Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on April 21, 2003, 07:08:37 AM
-
or is he considered a "baby" since he, Connor, wasn't born at the time of his and his mother's murder?
Just wonder ing where you pro choicer stand on this.. here's how your "leader" does:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.dailyrecord.com/news/03/04/20/news3-laci.htm
Laci Peterson case tied to Roe debate
By Rob Jennings, Daily Record
The head of the National Organization for Women's Morris County chapter is opposing a double-murder charge in the Laci Peterson case, saying it could provide ammunition to the pro-life lobby.
"If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder," Morris County NOW President Mavra Stark said on Saturday.
Prosecutors in California announced Friday their intention to charge Scott Peterson, 30, of Modesto, both with killing his wife and their unborn son. Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant when she disappeared Dec. 24.
Both bodies were identified on Friday after washing up on the shore of San Francisco Bay.
More than two dozen states, including California, have adopted "fetal homicide" statutes, and prosecutors often will seek a double-murder charge when a pregnant woman is killed.
Marie Tasy, public and legislative affairs director for New Jersey Right To Life, countered that a double-murder charge against Scott Peterson is appropriate. She assailed pro-choice activists for opposing fetal homicide statutes.
"Obviously he was wanted by the mother," Tasy said.
"Clearly groups like NOW are doing a great injustice to women by opposing these laws. It just shows you how extreme, and to what lengths, these groups will go to protect the right to abortion."
Fetal homicide laws have been opposed by some pro-choice organizations that fear they will undermine a woman's right to choose an abortion, even though the statues exempt legal abortions.
After watching news reports of Peterson's arrest, Stark expressed concern with the tone of the coverage.
"There's something about this that bothers me a little bit," Stark said. "Was it born, or was it unborn? If it was unborn, then I can't see charging (Peterson) with a double-murder."
Some pro-lifers 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.
Laci Peterson's due date was Feb. 10, and she already had picked out a name -- Connor -- for her unborn son. Stark said that added to the tragedy of the case, but shouldn't result in an additional murder charge.
"He was wanted and expected, and (Laci Peterson) had a name for him, but if he wasn't born, he wasn't born. It sets a kind of precedent," Stark said, adding that the issue was "just something I've been ruminating on."
There is no fetal homicide statute in New Jersey, considered one of the nation's most pro-choice states. Under California law, murder charges can result if the fetus is older than seven weeks.
To convict Peterson of murdering his unborn son, prosecutors would have to prove either that he intended to kill the fetus or knew that it would die as a result of Laci Peterson's death.
"The argument that (fetal homicide statutes) would interfere with abortion rights is ridiculous," Tasy said. "These groups are so radical that they would deny recourse to a family for the loss of a wanted child."
The second murder charge against Peterson is crucial because he otherwise would not be eligible for the death penalty. The double-murder charge qualifies as a "special circumstance" for which capital punishment may be sought.
Prosecutors have not said whether they will seek the death penalty against Peterson, who will be arraigned on Monday. He is being held in the Stanislaus County Jail.
Stark said that despite her opposition to the double-murder charge, she is not sympathetic to Scott Peterson. "I'd like to see them string him up," Stark said, "any way they can."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOW hags turn my stomach....
-
I believe in the eyes of CA law, if the fetus could have survived outside the womb at it's time of death, it is considered murder.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
"If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder," Morris County NOW President Mavra Stark said on Saturday.
Yeah I already consider late term abortions Murder.
-
I used to be "pro-choice" until my son was born. After being a father, I realized that there's no way anyone was going to convince me that my son was not my son, even when he was nothing but a few cells multiplying inside my wife.
I am now "pro-life", in that while I still support abortion in the cases of rape and when the mother's life is threatened, I consider a person to be a person from conception.
The people who really upset me are the people who use abortion as birth control. I guess the best label to slap on me is "pro-birth control".
-
Why cant the ******* pro choicer step back from the politics and shut the F#$% up!?
How low class is that?
Why the hell do they keep referring to a dead BABY as IT???
Who would use this as ammo against abortion? Jeez.....
****ing sick ****....
I still think people should have the right to choose to a point but later term **** is just that.... ****..
Abortion is such a stupid issue! I can believe it is always one of the big ones everyone has to know where a politician stands on..
I see abortion as the right to be an irresponsible *******. But hey if you want to be one by all means go flush potential life... You may burn in hell for it later but it SHOULD be your right.....
-
Originally posted by banana
there's no way anyone was going to convince me that my son was not my son,
That's the way I felt, until one grew up to look like the milk man and the other the mail man.
-
looks like they will be lucky if they pin one murder on him.
and on the abortion thing how about pro stay the hell out of my buisness and my wifes womb and ill stay out of yours.
-
Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.
--Ronald Reagan
-
Pro-choice here. The choice belongs to the mother, imho.
If anyone else makes this "choice" for her, it's fetal homicide and prosecution is warranted.
Groups like NOW and Pro-Lifers need to just back off and quit trying to torque every case to fit their particular agendas.
-
I'll advocate pro-choice if they'll add ages 13-19 yrs as legally abortable. ;)
-
Well, seeming this has now turned into a "choice" thread, i'll throw my 2 cents in. My wife is a carrier of duchenne MD. Only the male gets this form of MD, and there is a 95% chance if she conceives a boy it will have this disease. It is the worst form of MD. There now is a test for the disease just after the point of conception.
I am for choice.
-
I'm pro-choice, and last time I checked this idiot from NOW wasn't my leader.
Sandman summed it up nicely. Also, had Laci wanted an abortion at that point, she couldn't have gotten one...and if her baby was born pre-maturely at that point, it would have had no problems surviving outside of her womb.
SOB
"You can tell alot about a fellow's character by his way of eating jellybeans."
--Ronald Reagan
-
I would put it under a double homicide, she was 8 months pregnant, the child could have survived outside the womb. nuff said.
-
Crime rates have gone down since abortion was legalized in the U.S.
Do you really think that a kid can grow up to live a happy life and be a fine upstanding citizen if his mother was a crack-potato and his father a John?
-
I dunno...Gordo seems to be doing just fine.
SOB
-
david
if we abort inner city youth when they turned 15 crime rates would go down also.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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)
-
I'd agree with AKIron too if we could add mother-in-laws to those who could be retroactively aborted.
-
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
-
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.
-
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!!
-
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.
-
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.
-
Sounds like an Alice Cooper song.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by OIO
...just because some airhead wench or redneck dont want the responsability....
Who are you calling a redneck you hillbilly?? :mad:
-
them too. :D :p
-
Actually I think he called you a "Wench"!!!!!
-
I agree with MT.
Wench.
-
Probably a redneck's wench as well.......... :p
-
if it can survive outside the womb it should and will be considered a murder. I hate it when people give fodder to the anti abortion groups who could care less about abortions in case of rape or the mothers health. just like im sure they dont like it when pro choice people go on shooting sprees in a doctors office.
-
Eagler,
Those people are not the leaders of the oposition. You chose to see them that way because it behooves your position. They get more publicity because they are louder and more extreme than the general group and thus generate better ratings and newspaper/magazine sales.
You claiming that those people are my leaders is like me claiming the assasins who shoot doctors are your leaders simply because they get the lions share of the press.
It'd be stupid of either of us to think that way, however I consider those assasins to be anomalies and you consider these whacks to me my leaders. Why? The only reason I can see is that by maintaining the fiction that pro-choice people all believe these extreme things you demonize the entire group and once the entire group has been determined to be "evil" you no longer have to consider if their position has any validity.
My personal take is that when organized brain waves start the abortion option goes away, except in cases where the health or life of the woman are at risk. Organized brain waves begin around the 4th month IIRC.
-
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.
Exactly. I have a feeling the great majority of the nation feels this way, but we're inundated regularly with the views of the extremists. It's gotten past old.
-
Karnak
OIO - by your post, you are 14, trollin or a moron - or a combo of those three
-
I used to be pro-choice, but having watched my kids grow up, I've come to the realization that we have absolutely no right to not give a kid a chance. That "group of cells" you're talking about just might be the guy who's going to grow up and cure cancer. Who are we to say?
Only in the case of rape or danger to the mother should it be allowed.
Just my 2 cents.
-
neither eagler. I just have a different point of view than you do.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
My personal take is that when organized brain waves start the abortion option goes away, except in cases where the health or life of the woman are at risk.
So uh...you are saying that the average poster here could qualify as a legal abortion due to lack of brain activity?
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
I used to be pro-choice, but having watched my kids grow up, I've come to the realization that we have absolutely no right to not give a kid a chance. That "group of cells" you're talking about just might be the guy who's going to grow up and cure cancer. Who are we to say?
Only in the case of rape or danger to the mother should it be allowed.
Just my 2 cents.
Of course it could be the next Saddam, too.
-
next saddam. thats weak. try next hitler or stalin or mao. saddam is a carebear next to most of historys favorite dictators.
-
Anit-abortions laws just put all the responsibility of unwanted child births upon women and of course the one religion that is a staunch supporter of these laws doesn't even accept women as equals and seems to be more concerned with light collection plates and hiding peds than the actual healthcare of children.
Like an equal law saying all men over twenty not married must have a vasectomy would have a snowball chance in hell.
I thought we stopped clubbing women over the head and dragging them back to the cave years ago.
-
I'll be pro-choice when they make it legal for me to kill people who are preventing me from furthering my career.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'll advocate pro-choice if they'll add ages 13-19 yrs as legally abortable. ;)
Just think of it as a 60th trimester abortion....
-
Originally posted by Eagler
The second murder charge against Peterson is crucial because he otherwise would not be eligible for the death penalty. The double-murder charge qualifies as a "special circumstance" for which capital punishment may be sought.
So, the problem is to kill the man?
This quote is good to start a death penalty flamewar, too :)
-
Originally posted by OIO
neither eagler. I just have a different point of view than you do.
you don't have any kids I assume .. or maybe you still are one?
-
attitude and personal attacks just because I think differently?
I give you a 8/10 for effort. :)