable for her actions. She could be kept in the mental facility indefinitely (reviewed for possible release every 6 months), stay for a short period and be given a conditional release or just be given an indefinite conditional release. Indefinite because two of three doctors would have to agree that she was no longer a danger to herself or others which could be a lifetime of conditional release. In all other ways the conditional realease is the same as probation and the rules of probation. There is great debate over the fairness of sentencing in these cases hence the role of physicians playing a prominent role. To end conditional release two of three physicians must agree that you are no longer a danger to yourself or others, which might be after 1 year or 10 years.

    I have had several experiences with the law. One charge was dropped because I didn’t start “the fight.” I was disabled at the time and would likely have been placed on conditional release had I started the fight. Many men don’t consider that their state of mind at the time of a crime WAS diminished capacity and don’t receive much encouragement in terms of their best interest in the court system. The vast majority of men in Hawaii take plea bargains (I watched daily for months and months) because they don’t really understand their rights to a diminished capacity defense and/or they most often will not face a sympathetic jury for murdering or severely injuring a child. A recent veteran’s motto that is being used is that it takes a warrior to ask for help. I faced a year in jail for use of the wrong words with police and was freed from my conditional release after a year or so. I faced very serious charges for words with police (poor impulse control) that could have involved as much prison time as a murder and was freed from conditional release after a little more than two years of good behavior. I feel that too many men are unaware of what diminished capacity means and are forced into a Grand Jury Indictment without representation, then a court date with the likelihood of minimal representation and a maximum punishment, so they take a plea.

    I am grateful to the Veteran’s Administration doctors and other doctors and my lawyer for resolving my meltdowns. Men should be expected to consider a plea of diminished capacity as often as women. Just as there is a wrongfully alleged peacefulness of women, there is a wrongful vilification of men in the court system and society as a whole.

    A man being pushed beyond his limits i.e. special veterans courts are being established is comparable to a different kind of fraiilty in women. Both are human. Our society needs to treat them as equally as possible in the court process.

Comments are closed.