|
|
|
|
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 8:37:57 AM |
As far as prosecution for performing medical proceedures without being a doctor, I think the fact that he killed her, and that they have enough to fry him would make an additional charge pointless, but if they wanted to send a message I'm sure they couldve worked that in if they wanted.
Sheepster, nobody is challenging the murder conviction for Laci... Put that thought out of your mind for a second and try to focus on the issue of the fetus, and the distinction between aborting a fetus and murdering one.
If a fetus is legally considered as a type of parasitic organism as This2 says, then you can't "murder" it because it isn't a human being. The charge was obviously designed to make Peterson out to be a callused cold-blooded killer, which a jury agreed with, but that still doesn't change the fact that for the purposes of his trial, a fetus was a human being, and had his wife aborted on the same day, it would not be. It's clearly a manipulation of the legal definition of a human being, and people (some anyway) are simply trying to reconcile the difference in classification. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 8:47:01 AM | Tim
i appreciate your efforts into clarifying my orginal purpose of the topic. The contradiction is so apparent to me, but I guess its not for everyone.
If we could only determine the definition of what "is" is...then all of lifes answers would be answered. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 8:57:41 AM |
Sheepster, nobody is challenging the murder conviction for Laci... Put that thought out of your mind for a second and try to focus on the issue of the fetus, and the distinction between aborting a fetus and murdering one.
If a fetus is legally considered as a type of parasitic organism as This2 says, then you can't "murder" it because it isn't a human being. The charge was obviously designed to make Peterson out to be a callused cold-blooded killer, which a jury agreed with, but that still doesn't change the fact that for the purposes of his trial, a fetus was a human being, and had his wife aborted on the same day, it would not be. It's clearly a manipulation of the legal definition of a human being, and people (some anyway) are simply trying to reconcile the difference in classification.
Great post I 100% agree The law does need to be consistant in order to be fair to all | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 8:58:01 AM | Tim thats a hard one to figure out, maybe because its her right to terminate and not his, could be the reason for the double murder charge, Maybe the state went overboard in trying to set an example here "killing an ant with a SledgeHammer".
But considering its a womans choice, that could be the basis, and I for one agree with the State on this one.
If he didnt want to have a child with her, he should have been smart about it, there are methods of contraception available. but once he got her pregnant its outta his hands and the choice belongs to her to have it or not.
Now to amend this: I think there should be a law that if a man doesnt want to have a child with a woman, but she insists on having it, He shouldnt be liable to have to pay for child support providing he file such a complaint prior to birth with a court, (dont know if this law exists already, and may not be ethical but it seems fair). you dont have to pay for anything else that you dont want, so why should this be any different. ( may even put an end to women who try to get preg. on purpose for $$)
Long story short: you have the ability to speed and pay the fines, and the choice to drive in the limits and keep your money in pocket, but once you get pulled over, the choice is outta your hands and in the hands of the Police and/or Judge.
Same difference here: If you dont want a child with a woman: make sure you take the proper precautions prior to sex, cause once she gets pregnant, the choice is outta your hands and you pretty much have to deal with what ever she decides. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 9:08:36 AM | Ok, now we're getting to the debate....
Tim thats a hard one to figure out, maybe because its her right to terminate and not his, could be the reason for the double murder charge, Maybe the state went overboard in trying to set an example here "killing an ant with a SledgeHammer".
But considering its a womans choice, that could be the basis, and I for one agree with the State on this one.
If the issue were abortion, like you, I would begin with questioning why it was solely a woman’s prerogative and not an issue to be decided by BOTH parents. Since it isn't, I'll leave that for discussion on another thread.
Which aspect of the State's position do you agree with? If you agree that charging Peterson with capital murder, then by default you agree that a fetus is not a parasitic organism, but rather a human being. Remember, murder charges cannot be made for killing anything that is not human. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 9:28:50 AM | | But the only reason murder charges were brought against Perterson for the death of the baby was because the mother of the baby was murdered. I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the basic legality of this case that says anything more than "Peterson was responsible for the death of an unborn child." It is only in terms of a double murder that Peterson was charged with the baby's death. So the "contradiction" between legal abortion and murdering a pregnant woman isn't a contradiction, even in the terms we're using on this thread. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 9:43:39 AM | Franny-
what would have been the charge if scott stabbed laci in and killed her baby but laci lived?
Murder? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 9:45:43 AM | But the only reason murder charges were brought against Perterson for the death of the baby was because the mother of the baby was murdered. I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the basic legality of this case that says anything more than "Peterson was responsible for the death of an unborn child." It is only in terms of a double murder that Peterson was charged with the baby's death. So the "contradiction" between legal abortion and murdering a pregnant woman isn't a contradiction, even in the terms we're using on this thread.
Ok, so back to the Laci issue....
No one disputes that she was a human being, and that the charge of murder was appropriate. We are not comparing the termination of a fetus with the murder of a woman, we are comparing the termination of a fetus with the termination of a fetus.... Strictly apples to apples here.
If a fetus is considered a parasitic organism for the purposes of abortion, then that same fetus cannot be considered as a human being for prosecution as murder (remember, murder is one human being taking the life of another human being intentionally). By the same token, if the intentional termination of a fetus actually is murder, then by default so is abortion. Again, the issue is not abortion, it is the inconsistancy applied to the legal definition of the status of a fetus. Either it is human, or it is not. Abortion is a question decided by ones individual morality, this is merely a question of conflicting legal definitions. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 9:46:31 AM | True Tim, we get right back to that Grey area.
I agree with making an example of Him to prevent violence against pregnant women.
If we're discussing when a fetus becomes a human I think you'll notice I said "Killing an ant with a sledgehammer"
But I can only speculate that a reason for this would be that its her choice and not his. and eventually the fetus if healthy would have been born.
Perhaps if she had wrote a letter claiming that she wanted to abort her pregnancy that was found after her death, the arguement could be made that he shouldnt be charged for a double murder, But then again, she would still be alive if she wanted to have an abortion and Scott was aware of this.
If its to be politically correct maybe he should be charged with her murder, and "obstruction of her freedom to choose", if there is such a charge.
Either way the end result should be the same, Smoke him!! | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 9:51:39 AM | | ^ so you're sort of implying you think he should not have had the second murder charge.... am I reading you correctly? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 9:54:12 AM | | I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing some kind of "assalut with a deadly weapon with intent" kind of thing. My point is, and I tried to make this clear earleir in the thread, that the charge brought against SP for the death of the baby was only brought because of the death of Laci. So, the necessary elements of "murder" in the case of the baby was the murder of the mother(I'm pretty sure he was charged with 2nd degree for the baby). So, in this instance, there is no contradiction that I can see between abortion and murder. Maybe we should hang it up and wait for a case in which some hideous Christian conservative group tries to bring "attempted murder" charges against a woman who tried to commit suicide while pregnant. (that was meant as sardonic) | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 9:57:15 AM | | Don't worry, I get the fact that we are not talking about abortion. But the law that was used against Peterson only chrages him with murder in the case of the fetus because the mother of the fetus was murdered. That's pure legality there, I'm not editoriolizing anything. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 10:01:01 AM | | ^ Doesn't matter if it's capital murder (which I believe was the charge), second degree, manslaughter, or even assault with a deadly weapon, in order for any of those to have been crimes, 2 human beings have to be involved -- an asailant and a victim. If a fetus is not a human being, then it cannot be a victim. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 10:05:51 AM | | That's what I'm trying to get at. In this case, the charge of murder could be made on behalf of the fetus because the necessary elements were in place, those elements were the factual murder of the mother. In cases of abortion, where the contradiction in this thread is being supposed, they do not contain those elements surrounding the fetus, so there is no murder taking place. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 10:29:51 AM |
so you're sort of implying you think he should not have had the second murder charge.... am I reading you correctly?
Maybe not, I think creating a law of "Obstruction of Constitutional freedoms" should be created and applied to the killing of a fetus without the womans consent, and once the fetus turns into a baby that could survive outside the mothers womb, (like a Premature babys age and up) then it can be turned into a murder charge.
Both Laws should carry the same penalty though.
for example, if you punch or kick a pregnant woman in the stomach and she looses the fetus/baby, that should be your ass!!
Like you said in another forum Tim: "swab the arm for the needle!"
Now that I think of it, you would have to be really careful of who you bump into on the street, or who you have a car accident with, or you could be ready to die!, lol. Perhaps a case by case interpretation of this new law.
End result, less violent crime against women, especially pregnant women, I'm for that. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 10:37:49 AM | k, back to the case in law where you accept your victim as they are. the fetus/baby, who was intended to be taken to term, as a victim wouldv'e needed mother to survive.
not sure if this has been raised on this thread, but what is the threshold california lawmakers set as the point where a fetus becomes a human being for the purposes of therapeudic abortion? and how many months pregnant was laci? i would suggest that if her pregnancy was 'beyond the point of no return' that would be the reason for the second murder charge. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 11:01:46 AM | "k, back to the case in law where you accept your victim as they are. the fetus/baby, who was intended to be taken to term, as a victim wouldv'e needed mother to survive."
Yep, I think you hit it on the head when you first made this point. I was trying to clarify in terms of the law used against scott, because according to the legal manner in which he was charged, it had less to do with the individual death of the baby, and more to do with the death of Laci. According to the manner in which he was charged, no murder charge could hav been brought against him if Laci had not died.
As far as the Cal. threshold, Planned Parenthood, which facilitates most of the abortions in this country, has a national standard of abortion in the first tri-mester. Past that, an abortion is strictly a surgical procedure, so it has to be done in a hospital. And, actually, I don't think there is a point LEGALLY when a fetus ever becomes a human being while it is still in the mother. I may have missed something, but I think the "human being" debate is that mixing of terminologies. Oh and Laci was over 8 months when Scott reported her missing. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 11:25:07 AM |
Oh and Laci was over 8 months when Scott reported her missing.
If thats the case then Scott qualifies for the double murder according to what I suggested earlier in this thread. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 11:28:07 AM | | And I agree with you, I think your exact words were "Either way, Smoke him." Absolutely. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 12:06:15 PM | Ok, so we're back to Laci again...
So far the OP seems to think I'm the only one that gets the question he posed. It isn't about abortion, it isn't about Laci Peterson, and it isn't about Scott Peterson, it's about the legal definition of a fetus vs. the legal definition of a human being. Frying Scott till the cows come home isn't going to resolve the question. I would venture to say the only reason he chose the Scott Peterson case as the example was because everyone who can spell CNN is familiar with it. The age of the fetus, the intent of the mother to deliver, etc., are immaterial.
California seems to have pro-choice legislation that considers a fetus to be a parasitic organism for purposes of abortion rights, yet classifies it as a human being for purposes of criminal prosecution.
In my feeble yet logical mind, you cannot call a fetus a human being for one purpose and call it a parasitic organism for another, it's either hypocritical or it's simply pandering. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 12:33:18 PM | | Tim, I think a lot of stuff has been said on this thread that addresses what the OP (whatever that is) put forth...are you not convinced by the fact that scott wasn't convicted of killing a fetus in an abortion like manner? or that there is clearly a distinction between the two scenarios? if not, then why not? it's your turn. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 4:12:28 PM | at: 2weird
[[=sum1reel - you too - how do you arrive at your first premise? - a fetus is a human being? what is the basis in law, science or medicine for your position? =]]
^^with all due respect, but this is one of the most ignorant statements i've heard in quite a while regarding the innate nature of a fetus!!!......and if it is NOT ignorance on your part then you have got to be brainwashed by the pro-choice mantras
a fetus is a human by default!!!....meaning that it can't be anything thing BUT a human!!!!...regardless at what stage its in!!!........scientifically, i stand on solid ground...look at the DNA evidence which is incontrovertible!.....the DNA of a fetus is the same DNA of a newborn, a child, an adult.....as far as law is concerned, the legal system will put in effect whatever the society wishes to accept.....as an example, during the times of slavery in the US, the "law" did not consider blacks to being humanly equal to whites!!!......so law is just something pple manipulate to serve their own needs.
you see, its easy to draw your own conclusions when you define your own terms of what is or what isn't a human/parasite..........once you define something to your own liking than it becomes easy to take action......the Nazi's defined the Jews as non-human or parasites, they polished up this mantra, packaged it up, and 'sold' it to the public....and the rest was easy........get the picture! | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 4:42:26 PM | @ frany
[==I approve of the terminating of a human life in-utero.
I approve of the terminating of a human life outside of utero, say, "pulling the plug," or physician assisted suicide, or just plain suicide, or choosing not to provide a particular operation.==]
^.......you see, if you would have just stoppped here, then the only thing i could have said was: 'fine, to each his/her own'.................BUT, then you backpedal into the typical jargon that pro-choicers use to justify your beliefs. You concoct your own mantra, but let me break it down the way it really is:
1]a fetus does both: it develops and matures!
2]a newborn does both: it devolops and matures!
3]an adult does both: it develops and matures!
1) of course a fetus develops, but once the organ systems develop (virtually all are by the middle of the 1st trimester) then the maturation processes occurs....the organ systems must mature up to a certain level in utero before it can sustain it post birth......an example is the lungs, if a child is born PRE-mature (as you know, i didn't make up this term!), the lungs can't adequately oxygenate the blood yet....thus, the lungs would need to MATURE in-utero in order for them to work efficiently!!!!
2) a newborn certainly matures, but it is also in a stage of development......it is still developing areas in the brain needed 4 higher function and oddly enuff, it is slowly shutting down more primitive reflexes such as the 'sucking-reflex'.......additionally, a young child is NOT sexually DEVELOPED....a young boy does not have the capacity to produce sperm, a young female can't have ovulation or bear children because her childbearing structure has not yet DEVELOPED
3) an adult also develops......mainly mentally!!!......or should (at least)!!......a 30-40 year old developls coping skills he/she didn't have as 20 year old......an adult also matures as we see in menopause!
[[-If the woman's body spontaneously aborts that same fetus, where are you able to draw the differentiation.-]]
^......a spontaneous abortion is carried out by the female reproductive system in conjunction with hormonal signals....most of the time it isn't known why it happens, but there is NO comparing this to elective abortion!!!.....when a person choses to abort, it is being done in a pre-meditated manner for self serving purposes!.... the only exception i would grant would be for rape, and when the mother of the fetus is in danger!
you can read my reply to @2weird as well.....but in closing, i will say the same to you as i did to him.........you can justify doing just about anything you want (and feel good about it too!) once you define everything on your own terms!
btw........i'm not basing my argument on religious grounds in case anyone is wondering!
peace! | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 5:12:08 PM | | somehow, Reel, the above doesn't look a whole lot like "the way it really is"...it looks a whole lot like you atttempting to substitute your own jargon for what you percieve as someone else's jargon thus still not making an argument that progresses...the argument you've stated is called cicular: why is it a human being? because it's a human being! and manipulating standard knowledge to fit the argument doesn't really do a whole lot...the point of debating what the status of a fetus is is many-fold, for instance, why do we debate the morality of denying a medical treatment to a person who may still have no chance of recovering to a functioning life? why do we debate capital punishment? there is no foundational manner in which any of this can be proved, for instance, why is it a human being? because it's a human being! what's a human being? it's us! what are we? we're human beings...because the qualification of a human being is being addressed in the discussion of the fetus, simply referring back to the term "human being" is of no use if the original question is how do we justify the classification of "human being" (which is highly conotated, obviously)...what i keep thinking, I guess foolishly, that this thread is about is the process of reasoning that leads us to our conlsions. The way it really is, is that people have abortions, people kill their pregnant wives, people do all sorts of things...the question is how do we address it as a society... | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/4/2005 6:15:58 PM | at frany
[[-Reel, the above doesn't look a whole lot like "the way it really is"...it looks a whole lot like you atttempting to substitute your own jargon for what you percieve as someone else's jargon -]]
^........the 3 points that i presented is NOT my jargon/opinion...all this is based on irrefutable scientific fact!!!........i challenge anyone to show where i am wrong in demonstrating examples of development and maturation at every stage of life!!!
[-...the argument you've stated is called cicular: -]
^........the "argument" that i've stated is based on FACT!!!!........if a developing mass of cells conceived between a man & woman is not human....then WHAT IS IT?.......you can cook up whatever terms you want, and make them mean whatever you want, but the FACT remains that such a fetus/embryo can't be anything but a human(at any given stage).
[-why do we debate the morality of denying a medical treatment to a person who may still have no chance of recovering to a functioning life?-]
^...this bears no relation to the issue at hand...........allowing a person who has no chance of recovering to die 'naturally' has nothing to do with elective abortion-----in which your intentions are to terminate a life that is maturing and developing 'naturally'!
[-why do we debate capital punishment?-]
^...the decision whether or not to conduct capital punishment is not predicated by whether or not the criminal is a human being.....but rather on the gravity of his crime as based by the society's standards.
[-why is it a human being? because it's a human being! what's a human being? it's us! what are we? we're human beings...-]
^.......your statement reminds me of what our past president Bill Clinton said when he had been impeached....his remark was: "what is the meaning of IS"?.....your statements can be argued into absurdity, such as the statement made by clinton for sole purpose of obfuscating!
as i already said, you can either look directly at the facts (as they stand on their own 2 feet), or you look away and come up with all kinds of philosophical convolutions by which you can justify (2 yourselves)for terminating the life of a fetus. | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
