Saturday, June 19, 2010

Yet another dumb woman dead baby scenario

Baby Killer Jailed for Just Four Years

Andrew Rawlings shook four-month-old Mason Tipper so hard he suffered massive brain injuries, a heart attack and a broken arm. Rawlings was living with Mason's mum Samantha Green but the six-week relationship became strained when she got pregnant.

Rawlings, 26, pushed her into an abortion because he thought the father was Mason's dad Daniel Tipper. .... DNA tests have since revealed the unborn child was Rawlings'. .... She went to seek advice about housing and left Mason alone with jobless security guard Rawlings, who became frustrated by the baby's noisy teething.

At around 9.45am the killer called 999 and said: "There's a red mark on his cheek and he's gone blue." Paramedics could not revive Mason and his life support was turned off three days later.

Rawlings denied murder but admitted manslaughter at Bristol Crown Court.

The mom had been with this guy SIX WEEKS and was living with him and trusting him with her child's life.

The single greatest danger to small children is mom's live-in boyfriend. Yet women continue to put getting laid ahead of their children's lives.

Which is no surprise in an abortion culture.

Sexual enjoyment is the center of our society. It's THE entitlement. The one thing that everybody, young or old, rich or poor, of any race, creed, or religion, is fundamentally and unquestioningly entitled to. The Supreme Court even made note of it in PP vs Casey -- that abortion is there so that adults can pursue their sexual relationships without a thought to any children they might create.

So if it's a fundamental right to go into a sexual liaison with the intent of killing any resulting children, how can we have a beef with moms who merely RISK, rather than deliberately END, their children's lives?

What the hell is wrong with us?


L. said...

Sorry for the baby, but yeah, sex is something we should all freely have.

L. said...

...or not have.

But the idea of anyone telling me (or anyone) that I have no right to have sex? Just doesn't sit well.

And yes, with rights come responsibilites, which is why I do all I can to stamp out my dysfunctional fertility.

Ladybug said...

What is concerning from a socio-physcological point of view is that the women are in unstable, dysfunctional, and potentially harmful relationships and we need to further study why and how they choose these types of men and how to help them break the cycle.

Christina Dunigan said...

L, no, not everybody is entitled to sex. People who are unattractive or obnoxious or otherwise unable to attract a willing, consenting adult partner aren't entitled to sex. And any parent who places their sex life ahead of their child's safety and well being should have that child removed from the home and be sterilized.

This worship of sex destroys lives. But y'all are fine with that. As long as a pecker went into somebody's cooter, all's well with the world.

Not really. Sex, believe it or not, is not the be-all, do-all, end all of existence. LOVE is. Or at least ought to be.

"Sad for the baby but at least Mom got laid" is a pathetic way to see these PREVENTABLE and tragic crimes.

Lilliput said...

Christina don't you think that these women are confusing sex with love. They need the closeness and attention they probably didn't get from their parents. I think that before we revoke the right to have sex I think we should revoke the right to have children.

Christina Dunigan said...

Lil, you have a point. But women need to be taught from childhood that sex does not equal love.

I went to a wedding yesterday. The couple had waited until the wedding for their first kiss! That woman KNOWS her husband thinks she's worth waiting for. I try to get through to my clients, the fact that he sticks around when you throw your knees in the air doesn't mean he loves you. It doesn't even mean he thinks you're pretty. It means you're willing and he's able and NOTHING more than that.

It's the guy who sticks around when you're NOT putting out that's showing more love. You're more important than him having a place to dip his wick.

Only AFTER the love and real intimacy are established is it wise to proceed to sex.

But society tells us that you get love and intimacy VIA sex. Which goes a long way to explain the astronomical divorce rate, along with the huge number of couples who just engage in serial shack-ups.

Lilliput said...

Christina that's a beautiful story. I myself was in the park the other day and saw an ultra orthodox jewish couple taking wedding photographs. They were completely innocent - and weren't even touching for the photos as the ceremony had not yet takem place. What struck me was how young they looked - no older the twenty or twenty three. They might have gone on a few dates but that was all and they will fall in love during their honeymoon and married life. My parents did that. It was a complete desaster and my mom encourages my sister and I to live with future husbands as that's the only way you'll get to know them. Now I know that's just one axample - but I can't help it being hardwired in my brain.

The two things I don't understand is why all religions that advocate no sex before marriage are so patriarchal and place women at such a disadvantage. And, its ok to marry innocent when you're doing it at twenty - but what happens if you're still looking at 35?

I think that there has to be a midway between virgin brides and indiscrimanate single mums?

L. said...

" People who are unattractive or obnoxious or otherwise unable to attract a willing, consenting adult partner aren't entitled to sex."

Sure they are. They can masturbate, if they want to.

There's more to human sexuality than intercourse and baby-making.

L. said...

It's not "sad for the baby but at least mom got laid" -- it's "sad for the baby and sadder that mom hooked up with a creep." It is not about the mother's right to have sex -- it is about the particular situation in which she chose to pursue it.

And I don't think she should be sterlized for hooking up with a creep.

Kathy said...


You may like to steer your clients to the blog "What Women Never Hear" for a whole blog full of such advice and encouragement.

And, Lilliput, you can be a virgin bride and still know and love your future husband more than "just a few dates." My husband and I had a long-distance courtship, so we didn't have a whole lot of time together (I think we saw each other 9x from the time we started writing til our wedding), but we had known each other for a few years before that, we knew each other's families, and we talked to each other for hours and hours (the longest single stretch was 5 hours; typical phone calls were 2-3 hours).

Christina Dunigan said...

Lil, the idea that you can "try on" a partner and send them back if you don't like them leads to a consumer mindset about your mate. And how does it "place women at a disadvantage" to stigmatize men who treat them with anything less than the utmost love and respect?

Lilliput said...


I don't stigmatize men who treat women with anything less than the utmost love and respect. I celebrate them. All I'm saying is the three great religions in this world who advocate no sex without marriage are very patriarchal. And if you want to talk about a consumer mindset - I'm wondering if marriage actually came about to advertise that a woman belongs to her husband and no other man may have her. Adultery refers to a man sleeping with a married woman and is punishable by death. If a married man sleeps with an unmarried woman it is not considered adultery in the bible.

As for trying out a partner and throwing them back - what do u suggest? If you end up marrying a violent man or even one you actually just cannot live with you just have to stick with it? That's exactly what my moms parents said to her, you made your bed now sleep in it! Thank God that doesn't happen anymore.

Kathy how old were you when you got married?

Christina Dunigan said...

Lil, there's a huge difference between fleeing because of abuse, and just "trying on" a partner to see how you like him.

The whole "live together first" is "test driving" a person, as if he or she is a car you're thinking of buying. Either you love the person enough to (barring something earth shattering like abuse or drugs) stick with that person for life, or you're just looking for a roommate.

What makes a marriage work is commitment. When you "try on" the cohabitation, you're saying that you're not committed to a PERSON -- you're committed to a LIFESTYLE. Be it where you squeeze toothpaste tubes and which way you put the toilet paper on the spindle, or whether you think the mom should be a homemaker or have a career outside the home.

You hash out the non-negotiables prior to setting up a home together. That's part of discovering who the other person really is.

Kathy said...


Lilliput said...

Christina, you know you can love a person but not be able to live with them. Living together before marriage is not test driving - its not even getting to know each other, its getting to know yourself. I might think that I want this and that but when I actually live the life I find I actually want the opposite. I'm all for committment but to stick to something that doesn't work just to show how committed you are is ridiculous. Yes you need to flee physical abuse but you also need to flee if your soul is dying or if both of you have to constantly compromise to the extent you don't even recognize yourselves anymore.

The ultra orthodox religious marriages work because both man and women have very defined roles. He studies and works she has baby after baby. There is no opportunity for arguments - much less energy. This is the life they are born into and they know nothing else.

Lilliput said...

Kathy you are lucky you met him so young. Would you still be willing to wait if you were 36?

Kathy said...


Are you aware that studies have shown that couples who live together prior to marriage are more likely to break up after marriage than those that don't shack up prior to saying, "I do"?

In regards to waiting -- I don't think I could have sold myself short for any man not willing to commit himself to me. Why should I give myself to him if he wasn't willing to give himself to me? Why should I open myself up not only to the possibility of pregnancy, but also the possibility of some disease and the probability of a broken heart just because of my hormones? I'm worth more than that.

Rupert said...

'Which is no surprise in an abortion culture.' - what a spurious, emotive, subjective and unsubstantiated comment.

'Sexual enjoyment.....everybody, young or old, rich or poor, of any race, creed, or religion, is fundamentally and unquestioningly entitled to' - absolutely. There is no valid reason to deny people this right.

Christina Dunigan said...

Rupert, you are NOT entitled to do things that hurt other people. You're not entitled to sexually abuse a child just because you get off on it. You're not entitled to have sex with somebody else's spouse. You're not entitled to have sex with a coma patient or a mentally compromised person. You're not entitled to have sex with an animal. And you're not entitled to go around causing an epidemic of STDs.

We crack down on smoking and salt and twinkies because of the "greater good" of public health, but the gay bathhouses have to stay open even though they're spreading AIDS. Why? Because sex -- even sex that gives somebody else a fatal disease -- is considered an absolute right.

It's disgusting. People willing to play russian roulette with other people's lives for what? A stiff dick.

And it's even more disgusting that people will defend it.

L. said...

I will defend it.

If it's sex between two or more consenting adult humans, or one human and his/her self in private, I will absolutely defend it, the way I will absolutely defend free speech, free thought and free will.

There is blog written by a very pro-life man, called something like "The Lewis Crusade." The man is a devout Catholic with Marfan syndrome. Because he believes use of any contraception is a mortal sin, he passed this genetic disease onto at least one of his children, who is already showing symptoms.

I might have made a different choice in his situation, but I maintain that he had the right to do this -- he had the right to have unprotected sex with his wife, even though there was a significant chance of producing offspring that would suffer from his disease.

Sometimes, even when there is a chance of passing suffering on to the next generation, there's a lot more at stake than a "stiff dick."

Rupert said...

Off on your little tirade again GG?

I agree, child molestation, or sex with a comatose person are wrong and should NOT be done.

When were smoking and salt and twinkies banned? That's right, they're not. We have education campaigns to reduce the risks. Same goes for STD and in some cases, even pregnancy!

People choose to smoke, eat salt or swallow twinkies. Gays choose to visit bathhouses. They don't have to accept the risks.

Sex is an absolute right. Knowingly endangering others is not. Don't confuse the two. If you say we need to stop gay sex or indiscriminate sex then we'd better ban driving as well because not everyone conducts themselves any safer at that either.

And like anyone who plays with a loaded gun, they should face the full consequences and penalties for what may occur.

No-one is defending it. You just make it subjective and emotive to make distorted and inaccurate comparisons.

Christina Dunigan said...

I'm not talking about banning sex. I'm talking about building a society that doesn't WORSHIP SEX. Which our society does. We have two gods: Sex and The Nanny State. And the main purpose of The Nanny State seems to be getting people out of the pickles they get themselves into by being unable or unwilling to use a bit of discretion in how they deal with their sexual urges.

Too many people have what P.J. O'Rourke described as a toddler-like idea of "freedom" -- the freedom to take off your clothes in public and have a potty mouth. "Because I want to and it feels good" isn't justification for inflicting your immaturity on the rest of society -- all of whom are having to dole out contraceptives, STD screenings and treatments, WIC, etc., for people who figure that they not only have the right to indiscriminate sex, but the right to expect everybody else to clean up their messes.

Sex is one of the most powerful forces in the universe, and people want to just play with it like it's a Slinky or something.

Lilliput said...

Kathy, are you aware that the latest research shows that there is no significant increase in divorce rate in people that cohabit prior to marriage. I googled it and found it but can't copy and paste link as I'm on a blackberry and haven't figured out how to dot it.

Also, in terms of you not selling yourself short, I agree but I also think that I am more then my vagina and I am looking for more then a lover. So yes while younger men do tend to think with their nether regions I gotta hope that the older ones have matured beyond that. If he's gonna do a runner after we have sex then I've had a lucky escape and have spent minimal time and energy rather then months of courtship thinking we've been getting to know one another a falling on love when he's just loving the challenge of getting in my pants.

army_wife said...

GG @ 2:59 PM

Amen to that... great comment!

Kathy said...

But you see, Lilliput, when a man is just looking for a quick and easy lay, then giving it to him gives him what he wants and puts you no further ahead in what you want -- in fact, it may put you further behind. Refusing sex gets rid of that kind really quickly. Some men are not quite so easily discouraged, so may spend "months of courtship" pursuing you just for the thrill of finally conquering you and still cut-and-run. If you give in after only several months but before marriage, then again, you've given him what he wants, while you don't get what you want.

However, while you're keeping it a challenge for him to get in your pants, you're teaching him what you want, need, and require in a lover, and forcing him to change himself to suit your expectations if he wants to conquer you. This puts you in the driver's seat -- you have the power as he tries to figure out what makes you tick. He won't change after he beds you, because (in his eyes) he must be already good enough for you since you've given yourself to him; your only hope is before sex.

L. said...

It's a myth that ALL men just want an easy lay, and ALL women want the stability of marriage.

It was my traditional husband who said to me, tie the knot or lose me.

There are plenty of women like me, who have no desire for a traditional marriage. And even after we marry, we refuse to compromise and insist on going our own way, even though it's been hard on the kids to live apart from their father at times.

Freedom is very important to some women as well as men.

Rupert said...

''re teaching him what you want, need, and require in a lover...' - no you're not. There's no learning going on. Only frustration and two people short-changing themselves.

'...forcing him to change himself to suit your expectations...' - I can't decide if this is purely matriarchal or whether you just like pathetic, spineless wimps. Why did you go out with him if he needs to change?

'...This puts you in the driver's seat -- you have the power...' - how 'matronizing' of you! So you don't want a relationship of equals?

'...He won't change after he beds you...' - because he's a worn down, worn out, shell of a person. Well done!

Young Christian Woman said...

Just for the record:

My husband and I got married very young (by some people's standards)--we were 20. We had not had sex. Seven years later, we are still in love and still having sex.

He works and I stay home with the kids. We have two so far, and I would love to "have baby after baby"--I'm hoping for many more. Both of our moms work (though they stayed home when we were little) and I was not raised in a religious family. We came from two-child families but are hoping for many more.

So it is a life that some people choose and love.

Only one person ever questioned whether we were ready to marry at 20, and he barely knew me.