| Abortion
Posted: 10/25/2005 2:29:59 PM | | Why did Scott Peterson get charged with double murder. How can you kill a fetus? You can't murder a non human being....just a thought. It may seem too logical for some. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/25/2005 10:29:55 PM | | Why was he charged with double murder? Because there's a law in his state allowing it. It might be too logical for you. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/26/2005 8:28:19 PM | for 2 reasons:
1. a fetus is a living being in the process of maturation
2. a fetus has a full set of human genome, and is as human as anyone alive! | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/26/2005 8:58:13 PM | I'll save the next poster the time...
"But then isn't abortion murder?"
 | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:16:00 PM | Is a fetus a human being?
I would like to distinguish between what is HUMAN and what is a PERSON. When I think of something that is human, I think of something that has the characteristics of a human. When I think of a person, I think of something totally different. What makes a person a person? I would have to say their ability to reason and their memories or experiences. If I am missing anything, don't hesitat to add. 
I would have to say that a fetus is a "potential" person. But it does not follow that all things that are potentially X are X. Is an acorn an oak tree? No, it is a potential oak tree but not an oak tree yet. Hehe, were not even getting into the issue behind RIGHTS yet. This topic is so complicated! lol
Let me use another example to distinguish between a HUMAN and a PERSON. Let us pretend there is a man that has no brain. The only thing their brain does is keep their body functioning, you know? keep the organs going and what not. So the body is alive! The body has the characteristics of a human, but is it a person? I would have to say no because it does not have the ability to reason. It also doesnt have the ability to have feelings, memories or gain new experiences. You could say he is HUMAN, but could you honestly say he is a PERSON? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:19:42 PM | | @ yam:......look at it very carefully, and then draw your own conclusion! | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:30:16 PM | If one is interested in drawing a conclusion on this issue, I would encourage them to look outside of pof, and to look a lot.
I'm set. Thanks, though.
 | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:44:24 PM | 4 simon
[-When I think of a person, I think of something totally different. What makes a person a person? I would have to say their ability to reason and their memories or experiences-]
so by this logic, a new born would not be considered a person simply because it can't in any way reason nor does it have any greater memory it did when it was in utero ( whether its an hour, a day, or a week after its birth) right!.....so how long does a new born have to be alive in order to be a " potential" person then?
[-So the body is alive! The body has the characteristics of a human, but is it a person? -]
^ okay then, so why don't we go into every hospital where there are pple in a coma (or officially brain dead) and start pulling them off life support because they are no longer persons (based on your definition here)...and do it for the same reason that fetuses are aborted (because as you say they are not persons)! | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:48:49 PM | | Yams mos, what is your stance on this issue? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/26/2005 9:52:26 PM | | The murder charge or the abortion? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/26/2005 11:10:27 PM | sum1reel, good point! thats how I would of counter argued my position!
I'm well aware of the faults in what I said. That was not the extent of my belief on the issue. If I was smart I would of addressed the point, counter argued my point and then defended it. But that would be no fun! I was wondering if you saw any faults in what you said? If you do, you dont have to answer them if you dont want to. You can join in on the fun and see how other people counter argue it. I love it!
If you see no faults, I would like to point them out sometime. I cant right now though, its late and ive got to hit the sack.
 | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/27/2005 5:35:37 AM | | There is a certain twisted irony in that had Laci had an abortion the day before her murder nothing would be said or done to her. Yet the father of the fetus, is convicted of murder for doing the very thing that State law allows the mother to do. No, I'm not comparing a medical procedure with murder, I'm comparing the termination of the pregnancy as a choice for one parent, and a crime punishable by death for the other. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/27/2005 6:04:21 PM | at timp
[-I'm comparing the termination of the pregnancy as a choice for one parent, and a crime punishable by death for the other-]
this goes to show how flawed and twisted the 'pro-choice' position is on what constitutes person-hood........one spouse can see this life within her as a 'non-person' and consequently terminate it if she wishes, yet the other spouse can be charged with actual murder, should he do the same!!!....amazing! | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/27/2005 8:11:56 PM |
Yet the father of the fetus, is convicted of murder for doing the very thing that State law allows the mother to do. No, I'm not comparing a medical procedure with murder, I'm comparing the termination of the pregnancy as a choice for one parent, and a crime punishable by death for the other. To suggest that it somehow matters WHO murdered her in relation to a charge re: the fetus is twisted. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/28/2005 3:50:24 AM | To suggest that it somehow matters WHO murdered her in relation to a charge re: the fetus is twisted.
The thread is about abortion, and why it is legal for the female parent to terminate a pregnancy yet a crime punishable by death for the other. If you find the subject matter offensive you could always consider avoiding the thread.
Nobody said it was "OK" for him to kill her, they just wonder how it can be considered murder to kill a fetus when the state does not recognize the fetus as a human being. Forgive us for trying to comprehend the Liberal mindset on these matters. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/28/2005 4:05:45 AM | | In some states, when you murder a pregnant mother, you are murdering the baby also. In some states this is not the case. In New York, for example, the baby is not considered a life until it takes its first breath; legally that is. Whether or not one is a proponent of pro-choice or anti-abortion the laws in every state are different regarding this issue. Laci was not given a choice whether she lived or died and neither was her unborn child. Now, I know what you anti-abortion folks are going to say that every unborn child does not have choice whether they are aborted or not. Well yes that is the very debatable question...but in the majority of cases, abortions are done when the fetus is either just a mass of cells or in the very beginnings of formation. Either way, the law is the law whether you like it or not. It is legal to have an abortion where a woman can make the choice of having a child or not. Scott Peterson did not give Laci or her child a choice which is illegal and he is sitting in prison because of it. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/28/2005 4:27:05 AM | Hacster
I'm actually not anti-abortion, but I am anti-hypocrisy, and very much pro-equal protection under the law (it’s in the constitution). Either a fetus is a human being or it is not. You can't use a sliding legal scale for these issues. If Scott Peterson is guilty of murdering his unborn child, then every mother in that state who has an abortion is guilty of the same crime. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/28/2005 4:48:22 AM |
You can't use a sliding legal scale for these issues. Call it a sliding scale or whatever you want, but what you've identified is a difference. And the difference obviously CAN be taken into account.
If Scott Peterson is guilty of murdering his unborn child, then every mother in that state who has an abortion is guilty of the same crime. Interestingly enough, you're wrong. And that's not likely to change in CA.
What I see as the inconsistency here is that the focus on WHO "terminates the pregnancy," "kills the fetus," whatever, is not the issue that determines abortion rights. So to approach it from this angle certainly DOES create a contradiction, but it's a false contradiction. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/28/2005 5:35:26 AM | It really isn't a contradiction when you consider equal parental rights. One has the right to terminate a pregancy while the other does not. The issue isn't so much whether abortion itself is right or wrong, rather it's why it's an acceptable practice for one parent, and a crime punishable by death for the other, when the end result is exactly the same, i.e., termination of a pregnancy. Again, we understand that you don't get the big picture, and we're OK with it...
It's only an opinion, you really need to lighten up a little.... We are entitled to opinions, and since they are only opinions, according to some people, they can't be wrong. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/28/2005 6:03:16 AM | It really isn't a contradiction when you consider equal parental rights. A man murdering the mother of his unborn child somehow involves parent rights?!
You're on tilt, tim.
Again, we understand that you don't get the big picture, and we're OK with it...
And, of course, still trying to puff out your chest in order to feel good about yourself. Perhaps you should spend less time trying to make yourself feel superior and more time considering what you're actually saying.
Topic, timmy. Focus on the topic.
It's only an opinion Not everything is opinion, and when I point out that what one "calls" an opinion is incorrect, it's because they are trying to state a factual inaccuracy as opinion.
But you know that.
Thanks for my requisite "timmy of the day." It's like a quote of the day, but better, because it guarantees laughter.
Have a great one. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/28/2005 6:27:14 AM | And, of course, still trying to puff out your chest in order to feel good about yourself. Perhaps you should spend less time trying to make yourself feel superior and more time considering what you're actually saying.
Topic, timmy. Focus on the topic.
Your constant trolling is on topic? I don't see anywhere in your post where you even mention abortion.
Not everything is opinion, and when I point out that what one "calls" an opinion is incorrect, it's because they are trying to state a factual inaccuracy as opinion.
So now opinions aren't opinions unless you agree with them?!?!?!?
Apparently it is your opinion that my post is factually inaccurate. Let's review which part might be inaccurate.
1.) The fetus is dead.
2.) Laci and Scott Peterson are presumed to be the biological parents of the fetus
3.) If Laci had an abortion it would not be murder and she would not be sentenced to death.
4.) The fetus was killed in an act of domestic violence, and the person found guilty of terminating that pregancy has been sentenced to death.
Which of the above do you consider to be a "factual inaccuracy"?
The issue is not whether or not he killed his wife, the issue is why is it first degree murder for him to terminate her pregnancy in a state where abortions are performed every day without criminal charges being filed.... again, the BIG picture. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/28/2005 6:59:02 AM | Not everything is opinion, and when I point out that what one "calls" an opinion is incorrect, it's because they are trying to state a factual inaccuracy as opinion.
So now opinions aren't opinions unless you agree with them?!?!?!? No sweetie, that's not what I said. And a whole lot of punctuation doesn't change that. Here, I'll give you an example... If I said, "in my opinion, timmy is a female," that statement doesn't stand simply because I put "in my opionion" in front of it. Factually, you are a man. So, if you pointed out that what I called an opinion was incorrect, it would be because I was trying to state a factual inaccuracy as opinion. It would have nothing to do with you "agreeing" or "disagreeing." (You wouldn't say, "I disagree that I'm a woman. I think I'm a man." You WOULD say, "you're incorrect. I'm a man.")
The issue is not whether or not he killed his wife, the issue is why is it first degree murder for him to terminate her pregnancy in a state where abortions are performed every day without criminal charges being filed.... again, the BIG picture. The big picture is that abortion rights are based in privacy; one's right to do what one wants (within boundaries) with one's own body. That's why comparing the two (abortion / the father killing mother and fetus) is incongruous.
Focusing on who terminates a pregnancy doesn't deal with the fundamental right involved, and that's why the contradiction is false. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/28/2005 7:54:10 AM |
The big picture is that abortion rights are based in privacy; one's right to do what one wants (within boundaries) with one's own body. That's why comparing the two (abortion / the father killing mother and fetus) is incongruous.
Focusing on who terminates a pregnancy doesn't deal with the fundamental right involved, and that's why the contradiction is false.
Thank you for proving yet again that you actually don't get the big picture.
Abortion is not a “fundamental right”. One parent has no more say over the life of the child / fetus than the other since both are required elements of the creation / conception. If he had drugged her and removed the fetus surgically, without harming her in any manner, he could still be subject to a charge of first-degree murder and the accompanying sentence of death.
There is no incongruity on my part, you seem to keep bringing the death of the mother into the equation, and no one is questioning whether that prosecution was right or wrong. (See thread topic.) Abortion “rights” are not limited to ones own body, if they were it would be no more of an issue than simple elective plastic surgery. There is another element involved called a fetus (I’m surprised you didn’t know this).
This is the dilemma the left feared most in their contention that Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty were somehow a contradiction. Now instead of an innocent life vs. a convicted murderer, we have a singular innocent life being compared. Seems we have a Liberal state that treats fetuses as non-humans for abortion purposes, and as actual human beings for purposes of criminal prosecution. It’s simply a philosophical and legal dichotomy that Liberals will have to reconcile.
BTW, in all of that tap dancing, you still didn't point out any factual inacuracies. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/28/2005 8:02:01 AM |
Thank you for proving yet again that you actually don't get the big picture.
Abortion is not a “fundamental right”. Please read what I wrote. (as an aside, must you always be snide? I ask you this frequently, and you seem to be reinforcing a yes.) I didn't say that abortion is a fundamental right. I'd explain it again but perhaps you could just scroll up.
One parent has no more say over the life of the child / fetus than the other since both are required elements of the creation / conception. I understand that this might be your belief, but the reality is that a woman can choose to have an abortion and a man can not stop her; a woman can also choose NOT to have an abortion and a man can not force one. Therefore, one parent does legally have more say over the life of a fetus.
If he had drugged her and removed the fetus surgically, without harming her in any manner, he could still be subject to a charge of first-degree murder and the accompanying sentence of death.
Correct. See previous paragraph. Well, mostly correct. Drugging someone, performing unconsented to surgery, and removing a fetus is actually harming her.
Abortion “rights” are not limited to ones own body, if they were it would be no more of an issue than simple elective plastic surgery. There is another element involved called a fetus (I’m surprised you didn’t know this).
That is correct. It's obnoxious to make your little statement in the (), but it's to be expected. Again, I did not say that abortion is a right.
Seems we have a Liberal state that treats fetuses as non-humans for abortion purposes, and as actual human beings for purposes of criminal prosecution. Yeah, we have a liberal state. That's it.
It’s simply a philosophical and legal dichotomy that Liberals will have to reconcile.
Actually, nothing has to be reconciled. Some would prefer that the laws be changed, but as they are now, they are working fine in these areas, in my opinion.
BTW, in all of that tap dancing, you still didn't point out any factual inacuracies. Sweetie, that's because you try to ask limited, skewed questions and you're ignoring the big picture. I understand that you're frustrated by the law as it stands, but trying to ask questions to force someone to say particular words won't change that. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/28/2005 8:05:17 AM | | At the risk of stating the obvious, it's just this sort of comment that the framers of the California law were hoping for. It is a law drafted by pro-lifers. Nothing Machiavellian about it, but lets not pretend that they were only looking out for Laci and Scott Peterson situations. Full disclosure - I tend to pro-choice but had a friend struck by a driver when she was 8 months pregnant and lost the baby. I would have voted for this bill and accepted the contradiction. | |
|
Home
login 
