Interesting Precedent: Peterson Trial...

[insein]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041113/D86AOFAO0.html

Scott Peterson Convicted of Murdering Wife


Email this Story

Nov 12, 11:03 PM (ET)

By BRIAN SKOLOFF

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP) - A jury convicted Scott Peterson on Friday of murdering his pregnant wife, Laci, and now will decide whether the philandering husband whose lurid trial became a TV and tabloid sensation should pay with his life.

Peterson, 32, was convicted of one count of first-degree murder for killing his wife and one count of second-degree murder in the death of the son she was carrying - crimes that prosecutors said were part of a cold-blooded plot to escape marriage and fatherhood for the freewheeling single life.

Its now been sent in precedent unless revoked upon appeal that if you murder a pregnant women, that its a double homicide. How is that any different from a women having an abortion?

Now my stance on abortion is that they are needed up to a point. Say 3, 4 month mark. After that it shouldnt be allowed except for medical reasons (life threatening to the mother). So with this ruling, does it change abortion laws?

 

[Avatar4321]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041113/D86AOFAO0.html



Its now been sent in precedent unless revoked upon appeal that if you murder a pregnant women, that its a double homicide. How is that any different from a women having an abortion?

Now my stance on abortion is that they are needed up to a point. Say 3, 4 month mark. After that it shouldnt be allowed except for medical reasons (life threatening to the mother). So with this ruling, does it change abortion laws?

This is what the pro abortionists were worried about. i think its about time they overturned roe v wade anyway. let the states decide.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

I don't see how it should affect abortion laws. I mean, isn't that all about it being her right to choose? Something tells me Laci didn't choose to be murdered. Same goes with a case where a guy tries to kill a pregnant woman and the unborn child dies but she doesn't. It was not her choice, so I don't see why the pro-choice crowd should be up in arms.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't see how it should affect abortion laws. I mean, isn't that all about it being her right to choose? Something tells me Laci didn't choose to be murdered. Same goes with a case where a guy tries to kill a pregnant woman and the unborn child dies but she doesn't. It was not her choice, so I don't see why the pro-choice crowd should be up in arms.

It affects abortion because is punishing a man for 2nd Degree murder of a child who wasnt born yet. If children have legal status before they are born that is a huge blow the abortion. Because the whole argument for abortion hinges on them not being legal rihgs. In fact i think if unborn children ever have legal rights under the law there might be an argument under the fourteenth amendment that abortion is unconstitutional because it deprives a legal entity of rights without the law. Honestly i dont think that argument would fly but i think it might be interesting to see it tried.

 

[Gem]

So if a woman chooses to kill her unborn baby its her "choice," but if someone makes that choice for her, its a "murdered baby."

So a woman can abort 5 children and be guilty of nothing but having too much unprotected sex...but if she is punched in the stomach and miscarries...the person who punched her is the murderer? What if she is punched in the stomach on the way to the abortion clinic??? Is the person who punched her a murderer? Or just a nice guy who provided her with her legal "choice" for cheaper than the doctor would have?

And people here don't think thats going to cause problems down the line? Come on, now...there are serious implications to Conor's Law...they may not come up soon...but they will come up. :duh3:

 

[tim_duncan2000]

So if a woman is 8+ months pregnant and someone does something to her and the baby dies, that's not murder? What is it then?

 

[Gem]

tim,

exactly...what this law states is that the baby Laci Peterson was carrying was not a "choice" it was a human being, in some regards, a citizen of the United States deserving of protections under our legal system.

So we start at 8 months...then move to 7, 6...if we are basing this decision on viability outside the womb, then do we look at the earliest case of viability on a premature baby? what if the baby lived for a bit then died? what if the baby lived after being removed from the body at 5 months...but sufferred severe consequences...could the argument be made that the baby was not technically "viable" because it sufferred developmental problems because of being removed from the womb before it was ready?

My point is...that whether your are pro-life or pro-choice...this case, this law...IS going to be used to effect abortion rights in this country because of the issues you just mentioned....and become some of the issues I mentioned.

The nation is pretty evenly split (pro-choice/pro-life)...BUT the pro-choice movement is also very split...in fact, some surveys and reports I have seen state that a large majority of "pro-choice" supporters, actually supported abortion ONLY under certain circumstances...rape, incest, life of the mother.

So what can we take from this? That the majority of the nation already is either anti-abortion, or pro-abortion only under strict circumstances...so now we have Conor's Law...which states that as long as the mother didn't want to lose the baby...its murder.

I think that eventually...the pro-life movement is going to push for legislation to take into consider that the statement "if you want the baby and someone kills it it is murder....but if you choose to murder the baby then its a legal medical procedure and your choice," and its obvious hypocrisy...and then the fireworks are going to start

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Before we go any further, Gem, what do you think should happen if someone tries to kill a pregnant woman and her baby dies but she does not? The intent was murder and someone died.

So we start at 8 months...then move to 7, 6...if we are basing this decision on viability outside the womb, then do we look at the earliest case of viability on a premature baby?

Yes, that's what we'd look at.

 

[insein]

Before we go any further, Gem, what do you think should happen if someone tries to kill a pregnant woman and her baby dies but she does not? The intent was murder and someone died.


Yes, that's what we'd look at.

Yes its murder. So why isnt a women who chooses to kill her own baby the same? Because its a choice? I dont like abortion but im of the mind that its needed up to a point because women will have them anyway. I just dont think the government should have to pay for them.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

I agree with you about the "up to a point" thing, how the gov't shouldn't have to pay for them, and that they will have them anyway.

And re: the "choice" thing, I'm just referring to how the pro-choice crowd should look at this since they are so big on the right to choose, and, in cases like these, they didn't get to choose. That's not how I look at it because I don't even think the woman should have the right to choose after a certain period of time. It's hard for me to say exactly where I'd draw the line, but I damn sure don't think they should be able to when it's past the point that they are able to save them with today's medical technology.

 

[Gem]

I think that if a person kills an unborn child they should be charged with the murder of that child...regardless of whether or not that was their intention.

I think that this decision is going to be detrimental to the pro-choice movement as it exists today...and that it will have to undergo a fairly drastic change if it is to survive....