Second degree murder for a fetus?

Raise your hand if you think the wingnuts will use this to bolster their argument when they try to overturn Roe v. Wade?

but I would not be surprised if indeed, women will be subjected to arrest of some sort for having an abortion with this crew in the White HOuse and in the congress.

I would not be shocked much

outside the womb. Barring some unforeseen health complication or, as actually happened, murder of his mother, this boy who had already been named Connor should be a happy toddler today, not a pitiful little corpse.

Before women would be arrested for having an abortion, laws would have to be passed to make abortion illegal. As others have said, the GOP likes using abortion as a wedge issue too much to give it up by outlawing it. I think they will try to restrict abortion more than is currently done but stop short of outlawing it.

I just wish the Dems would wise up and do what Dennis Kucinich has suggested, which is to really campaign for a culture of life in which pregnant women would not have to worry if they could get prenatal care or would be able to afford raising the child they are carrying, because government supports would be available to all who need them, and in which men and women would be well educated about sex, reproduction, and contraception, and have access to contraceptives.

Education is key. I just read an article yesterday about how woefully ignorant many women over 50 are about AIDS. These are women who paid little attention to AIDS news because they were married and having children. Now, as they age, many are widowed or divorced and haven't a clue that they're at risk for AIDS when they become sexually involved with men. That's pitiful. Equally pitiful is the ignorance about contraception among young, single people. I think we were more knowledgeable in the sixties, though we had less access. Since the seventies, condoms and spermicides have been openly displayed in drugstores -- no more having to ask the druggist for such things -- but look at the pregnancy rates! It's as if people are determining to remain ignorant.

that is the problem,Dem Bones.

It is the doctrine of "potential" that pro-lifers insist upon embracing that can be the most slippery slope of them all.

You cannot argue "potentiality" without falling down that slope.

Facts are facts.

until it is born. But that is semantics and they are used to provoke emotional responses.

It was potential born baby. If you give born status to an unborn, then there are all sorts of sticky wickets in that assumption and something needs to be defined a little more concretely.

See--you think it was a born baby. You defend it's rights to be born and to be under the same laws as a born baby.

Well, then take that back to the actual moment of conception.

Does not that fertilized egg, called a zygote, which BTW NO ONE calls a baby and you should question why not, also have the same right because after all it is also a potential baby, is it not? and take that back further,to abortion--would not the abortion at that stage of the game be equally as egregious as anyone causing harm to an eight month fetus?

Can you give me an answer that would be consistent here? Because under that logic, all those fertilized eggs in cryovac tubes in fertility clinics are "babies"

baby to a zygote seems pretty silly. The individual in question had a human body, including human blood. Most fetus have a blood type that is different from his/her mother. I think that most individuals agree that human beings are the only life form with human bodies and human blood and a unique human DNA code.

I am pro-choice, but I have to admit that 8 mos is probably viable, except for emergency cases of course.

exercise it's own system.

so is that the criteria for establishing that the unborn fetus is to be considered as having the same rights, the right to be born, as a multi celled embryo that also recieves it's "life blood" or it's nourishment from the mother?

My concern here is that this issue will be taken right down to the fertilized egg by those who would prosecute women who have an abortion in the early stages given that those who are pro-life believe that there is life at conception.

is. Your stance on this issue is weak, and more likely to offend people in its cold approach to human life. Besides those taking the most extreme position, no one will agree with you. If you are sincerely concerned with the serious issues involving abortion rights, you should focus on them. To compare this case, where a cold-blooded sociopath murders a pregnant woman because he finds her and his unborn child to be inconvenient, to the general topic of abortion is a very, very poor choice.

and I have spent my entire life caring for other people who are sick, debilitated, and suffering far more than many.

I am trying to warn of the potential danger here for women under the conservative, pro-life agenda.

I am not here to join a happy club of those who would support me for the sake of anyone's approval.

My stance is as strong as any pro-choice person re the potential of this decision and how it can affect abortion rights. It is not about the sociopathic killer as much as it is about the decision re the murder of a fetus with few parameters involved--the guy will be punished for the murder of his wife--whatever the punishment. It could even be the death penalty and now would that not be ironic for the pro-lifers?

Further, should an eight month old fetus die , can a woman now be investigated for negligence--she did not follow her diet, ate too many fig newtons, she was too fat, she smoked cigarettes, she missed a couple of appointments, did not take her vitamins and on and on.

I'm not sure what if any connection your spendin your "entire life" caring for people you view as "suffering far more than many" has to do with the discussion. It has: {a} absolutely nothing to do with the Peterson case; and {b} nothing to do with the abortion question, at least on face value. But if you do, that's good, and I commend you for your work. But it gives you no special insight on this case.

Your stance is actually not as strong as any pro-choice person's .... not even close. There are many pro-choice people who are able to connect with other people, and to use examples of real life situations that the majority of people can identify with, and that the connection from that identification helps them make a firm stance in decisions about reproductive rights.

The right wing republicans would love to equate abortion with Scott Peterson. Luckily for them, there are a few people who at least appear to be on the democratic left, who are proud to carry the banner for Scott Peterson. I'm sure the religious zealots would pay to promote that which you are saying here.

The Baby was this old My daughter was born in this group she was very healthy this baby was a child.

I agree with Freedom of Choice but there are extremes on both sides.

If a woman is Pregnant and wanted to baby prepared for the baby and loved the baby and was this far along I would say 5 to 9 months and she is murdered her family grieves not just for her but for the child she carried its Murder. Muder of the Mother and Murder of the Child.

This was not about Lacy making a choice this was about someone making that choice for her and its Murder. And wrong just like its wrong for some man to sit in some office and tell a woman what to do with her body.

my point is that this argument cannot be applied because it leads back to the very moment of conception. If this is applied, there needs to be some very specific parameters to avoid the persecution of women who have abortions being accused of murder.

What must those parameters be? Surely, you cannot believe that a four celled blob is a baby already. And if you do, then you must consider that all women who have abortions are murderesses.

If you do not, then how do you explain the difference.

If the Baby is alive and able to live outside the mothers body its Murder.

If in her early Pregnancy a woman decides for whatever reason she can not bare a child its not.

If in a late term a woman finds out she is in danger or the baby is a. Already dead. b. might as well already be dead. She has a right to terminate the pregnancy because her life is at risk or the baby is already dead or soon to be.

We can never allow Abortion to be outlawed, to much bad stuff happens to woman rape incest. for that to happen again.

But we must find a happy medium in allowing people to be prosecuted for the Murder of a wanted and loved child and its mother.

Pro Lifers do not think they are ruled by and Ideoligy not by science or a thought process.

For myself I wouldnt do it but would I tell one of my children who were rapped they could not, NO.


I truly do not believe some man who does not have to have the baby can tell a women what to do with her body, for me its no about being for abortion its truly about being for Free Choice.

I'm watching Court TV right now and can see the future.

Soon abortion doctors and women who have abortions will be psychopaths incapable of rehabilitation. They will be convicted of 1st degree murder.

The talking heads will hold up newspaper headlines: GUILTY!

Well, maybe the first few times, then they will be boring, run of the mill killers and those cases will rarely make the news.

However, many women love their embryo just as much as they love their eight month old fetus. Some do not and are they murderers?

Even if there is rape or incest and the pregnancy is beyond the period of fetal viability, should abortion be a choice then? Should it be considered OK then? If so, why?

It is a "child" and a "baby" the same as any unborn fetus according to the pro-lifers. Even if she does not love it.

Would that woman be considered a murderess if she simply goes mad with the thought and has an abortion?

See even those of us who agree have a hard time defining right and wrong in this, this is why its a wedge issue and republicans use it.

I can not tell you how others feel about this and I can not tell others how to feel about this.

The biggest point in this seems to be, like Gay Rights, it is not for us to decide right and wrong.

And We do not try. Republicans want to legislate us to Death they want to control every portion of our exsistance. I used to hear them say they are the party of smaller government and less intrusion? Oh Yeah Were?? Cause thats not what we see with out eyes day after day.

Women have the right do do what they want to their own bodies....right? It is their choice. Lacy did not have that choice, someone else made the choice for her. So to me it wouldn't matter if she was only 3 months pregnant. If she was going to have the baby and someone caused her to lose it then they should pay the price for it.

SHADOWGOV.COM is at http://www.shadowgov.com/. It is sponsored by the Official Bob Enyart Live Web Site. Bob Enyart hosts a syndicated nightly TV talk show that is broadcast or carried by cable TV into 80 U.S. cities. It is also broadcast via short wave and on the Internet at http://www.enyart.com . Enyart was a state coordinator for Operation Rescue Colorado. He has been called "Denver's answer to Rush Limbaugh."

SHADOWGOV.COM is a fictional essay which describes the takeover of the existing American government by a shadow government of the Christian religious right. The United States becomes a theocratic dictatorship overnight. In their first two days in office, the new government issues two proclamations, implementing a number of basic changes in the country:

- All inmates currently on death row were to be publicly executed on the second day of the new government.

- "The penalty for murder is death, as is the penalty for attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, advocacy of murder and all other capital crimes," such as homosexual behavior.

- Individuals convicted of performing an abortion would be executed. Painless executions would be abolished. The victim's families would have the right to kill the convicted murder, by stabbing, shooting, strangulation, etc.

- Persons convicted of advocating access to abortion would be executed.

- Feminists Pat Schroeder and Gloria Alred were arrested and tried for the new crime of advocating access to legal abortions.

- Jury trials were suspended; all trials are by judge. The accused are tried almost immediately without having any time to prepare their case or hire a lawyer. The rationale is that the community has a right to a speedy trial. The penalty for being in contempt of court is flogging.

- Homosexual establishments (e.g. bars, publishing facilities, support groups, etc.) are closed and padlocked

- "Anyone performing homosexual behavior, upon conviction, will be executed."

- The media debates whether the death penalty requires gay or lesbian sexual activity, or whether it would include the mere state of having a homosexual orientation.

Only two out of the first five days of the new administration are available online. The full manuscript of The First Five Days are available for $24.95. The Webmaster writes: "Your order supports the spread of these godly ideas!"

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hate2.htm

Presuming that Connor wouldn't have lived if Laci hadn't been murdered.

Presuming that women will be arrested for abortion with the people now in power.

It is ridiculous to be so "pro-choice" that you can't admit that a woman and child, a healthy woman and her viable child, were murdered in this case.

That's what Connor's Law is all about.

Ladies and gentlemen, the camel has entered the tent.

They should have just broken out the lynch mob and save the taxpayers money. I cannot beleive they convicted this guy of first degree murder.

The age of trial by media.

both families but the scene outside that courthouse...People were actually yelling nasty things at his mother who is on oxygen.

with OJ - you're 10 years late to the party

Was the trial televised? I honestly don't know...but unless you were in the courtroom and saw the evidence that the jury saw, you should be able to believe it...

theProdigal

You don't need facts to prove somebody not guilty, you need facts to prove somebody guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No I wasn't on the jury, but having an affair, buying a boat, fishing on Christmas Eve, and a piece of hair on a wrench isn't exactly first degree murder evidence in my book.

but all I am suggesting is that you were not there to see all the evidence that was presented...you don't know what facts were presented that could have lead to this conclusion. All of the evidence that you mention ALONE would certainly not be...but what else was given.

I have served on two juries and BOTH of them were filled with people who really took the job seriously and did a good job...I suppose that the people on this jury were much the same calibre...

theProdigal

We've probably heard most of the evidence that the jury did. But, you are right. It is up to the jury to convict. The rest of us are just speculating. Which is perfectly okay to do. I suspect he is guilty. But, if the jury saw everything I did, and nothing more, then the guilty verdict was probably not correct. In fact, this jury got to see more than most juries get to about their case, because of the public speculation before the trial even began, and they were sequestered.

I think it is fine to speculate if a jury handed down the correct verdict or not. It doesn't affect the outcome of the case.

To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime they've been charged with.

And based on the prosecution's evidence, it seems like the jury convicted Scott Peterson based on personal dislike coupled with some machinations by the trial judge.

but having an affair, buying a boat, fishing on Christmas Eve, and a piece of hair on a wrench isn't exactly first degree murder evidence in my book.

True the whole case was circumstantial evidence, but what overrides CE? A good alibi, but in SP's case, his alibi put him on the very waters that the bodies were found in. Had he went fishing up in the mountains or somewhere else, or if the bodies were still missing, you might have "reasonable doubt." I understand that standing where each body washed up on shore, you can see the island SP said he was fishing by. Plus I don't remember anyone saying he did a lot of fishing and I believe he had just bought the boat a few weeks b/4 she disappeared. I think the verdict was right.

Also, since no weapon or evidence of struggle was found, I wonder if she wasn't drugged and that she was still alive when he threw her into the water.

sufficient knowledge of the case presented...it is waste of good bandwidth unless you know the facts that were presented...

theProdigal

The burden of proof was not met, IMO.

Sorry!

and could have been born and lived.

Connor was 8 months and everything indicates he would have been a healthy infant. I think 2nd degree was the right verdict in this case. He was "collateral damage" so to speak.

I have no doubt in my mind that scumbag is guilty. Here in the Bay Area, we are getting much more coverage than you are nationally, and have since day one, so it was easier for someone like me who was interested to watch the whole mess unfold.

My thoughts and prayers to both the Rochas and Petersons. No one wins on a day like this. The Rochas may feel a bit of vindication, but they still don't have Laci or Connor.

Even Roe v. Wade is pretty clear on that one.

These states have fetal homicide laws where fetuses are victims at any stage of development:


AZ
ID
IL
LA
MI
MN
MO
ND
NE
ND
OH
PA
SD
UT
WI


These states have fetal homicide laws where fetuses are victims at only specific stages in development:

AR
CA
FL
GA
MA
MS
NV
OK
RI
SC
TN
WA


The following states criminalize certain conduct that terminates pregnancies or causes miscarriages:

IA
IN
KS
NC
NH
NM
VA

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/parentingfamily/a/aafetalhomicide.htm

Frankly, I am all for abortion but I fail to understand why anyone would want a murder of a mother and unborn baby to go unpunished because they believe in abortion.

Connor could have lived outside the womb if Laci had gone into labor that day. The murderer killed both of them.

I think there's a big difference between an 8 month gestated fetus and a six-week gestated.

I should know, my son was born early.

can we get off this "shock" that Peterson was convicted in the death of the baby? It wasn't a little seed. It was a BABY. It could have been born that very day and been perfectly fine.

NOT THE SAME AS TERMINATING THE PREGNANCY IN THE FIRST TRIMESTER.

and there is an "instant" verdict when the deliberations by law were supposed to 'start again'.

Of course, there will be an appeal and hopefully they can get the venue changed from that area. I don't believe with this outcome he has gotten a fair trial.

It was 6 hours. More time than the OJ jury gave if I remember correctly.

MzPip
:dem:

And while I agree with you that the person who took the lives of Laci Peterson and her unborn child should be punished, it does open a door if a fetus is assigned the same "personhood" and rights as a born person. That's what paves the way to overturning Roe v. Wade.

for the fetus.

http://post.news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138445&tid=aplacipeterson&sid=37138445&mid=90941&n=1

Will the fundies use it to o/t Roe, maybe, but the biggest support it would provide is for late term abortion. Remember, this baby was due any day and therefore would have been viable on it's own.

Realize, there was already a law passed to eliminate late term abortions, and it was only overturned because there was no exemption for the life of the Mother.

yes this is a baby human you're talking about

That any first year law student can tell you is:

The unlawful killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought.

This trial sets precedent of an unborn being a person under the law.

One of the majority's key points in Roe v. Wade was that there was nothing in the common law supporting the idea that the unborn were regarded as persons under the law.

but i get your point... it does need to be clarified

Is based on common sense interpretations of the constitution and statutes and how they apply to given situations.

if the common law says a baby human is not a baby human then the common law is not based on common sense

1. The baby was in its 8th month of gestation. That's long enough to make it viable outside the womb;

2. Laci wanted the baby, was financially able to care for the child, did not have health issues and was mentally stable (though, perhaps, not enough to have married that scum of husband she had).

it should have been Laci's "Right to Choose", not Scott's.
She obviously had made the chose to carry the child and give it life.


If he is guilty, he has taken 2 lives due to Laci's Right to Choose.

If a woman aborts her pregnancy, it was just a fetus, no harm no foul.

If a man causes the death of a woman's fetus against her will, the fetus suddenly acquires human status.

are you saying that it should be legal for a man to go around killing women's fetuses because they arent human? :eyes:

... didn't want a baby, or didn't have the money, or had health issues or was mentally unstable... then it wouldn't be murder?

Nancy Grace and Gloria Allred got what they wanted.

Evidently feminists think there is a point when a fetus becomes a baby after all.

...knowingly and intentionally killing a woman who is pregnant because she's pregnant, I'm not so sure I object. I'd have to think about it some more.

The fact is, lots of men kill women because they're carrying babies that are their's or somebody else's, and making that a separate offense has some logic to it.

What would be stupid is giving someone extra years for that separate offense when it had nothing to do with the murder of the mother. What behaviour can you possibly be modifying or punishing by convicting people of the crime of killing a fetus when the murderer was not influenced in the slightest by the existense of the fetus?

If Peterson murdered his wife because she was pregnant, than it makes sense to punish him for the murder, just as any other murderer would be convicted, and then giving him some more time for that separate offense.

a person who fires a shot to kill Person A and the bullet kills Person A and Person B who was standing behind Person A should only get convicted for one murder? The murder of Person B had nothing to do with the murder of Person A.

Killing the person intentionally (person A) would be a higher degree of murder and you'd get more years for it.

Killing person (B) recklessly or accidentally would be a lower degree of murder and you'd get fewer years for that person, if you got any years at all.

Some states, I beleive, have transferred intent rules. If you intended to kill A but hit B too, they'll transfer the intent for A to B and you'd be convicted of 1st Degree murder for both. However, there are plenty of cases where people pull a trigger without the intent to kill anyone, but do so, and are not convicted of anything.

and he killed Lacy, then he is guilty of two murders. Period.

of killing a pregnant woman because she was pregnant.

What's CA's law? Survivability outside the fetus? Or is there a separate law for killing pregnant women because they're pregnant?

in this specific case.

Roe v. Wade is decided on the basis of a pregnant woman's privacy and freedom of choice to continue a pregnancy.

Fetal rights aren't part of the equation.

Someone who murders a pregnant woman may actually be in violation of Roe, insofar as he would be interfering with her ability to choose to carry to term.

When SCOTUS makes a decision, it's nearly always based on some sort of legal precedent.

One of the reasons the majority gives for not giving consideration to fetal rights is because there was no precedent for it. Nothing in the history of the common law that regarded the unborn as persons under the law, or anything more than a life in potential and the anti-abortion side conceded as much.

By convicting a man of muder for the death of an unborn, the unborn have been given personhood under the law.

The majority decision indicates that the 14th ammendment does imply a right to privacy; for a pregnant woman this gradually erodes as time goes on. Roe v. Wade leaves it entirely up to the states to make law concerning 3rd-trimester terminations of pregnancy.

For those who wish to read the case in full, here is a source link:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113

Notice that the section in Blackmun's majority opinion on common-law precedent makes note of some similar laws, in particular the difference in "quickening" pregnancies. This forms a basis for the final distinctions wherein states are permitted to statutorally restrict late-term abortion.

We are moving into the realm where the state has a legal interest, with precedence, in the protection of the unborn. Fetal rights. It's only a matter of time.

Damn, I'm getting sick of people being up in arms! This is 100% consistent with the letter of the decision in Roe vs. Wade! IF ANYBODY EVER BOTHERED TO READ THE FUCKING DECISION YOU WOULD KNOW THIS!!!!!!!!

This law has been on the books for sometime now...I think 1978 maybe?

an eight month baby is not a fetus.

It's a baby.

I know people who were born at 7 months. On the wall in the hospital where my son was born were pictures of kids who were born WAY before 7 months and nurtured into fully healthy babies.

It was a baby, not a "fetus"

it becomes a "baby" and a "child" AFTER it is born. If it were declared a "baby" why that would lead to all sorts of legal ramifications. Why not take a tax break for the "child" and count it as one would count a born child for instance.

Fetus is the medical despcription and should be used in all legal tracts.

They got away with the "partial birth abortion" meme already, why seek to render some more false language into the equation. Or perhaps because it is more emotionally appealing to pro-life people--It is another misuse of the language.

but that's just my opinion.

I think once it can live outside the womb, it's a "baby" or "infant".

it is a fetus until it is born. It is a potential "baby" To a mother , it can be her "baby" and women often refer to it as such, however, please note, I said for legal purposes--it is a fetus, the proper name for it.

I'm not sure how it's a misuse of language to use a word as it is correctly defined. Until the fetus is born, it's a fetus. That is a legal and medical term. I didn't refer to my own children as fetuses while they were in the womb (most women don't), but the fact remains that until they were born, they certainly were fetuses.

No, I asked how it's a misuse of language to refer to an unborn child as a fetus. An unborn child IS a fetus, ergo, it is not a misuse of language to refer to it as such.

since the fetus is already a child, suppose IT killed it's mother while not yet born and it was proven to be the toxic element? Would it be considered a criminal?


Absurd? sure, but certainly if born status is given to one not born and they do harm to another, they should in some way be responsible should they not?

See how ridiculous it is to name a fetus a child on the same level as a born human being.

But, I don't use it because it sounds so "detached", too clinical.

I guess the baby was very near full term so technically could have been taken out of womb and lived a normal life.

but still, we've got to realize they will choose every opportunity for their agenda.

BTW. I need to know whaty you guys think about 3rd term abortions?

I think that abortion should be legal up until the middle of the second trimester. I'm not sure, but could having an abortion later than that be more riskier? If it's riskier, abortions should only be allowed in the end of the 2nd or 3rd trimester for emergency reasons, like the health of the mother is threatened or something.

I really don't have a problem with it.

The child would most likely have lived, had it been born instead of murdered along with its mother.

during birth, should we lock the baby up for life for matricide? Seems logical according to their logic.

accidental.....no intent to harm.

the murder of a pregnant woman is equivalent to the death of a woman in childbirth.
Murder requires an intent to kill. Babies don't form an intent to kill their mothers during the birth process -- usually they are teenagers before they want to do that!

:evilgrin:

Rarely are such young criminals imprisoned for life for what would technically be manslaughter. Furthermore, if the mother's death occurs during birth, the baby could conceivably make an argument for self-defense...

Failing to see the larger implications of this trial because of their dislike for Scott Peterson and happiness over the verdict.

as much anger as we may have for the loss of a preg woman, trusting living with husband, sometime, i would suggest always we need to go beyond the emotion of it. i am disgusted this pig owuld murder his preg wife, yup. but if we are going to say life doesnt begin til outside the body, we have to do the same with murder. otherwise we have a court that clearly has it on record that life begins within mom, see, this man was charged with murder of this fetus. the courts prove that they recognize life begins as fetus. that is a strong case to over turn roe vs wade

if you remember when this was first suggest, 2 counts of murder, was when a lot of turning roe vs wade was around, and the repugs were all for calling this 2 counts of murder. this should be a clue in

The wingnuts now have a precedent for getting 3rd trimester abortions banned altogether, regardless of threats to the life or health of the mother.

or a 3 week fetus

I'm just saying - she was a little small. That is all. Fully developed and no problems now.

I dont think this case had to do with Abortion - It was murder.

1) The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.

2) In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.


Until your daughter was born, she was a fetus.

doesnt abort the baby in a day or so, she will die.

is that murder

i would think a person could get a c section, i dont know the option, the drama in sucha decision. i dont know where i would be in choice and decision.

i do know though, in the court of law, charging peterson with murder of a fetus opened doors to roe vs wade

No need to abort it.

the woman that is in cancer and needing treatment and if she goes thru a csection, that alone could kill her. end her life. the reason i say this, i recently read a case where they made a woman have csection and ended her life that day. dont know how long she would have lived, but did she lose her right to make choice on her life when the court ordered an early csection. the baby died btw

where do we step in as god. i simply dont have the answer. why i totally leave to the woman, her god, and her doctor

I've never heard of something like that but if it does happen, (I dont see the difference between giving birth to an 8 month old dead and giving birth live - delivery is delivery - but I'm no doctor) I would not consider it murder.

Laci wanted the baby.

yes she wanted the baby. this is emotion talking. emotion doesnt get to be a part of rule of law

the woman that is preg and a man hits the tummy specifically to harm the baby. the baby dies. still has to be simple assault to the mom.

For evidence, I give you the Laci Peterson Case.

And that aint even the first case like that.

California aint going to overturn abortion in our live times IMO.

that means they can call it life.

but if the mom doesnt want the baby, then we dont call it life

is this the reasoning of law you are talking. a bit confused. is this the deciding factor on if it is taking a life or not

....all that really matters is if there are enough activists judges appointed by Chimpy when the case comes before the SCOTUS to make it official........

Scott Peterson was guilty. There wasn't any physical evidence connecting him. I don't believe he was terribly innocent either...but I sure hate to see people wrongly convicted. It happens way too often. People were way too emotional about this case. I have no idea if he did it or not and neither do they. Just because he was an adulterous husband

People are so quick to blame the husband (just because OJ got away with it), or the parents. Remember Jon Benet Ramsey? Her poor parents.

and for reasons statistically.

but i agree, i dont know. feels like he did, acts like he did, but for me, that is emotional reasons to put someone away, not evidence

i am not convinced ramseys are innocent. but another one, i dont know

oj i think there was plenty of evidence.

:mad:

He killed two people for sure. He was guilty. Everyone I know knows he was guilty. He had a fair trial and he is guilty.

I think we should be more worried about the Supreme Court. That is where Bush will put people to turn over that law.

That an unborn, 8 month old fetus was a person under the law.

And you don't think the righties are going to use that?

May I borrow your rose colored lenses?

...at least to the extent that it coincides with the interest of the mother.

"XI.1.(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

"XI.1.(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

This passage talks about a 3rd trimester fetus as life in potential.

The verdict in this case declared a 3rd trimester fetus to be more than life in potential. It deemed it a person, with the same legal standing as a life in being.

"X. With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the 'compelling' point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

nor did the court make any ruling concerning the ability of, e.g., ad litem suits on behalf of the unborn. Scoot Peterson's conviction of 2nd degree murder is made on behalf of the viable potential life form, in accordance with existing state laws against fetal murder.

(please note this information is provided for informational purposes only, not as propaganda)

excerpt from http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_uvva.htm

As of mid-2003, 28 states have fetal-homicide laws in place which recognize embryos or fetuses as child victims. 11 Some of these are "fetal homicide" laws which allow prosecutors to seek a double murder charge when a pregnant woman is killed within their state.

The original event which led to the writing of this bill was the killing of Tracy Marciniak's unborn fetus, and her unsuccessful quest for justice in Wisconsin. She was allegedly assaulted by her estranged husband, Glenndale Black, on 1992-FEB-8. He is reported as having hit her twice on the abdomen. She was four or five days away from full term pregnancy. Her husband initially refused to call 911 or to allow her to call. The fetus was a boy who they planned to name Zachariah. He died and she was not expected to live. But she survived only to find that, in her state of Wisconsin, a fetus is not considered a human person until it is born. The husband was charged with first degree reckless injury and false imprisonment. But he was not charged with homicide for causing the death of the fetus. Tracy spearheaded a movement which changed the Wisconsin legal code in 1998. 10 However, there is a gap in the state legislation. It does not apply to crimes committed on federal property.

Tracy Marciniak and others promoted a federal Unborn Victims of Violence law to close this loophole. In 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, the House passed these bills, but the Senate killed them. In 2003-JAN-13, Mike DeWine (R-OH) introduced Bill S. 146 in the U.S. Senate to "protect unborn victims of violence." 1 On 2003-APR-25, President George W. Bush urged passage of the bill. It "would recognize a fetus as an independent being if killed or injured during the commission of a federal crime." 2

If I were pregnant and some asshole killed my baby, I'd want him tried for murder. Plain and fucking simple. A murderer does not have the right to choose.

with Connor being able to survive if born, only that his
murder was not premeditated.

It is easy to armchair quarterback the decision, but we
were not in the courtroom. It would have had to have been
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Peterson planned to
kill his son too. I am not saying this is not what he did,
but that the prosecution could not prove it.


I was on a jury for a murder trial a few years ago. Unless
you are there for the testimony, medical reports, pictures,
etc., you just can't know what you would have done. It was
one of the most gut wrenching experiences I have ever been
through. I sure wouldn't want to do it again.

There is a big difference between an abortion and the killing of a viable in-utero child that the mother wanted to keep and intended to bear.

Laci would have given birth to Connor. AND Connor was old enough to be viable outside the womb. Scott Peterson killed a fetus, that by all accounts, would have shortly have been a child.

This is not a R v W issue. The only reason the pundits are surprised that it was second degree is because they felt that Peterson had intended to kill Connor and knew that Connor would die by killing Laci.

Whether or not the mother wanted to keep it?

That seems more than a little arbitrary.

If by some freak happenstance, Laci was attacked and they were able to get to her in time to save Connor, he was old enough to live.

Scott P. killed him.

That is murder.

....are you no longer going to accept "It's my body" as an argument?

I dont understand how even pro-choice people can say that it wasnt murder?

The mother obviously didnt consent to the death of her child. IMO that is the difference.

Anyone who says that this isnt muder doesnt have thier head screwed on right.

That's a baby, plain and simple. If a doctor was standing there, Lacy died, and the baby was delivered.... the baby would live to lead a long life. That's not a fetus, that's a baby.

that the reason it was considered murder is cause it was such a late term fetus and therefore the possiblity of life outside the mother.

did the age of the fetus come under question with the charge. cause if not, then the age of fetus really has nothing to do with the precident set

....this is an issue of a man inflicting his will on a woman's body, and in doing so, killing the child she wanted to bear.

A fetus? Using that term for an 8 and a half month old about to be born BABY turns the stomach of most human beings. As well it should. Just keep up with the all or nothing rhetoric and you will get nothing.

.......Laci Peterson was not given a choice.......

1) The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.

2) In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.


Way to swallow the rhetoric of the anti-choice crowd hook, line, and sinker though.

I guess you better get in touch with all the publishers of english language and medical dictionaries and inform them that their definition of fetus turns the stomach of most human beings.


:eyes:

Am I wrong? Why use the term "fetus" if you are not a publisher of an english language/medical dictionary? Don't you consider the life that was taken to be that of an unborn baby? I have never heard anyone ask a woman in her 8th month about the condition of her "fetus."

I'll say it again, it's this sort of clinical all or nothing attitude that will leave you with nothing.

I'll use the clinical definition of fetus.

You can stick to the right wing political definition if that's what suits you.

I prefer being factually correct to politically correct.

If Peterson wasn't pregnant, this wouldn't be such a big deal. Really. It's all about whether or not a fetus is a person, and now it is.

Show your support for the president, wear a FUCK BUSH button!

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
(We usually ship same or next business day by first class mail)

criminally negligent homicide?

Show your support for the president, wear a FUCK BUSH button!

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
(We usually ship same or next business day by first class mail)

Here it is:

PENAL CODE
SECTION 187-199

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law....

See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=pen&codebody=&hits=20 for the Table of Contents for the California Penal Code.

lol lol. thanks

It's one thing to terminate a pregnancy through one's own consciencous (sp) deliberation. It's another to have someone else make that choice for you. Think about that when your thinking about a WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. It's not a murderer's right to choose.

he is considered a person for criminal liability. The concept is from the common law (been around a long time), and the term is "quickening" when the child can live.

I also agree that it's a huge difference between the woman's choice re: the fetus/baby (no matter where you stand on the definition of fetus) and unsolicited outside party choosing.....that is w/o a doubt criminal!

In pregnancy, quickening is the point at which the mother can feel the fetus moving. That happens for most women long before viability.

and two of the girls in the company I worked for had cops as husbands and they wouldn't give out details but from the beginning I had inside knowledge that we thought he did it. I got a massage a few weeks after it happened by the girl who told me she gave a free one to Scott to be nice two days after, said he wasn't tensed up like she thought he should be and he was laughing and drinking beer. Two days after! When I heard that almost two years ago I thought he did it.

But I feel he should go to jail without possiblity of parole. I think he should live with what he did for all his life.

I think he should live with what he did for all his life.

That works only for people who are capable of feeling remorse or guilt. I suspect Scott Peterson is not.