Pro-choice man rapes pregnant mom in front of kids because she refused to get an abortion
Trentonian Reorts: Cops: Pro-abortion dad sexually assaults pregnant mom in front of kids in Cinnaminson
Published: Wednesday, September 01, 2010
CINNAMINSON — A man sexually assaulted the mother of his young child inside a bedroom where three kids were sleeping after arguing over the mother’s current pregnancy with his unborn child, which the man wanted to have aborted, township cops said.
Thomas O. Hill, 24, of Camden, was arrested yesterday and slapped with charges of sexual assault, aggravated assault, criminal restraint, terroristic threats, and endangering the welfare of a child, cops said.
According to this article in Philly.com: Cops: She won’t get abortion, so he rapes her in front of kids By JASON NARK
When the woman who gave birth to two children with Thomas O. Hill said that she had another on the way, police in Burlington County say, the ex-con insisted on an abortion.
But the woman wanted to keep the pregnancy, police said, and an argument over the issue inside her home on Union Landing Road, in Cinnaminson, turned violent Sunday.
“He got pissed off at her,” said Cinnaminson Police Det. Sgt William Covert.
Hill, 24, of Camden, is accused of sexually assaulting the woman in a bedroom where three children, including two of his own, were sleeping, Covert said.
One child allegedly was knocked off a mattress during the assault, Covert added.
“She’s claiming he raped her and he says otherwise,” Covert said.
The woman, who is four to six weeks pregnant, appeared to have injuries to substantiate those claims, Covert said.
Hill is being held in the Burlington County Jail in Mount Holly on $75,000 bail on charges of sexual assault, aggravated assault, restraint, terroristic threats and endangering the welfare of a child.
According to the New Jersey Department of Corrections, Hill was paroled from prison on Sept. 10, 2009, after serving less than five months on terroristic-threats charges.
Now…where is the outcry against Pro-Choice/Pro-Abortion Violence ?????????????????????
September 1, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Pro-Choice is about THE WOMAN making the CHOICE about what happens to her body — SHE CHOOSES whether she wants to carry the pregnancy to term or whether she wants to terminate it.
The event described here is ANTI-CHOICE because the man was FORCING the woman to do something with her body SHE DID NOT WANT TO DO.
This is not about abortion, this is about rape, abuse, and violence against women.
September 1, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Sorry- but you can’t have it both ways – you cannot push a pro-abortion agenda on the entire nation and then retreat when a pro-abortion man tries to force the abortion. Pro-choice on what? Pro-choice allows a women to force violence on the unborn- thus – pro-choice is excusing this man when he uses violence on the women. This man was in favor of abortion and would vote with all of you to keep it legal – sorry- he is one of your side !
September 1, 2010 at 8:37 pm
“Pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” are two different things. “Pro-abortion” only addresses abortion, one OF THE MANY aspects of the choice/reproductive rights debate.
Please educate yourself on what the pro-choice movement actually IS. It’s about a woman’s right to control what happens to her body. THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE.
A medical procedure is not “violence.” Please do not insult rape victims by attempting to equate rape to a medical procedure (especially one that’s known to save women’s lives).
September 1, 2010 at 8:18 pm
PS – Even the police called him “Pro-abortion” and then the Press used “Pro-abortion” in the title !
September 1, 2010 at 8:44 pm
In neither article does the police refer to the man as “pro-abortion;” the first article uses that term in the headline because it’s an inflammatory statement and will make one read the article (which is the purpose of a headline); however, as was pointed out by one of the commenters on that page, Sulaiman Abdur-Rahman doesn’t have a firm grasp on the finer points of grammar and syntax (which is why the article states the man argued with the unborn child, not with the woman… darn grammar!), so can we really trust his grasp of the nuances of diction?
I wouldn’t base my argument on that… but then again, that’s because I have stronger points on which to do so.
September 1, 2010 at 11:36 pm
The man in the article is obviously antichoice. He told the woman what to do, and refused to allow her to make her own decision. There is nothing prochoice about forcing or coercing a woman to have an abortion when she doesn’t want to.
This is where people who believe prochoice and proabortion are the same thing get confused. See, prochoice means we support all choices that individual women make about pregnancy- carrying to term and parenting, or adoption, or abortion. We do not simply believe that every woman should abort. Obviously this man was antichoice and wanted to force the woman to do what he wanted instead of what she wanted. Regardless of if that’s carry to term or have an abortion, if it’s not the woman’s choice it’s antichoice.
September 2, 2010 at 2:45 am
Wrong- he supports abortion- he was trying to convince her to get an abortion- thus he supported the pro-abortion pro-choice philosophy. See, pro-life people are FOR LIFE. We support the Life of the woman and the life of the baby, we support ALL Life being protected we do not PIT one life against another, like “pro-choicers” do.
Do not tell me how pro-choice never forces- ask the many young girls driven to abortion clinics against their wills by the parents/boyfriends/and rapists who sign for them. The abortion clinic collects the bucks and sends the devastated aborted girl on her way. This website details these acts. You do not have to hide your head because this pro-choice man did this horrible thing – we are used to pro-choice people doing horrible things – like botching abortions, raping their patients , practicing w/o medical licenses, dumping aborted fetuses and the patients records in the trash, killing their patients, not calling 911, covering for child predators, forcing abortions, killing innocent unborn children, placing a live baby on the roof of the abortion clinic, shooting pro-life protesters, pulling a knife on pro-lifers, driving cars over pro-lifers, driving cars at pro-lifers, again- killing unborn babies all the way to birth, etc, etc…all of which is detailed on this blog under “pro-choice violence” if you care to see the proof.
September 2, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Let’s try this again.
Pro-abortion and prochoice are not the same thing. Forcing someone to abort is not prochoice. Just because you support abortion doesn’t mean you’re necessarily prochoice.
If you force a woman into a situation with a pregnancy which is not her own choice, then you are antichoice. It doesn’t matter if you’re forcing her to abort or forcing her to carry to term.
Prochoicers don’t “pit one life against the other.” We give women all the facts available and let them make a choice for themselves. There is no battle here, just love and support.
“ask the many young girls driven to abortion clinics against their wills by the parents/boyfriends/and rapists who sign for them.”
Again- these people are NOT prochoice. Just because it involves abortion doesn’t mean the people involved are prochoice. Antichoicers get abortions themselves, and antichoicers try to force other people to get abortions against their will.
September 3, 2010 at 9:59 pm
“he was trying to convince her to get an abortion”
NO, he was not “TRY TO CONVINCE” anyone. He was RAPING A WOMAN to FORCE HER to do what HE WANTED. He was IMPOSING HIS CHOICE on her THROUGH FORCE. This is VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.
September 3, 2010 at 10:02 pm
“See, pro-life people are FOR LIFE. We support the Life of the woman and the life of the baby, we support ALL Life being protected we do not PIT one life against another, like “pro-choicers” do.”
What happens when the fetus threatens the woman’s life?
What happens when the fetus has already died, or is brain dead, or any of the other complications that mean the fetus will not survive?
Does the “pro-life” side support the woman’s life in this cases, and help her get the abortion she needs?
September 2, 2010 at 7:11 pm
It involves the “Abortion Clinic” who do the forced abortions based on the “Adults” say-so, or a boyfriends say-so – in other words the one who plops down payment. It involves abortion doctors , abortion staff, abortion clinics who have raped women, killed them during the abortion procedure, and botched abortions… all of which state they are “pro-choice”, are supported by pro-choice organizations, have pro-choice protesters escort at their clinics and are interviewed by the media on pro-choice /abortion topics. So, you should never use the term “pro-Choice” when you add the FACT that the baby is given “No Choice.”
September 2, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Every profession has bad apples. The majority of abortion providers will not perform an abortion unless they know the woman wants the abortion and has consented.
“”Sometimes I say to patients who have that ‘I have no choice, I know I’ll regret it, just do me’ attitude: ‘You may not care, but we do. We only do abortions on women who want our services. We will not knowingly contribute to any possible trauma of any woman.’ They seem surprised that we care how we do our work, but they also accept it.”"
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
Again, you’re making a false connection between abortion and prochoice. Just because something is related to abortion doesn’t mean it’s prochoice. For example, antichoice “prolife” picketing involves the “abortion clinic” but the antis are very obviously not prochoice.
A man who forces a woman to abort is not prochoice. Why is this difficult to understand?
September 2, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Stats on that please- how do you know what the “Majority of Abortionists” will do? My blog documents plenty of abortionists and clinics that doing gross things to women and may I also state – these clinics have little to no oversight…these abortionists hop from state to state under the cover and protection of the profitable industry they prey on women. They are Pro-Choice !
September 3, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Did you go to the link KishielsMoon provided? There are stats and citations there.
Can you provide “stats” or any sort of documentation on the ridiculous claims you made in your comment 9/2 at 2:45?
September 3, 2010 at 10:25 pm
I told you- it is all on my blog- Pro-choice violence and pro-choice lawbreakers- links are included in each story and if you want to see how the abortion clinic treats women- look at abortionists, abortion clinic regulation, abortion safety
September 4, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Links to credible sources like a dinky community paper that can’t even figure out how to NOT dangle participles, and whose “reporters” are more than likely volunteer laypeople with no journalistic background or training?
Pardon me for questioning the validity of your “sources.”
September 3, 2010 at 10:28 pm
As for your “Stats” “Physician, New York” “Physician, Texas” “Planned Parenthood” Alan Guttmacher- all part of the abortion industry – of course they would say nice things to boost their profit. My links include medical boards, newspaper articles, TV news, etc…impartial !
September 4, 2010 at 2:48 pm
The Guttmacher Institute is “part of the abortion industry”? Does that mean the World Health Organization is ALSO part of your mythical “abortion industry”?
From http://www.guttmacher.org/about/index.html:
“In 2009, Guttmacher was designated an official Collaborating Center for Reproductive Health by the World Health Organization and its regional office, the Pan American Health Organization.”
How high up does your “abortion conspiracy” go?
Are all medical professionals part of this evil plot?
Just because an organization provides FACTS about reproductive health — which includes facts about abortion — and those facts happen to not match with your skewed, self-righteous, short-sighted ideas, does not mean those FACTS and MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS are part of a giant, secret “conspiracy.” It means that perhaps you need to rethink your preconceived notions.
“My links include medical boards, newspaper articles, TV news, etc…impartial !”
You dismiss the medical professionals of Planned Parenthood and the Guttmacher Institute because of some mythical “abortion industry” (Only 3% of PPFA’s services are abortion services… if they’re in the “abortion industry,” they’d really better get on it! They’re not going to make any money when 97% of their work is comprehensive sed ex, birth control — which LOWER the number of unwanted pregnancies, therefore reducing the need for aborition — sonograms, cervical and breast cancer screenings…; and the Guttmacher Institute is a research organization, supported by the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. If you want medical boards, you can’t do better than the WHO.)
As to “newspaper articles, TV news” — impartial? Hardly.
Newspapers are a dying industry, thanks to the Internet. They need to sell papers, and they’ll do it reporting on the most sensationalistic junk out there. Pick up a paper, see if they follow up on news stories once they’ve made money off that headline.
TV news is even worse: they need the ratings, and they only have 30 minutes. They give you a headline, and they don’t even have to bother with the story; they’ll just jump on to the next headline while they have you tuned in. And look! Here’s the Pet of the Week!
If you had anything of note to share, you would have given me a link, or a list of links, the first time I asked. I’m not going to waste my time going through your blog when this post is such a sorry excuse for “news” or “facts.” The responses you have given here further indicate you refuse to listen to reason or facts or reality (you think raping a woman, in front of her children, is “trying to convince”… how delusional do you have to be to seriously type that out??), so there’s no point in me slushing through the rest of your angry, irrational ramblings.
September 6, 2010 at 3:21 am
It is all on the blog- no link needed you are on the blog so why do I need to provide links. If you are too lazy to go to the places I indicated on this blog which you continue to come back to for comments- I cannot help that. But- on my blog under: Abortionists, Abortion Clinics, Abortion Regulations, Pro-Choice Violence , and Pro-Choice law breakers you will find all the news stories , police documents, medical reports you need . I do not need to re-list the links since it is my blog and they are already here.
September 6, 2010 at 3:36 am
We are questioning the validity of your blog. This post is on your blog too, but you’ve lied and passed off false statements here. If this blog post is full of lies, I can only believe the other blog posts are full of lies.
September 7, 2010 at 3:48 pm
All are inked to news stories , medical documents, government reports etc. You choose to stay blinded to the facts !
September 7, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Yes, and THIS news story tells about an antichoice man, not a prochoice man. Yet you continue to call him prochoice. You are blind to the facts, not us.
September 7, 2010 at 7:04 pm
“Now…where is the outcry against Pro-Choice/Pro-Abortion Violence ?????????????????????”
it’s aimed at the real problems. ie: the violence against women demonstrated in this story. (as appose to the communities fight against the violence against women. funny how that works)
where’s the outcry against the people fighting for a women’s right to make decisions about their bodies, when somebody violates a woman’s right to make decisions about her body?
nice strawman you got there.
September 8, 2010 at 1:47 am
Sophi, KushielsMoon & Criss,
You keep saying it is about a woman right to make decisions about her body. Wrong! Decisions about her body include whether to get a tattoo or pierce her ears. Abortion is a decision about her child’s body. They are two different people with different DNA. It is disgusting to think there are otherwise decent human beings who think killing a little kid is alright as long as the “mom” is one who decides to kill the child.
September 12, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Largebill,
If there is a tumor in my brain, do I have the right to ask the doctor to remove it?
Or is the tumor inside my brain a “different” person because it has different DNA? (The tumor’s DNA has mutated, causing it to reproduce unchecked, therefore it is different from the DNA of the rest of my cells.)
Nobody is taking about “killing a little kid.” We’re talking about a woman’s right to control her body and the parasite living in it. Until you can find a way to teleport the zygote/embryo/fetus and its placenta out of the woman’s uterus so it can develop completely independent from her body, then they are not “two different people” — they are one person and one parasite living off that person.
I’m currently eight months pregnant. You cannot tell me this thing moving around inside me, giving me heartburn, draining my energy, forcing me to sit if I try to stand for more than three minutes at a time, impeding my ability to breathe normally, causing blood clots in my legs, and giving me all sorts of gastrointestinal problems, is not part of MY body.
September 13, 2010 at 4:22 am
You are sick- for expressing the cold hearted pro-choice position that an 8 month old unborn child should be permitted to be aborted.
September 13, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Largebill, you are trying a common antichoice tactic- to remove the pregnant woman from the situation.
Well guess what? She’s not going to disappear just because you want to ignore her.
Regardless of whether the fetus has different DNA or not, it is INSIDE her body. You cannot pretend that the woman isn’t a part of pregnancy. Without her, the pregnancy would exist.
Saynsumthn- When will you stop lying and start calling this man antichoice?
September 13, 2010 at 11:46 pm
” for expressing the cold hearted pro-choice position that an 8 month old unborn child should be permitted to be aborted.”
Can you please show me where anyone expressed this view???
October 2, 2010 at 7:07 am
He’s getting his in prison hopefully
October 17, 2010 at 2:21 am
I just read through your conversation and I wanted to say that it seems like the topics and arguments are jumping all around. It’s probably maddening for everyone!
It seems that the heart of the matter in your disagreement is whether “pro-choice” means “pro-abortion.” Criss (or other pro-choice bloggers), let me ask you as simply and directly as possible… here, let’s break it down and go through the logic so we’re not jumping all around with arguments:
A) The pro-choice person believes that every woman ought to make her own choice about continuing or discontinuing a pregnancy.
Criss (or other) – True or false?
B) The pro-choice person supports the woman’s choice.
Criss (or other) – True or false?
C) The pro-choice person would then support the decision of abortion had that been the woman’s choice.
Now, I will wait for a response and hopefully we can get to the bottom of this soon…
Thanks.
November 19, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Sorry for the delay in responding to this — I’ve been taking care of my newborn son. He’s rather time-consuming.
A) TRUE
B) TRUE
C) TRUE. And the pro-choice person supports the decision of adoption had that been the woman’s choice. And the pro-choice person supports the decision of carrying the pregnancy to term and keeping the baby had that been the woman’s choice.
March 29, 2011 at 5:44 pm
I fail to see how anybody not allowing a woman to make a choice can be labelled “pro-choice”.