Author Topic: Laci's Baby  (Read 1447 times)

Offline narsus

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 832
      • http://www.blueknightsdvb.com
Laci's Baby
« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2003, 11:38:42 AM »
david

if we abort inner city youth when they turned 15 crime rates would go down also.

Offline Arfann

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 609
Laci's Baby
« Reply #16 on: April 21, 2003, 12:00:39 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
I'll advocate pro-choice if they'll add ages 13-19 yrs as legally abortable. ;)


You mean they don't? Uh-oh. I considered it retroactive. :eek:

Offline Fridaddy

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 331
      • http://www.teamlockdown.com
Laci's Baby
« Reply #17 on: April 21, 2003, 01:07:45 PM »
187 Cal Penal Code.

The unlawful killing of a human being or fetus with malice aforethought.

The fetus clause was put in after a vicious case where a boyfriend intentionally "stomp the baby to death" and was charged w/ murder. He won the case and walked.

I think, but am not sure right now (and dont feel like looking it up) it was a Stanislaus county case. Kinda ironic as Modesto is in Stanislaus county.

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Laci's Baby
« Reply #18 on: April 21, 2003, 01:18:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
I'll advocate pro-choice if they'll add ages 13-19 yrs as legally abortable. ;)


I was gonna agree with sandman, but this sounds very promising... (Father of 4 here)

Offline Airhead

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
      • http://www.ouchytheclown.com
Laci's Baby
« Reply #19 on: April 21, 2003, 01:32:04 PM »
I'd agree with AKIron too if we could add mother-in-laws to those who could be retroactively aborted.

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
Laci's Baby
« Reply #20 on: April 21, 2003, 03:56:09 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Airhead
I'd agree with AKIron too if we could add mother-in-laws to those who could be retroactively aborted.

I think they come under the justifiable aspect...........:p
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Laci's Baby
« Reply #21 on: April 22, 2003, 12:15:17 PM »
As somebody who is pro-choice this rabid individual certainly isn't my "leader", although that is a classic right-winger assumption there.  Naturally you state (and maybe even believe) that the most extreme examples are representative of the general group of, in this case, pro-choice people.  This doesn't make it true, but it does make it easier for you not to think if you demonize the opposition.



This is just the same kind of political bull that both sides spew.  It is all simple extremism because both sides fear that if they admit that there are grey areas they'll lose, and so they paint themselves into irrational corners.

Arguing that until the moment of birth abortion is fine and dandy is an extreme position that defies logic and evidence.  So to is the position that a zygote is fully human with rights superceding those of the woman.  Both of these positions are representative of the irrational demogogues on both sides of this issue, and when anything happens that they feel threatens their radical take they lash out.  That is what Stark did.  She fears that admitting that at any stage of pregnancy the foetus has rights will erode the rights of the woman at all points in the pregnancy.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Arfann

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 609
Laci's Baby
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2003, 12:50:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
As somebody who is pro-choice this rabid individual certainly isn't my "leader", although that is a classic right-winger assumption there.  Naturally you state (and maybe even believe) that the most extreme examples are representative of the general group of, in this case, pro-choice people.  This doesn't make it true, but it does make it easier for you not to think if you demonize the opposition.



This is just the same kind of political bull that both sides spew.  It is all simple extremism because both sides fear that if they admit that there are grey areas they'll lose, and so they paint themselves into irrational corners.

Arguing that until the moment of birth abortion is fine and dandy is an extreme position that defies logic and evidence.  So to is the position that a zygote is fully human with rights superceding those of the woman.  Both of these positions are representative of the irrational demogogues on both sides of this issue, and when anything happens that they feel threatens their radical take they lash out.  That is what Stark did.  She fears that admitting that at any stage of pregnancy the foetus has rights will erode the rights of the woman at all points in the pregnancy.


How dare you bring rational, well thought out, reasonable comment to this forum! You should be ashamed!!

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18791
they represent your view of this subject in the public forum ...
« Reply #23 on: April 22, 2003, 12:53:18 PM »
they "lead" your cause against those that oppose it (me), they are your leader as this issue goes..

UPDATE:
NOW backs away from comments by its Morris president
By Rob Jennings, Daily Record

The National Organization for Women is sidestepping the uproar ignited when its Morris County chapter president opposed a double-murder charge in the Laci Peterson case.

NOW officials declined to comment Monday on statements made this weekend by Mavra Stark, "out of respect for (Peterson's) family and what they're going through," spokeswoman Rebecca Farmer said by telephone from Washington.

Farmer would not say whether NOW opposes fetal homicide statutes that exist in at least 23 states. The laws have been opposed by some pro-choice groups even though legal abortions are exempted from prosecution.

"Right now, the issue is connected to the case," Farmer said.

California's fetal homicide statute is the basis for a second murder charge against Scott Peterson, 30, of Modesto, who is accused of killing his wife when she was eight months pregnant.

Stark, who heads the Morris County NOW, spoke Monday with the national organization's vice president, Terry O'Neill. Stark said O'Neill told her that NOW "felt it wasn't the right thing to take a position right now" on either the Peterson case or fetal homicide statutes.

After her conversation with O'Neill and fielding a flood of critical phone calls and e-mails from across the nation, Stark modified her earlier comments about the widely publicized Peterson case.

"I was thinking out loud," said Stark, who had mused on Saturday that the double-murder charge could provide ammunition to the pro-life lobby.

On Monday afternoon, Stark said the "viability of the Peterson fetus … makes a great deal of difference" in assessing the criminal case.

"The position I was veering very close to was not even in synch with those of all the pro-choice organizations I belong to," said Stark, who had previously speculated that the double-murder charge could strengthen efforts by pro-lifers to enact a ban on late-term abortions.

Stark's weekend statements sparked both a local and national firestorm, generating harsh criticism from Bill O'Reilly and other talk show hosts. She declined interview requests from NBC's "Today" show and numerous TV and radio stations.

"It is embarrassing to me, as a woman, that (she) said that," said Assemblywoman Alison L. McHose, R-Newton, who is pro-life. "I find it troubling that the Morris County chapter of NOW feels it is necessary to denigrate the life of the child that was killed out in California."

Both Laci Peterson's body and that of her unborn son were identified Friday after washing up on the shore of San Francisco Bay. Scott Peterson, who pleaded innocent at his Monday arraignment, could face the death penalty.

Some pro-lifers, including Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll, R-Morris Township, hope fetal homicide laws will establish a precedent that fetuses are human beings, thereby fueling efforts to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Carroll said he would support fetal homicide legislation in New Jersey, where efforts to pass such a law so far have been unsuccessful. McHose said she would back a fetal homicide statute that would apply from the moment of conception.

Assemblyman Richard Merkt, R-Mendham Township, who is pro-choice, said he would support "an appropriate piece of legislation" on the subject.

"It would depend on how it's drawn. Truthfully, I often see good ideas that are couched in dreadful or deceptive language," Merkt said. "There's an old saying that bad cases make bad law."

Much of the reaction to Stark's comments came from outside Morris County after Stark's quotes in Sunday's Daily Record were distributed nationwide on the Drudge Report, an Internet news site.

"They (NOW) are doing themselves no favors by raising this issue. They look ridiculous," said Katy Raymond of Belton, Mo., a mother of three children who said her pro-life views were cemented after having a miscarriage.
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | 16GB GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Ti Super | 850 watt ps | pimax Crystal Light | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Laci's Baby
« Reply #24 on: April 22, 2003, 02:45:39 PM »
Quote
Some pro-lifers, including Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll, R-Morris Township, hope fetal homicide laws will establish a precedent that fetuses are human beings, thereby fueling efforts to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.


Sounds like both sides want to take advantage of a dead baby.

Offline Airhead

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
      • http://www.ouchytheclown.com
Laci's Baby
« Reply #25 on: April 22, 2003, 03:18:22 PM »
Sounds like an Alice Cooper song.

Offline OIO

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
Laci's Baby
« Reply #26 on: April 22, 2003, 03:50:47 PM »
im pro-choice with the decision resting on the mother.

But I also have another way of thinking at this abortion bussiness... at what point is a baby considered "born"? Popping out of the womb only changes its physical location.

It is said that the one thing that tells humans apart from other creatures is our self-awareness. More specifically, our capability of being aware that we are self-aware. Its also been called sentience.

At what point does a baby develop sentience? To the best of my knowledge and in my opinion (im sure many PhD's here will debate that to flamedom), sentience does not develop on a baby until they are 1.5 years old (1.5 years after being popped out that is). Its only then when their brain goes from animal-like nothingness to a state of developed neural pathways that override most instinctual behavior.

With that in mind, I dont consider a baby to be "born" until that capacity is developed.

And then again, I dont consider it right to destroy a baby before it can be "born" just because some airhead wench or redneck dont want the responsability. In cases of genetic problems, diseases or in case of rape, I would support the mother's decision not to have the baby.

Offline Airhead

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
      • http://www.ouchytheclown.com
Laci's Baby
« Reply #27 on: April 22, 2003, 03:56:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by OIO
...just because some airhead wench or redneck dont want the responsability....


Who are you calling a redneck you hillbilly?? :mad:

Offline OIO

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
Laci's Baby
« Reply #28 on: April 22, 2003, 03:59:54 PM »
them too. :D :p

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Laci's Baby
« Reply #29 on: April 22, 2003, 04:39:22 PM »
Actually I think he called you a "Wench"!!!!!