Subscribe to Canada Free Press for FREE

The baby girl was murdered in the most heinous and shocking of crimes and the law of the land that so callously identified her as a fetus can never justify her murder.

The loud last gasp that should be heard around the world


By —— Bio and Archives--March 30, 2015

Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

If only the “loud last gasp” of the 7-month-old unborn baby ripped out of her mother’s womb in Colorado last week would end for once and for all the fallacious argument that a human baby is only a fetus while still in her mother’s womb.

Then her moment’s-long life would have saved millions of innocent children slaughtered by abortions that have become commonplace since the law birthed by Roe vs.Wade.

The baby girl was murdered in the most heinous and shocking of crimes and the law of the land that so callously identified her as a fetus can never justify her murder.

For the split second she lived after being ripped out of the womb to take her “loud last gasp”, she was a breathing, dying baby. For the seven months she spent nestled in her mother’s nurturing womb, she was, according to the most hideous, legal guilt-avoidance coverup in human law, a ‘fetus’.

Words have had meanings since the days of the cave man.  A baby is a baby. The woman whose 7-month-old baby was cut out her womb would have been telling family and friends, “I’m having a baby”, not “I’m having a fetus.”

“A 911 call of audio from the woman whose 7-month-old unborn baby was cut out of her womb by someone she met to purchase an item off of Craigslist reveals the baby took a “gasping breath” before she died. The victim was seven-months pregnant and was visiting Dynel Catrece Lane’s home to buy baby clothes advertised on Craigslist.” (Lifesite, March 19, 2015)

Many who had waited for the results of the baby’s autopsy with bated breath, found the announcement of the autopsy results stunning:

“After an examination of the 7-month-old unborn baby who was cut out of a Colorado woman’s womb this week, county officials say they will not charge the woman who cut the baby out of her mother’s womb with murder for killing the baby. That’s because the state lacks an unborn victims law to hold criminals accountable when they kill or injure unborn children in such criminal attacks.” (Lifesite)

How is it possible in the absolute myriad of Colorado state laws on the books, the state “lacks an unborn victims law to hold criminals accountable when they kill or injure unborn children in such criminal attacks?

How is it that President Barack Obama gets away with partial birth abortion which allows babies, who are partially delivered, to be killed?

“The victim was beaten and stabbed before Lane cut her unborn baby from her abdomen. Left alone in the basement of the home, the victim was eventually able to call police, was rescued and rushed to the hospital for immediate surgery. An autopsy on the baby is scheduled to be completed Friday. (Lifesite).

“The woman accused of committing the violent attack, 34-year-old Dynel Lane, later allegedly brought the deceased child to the hospital and claimed she’d had a miscarriage. She was arrested and booked into the Boulder County Jail.

“After an examination of the 7-month-old unborn baby who was cut out of a Colorado woman’s womb this week, county officials say they will not charge the woman who cut the baby out of her mother’s womb with murder for killing the baby. That’s because the state lacks an unborn victims law to hold criminals accountable when they kill or injure unborn children in such criminal attacks.

“The audio of the 911 call is heartbreaking:

“On Wednesday, Dynel Catrece Lane was arrested after she attacked a pregnant woman and cut her 7-month-old unborn baby from her womb. In this unbelievable act of violence, the baby died but the woman is expected to survive. Lane appeared in court today and is being accused of three criminal felonies: attempted 1st degree murder, 1st degree assault and child abuse knowingly/recklessly resulting in death.

“Lane was kept behind glass in court and her bail was set at $2 million. Official charges are planned for next Wednesday.

“Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett talked about what kind of charges may be brought:

“The issue of whether or not murder charges are appropriate involving a case involving the death of a fetus or late-term pregnancy is always a difficult issue,” Garnett said. “Under Colorado law, there’s no way murder charges can be brought if it is not established that the fetus lived as a child outside the body of the mother for some period of time. I don’t know the answer yet as to whether that could be established—what our facts are here. One of the issues that we will need to evaluate in connection with that is the medical information from the autopsy.”

“Lane has claimed to be pregnant before.

“7NEWS found a Dynel Lane who registered on a pregnancy website and a baby registry saying her baby was due Nov. 14, 2014. Friends on her social media page comment on her pregnancy as recently as September 2014.

“An online obituary also shows that a woman with the same name lost a child in July 2002. The obituary identified the 19-month-old boy as Michael Alexander Cruz. “He loved playing with his sisters, cousins and friends. He had just learned to sing his first song, ‘Twinkle, Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star.” His family called the boy “Little Mac,” according to the obituary.

“A relative told the Associated Press that the boy accidentally drowned in a shallow pond at the home of her parents near Pueblo, Colorado. Investigators at the time ruled the death an accident.

“7NEWS learned the suspect has at least two girls who live at the home on Green Place, but it was not known if they were home at the time of the attack.

“Records from the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies shows a Dynel C. Lane held a certified nurse aide license in 2010. It expired in 2012.”

“Officials will likely charge Lane with unlawful termination of a pregnancy, a much lesser charge that essentially amounts to a hate crime against pregnant women that does not acknowledge the baby’s death or status as a second victim. The class 3 felony charge carries a sentence of merely four to 12 years.”

Meanwhile, ethicists, Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice activists should be reminded that words have meanings.

The liberal use of the term ‘fetus’ has already led to arguments that killing newborns should be as permissible as getting an abortion.

“Dr. Francesca Minerva, a research associate and ethicist at Oxford University, has been receiving death threats after co-writing an article arguing that killing newborns should be as permissible as getting an abortion. (International Business Times, March 2, 2012)

The controversial article posited the idea that newborns and fetuses were only potential persons, lacking the same moral status and capabilities as actual persons like infants, young children and adults. Therefore, after-birth abortions should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

“Dr. Minerva, currently working at the University of Melbourne, co-wrote the paper, titled After-birth Abortion: Why Should The Baby Live? with Dr. Alberto Giubilini. It was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, a leading international journal meant to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice.

“Drs. Minerva and Giubilini intended the paper to be a purely academic reflection on the nature of abortion and childcare, and to examine, from an ethicist’s standpoint, why certain types of abortions are permitted while others were not. It was meant to be shared among the academic community, continuing a debate within the field of medical ethics that has been present for several decades.

“Instead, the pro-abortion article went viral, with clips from the piece distributed through pro-life web sites and blogs like The Blaze. Within a few days, Dr. Minerva and Dr. Giubilini received hundreds of hate mail, including dozens of emails threatening Dr. Minerva’s life and saying ‘You should die’.

“This was a theoretical and academic article, Dr. Minerva told The Sydney Morning Herald.

“This is not a proposal for law, she added in an interview with The Irish Independent. This is pure academic discussion.

“She herself is against infanticide. One of the crucial points of her article was to distinguish between a newborn and an infant, but even this is a position deeply rooted in the process of logical thought, not personal conviction.

“I wish I could explain to people it is not a policy, and I’m not suggesting that and I’m not encouraging that.

Many pro-life activists, however, feel that after-birth abortion is a topic that should never be weighed or discussed, even within the confines of a medical ethics journal.

“Right now I think these two devils in human skin need to be delivered for immediate execution under their code of ‘after birth abortions’ they want to commit murder—that is all it is! one furious commentator wrote to the Journal of Medical Ethics. MURDER!!!”

“The death threats against Dr. Francesca Minerva have become so serious that the University of Melbourne has notified the police, who have said they are assisting her.

“Anthony Ozimic, from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), meanwhile, has said that the article, which he described as a chilling promotion of infanticide, shows how abortion is creating a culture of death.

“The paper proves what pro-lifers have long been arguing: that the common arguments for abortion also justify infanticide.

“Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments, Prof. Savulescu wrote. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.

“The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn, he continued. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject.

“This kind of provocative and proactive thinking, Prof. Savulescu argues, it precisely what both the pro-life and pro-chance camp, examining as it does contentious and often contradictory ideas in an academic setting.

“What is disturbing, meanwhile, is not the argument Dr. Minerva and Dr. Giubilini examine, but the hostile, abusive, threatening response to it, which he attributed to fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”

“Prof. Savulescu expanded on those arguments to The Daily Telegraph.

“He noted how quickly some of the same commenters who claimed Dr. Minerva and Dr. Giubilini were arguing for infanticide and had no regard for human life quickly employed racist remarks to push their point, saying things like Alberto Giubilini looks like a muslim and all muslims should have been aborted and calling both scholars comunisti [sic] italiani pigs, ending with: Bang, bang. Drop in toxic waste dump reserved for left-wing contaminants.

“This ‘debate’ has been an example of ‘witch ethics—a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her,’ Prof. Savulescu said. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide.

“Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”

“He also pointed out that the same logic the two ethicist engaged in to prove that there was no moral difference between pre-birth and after-birth abortions could be used to write an article suggesting that both abortion and the killing of newborns should be prohibited. The journal is considering publishing that article now.

“Not everyone in the academic community, however, is convinced that Dr. Minerva and Dr. Giubilini are in the right.

“If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say ‘it’s doesn’t matter, she can get another one,’ is that what we want to happen? Dr. Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St. Mary’s University College, told The Telegraph.

“Though admitting that the debate is certainly nothing new, Dr. Stammers characterizes the two scholars’ conclusions are the inevitable end point of a road.

“Dr. Stammers also dismissed the distinction between infanticide and after-birth abortion, calling it verbal manipulation that is not philosophy.

“I might refer to abortion henceforth, he said, as antenatal infanticide.”

It seems that Drs. Minerva and Giubilini never learned in school that there is no “purely academic reflection on the nature of abortion and childcare” and no examination “from an ethicist’s standpoint”, but only a moral one.



Judi McLeod -- Bio and Archives | Comments

Copyright © Canada Free Press

RSS Feed for Judi McLeod
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com.

Older articles by Judi McLeod

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering: