Phantom Pregnancy and Postpartum Depression?
December 20, 2004 7:05 AM   Subscribe

Why some women kill for a baby.
"Most often women do this to fool the husband, and they don't want to break the spell, and there comes a time when they need to go get a baby."
posted by grabbingsand (56 comments total)

 
Check out this week's New Yorker for a particularly relevant story.

No link, I stink!
posted by jon_kill at 7:12 AM on December 20, 2004


Murder suggests deeper psychological trouble, as illustrated by several cases in which women have killed expectant mothers and taken infants.

Well, no shit.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:26 AM on December 20, 2004


You breeders crack me up!
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:55 AM on December 20, 2004


Yeah, alexreynolds, 'cause everyone who wants a kid (or kids) is fucking crazy and will stop at nothing! Wow!

Let's all get out our abusive stereotypes and share with the class!
posted by u.n. owen at 8:02 AM on December 20, 2004 [1 favorite]


The psychosomatic link was pretty amazing! Queen Mary convinced herself (and her body) that she was pregant?

(While I cannot vouch for how Alex views straight people in general, I am guessing that he probably does not percieve all breeders as being this crazy. That said, his comment made me consider what some one who has not intention of reproducing thinks about the strong emotions of those who do.)

That said, the current religious extremist rhetoric against voluntary childnessness is pretty damn scary, and this might make a good, if cheap, response.
posted by allan at 8:14 AM on December 20, 2004


While I cannot vouch for how Alex views straight people in general, I am guessing that he probably does not percieve all breeders as being this crazy. That said, his comment made me consider what some one who has not intention of reproducing thinks about the strong emotions of those who do.

So what? It's still obnoxious, tedious, derailing and worst of all, unfunny. That axe he's grinding must be down to the handle by now.
posted by jonmc at 8:17 AM on December 20, 2004


Oops. Some religious extremist rhetoric against voluntary childnessness.

See also Brooks rather silly Natalism stuff
posted by allan at 8:17 AM on December 20, 2004


Allan,

Turn your sarcasm meter on. WTF?

Alex Reynolds remark was just a lighthearted joke, not even half as snarkey as most of the comments on Metafilter. Please tell me you do not have to "guess" that Alex Reynolds does not think all straight people are as crazy as this woman who murdered a woman and then ripped the unborn living child from her belly.
posted by xammerboy at 8:20 AM on December 20, 2004


Does anyone else think it odd that the main photo that is circulating of Lisa M. Montgomery is one of her maternally cuddling a Chihuahua? I first saw that photo in an article about how she had been showing off the baby (fetus?)...and was like...wait...what's that in her arms...no way...oh man...
posted by tpl1212 at 8:29 AM on December 20, 2004


About the historical links there...Henry VIII was Mary Tudor's father, not her husband. She was married to Philip II of Spain. But either way, the production of an heir was an incredible pressure on royal women. Certainly enough to produce physiological symptoms, I'd guess.

Not that the finer points of the historical record add anything to larger discussion of the hysterical pregnancy phenomenon. Just sayin'.
posted by butternut at 8:32 AM on December 20, 2004


Sorry. I actually liked Alex's comment, and was sticking up for it against some other commenters. I didn't find it funny per se, but I don' t think it derailed the conversation. In my corner of the People's Republic, my queer friends are all heading towards domesticity. Got the snark, but it also reminded me that plenty of people not only have no interest in reproducing, but find the mentality foreign.

/noob

Butternut: any truth to the implication that her failure to conceive inspired her sectarian crackdown?
posted by allan at 8:40 AM on December 20, 2004


Some people have no sense of humor. Raspberries all around!
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:43 AM on December 20, 2004


Some people aren't funny.
posted by jon_kill at 8:47 AM on December 20, 2004


That axe he's grinding must be down to the handle by now.

300+ comments in a month of membership and most of them snark. I guess we're supposed to be impressed.
posted by sciurus at 8:52 AM on December 20, 2004


Did anyone else find this comment offensive?
'You read about this stuff,' she said. ''It blows you away when it's here. This stuff is supposed to be in New York City or Los Angeles.''
Yeah, everyone knows that NY and LA have the market cornered on the mother-killing and subsequent baby-cutting-outing racket. Let those weirdos in the city have their fun and leave Kansas out of it!

WTF?
posted by fletchmuy at 8:56 AM on December 20, 2004


Henry VIII was Mary Tudor's father, not her husband.

Yep. My intention in linking them both was to draw attention to them individually, though I can see how one might assume that I've linked them inaccurately. Eh ... semantics, how you torment me.
posted by grabbingsand at 8:58 AM on December 20, 2004


Allan - my mistake, sorry.

It's funny, watching Law and Order while living on 14th and C I gradually came to realize that ALL the crimes happened in my neighborhood or close by.
posted by xammerboy at 9:02 AM on December 20, 2004


allan: that's something I never heard. What did happen is that Philip II left her and went back to Spain -- he was the one who sent the Armada against England in 1588, but by that time Mary Tudor was long dead. The sectarian crackdown, from what I have read, was much more about the really complicated religio-politics of the time than about failed ambitions to motherhood. However, some biographers, I believe, have ventured that Mary was still pissed that Henry VIII had annulled his marriage to her mother Catherine of Aragon in order to marry Anne Boyleyn (mother of Elizabeth I), thereby making Mary illegitimate. That would piss anyone off.

On preview, grabbingsand -- yeah, sorry to torment you. I just couldn't resist the opportunity to yap about the English Renaissance.
posted by butternut at 9:06 AM on December 20, 2004


300+ comments in a month of membership and most of them snark. I guess we're supposed to be impressed.

Most of those 300+ comments were discussing the process of rational thought in one particular thread, and not snarks at all. I think some of you confuse disagreement with insults. *shrug*

Some people aren't funny.

Lighten up, dear.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:19 AM on December 20, 2004


Lighten up, dear.

Yep, a woman's been horribly murdered, her baby cut out of her living body by a mentally deranged psychopath.

Real appropriate time for a laugh, AlexReynolds.
posted by unreason at 9:21 AM on December 20, 2004


Real appropriate time for a laugh, AlexReynolds.

It's the only way for him to work his axe-grinding into the thread, thus allowing him an opportunity to indulge his narcissism.

I seem to recall Alex getting his panties in a bunch about the idea that stories about cannibals were somehow crypto-homophobic, yet strangling pregnant women, hey, time for yuks, huh? Guess sensitivity is a one way street to him.
posted by jonmc at 9:26 AM on December 20, 2004


Okay, idiot, it was a cynical comment on how crazy some people are about having children at any cost. The comment itself is not making light of the crime but of the motivation. Christ, touchy, touchy!
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:26 AM on December 20, 2004


Guess sensitivity is a one way street to him.

Don't stop masking your apologies for the right as a grasp for the "middle ground". It's very endearing.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:27 AM on December 20, 2004


Don't stop masking your self-aggrandizing wise-assery for actual insight. It's very cute and drama queeny.
posted by jonmc at 9:31 AM on December 20, 2004


Don't stop masking your apologies for the right as a grasp for the "middle ground". It's very endearing.

Alex, people aren't criticizing you because of your politics. They're criticizing you because you're a jerk.
posted by unreason at 9:32 AM on December 20, 2004


I seem to recall Alex getting his panties in a bunch about the idea that stories about cannibals were somehow crypto-homophobic...

I don't think asking a reasonable question is the same as getting "panties in a bunch." You're just sour because the question was asked, I think. Which is interesting in itself.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:32 AM on December 20, 2004


Alex, people aren't criticizing you because of your politics. They're criticizing you because you're a jerk.

Whatever you call it, I am definitely being criticized for holding certain views and not apologizing for it. *shrug*
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:35 AM on December 20, 2004


Don't stop masking your self-aggrandizing wise-assery for actual insight.

Jonmc, just about every comment from you to something I've said has been an insult of one sort or another. I don't know what your problem is but don't pretend you're some paragon of virtue.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:37 AM on December 20, 2004


The question wasn't reasonable, alex, it was the type of psuedo intellectual asshattery that gives modern discourse a bad name. You just like turning every conversation into a discussion of homophobia. Homphobia is definitely an important topic, but we don't need you working it into every fucking discussion.

On preview, unreason hits it exactly. Most of the time I agree with you, alex, but being right is no excuse to be a complete asshole.

On preview again: Kinky Friedman once said "assholes are people who don't realize that they are assholes." So you're doing your damnedest to qualify.

But, hey it's all because we're persecuting you for being so terrific. The thought "I could be wrong," never occurs to you, does it?
posted by jonmc at 9:38 AM on December 20, 2004


I had read (or read something that made me draw the conclusion) that Mary Tudor's last unpregnancy was really the tumor that eventually killed her. Whether or not she truly believed she was pregnant it's hard to say. I could see her hoping so desperately that she became delusional. There certainly was a lot at stake (ha!) for her: without the production of an heir, Philip would leave her, she would be forced to leave the throne to a Protestant princess, and she would go down in history not as the queen who secured the succession but as Bloody Mary whose rule was short, brutal, unpopular, and heir-less. Plus I'm sure she was hoping to somehow make up for what people perceived as Catherine of Aragon's failures to produce a male heir by retroactively legitimize that marriage--if Catherine's daughter was able to secure the succession with a male heir, all would be forgiven. (Once Mary was queen, she did have herself declared legitimate. Interestingly, Elizabeth never bothered.)

But as to the CNN article: "Asked whether someone would have had to have medical knowledge in order to cut the baby from Stinnett's body, Graves told CNN, 'I think that maybe it's not as complicated as it might seem. I'm not a medical expert, but I think anyone with a reasonable amount of skill could probably accomplish this.'"

Or anyone who had watched enough of those emergency child birth shows on TLC.
posted by jennyb at 9:39 AM on December 20, 2004


The question wasn't reasonable, alex, it was the type of psuedo intellectual asshattery that gives modern discourse a bad name.

Really. I recall someone in that thread thought it was a reasonable question.

The thought "I could be wrong," never occurs to you, does it?

It does, often. Does it occur to you that you often read a lot differently into what I say than is actually being said?

And before you throw another bunch of insults my way, consider taking it off-list.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:43 AM on December 20, 2004


Will Rogers never met you, did he?
posted by jonmc at 9:48 AM on December 20, 2004


.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:53 AM on December 20, 2004


To risk wrath of others: as a long time lurker, I find that jonmc generally says good stuff. I also didn't find Alex's initial comment in anyway innappropriate. Possibly a cheap shot, but not out of line.

And watching you guys bitch at each other makes me miss my dentist. Care to take it off list?
posted by allan at 9:58 AM on December 20, 2004


Hey, I'm done.

As far as the actual topic of the post, I think Mayor Curley nailed it.
posted by jonmc at 10:10 AM on December 20, 2004


Did you just call me dear in an affected tone?

Eesh.
posted by jon_kill at 10:34 AM on December 20, 2004


JonMC, can we be friends again?
posted by jon_kill at 10:37 AM on December 20, 2004


Sure. Although, I wasn't aware we were enemies.
posted by jonmc at 10:43 AM on December 20, 2004


We weren't enemies, just not friends.
posted by jon_kill at 10:47 AM on December 20, 2004


Jon, you've posted worse in your day. I think it's hysterical that you're being all righteous now. And you should have taken it to meta.
posted by amberglow at 11:09 AM on December 20, 2004


jonmc that is, not you, jon_kill.
posted by amberglow at 11:10 AM on December 20, 2004


amber, my freind, out of respect for you I'll say this: While I've posted some harsh things in my day, I've never been as consistently obnoxious as he's been. And if I'm called out as a prick, I'll cop to it. AlexReynold's can make no such claim.
posted by jonmc at 11:14 AM on December 20, 2004


Wait, only straight people are "breeders" now? Because if so, who are all the people I've been seeing in this magazine? (And what about those lovely children who were once my eggs? Are their fathers just repressing their natural heterosexuality because of all the pro-gay peer pressure from our society?)
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:22 AM on December 20, 2004


Amberglow, I'm sure you can find a thing or two on me. Every once in a while, I think, "Why the hell did I say that?"
posted by jon_kill at 11:25 AM on December 20, 2004


Sigh.

Where is the "Reset Thread" button when you need one?
posted by grabbingsand at 11:33 AM on December 20, 2004


see, jon(mc), i rarely see Alex's comments as obnoxious. I most often see them as smart and pointed. He's bigmouthed and opinionated, like you and me, and believes strongly in stuff, like you and me.

and jon_kill: me too. That's why it's not right to kill a thread over it. This whole thing belongs in meTa.
posted by amberglow at 11:46 AM on December 20, 2004


grabbingsand, yeah, an important post about a pretty scary trend in the country hijacked by a pissing contest.

I'd like to see this one reset.

AlexReynolds and jonmc, can you guys take it elsewhere please? As it is, the thread's been pretty well ruined by a stupid comment, snark or not.

Back on thread.

The creepiest thing about this latest case is the woman showing off the baby like it was her own. The ability to so convince oneself of the reality of something is scary. That and people crazy enough to attack a pregnant woman is a sure sign of the apocalypse.
posted by fenriq at 11:50 AM on December 20, 2004


Fletchmuy-My friend Bakerina wrote a very long and thoughtful response to the comment you and I both were offended by.
posted by miss-lapin at 11:55 AM on December 20, 2004 [1 favorite]


Whatever you call it, I am definitely being criticized for holding certain views and not apologizing for it.

I have no idea what your views are. You're a jerk.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:56 AM on December 20, 2004


there comes a time when they need to go get a baby
You go right back up there and get me a toddler. I need a baby, Hi. They got more'n they can handle. [mp3]
posted by kirkaracha at 11:56 AM on December 20, 2004


Yeah, everyone knows that NY and LA have the market cornered on the mother-killing and subsequent baby-cutting-outing racket.

I think he was just playing the odds. Consider the fact that a few blocks in either city has more people living in it than all of KS. Plus you throw in that small town values BS and there you go.
posted by Numenorian at 12:05 PM on December 20, 2004


I would hardly call this a "trend". It's a horrifying crime, but "trend" seems far too extreme for the number of occurrences.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:23 PM on December 20, 2004


funny how the same people are always to be found at a thread derail.
posted by Fupped Duck at 12:29 PM on December 20, 2004


And if I'm called out as a prick, I'll cop to it. AlexReynolds can make no such claim.

I was the first person to ask you politely to take your personal shit off-list, so piss off.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:49 PM on December 20, 2004


As to whether or not it's easy to perform a Cesarean section without any surgical training... Well, sure, provided you aren't planning to patch things back together again. All the C-sections I've seen at work have consisted of about 20 minutes carefully extracting the baby (or, in an emergency, as little as three minutes) and an hour or more putting Mom's parts back where they belong and closing the incision.

That said, it's a stroke of good luck that the baby wasn't injured. Without ultrasonography to find the position of the baby in utero or the training to know where to incise, the baby could have easily been killed. It's also a stroke of good luck that the baby didn't aspirate the amniotic fluid in its trachea and choke (C-section babies almost always need endotracheal suction because of the absence of fluid-clearing chest compression that normally occurs as they travel through the vaginal canal).
posted by jesourie at 3:01 PM on December 20, 2004


Too. Much. Information...

(Yeah, good points jesourie... I'm off to throw up now!)
posted by benzo8 at 3:08 AM on December 21, 2004


« Older Subways, crime, high rents, and general frustratio...  |  A glimpse through the Wardrobe... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments