There IS a reason the Scott Peterson trial is very important

This is all about the death penalty and Murder of the unborn.

It would behoov Bush to deliver the Evangelical a human sacrifice at the hands of the state here. They want some blood. They could get a charge out of an expedient execution. Maybe roll Gonzales into it somehow.

:shrug:

I have no clue as to why first degree was not the verdict in connor's case. It's entirely consistent with the standard set in Roe v. Wade.

Sorry, but there is a defined state interest due to the fact that the child was within days of a natural birth. This conviction is entirely consistent with Roe.

It gives legal rights to the unborn person. Now where does that line begin or end?

Don't believe me? Read the decision:

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(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 necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.

5. It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue since the Texas authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court's ruling <410 U.S. 113, 115> that the Texas criminal abortion statutes are unconstitutional. P. 166.

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.




The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54

Roe is clear, the state has a compelling interest in the fetus when it is viable.

A child not born yet but father dies does come under the law in many ways.It has the same rights as any child born in that marriage. Child would come under wills, SS, and I think many other things. A child could be cut off in a will, I think. by saying children already born and names but it is usually classed as just a natural child of the dead father and living mother. Do we have a lawyer on here?

A life in potential.

it keeps us from focusing on trivial issues like a stolen election, an illegal war, a crappy economy.

1) Gives fodder to the anti-choicers

2) Gives fodder to the pro capital punishment crowd

3) Confirms that we've entered the age of trial by media

woodwork.

A woman and her baby were killed! Connor was due any day, he was viable.

I for one am glad that this crime is being punished.

And I'm a pro-choice atheist.

When "Connor's Law" is used as a legal precedent to help overturn Roe v. Wade?

Aborting an eight-month-old fetus is NOT legal - never has been. How could they use this case to overturn Roe v. Wade?

One of the reasons the majority arrived at its decision in Roe v. Wade was that there were no decisions that granted the unborn "person" status, and consequently, a "right to life."

The definition of murder is: The unlawful killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought.

By convicting a man of murder for the death of a pregnant woman's unborn fetus, legal precedent has been set for granting person status to the unborn.

And by granting person status to the unborn, precedent has now been given for protecting the "right to life" of the unborn.

Everything in Anglo-American jurisprudence is based on precedent.

This stems from the Keeler decision in 1970 and was upheld by the CA Supreme Court in 1994.

This isn't about choice.

Here's a helpful page that gives the brief synopsis of feticide

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/feticide.htm

Apologists for the justice system. The horror!

but for justice which I do not think was served in this case. What the hell is happening to this country?

Fundies get leverage for ultimate goal...Criminalize abortions.

getting killed in Falluja today.

:eyes:

very very extended periods of time.

mob outside that courthouse.

It's like a weekly series, like Survivor.