NOW blocks double homicide charge in Laci Peterson case

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-04-21 08:08am

http://www.dailyrecord.com/news/03/04/20/news3-laci.htm

what do you think? personally i feel that there is a big diference between aborting a pregnancy and murdering a pregnant woman. NOW seems to be (as usual) totally clueless in regard to power of public opinion.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-04-21 10:39am

I guess these people are standing by their beliefs, as sick as they are.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-21 11:28am

I can understand why a group with a pro-choice stance would take that position. I don't agree with it at all but I can see why.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-04-21 01:37pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:http://www.dailyrecord.com/news/03/04/20/news3-laci.htm

what do you think? personally i feel that there is a big diference between aborting a pregnancy and murdering a pregnant woman. NOW seems to be (as usual) totally clueless in regard to power of public opinion.

I always thought it was odd when people were charged with murder if they contributed to the death of an unborn child in cases where the parents wanted the child but if the parents didn't want the same child they could have legally aborted it. The examples I am thinking of are usually very early in a pregnancy, sometimes without the mother even knowing she's pregnant.

Obviously this situation is different because the baby was very far along and probably could have survived outside the mother with no assistance. I guess what I am saying is that I agree with you. Whoever killed her should be charged with the baby's death as well.

NOW is just trying to go the stupid black & white legal route. They favor a woman's right to abortion so in trying to not appear hypocriticial they get to look clueless in this case.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-21 04:36pm

Legally, NOW is right. Scott Peterson should not be charged with two murders if abortion is legal up to the moment the baby's head crowns during delivery. If he's convicted of double murder, I can see the appeals going all the way to the top. If that conviction is then held up in the Supreme Court, abortion law will become hopelessly muddled because there will be a SCOTUS decision that calls an eight-month-old fetus a living human being (and, contrary to what some believe, NO decision guaranteeing Constitutional protection of abortion past the second trimester). From NOW's perspective, they can't allow Scott Peterson to be convicted of two murders, because it will hopelessly gut their long held position that abortion should be legal up to the moment of birth (it would leave them defending, "Well, killing an 8 month old fetus is alive if the mother wanted to carry the pregnancy to term, but not if she didn't want to keep the baby"). If I were them, I'd be doing the exact same thing they are, public opinon be damned. The potential legal consequences are enormous (though truthfully, I doubt he'll get convicted for the second murder, if the prosecution is even allowed to charge him for it).

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-21 04:39pm

That should be, "Well, an 8 month old fetus is alive if the mother wanted to carry the pregnancy to term, but not if she didn't want to keep the baby", not, "Well, killing an 8 month old fetus is alive if the mother wanted to carry the pregnancy to term, but not if she didn't want to keep the baby". God damn the pigfucking salad tosser who got the Edit button turned off in this forum by being a chickenshit who edits his posts to deny he said something.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-04-21 04:45pm

They would have to prove that Laci was consenting or planning an abortion. If she wanted her baby, but Scott killed it with her, then it would be fetal murder. Supposedly, by 8.5 months, he could have cut the baby out and let it live while killing her-- sick though that may be. No, he meant to kill both.

I think Scott Peterson is an evil, evil man.

(Yes, obviously I think he did it. It sure wasn't OJ. This time).

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-04-21 05:50pm

By 8 months, has brain activity started?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-21 06:00pm

HemlockGrey wrote:By 8 months, has brain activity started?

Yes. It doesn't just pop up in the last 4 weeks. However, legally, he cannot be charged for another murder if the law does not consider the fetus a human life until it exits the womb.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-04-21 06:29pm

However, legally, he cannot be charged for another murder if the law does not consider the fetus a human life until it exits the womb.

Hmm. That's a poor law.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-21 06:31pm

Coyote wrote:They would have to prove that Laci was consenting or planning an abortion. If she wanted her baby, but Scott killed it with her, then it would be fetal murder. Supposedly, by 8.5 months, he could have cut the baby out and let it live while killing her-- sick though that may be. No, he meant to kill both.

I think Scott Peterson is an evil, evil man.

(Yes, obviously I think he did it. It sure wasn't OJ. This time).

It doesn't matter what he meant to do because under abortion law, the fetus is NOT alive until it is born. That's why NOW is shitting itself over this case--it Scott Peterson is charged with double homicide, there will be an unambiguous legal statement that Connor Peterson (the unborn child) was alive at the time of the murder despite being unborn. NOW policy has always been to resist any and all restrictions on abortion at any point in the pregnancy to prevent pro-lifers from getting a legal toehold from which they can eventually roll back abortion rights completely (a giant slippery slope fallacy, I know, but I'm just describing their policy, not endorsing it). If an unborn eight month old fetus is declared legally alive, then that strategy is in trouble because it's going to be hard to, at the very least, to find a good argument to keep abortions at or after the eighth month legal except in dire circumstances.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-21 11:23pm

I thought that abortion law stated the fetus is not alive until it could be born and survive outside the womb, not until it is actually born.

In any case, if the fetus is eight months, then it's murder, ethically speaking. There is very heavy brain activity at that point, and a fully developed body. The infant could be born and survive on its own, probably without any special intervention apart from a controlled warm environment. This is no mindless first-trimester embryo; it is a baby.

NOW has promoted a ruthlessly extreme position on abortion that has led to this perverse travesty, in which they will find themselves fighting to reduce the charges against a wife-killer.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-21 11:28pm

Darth Wong wrote:I thought that abortion law stated the fetus is not alive until it could be born and survive outside the womb, not until it is actually born.

A law was recently passed which made harming/killing a fetus the same as harming/killing a born person. There was of course a specific exemption in it for abortions.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-21 11:41pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I thought that abortion law stated the fetus is not alive until it could be born and survive outside the womb, not until it is actually born.
A law was recently passed which made harming/killing a fetus the same as harming/killing a born person. There was of course a specific exemption in it for abortions.

That law is on horribly thin legal and ethical ground. Either you're charging a man for murder when all he killed was a lump of cells with no rights or you're allowing the killing of a human being with a legal right to live for the convenience of the mother (since I think I would have heard if a state outlawed third trimester abortions except in cases of rape or danger to the mother). That law reaches the Supreme Court, it gets tossed out 9-0 no matter what ideaology is in the majority, IMHO.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-21 11:45pm

Why can't they just nail it down and define human life scientifically according to development, viability, and brain development/activity, and set that down as law?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-21 11:54pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Why can't they just nail it down and define human life scientifically according to development, viability, and brain development/activity, and set that down as law?

Because feminists would scream that any attempt to restrict abortion rights so much as a minute before birth would be the first step in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy's plan to outlaw aborton, then force women to stay in the home, and finally take away their right to vote. And the religious right has devoted the bulk of its resources to an all-or-nothing campaign to outlaw abortion completely except in cases where the mother's life is in danger and would view a settlement like that as a pact with the devil (coincidentally, this position and the typical "Stop Abortion Now!" bombast that comes with it helps fuel feminist rhetoric about the vast pahllic conspiracy to turn women into virtual slaves).

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-04-22 02:40am

Darth Wong wrote:NOW has promoted a ruthlessly extreme position on abortion that has led to this perverse travesty, in which they will find themselves fighting to reduce the charges against a wife-killer.

Being a person who hates to see (first-half) abortion criminalized, I wish the group would see what they're doing to their position politically.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-04-22 07:06am

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:NOW has promoted a ruthlessly extreme position on abortion that has led to this perverse travesty, in which they will find themselves fighting to reduce the charges against a wife-killer.
Being a person who hates to see (first-half) abortion criminalized, I wish the group would see what they're doing to their position politically.

that is the fatal flaw of the ideolouge. their quest to see their ideals carried out beyond all logic is what wil always betray them.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

NOW blocks double homicide charge in Laci Peterson case

NOW blocks double homicide charge in Laci Peterson case

Re: NOW blocks double homicide charge in Laci Peterson case